Taxpayer Payment For Public Sector Union Activities

[Rasczak]

Francis Maude, Cabinet Officer Minister, has called for "urgent reform" of the way civil servants take time off for union activities:

BBC News - Paid union time: Francis Maude seeks Civil Service change

It is only at consultation stage so far but it seems the Government is questioning whether it is right "that taxpayers fund full-time union representatives". They estimate costs to be in the region of £36million on the basis that there are "at least 6,800 union representatives" who are paid (by the taxpayer) to carry out trade union duties during working hours. Apparently 250 of these are working full-time on union business.

I suppose the debating topic then is should the public sector lead the way with trade union/employer relationships? Or should costs savings to the taxpayer take priority?

 

[Badger0-0]

should the public sector lead the way with trade union/employer relationships?

Are you serious?

Private sector: "You're banned".

Public sector: "Can't we at least discuss it?"

Private sector: "No, **** off".

End of conversation.

What is there to debate here?

 

[Badger0-0]

Perhaps I need to expand a little.

Imo, we need unions provided for us lower classes that aren't amongst the elite.
That's why they were introduced, after all; to protect the working man.

The fact that some union leaders are paid more than Ministers is of course, another question.
And something I might quibble about too.

It's just more right wing rhetoric that won't happen and after some of the proposals I've read over the last few days coming from the right wing (bus passes, means testing, getting rid of pensions), nothing surprises me anymore, except that this type of stuff actually gets newsprint.

It's all quite pathetic, imo.
And I'm wondering what it's trying to deflect from, tbh.

Probably the Olympics debacle

 

[kav]

I don't know much about how public sector unions operate but I can say that in any private sector places I've worked which have been unionised, there is often a large degree of resentment among regular workers against those who represent the unions in some way. There is definitely a perception that it's seen as little more than a jolly for a lot of these representatives, and a way to get out of doing any "real" work, while at the same time any formal complaint against this would be frowned upon because of the protected status of unionised personnel.

If the way things operate is similar in the public sector, then a review would certainly be worth considering - though in comparison to other, more pressing issues, it seems like small beans.

 

[Badger0-0]

I don't know much about how public sector unions operate but I can say that in any private sector places I've worked which have been unionised, there is often a large degree of resentment among regular workers against those who represent the unions in some way. There is definitely a perception that it's seen as little more than a jolly for a lot of these representatives, and a way to get out of doing any "real" work, while at the same time any formal complaint against this would be frowned upon because of the protected status of unionised personnel.

If the way things operate is similar in the public sector, then a review would certainly be worth considering - though in comparison to other, more pressing issues, it seems like small beans.

This is fair comment, imo.

But only because the unions have had their powers neutered to the extent that they're basically useless, unless they play the same game that politicians do; which is talk ******** for ages and come to some mutual agreement eventually.
Which is invariably not in the worker's favour.

It's why I'd personally* have the likes of Tony Blair shot.


* purely personal opinion.

 

[Ed Selley]

I don't have a problem with querying this. Unions should be allowed whatever representation they choose in a workplace but it should be paid for by them.