The Yorkshire Post has published this on the thorny problem of trades union ‘Pilgrims’ employed by Yorkshire Councils, more particularly the cost!
Yorkshire councils spend £4.6m paying union officials
MILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers money is being “wasted” as a result of Yorkshire councils paying staff to dedicate their time to trade union work, the Communities Secretary has warned. Click on link below to read in full.
Your thoughts welcome in comments.
Rotherham Politics 
You would never guess that Pickles was a Tory, I don’t think, or that the Tax Payers Alliance was that far to the right they nearly fall off; also notice the further evidence to support the Yorkshire Post’s case comes from another Tory M.P. If they could they would have us back to the days when unions were outlawed. This article is just pathetic union bashing, unions pay a vital role in protecting their members rights and of course they need the freedom to be able to do this. Thatcher brought in legislation to seriously curtail the activities of unions, we should not allow this lot to erode them any further.
Dave Smith
LikeLike
Taxpayers should not be paying for union officials
The union subscriptions should be funding them
These people do zilch for the taxpayers apart from opposing everything which will take the burden off taxpayers
They also strike with impunity hitting the poorest & most vulnerable in society
The taxpayer is forced to fund this behaviour & largesse
LikeLike
one of the biggest burdens on the taxpayers are the tax dodgers. Why have you got nothing to say about them and the failure of this government of millionaires to seriously tackle this issue?
LikeLike
Because this article is about union pilgrims & the unfair burden on taxpayers
& the fact that through taxation we have no choice but to fund them, when many do not want to
You can talk about whatever ‘burns your bush’
If you know of anyone evading tax, report them to the HMRC
LikeLike
John: Compared to the amount of tax that is evaded, the amount spent on this issue is peanuts! But you and the other hot under the collar, anti-trade union commentators have got your priorities well in order haven’t you!
LikeLike
My concern is how the unions are linked to one party. How many Labour councillors are union reps.
LikeLike
The trade union movement founded the Labour Party for goodness sake!
LikeLike
Are you reading this red robin symonds
LikeLike
I know I’m going to get shot down (as always) but I’m sure you’d expect me to reply to this .
Under current legislation trade union representatives are entitled to ‘reasonable time off’ to represent trade union members. This isn’t European legislation and it has been a right since 1975 so UKIP-leaning folk needn’t become apoplectic and blame it on the EU.
So, acknowledging the legal right to time off, most local authorities have also realised that te union members.he most cost-effective way to enable trade unions to represent their members is to provide ‘facility time’ to a small number of representatives. Typically a local authority will have a local agreement that allows each recognised trade union 1 full-time representative for every 1000 members. The alternative would be to afford ‘reasonable time off’ to a number of representatives and the ACAS recommendation is that there should be 1 representative per every 50 trade union members. So, you can readily see that for every 1000 members a union would be entitled to ‘reasonable time off’ for 20 representatives. Now, of course this doesn’t mean there would be 20 full time representatives but it does mean that 20 representatives would be entitled to reasonable time off. Anyone with any understanding of the degree of representation that is required by law in any given local authority would quickly realise that the arrangements that most local authorities have actually save money.
Of course I know there are many anti-trade union people on here who will be replying to this by asking why tax payers should pay for trade union representation. There is absolutely no point in debating this point as currently there is a legal entitlement to trade union representation and for paid time off for trade union representatives to provide representation. Of course, that right would undoubtedly be abolished by UKIP.
LikeLike
Right comrade so that’s alright then.
LikeLike
Just ANOTHER damned good reason to vote UKIP!
LikeLike
Interesting idea – “There’s a legal entitlement, so why bother questioning it?” Does this mean you’re also OK with tax avoidance, on the basis that there’s a legal entitlement to try to minimise the amount of tax paid?
LikeLike
I’m disappointed Tommo. I would have hoped you would have been able to come up with a better comparison than that. In any event, the premise of the story is that tax payers’ money is being wasted by what are being termed “trade union pilgrims” when in reality, as I have explained, full-time trade union secondments actually save the taxpayer money (6,000,000 of whom are trade union members).
LikeLike
Time to play spot the ‘Trades Union Pilgrim’? Can I start us off with Stuart Sansome of BMBC, Brian Steel also of BMBC. Understand Chris Reed and Emma Hoddinott both work on the public purse?
There was me thinking, the members paid for their own representation? No wonder then, the members get what they deserve?
LikeLike
Deep throat, just out of interest, are you speaking from the perspective of a trade union member?
LikeLike
Yes I am a union member, Unite, Red Lenny McCluskey’s union, the one who foisted Ed Miliband on the Labour Party!
