- Conference
- Date
- June 16, 2017
- Decision
Universal (or Unconditional) Basic Income, also known as Citizen’s Income, is a redistributive policy proposal that has been around for centuries, and is once again making headlines. It was advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr. shortly before his death, among many others.
The idea is that every single citizen, as a non-withdrawable right, receives a guaranteed monthly income that is sufficient to cover the basics for survival. Firstly it could almost eradicate urgent poverty. It removes the disincentive to work that can be experienced with traditional welfare systems in which benefits are lost as earnings rise. Removing means-testing would save a huge amount of bureaucracy, errors and non-take-up. Education and health outcomes could improve which would also create savings for society as well as improving people’s living standards considerably.
In recent months debate around Universal Basic Income (UBI) has exploded and there are now movements pushing for it around the world. Governments in Finland, Netherlands, France, Canada and Brazil are committed to investigating it through pilot studies. Leading think tanks and economists in the UK, the EU and US also believe it to be a necessary direction of travel. There have already been studies and comparable schemes in India, Namibia, Canada and Alaska with exciting results.
UBI would give people dignity, a secure floor to stand on, and relief from stress. It’s simple, fair and unifying – it ends divisive narratives about who does or doesn’t deserve to eat or have shelter. Many more of us would be able to job share. Our members could find more time and energy to be active in the union, or do other volunteering. The economy gets a kickstart as people have more to spend.
All of the above, plus the potential benefits for young people, for women, for low paid workers, for people struggling to navigate a precarious job market, and for those needing to leave abusive relationships, means that a Universal Basic Income, in principle, would be in the interests of our members and communities.
Conference notes the recent position adopted by the GMB, Unite and the TUC to campaign for UBI, and the intention of the Labour party to look into the policy. Conference also notes that Universal Basic Income was the top reprioritised motion from the West Midlands at National Delegate Conference 2016 and that the West Midlands region has asked the candidates for Regional Mayor to run a trial UBI pilot.
Conference affirms that UNISON supports in principle the introduction of a Universal Basic Income in this country.
It’s important that UNISON’s voice is not overlooked in the growing debate about practicalities and therefore Conference instructs the National Executive Council to begin looking at the idea in more detail, with particular consideration given to the following questions:
- The ideal level that a UBI should be set at for it to have a positive impact on poverty, health, work-life balance, equalities and people’s ability to participate in public life;
- What complementary policies and services would need to accompany a UBI to ensure that its impact is progressive (noting that there are differing versions of UBI, some of which are supported by those on the political right);
- That would be UNISON’s favoured method of funding a UBI, not limited to income tax but including new revenue streams that do not as yet exist?
West Midlands Region
NEC POLICY: SUPPORT AND AMEND
50.1
Delete seventh paragraph and replace with:
“Conference affirms that UNISON has a long tradition of campaigning for a living wage, a decent social security system, collectively provided public services for those according to their needs, progressive taxation and a more equal society. Therefore Universal Basic Income is a proposal worth consideration and debate.”
National Executive Council
50.2
Add new points 4), 5) and 6):
“4) Which existing means tested state benefits would be phased out, such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Tax Credits;
5) Would there need to be local and regional weighting to reflect different housing and living costs;
6) Would there be any effect on services and state benefits for disabled citizens.”
National Executive Council