Taxpayers pick up £68m bill for thousands of union reps

Have we done this yet?

Seems like quite a lot for not a lot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8815280/Taxpayers-pick-up-68m-bill-for-thousands-of-union-reps.html

How much was that Vodafone tax bill again?

6 billion pounds?

By my calculations, the bill for union activities is 1.13% of the tax that we let Vodafone off paying.

\You know what – recognised unions and available union reps ad to the smooth running of organisations

some nice poo-slinging going on in the Telegraph comments page.Not sure what the point of the ‘public services’ bit is though. Do large private companies not have to fund union activities and full time reps too? (I honestly don’t know, since being pooped out the back of the NHS into a Community Interest Company eight days ago I haven’t worked outside public service for 13 years).

I was interested to see that the MOD has union officials in it, for some reason I always thought you weren’t allowed to be in one if you were in the MOD. Is it jst for civilian empolyees?

Does it make any difference whether they see a funded union rep or they deal direct with HR ? Either way the company will pick up the tab and i suspect the later leads to more discord hence why they fund it.
As a union rep [unpaid but I can get time off to deal with grievances and meetings by arrangement] I have lost count of the number of times I have told people not to be idiots and that they dont have a leg to stand on [ politely of course] or that the offer from managemnt is fair and reasonable and they should accept it. That news is probably taken better by an employee when someone on their side says it than when management say this to them.

Don’t worry there’ll be no one will pay as we’ll be skint after spending over £170bn to rescue the Euro.

Bit of creative job creation there, shouldnt the unions be paying their own staff, and what do they all do.

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

Julianwilson, MOD civilians can have a unions but service people can’t.

As usual the MSM are way behind the curve on this. Good to see that the government have now caught up too and we may get some action. Read Guido’s blog for where the exposure of the “Pilgrims” started.

ime union reps take on the cases of union members but also benefit non union members by forcing employers to be generally fairer

i dont realy have a problem with them being taxpayer funded

non unioned people tend to look with envy at things like the nhs pensions etc, yet dont support/join the unions that could improve their own lot

Yes private companies have unions, normally affiliated to large National ines. The companies foot the bill for the time reps spend training, operating etc, but not for the actual training (if you get my drift).
TJ, yes they should, however a lot of my experience if unions has been as a ‘in telling my dad’ type way or a collective no to any productivity or flexibility requirements. I guess you could call me anti union, and I can’t wait for the meeting tomorrow with unites area rep. 🙄

Interesting. The department I work for would have been included in the MoJ figures in that report. We obviously have union reps but as a self funding agency we draw nothing from the taxpayer, even with the recent problems we’ve drawn on reserves from our own trading fund. Prior to the last two years the revenue generated has gone straight to the treasury. Those reps, like it or not are funded by the income the agency generates but I do not know any that work full time on union duties, most perform their union duties in the office in their own time.

Nice little footnote to the article ” some departments include agencies” or in other words “we couldn’t be bothered reporting this properly as that made the headline / soundbite less dramatic”.

And I’d agree with comments above, I pay the union every month and would prefer to fund union reps, then they could do their job properly rather than have to work under some fairly strict conditions. And from my experience the union rep is generally not a person who winds ‘management’ up although there are exceptions. Mostly they tend to ease things along looking for common ground where there are disputes, generally where HR (outsourced, expensive, useless) hasn’t a clue. Now I’ve typed that HR seems to cause most of the problems that union reps seem to sort out.

Ah, just seen kimbers post. Lots of companies have unions, the same ones as work for the nhs etc. However, the companies simply could not afford the type of pensions, suck cover maternity etc that the public sector could. Sure, union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.
Right, I’m out as I’ll be getting all angry at the internet soon!

Sure, union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.

Yeah Tesco’s would be destroyed by strong unions.

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

non union members get everything agreed as well so are non members not free loading?

union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.

If management accept a deal they cannot afford i dont know why you would think the Unions are to blame for this stupidity.
I doubt this scenario has ever happened in exactly the way you describe- management accept a deal that means they make no profit …yes right.

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that’d result?

Also, it’s not just massive companies that have unions.

Junkyard, the comment was made in response to the earlier one about nhs deals and getting the same. No, I would not make a deal that was unable to be supported by the company.

Perhaps they could take a fairly small hit on their £ billion pound profit ? They increase costs because they are avaricious not because they have to to survive or still make a profit.
Tesco are a bad example here – even though i hate them – they recognise a union and encourage membership, pay above the national average for their industry and contribute [6% iirc}to the employees pensions.
They may actually be a good example of the german model of management /union cooperation in the uk – it has certainly not harmed them despite those who suggest unions cripple industry

Unions are brilliant when they stand up for individual employees, highlight H & S issues, difuse situations brought about by ignorance etc. Last time I worked in a unionised environment the old time union rep had an attitude similar to Junkyard’s, he was an excellent guy to deal with, kept evryobody on there best behaviour and generally conbtributed to the smooth running of the factory. I’m about to go back into a unionised environment after 9 years, what I’ve been told so far isn’t inspiring so I’ll go in with an open mind…..