LikeLike
Robin
It was a man called George Smily who started the Labour Party not the unions
The unions was started by the tole puddle martyrs then they was infiltrated by the Communists
(Remember BL Speke and red Robo from Rover Solihull ) they then infiltrated the Labour Party and now we are seeing the results
And again Robin you have no evidence to say UKIP would be against the unions
It’s only people like you and the Labour sound bites who make up these story’s
LikeLike
Good grief Caven! I’m not sure if you’re pulling my leg.and your wit is just too subtle for me. George Smiley??? The only George Smiley I have heard of is the John Le Carre spy. I never knew he was instrumental in founding the Labour party!
Returning to the realm of non-fiction, not only is your knowledge of political history staggeringly poor but also your knowledge of local history. the Labour Representation Committee (an organisation that still exists and of which I am a member) was formed in 1900 and in 1906 became known as the Labour party. The LRC was formed following a motion from a trade union branch in Doncaster. The individual who proposed the motion was Thomas Steel not George Smiley!
I’m well aware of the history of the trade union movement and each July I go to Tolpuddle to pay my respects to the martyrs. Perhaps you visit Grantham each April to pay your respects to Thatcher?
Your precis is somewhat superficial. It’s a bit of a leap from the birth of trade unionism to the infiltration by communists that you mention. Almost 80 years elapsed between the Tolpuddle martyrs swearing their oath beneath the sycamore tree and the birth of modern communism.
Red Robbo was a communist and to my knowledge was never a member of the Labour party.
Apart from that, you were almost spot on!
LikeLike
Robin, I think Caven in his “history lesson” may have intended to refer to Robert Smilley – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smillie 😉 ..
LikeLike
I wouldn’t mind betting that the biggest majority of the RMBC Labour Group councillors were union reps at some stage during their self-serving, dishonest careers. I certainly know that the founder member and leader of scum labour in Rotherham, Grald Smith was. He has ridden on the back of the working men in Rotherham for decades and made a damned good living out of it. He still does.
LikeLike
No anon you are wrong. In fact more councillors are landlords or involved in other businesses than there are trade reps. We would be better off if there ere more tu people.
LikeLike
stookful, I said “were” union reps, their qualification allowing them to become a RMBC Labour Group councillor!
LikeLike
Linked to the featured article , is another that at least tried to put it all in some kind of context
“Unions defend £4m council cost of a good industrial relationship”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/unions-defend-4m-council-cost-of-a-good-industrial-relationship-1-7056071
It is well worth a read.
I just wish YP could learn how to handle graphics better. The graphic in that piece is a stretched version of this image: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/webimage/1.7056070.1421447642!/image/2683938374.jpg pathetic!
LikeLike
Gerald Smith not making much now he has lost his cabinet seat and power base. Never represented the working man only working man he represented was himself must have made at least half a million pound out of Rotherham’s tax payers since 1979. Time for him to go make way for a younger more intelligent person. Does he want to die in office so he has a state funeral! Sorry now for hlis wife and family having to put up with him at home more
LikeLike
Re the article: What a load of Tory drivel – and I include the so called Tax Payers Alliance.
As a former union steward for 35 years in many sectors – public, private and charity – I worked with members, non members and management of all levels (locally, elsewhere and nationally) without any payment or reward other than thanks. (Not always but it was nice to be appreciated from time to time) When meeting with executives, directors and managers (and often Ministers) regarding issues in company time I was allowed time to do so – as were they. It was seen as beneficial for all (Including executives, directors, managers and ministers) When working the countless hours outside core hours I didn’t get paid in any way. (They executives, directors, managers and Ministers still did) Did I complain about that? No.
As for the positions I held – I had to stand for election regularly – if the members didn’t want me I could be voted out. I never was. Indeed in every place I worked the membership went up dramatically (usually to about 95 – 98%) and so did my share of the vote each time. I had no influence over votes – I simply put myself forward and stated my case and the members voted. By the way the memberships political opinion varied greatly.
As for the thread: Regarding John’s comment that as a representative I allegedly spent my time ‘opposing’ and doing ‘zilch’ for the tax payer. In reality I actually spent the vast majority of my time working in my career and serving the taxpayer or customer on a daily basis. Sometimes (at the request of members, executives,directors, managers and sometimes ministers) I had to attend meetings and negotiate or represent members (and in reality non members too). It was called a ‘consultative process’; though I prefer to call it democracy in action
Now if John wants a world where everyone simply accepts low pay, poor working conditions, bullying, endless cuts in services and no say then he is welcoming to it. However, many millions actually don’t want to accept that and chose to voice their opinion – often via the Unions. I being one.
Let’s be honest – if truth be said there are some who don’t want employees and citizens to have a voice or be represented at all. They don’t want to see employees right or unions existing in any shape or form – Mr Pickles and the Tory Tax Payers Alliance included. (And some on here). The issue raised isn’t about saving money – its about shutting effective Trade Unions down – keeping employees under control. I for one don’t agree with that odious aim. However, I just wish those that do would be a little more honest about their true intent and say it straight – then – as an unpaid volunteer – I can debate it out in the open with them.
