Jerry Hicks is standing for general secretary of the Amicus section of Unite. 'Socialist Appeal' supports Jerry’s campaign.Jerry stands for:

• The election of all officers
• He pledges that, if elected, he will draw only an average skilled member’s wage
• Independent combine committees and lay democracy in negotiations
• The repeal of all anti-union legislation, including the right to reinstatement after a tribunal victory
• State pensions linked to earnings
• Public ownership, against the privatisation of jobs
• A programme of building affordable council housing

The background to the election was dealt with in more detail in a previous article http://www.socialist.net/unite-amicus-elections.htm ). Here we interview Jerry on the major issues facing his campaign and the future of the Union. We intend to cover other issues as long as the campaign goes on.

What kind of response have you received so far to your campaign?

If we look at the time I launched my challenge, though it would not be true to say I was in a minority of one, it was near to it. We were derided from all sides as having no chance. Since then we have received 48 branch nominations from as far afield as the Shetlands to the Isle of Wight, and from Wales and Ireland. Not only have we received support from all points of the compass but also from every sector the union represents. I come from the engineering sector, and you might reasonably think I would get most support from that sector, but the support I have received has been truly wide and diverse.Within the last 48 hours alone I have had backing from the financial sector in London, from a Swansea branch and from 4 workplaces in different sectors. I have been overwhelmed by the people who support me and people who are prepared to actively work on behalf of the campaign.

You decided to launch a legal challenge against Derek Simpson staying on in office without an election. What were your reasons for doing this?

The reasons I mounted the challenge to Derek Simpson are simple and straightforward:It is quite simply wrong that General Secretary Derek Simpson should go for 8 years without facing an election. I believe it is also illegal.It was my overriding belief that it was necessary to correct this wrongdoing. He (Derek Simpson) knew that it was unlawful because he himself challenged Sir Ken Jackson’s right to remain in position without holding an election in 2002 using the Certification Officer.I have received widespread support for my actions. It is just wrong that the highest authority in the Union, the joint General Secretary Derek Simpson and the legal advisers, have no problem with a rule that is unlawful.People will say that a majority voted for the merger which has been set back by my successful challenge. That is true, but 83% have never voted for Derek Simpson.

One of the criticisms levelled against you is that you were willing to use Tory    legislation to do this. What is your response to this criticism?

I’ll reply loud and clear on that for all who want to listen. The laws (empowering the government appointed Certification Officer to decide on the interpretation of the union rulebook) are not ‘Tory anti-union laws’. After all haven’t we had 3 terms of Labour government over the past 11 years, and that position and that legal power have stayed on the statute book? As a matter of fact I have been told it was Harold Wilson who first brought in the post of Certification Officer. Why has the law not been repealed if it is such a problem? Why have the union leaders not been campaigning against it?

The Amicus Gazette officially backed Lawrence Faircloth. How do you think this reflects on the Gazette? What would you say was the overall health of this 'broad left'?

I have been most saddened by the attitude of the Gazette (long regarded as the ‘broad left’ within the Amicus section of Unite). ). Lawrence Faircloth who has been endorsed by the Gazette as their candidate, (formerly part of the Sir Ken Jackson regime) had never ever been to a Gazette meeting in fact he only attended his first Gazette meeting in order to be selected!

Prior to that event taking place on the 9th of October when nominations for general secretary opened, he was already openly looking to get the ‘nod’. On the 19th of October the North West region endorsed Lawrence as their candidate and importantly, they have a policy of mandating their delegates. On the 1st of November, Faircloth was duly endorsed at a ‘selection’ Gazette meeting which was held in Preston, the heart of the North West region. In my view this was a foregone conclusion, at a meeting where the majority of minds were already made up.

 As regards Lawrence Faircloth I have no axe to grind. I have been told he is a hardworking regional official. On his salary I would hope for the membership’s sake he and all the officials are hardworking. They say he’s a nice man but nice is a fit description for biscuits, not prospective general secretaries. Lawrence Faircloth (formerly part of the Sir Ken Jackson regime) has never been at Gazette meetings and in fact attended his first Gazette meeting in order to be selected!

I believe those who currently support the Gazette have made a whole series of errors of judgement and they selected the wrong candidate. They have lost support as a result. My campaign has got considerable support from many Gazette supporters. There is a greater broad left in the union than just the Gazette supporters. I am standing unashamedly on a left platform. I have attracted many people who are new to activity in the union as well as those who have drifted away from the Gazette and from active involvement in union politics over the years.

It has been said that you have previously had very little involvement locally or   nationally in the Gazette. How do you respond to this criticism?

  My history in the union is well documented. I have been actively involved in the left of the union   and with the Gazette for more than 20 years. Of course I haven’t attended all the meetings but the shop stewards’ committee at Rolls Royce (where Jerry worked till he was victimised 3 years ago) had a standing order to the Gazette, which represented both political support and financial assistance. When Derek Simpson was campaigning against Sir Ken Jackson for general secretary, I took days of holiday in order to support his campaign. In fact Derek Simpson spent 2 nights under my roof as part of his campaign, travelling round with my help to get support. I have stood as Gazette candidate for the NEC of Amicus, incidentally polling the highest vote.

If the Gazette had held a democratic selection and chosen an alternative candidate with a proven left record would you have continued to stand as an independent left?

The best answer I can give to that is that if for one moment I thought the 1st November Gazette was democratic, a meeting where delegates were able to make a choice based on a candidate’s politics, their own past record, policies, and presentation I would have been there. So in that case, if not selected myself, then I would have supported the successful candidate and campaigned for them.

What sort of local organisation have you been able to build throughout the course of   your campaign? What sort of input do your supporters have to your programme?

To add to what I said earlier (in answer to the first question) the campaign is already much more than local. It has become a national campaign. I have addressed 26 branch and workplace meetings where I always say our campaign is about being inclusive. Anyone can make a contribution if they agree with the basic principles. For instance I’ve been involved in the fight at the Staythorpe Gas Fired Power Station (where the bosses were breaking agreements and the Union under Simpson was reluctant to get involved). They have sent me material on their struggle that I have included in my election materials. There is stuff on our website from people I’ve met on the campaign. (http://jerryhicks.wordpress.com/) Supporters in all sectors will be invited to contribute to future election materials.

There are those who argue that trade unions shouldn't get involved in politics, that they should simply 'represent their members'. What would you say to this?

Those that argue that could not be more wrong. The link between workers, unions and politics are inextricable. I have said this loud and clear to all those who listen to me. If the trade unions just represent workers at the workplace they will die, they will wither on the vine and die. The anti-trade union legislation is intended to shackle trade union activity on the shop floor. The only way to repeal those laws is through unions’ involvement in politics. Workers rights, trade union freedoms, decent state pensions, pay and conditions, public ownership of utilities is the way forward especially now during the chaos that the free market has created, our arguments have never made more sense. The last thing I’d like to say on this is I’m not afraid of the ‘S’ word – socialism.