As to whether union reps should be funded by the tax payer, no they shouldn’t, that’s what union dues are for. As for the private sector, it’s up to the employer, if they think it’s advantageous to pay the reps then that’s their call.

What you are failing to understand here is the employer has to release the union rep from their normal duties for union work – in big concerns it is easier and cheaper for the employer to have a full time rep rather than releasing reps from the shop floor all the time with the disruption that causes

TJ – yep, thats right. But in a place with a moderate turnover (say upto £20m), the majority of companies couldn’t afford a full time person on union duties, therefor they’ll put up with the disruption.

Indeed its the employers choice to have full time reps.

I’d like to know their methodology, not least because they are combining three different sources of information and this is journalists doing the maths.

I’d also like to see a ratio for staff to reps, the total payroll figures for those departments (wages paid to NHS staff alone would dwarf £68m), and a comparison of man hours on union activity vs all hours worked.

Then the public can form and informed opinion. As it stands, that article is irresponsible journalism.

Expect a lot more articles like this in the future by the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Taxpayers Alliance.

As the crises in the British economy, which was of course started by the bankers, and immeasurably aggravated by this government, deepens, causing rising unemployment and falling living standards, they will need to distract people from the real causes.

Offering the trade unions as aunt sallies, despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the mess we are in, is a natural tactic for right-wingers.

And it will undoubtedly work – there are enough dopey, docile, and hopelessly gullible, individuals, who will obediently accept whatever they are dished up, to make the whole exercise worthwhile.

The “Have we done this yet?” comment proves the point imo.

but as a self funding agency we draw nothing from the taxpayer

So where do you get your income from Bagpuss, monopoly set prices?

According to a Policy Exchange* report they estimate there were 7 million workers in the public sector… And the Telegraphy reckons they re represented by 1785 FTE union reps. That’s 0.026% of the workforce.

*the figure are, therefore, likely to be bull.

From my experiance as a non paid union rep (release time and travelling allowance only) is that the majority of full time reps (Area) should not be paid by Royal Mail fully but contributions from union coffers should be amalgamated.
Our area rep is paid night allowance/shift allowance delivery supplements and only works a 5 day Mon to Friday 7am till 3pm week whilst his brothers are out there getting shafted working longs and shorts including saturdays.Our Union crapped themselves on the last dispute when Royal Mail said they were going to stop all paid release and all union meetings to take place outside of the compounds.They quickly tried to sell the deal of the century to its members leaving us in the mess we are now in.The union is far to cosy in Royal Mails pocket for my liking 😐

craigxxl – Member

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

Funny, the miserable freeloading scabs who accept the benefits negotiated by a Union but refuse to contribute probably think the same as you.

You know the type: Never buy a round, first out of the taxi, last into the bar, never bring any drink or food to parties or bbq’s but are prepared to help themselves to the benefits of everyone else’s contributions.

The union is far to cosy in Royal Mails pocket for my liking

Which is why employers are often more than happy to cover the wages of union reps.

When I was a UCATT LA convenor shop steward I was lucky if I got an hour a day to carry out my union responsibilities. In contrast to that the GMB convenor who was totally in the pocket of management, and had less members, was given an office far away from the depot and never ever worked on the tools. Needless to say his members never saw him and he was more than happy to sell them down the swanny if requested to do so by management.

transapp

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that’d result?

Can you quantify that for me?

Then I can make a informed decision.

OTOH I prefer to shop at Waitrose anyway, and that’s an employee-owned partnership (which is probably even worse than a supermarket with strong union representation, right?)

Except when I’m shopping at the co-op of course.

Unions – a great idea stuck firmly in the last century. I have yet to have any dealings with a rep under 50 or who hasn’t got a mighty chip on his shoulder and teh ability to quote meaningless references from memory. I’d have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn’t for one of our union reps 🙄

you dont get out much then do you if you have never met one under 50 I have barely met any over 50 tbh.
As for stuck in the past century this would be true if some sort of benign capitalism had evolved. Given you get better working conditions in heavily unionised industries [ if you did not management would not be complaining now would they] than those that are not I would ask you what evidence you have [ apart form dislike] for reaching this conclusion.
Chip on shoulder no idea how you can represent people if you are like that. unions, like management or any organisation, have good one bad ones, young ones and old ones etc

Except when I’m shopping at the co-op of course.

that is probably the funniest middle class bitch slap I will ever read and I salute you for it.