SKT XXXX
LikeLike
They can have what ever representation they want & can afford
Just do not expect the taxpayers to pay for it
Its unfair because we think our money is going to the few frontline services we want & can afford
People are appalled to find they are paying for full time trade union officials to plot against their interests
Then strike with impunity & remove services from the vulnerable
LikeLike
John: Who are these people who are so appalled – you and your fellow travellers!
As for striking with impunity, I think you’ll find that Tebbit brought in laws to curb strikes in the 1980s. . We are well down the list of strike prone countries, have a look here: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Labor/Strikes
LikeLike
Robin
Read the book Labour of Love you might learn something of the roots of your beloved party
LikeLike
Caven
I assume you mean “Labour of Love: The Story of Robert Smillie ” by Torquil Cowan
LikeLike
Yes you are correct it was Robert Smillie not George just got excited winding Up Robin
For information Robin his Great grandson Blair Smillie Is now member of UKIP Fact
Robert Smillie was the main mover in setting up of the Scottish miners federation
The Scottish trade union congress, The miners federation of Great Britain
The Labour Party and the triple alliance
A member of the committee of honour of Save the Children and a member of parliament
It’s a pity some of your Labour Councillor friends didn’t follow his lead
LikeLike
Blair Smillie was the man at the recent UKIP conference told the press Garage and co would renationalise the railways. He was quickly swotted down for his comments. Robert Smillie must be spinning in his grave.
LikeLike
I linked to some more Blair Smillie’s thinking below. He has weird ideas. (Though I could make a case for bringing the railways back into public ownership.)
LikeLike
Robin,
The half baked comments above, only goes to endorse further that we should give these Kippers a full page spread every week in the Advertiser.
What should be of concern to all level headed people who read such tripe, is that these ill informed fools could be in charge of the Rotherham Council budget next year, let alone have the right to put a cross on a ballot sheet.
The article is a regurgitated attempt by the usual right wing press to discredit the mass organisations of the majority of hard working people; however, they should be wary:there are plenty on the left who would go along with ending these cosy relationships.
LikeLike
Not a great justification for why taxpayers should fund full time union commissars
The whole concept is past its sell by date
LikeLike
RR yes I do I was quoting my half backed comments from it
LikeLike
Caven
It might be easier for everyone – including yourself, if you were to reference Wikipedia rather than a book that you happen to own.
History of the Labour Party : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Labour_Party_%28UK%29
History of the Trade Unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom
Robert Smillie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smillie
Obviously there is nothing on Smillie’s UKIP supporting great-grandson in Wikipedia, but here he is: http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-businessman-who-great-grandson-7697481 Is he really suggesting that we get rid of ATMs and Supermarket tills? .
LikeLike
In answer to regular reader Iwould suggest that they read “The Making of the Working Classes” by E.P Thompson. They might just learn something of the struggles of the working classes
LikeLike
A great book, everyone should read it.
LikeLike
RR. Thank you
LikeLike
It is right that a majority of Labour councillors in Rotherham are either union reps or have been, that is how they got elected; the NUM my own union has a lot to answer for this. It was the NUM who put sir Nutkin in place, when at the pit we had one full time official with an office; our secretary. It was beneficial for management as he was on hand to deal with disputes and accidents etc; as a union official, I was president, I worked underground with the men I represented. Union meetings were held outside working hours and none of us got paid for those. The Labour party always has a dichotomy when it comes to the trade unions; they want them for their money but will never defend them in a dispute. This rubbish in the Yorkshire Post is just a red herring for the Tories to bring in anti-trade union laws, we are in the state we are in not because of the unions but because Thatcher’s determination to strangle the unions. I don’t always agree with Robin Symonds, in fact I cant remember the last time I did; but I will defend his right to be in a union and for him to have time to help his members, against the Tories and the Tory Taxpayers Alliance.
Dave Smith
LikeLike
but lets not forget what labour did with clause 4 dave. As a former NUM delegate and NEC member i was always like many trade union officials against this
LikeLike
The GPMU print union was one of the few affiliates to vote against clause 4 being ditched. As I was one of delegation.
We have been proved right by what Blair Prescott and co went on to do with fragmenting nhs and pfi etc and to appease murdoch and the corporate interests
LikeLike
Let’s take into account that when the Tories and the traitors in our midst sank our biggest battle-cruiser, the NUM, the cowards in the TUC fell before the ruling class on their knees like servile slaves. Enter Blair:”Thatchers poodle”, Murdock’s puppet, the very epitome of the real “Enemy within”, to smash The Labour Party mantra.
We must keep working brothers. This period marks the beginning of the biggest change in class relations since the nineteen twenties. No reforms, just an erosion of living standards until we can inspire the class to fight back.
But we need a party worthy of the name LABOUR!
LikeLike
Totally agree, but when you say, “But we need a party worthy of the name LABOUR!
We certainly do, but there isn’t one in sight!
LikeLike
And one that will protect working class girls from CSE , not pretend it didn’t exist for a few votes.
LikeLike