Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Semper_Flexibilis, Sep 5, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hopefully this scandel will be ended pretty sharpish

    "…Among the findings of the survey were that:
    – A full-time representative of the Unison union is paid £52,000 a year by Enfield council, while a full-time GMB official at Tower Hamlets is paid £58,106 a year by the council.
    – Coventry said that it had the equivalent of 20.8 employees working full time for their union, including in schools. Their total salaries, paid by the council, were around £500,000.
    – In Manchester, 14 full-time trade conveners are employed by the council at a cost to taxpayers of £356,554.
    – In Leeds, £357,054 of public money is spent on the salaries of 16 union officials.
    – Cumbria council spends £389,684 on the salaries of employees who work full time for four unions: the GMB, Unison, NUT and the FBU.
    – Even relatively small councils support a number of union workers. Central Bedfordshire has a budget of £117,000 for trade union representatives, including three full-timers.
    The BBC could not say how much time its staff spent on union activities, but said it had five employees on its payroll who in fact work full-time as national officials in two unions, BECTU and the National Union of Journalists.…"

    Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities - Telegraph
  2. Maybe the good Mr Pickles will pick up on this and deal with it before October! Unions should never be funded from the public purse.
  3. never mind all the Unison Staff funded by NHS trusts , while other Professional Representation organisations fund their full time staff from their own income and only expect the trust to allow reasonable time for reps to be able to fulfill their role IN ADDITION to their core role...
  4. What a completely manufactured Telegraph/Tory government planted non-outrage shock, horror, story.

    It's called Whitleyism and has been with us since 1919.

    The name given to the system of industrial relations first propounded in the recommendations of the Whitley Committee (1916-1918). The principles included the recognition of trade unions and an extensive system of consultation and negotiation . They led to the establishment of systems of industry- wide bargaining around Joint Industrial Councils which were the dominant form of collective bargaining until the recommendations of the Donovan Commission in 1968, since when they have declined in significance. The term is sometimes more specifically used to describe the extended system of national and local consultation in much of the public sector , first introduced into the Civil Service in 1919 and then spread more widely in the public sector . In parts of the public sector some joint committees are still referred to as Whitley Committees or Councils.
  5. Well hopefully this corrupt practise will not be with us in 2019
  6. But Ashie, in central government the employer broke the Whitley agreement a decade ago. With the Broad Left approach of the union movement's leadership being sharply Marxist (including different standards/rewards for the higher echelon 'leadership' (I'm looking at you Serwotka)); centralising everything, including decisions about providing support to individual and groups of members, at national level why would we need Branch representation including facility time from the public purse?
  7. Le_addeur_noir

    Le_addeur_noir On ROPs

    Hopefully the present government will terminate this corrupt practise by the end of this year.

    The Marxist trade unions in Britain need to be neutered pronto.
  8. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Unions should pay for their own reps who work full time for them, not the public. Whitleyism can **** right off. Bubonic plague has been around since well before 1918, but that doesn't make it acceptable, tard.
  9. Scabies has been with us since around that time as well, but doesn't mean we want it to continue. Why should the taxpayer fund these corrupt individuals who do more to damage this country than Gordon Brown could of ever hoped to achieve
  10. IIRC, the figures quoted by the Taxpayers Alliance only cover local government. I read last year that there are entire departments in Whitehall that are staffed by union employees on the public payroll and more who are given free offices in central London.

    DFID are particularly bad for this. They handed a seven figure sum to the National Union of Trotskyists, err I mean National Union of Teachers for providing "empowerment consultancy".

    Don't even start me about the Union Modernisation Fund. Ten million quids worth of public money handed to the unions and 90% of it donated straight back to the Labour Party. If the Tories tried doing that with banks, Labour would be baying for blood.

    Lucky for us Eric Pickles is a big enough man to stamp out this corruption.
  11. Yeah, I mean imagine a government giving money to banks.
  12. A far-rightist who speaks of the "humane, socially conscientious Left."
  13. Better than bankrolling Union fat cats