Unions – a great idea stuck firmly in the last century. I have yet to have any dealings with a rep under 50 or who hasn’t got a mighty chip on his shoulder and teh ability to quote meaningless references from memory. I’d have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn’t for one of our union reps

This thread isn’t about whether trade unions are a good idea or not.

Although I fully accept that the whole purpose of the Telegraph’s article was simply to whip up anti-trade union feelings – at a time when the government finds itself in a right mess caused by greedy and incompetent bankers.

So well done for your cheap shot. Specially as you managed to combine it with a reference to cycling on a cycling forum.

Although it will need a bit more for me re-evaluate the need for trade unions than comments such as, “I’d have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn’t for one of our union reps”. It’s obviously completely meaningless coming from someone who has an axe to grind and with an agenda against trade unions.

crikey – Member
How much was that Vodafone tax bill again?

6 billion pounds?

By my calculations, the bill for union activities is 1.13% of the tax that we let Vodafone off paying.

obviously Union leaders wouldn’t change their pay package to ensure it’s the most tax efficient
http://order-order.com/2011/08/10/dave-prentis-is-a-tax-hypocrite/

just like union leaders earning >£100K p.a. wouldn’t live in social housing and thus preventing those on low income from accessing it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372872/Rail-union-boss-Bob-Crow-lives-home-low-income-families–despite-SIX-FIGURE-salary-package.html

The head of Risk Capital (IIRC) challenged the CEO of Google about their 2% tax contribution when his companies pay 20-25% on a BEEB2 programme, Evan Harris obviously mindful of the power of the internet successfully mounted a rearguard action to help the Google CEO

Google must obviously be a “producer” not a “predator” not like those nasty manufcturing companies…. 😉

TIP: Every time you see the word “TAXPAYERS” in a news story, ignore it, its daily mail style nonsense.

Ah, how surprising, big and daft doesn’t want to address the content of the OP’s story, preferring instead to engage in general trade union bashing. And using the Daily Mail to do so !

Wise move big and daft – the Telegraph story appears to be complete bollox.

Ernie, just providing a counterpoint to your views

ernie_lynch – Member
Expect a lot more articles like this in the future by the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Taxpayers Alliance.

As the crises in the British economy, which was of course started by the bankers, and immeasurably aggravated by this government, deepens, causing rising unemployment and falling living standards, they will need to distract people from the real causes.

Offering the trade unions as aunt sallies, despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the mess we are in, is a natural tactic for right-wingers.

And it will undoubtedly work – there are enough dopey, docile, and hopelessly gullible, individuals, who will obediently accept whatever they are dished up, to make the whole exercise worthwhile.

The “Have we done this yet?” comment proves the point imo

at least you haven’t managed to dispute my points yet 😉

I actually belong to a Union, the same one that gave away my pension rights. The same one that expects me to march to defend public sector pensions rights and protect for them what they (the Union) gave away for me.

As for the story it’s probably in part true in part overegged as all these things are

transapp

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that’d result?

Can you quantify that for me?

No, not at all. I have no idea if this would be the reality or if Tesco would request increased productivity from its staff to offset the additional cost of improved pensions, sick, hourly rates, maternety, paternety, holiday etc or simply keep the 8% (total guess) markup on its produce and passs it on at the tills. Its more a comment that the money for everything has to come from somewhere. Additionally, don’t get hung up on Tesco’s, as Junkyard pointed out, not a great example, but a representaion of a private business.

Not quite b r, as an agency we charge for providing a service. If you don’t use that service it costs you nothing. Quite simple really and as a result we get exactly £0 nothing from the taxpayer, all our costs are met with revenue generated by the agency.

No, not at all. I have no idea if this would be the reality or if Tesco would request increased productivity from its staff to offset the additional cost of improved pensions, sick, hourly rates, maternety, paternety, holiday etc or simply keep the 8% (total guess) markup on its produce and passs it on at the tills.

But this thread isn’t about the terms and conditions of workers, it’s about organisations ond businesses directly funding union activity by giving working union reps paid time off to do their union duties.

Do you think that Tesco (not getting hung up, choose whatever FTSE 100 company you like) doesn’t have reasonable terms and conditions for it’s workers?

And I think you will also find that plenty of Tesco workers ARE union members.

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that’d result?

This is an entire thread in itself, and if people are concerned about Tescos shafting people, the suppliers have a bigger gripe than most of the staff, who are paid reasonably for the level of skill, training and qualifications required for the job.

Sure, they’d love a better wage etc. They have an option – get a better job…