Local Council Politics

[Jeff]

the council has 4000 employees and quite rightly those workers need representation.. what i would say is i do not think a full time official should be paid by the taxpayer, so yes i agree with you

So are all 4000 employees of the council, members of a trade union?  Do they all pay contributions?  If so, why is the Tax-Payer funding a union representative?  Surely to quote your own stance ARC86, the union rep will only represent his own members, or do 4,000 council employees get free representation at our expense.  ??

[ARC86]

Yes you must be a member of a trade union to become a labour councillor.. are all 4000 council workers TU members? I dont know.. do they get free representation? I wouldnt have thought so jeff, im not in Unison or work for the council so i wouldnt know

on the specifics of declaration of interest Steve.. what you are suggesting is that the majority party on the council have no say on union specific matters.. that will never happen im afraid

[fred c]

Yes you must be a member of a trade union to become a labour councillor.. are all 4000 council workers TU members? I dont know.. do they get free representation? I wouldnt have thought so jeff, im not in Unison or work for the council so i wouldnt know

on the specifics of declaration of interest Steve.. what you are suggesting is that the majority party on the council have no say on union specific matters.. that will never happen im afraid

I think the jist of what people think on this issue is that if you are a unison backed labour councillor, it would be a conflict of interest if a motion was proposed for HBC to "Cease Funding" union representatives.... & consequently they should not be allowed to vote on the proposal.

I don`t see why Council Tax Payers should fund in any way Union Representatives, i don`t think all 4000 Plus HBC employees are union members so why should rate payers cough up £100,000 plus for that option.

Any union rep has the facility of paid time off to represent employees & to attend various courses, i don`t have a problem with that..... but having a full time HBC employee working full time for the union is a no go.

If for instance any Employee in that situation was also a senior Labour Official it would surely present lots of situations where a Conflcit of Interest could occur ?

[ARC86]

I agree we shouldnt be subsidising union reps.. but surely they dont get paid £100000 a year?

[fred c]

I agree we shouldnt be subsidising union reps.. but surely they dont get paid £100000 a year?

The answer to a question put to full council on the matter was £55,000.... but i am led to believe that figure was a generous under estimate of the total amount.

Not that i am saying councillors tell lies of course. lol

[ARC86]

Lol for only one official? I can see the need for a full time rep given the amount of employees but we should not be paying for it

[grim reaper]

Every which way you look at our council procedures something smells. 

I believe one of the muppets in the corner of every council meeting is Jeffries, a full time Unison steward and paid by HBC (us) whether we like it or not. 

Why can't he revert back to what his job was, before he got the cushy union job, and that is a council street drain cleaner?
He surely could clear drains and attend to union business as and when.
I can't believe he is busy on union business 37 hours every week.

But, once again, it is the spend, spend, spend, devil may care attitude of labour. It doesn't matter to them, it's not their money!

Arc86, the council has a very expensive HR department. THEY are the people to go to these days if you have a serious complaint. (After your line manager).

The employment law has changed so much over the years (stronger for employees) that most aspects can be dealt with by HR.

And then there's the tribunal route.
Only a very stupid employer would deliberately set out to 'rob' an employee these days.
Most of the 'union' aspect is an anachronism these days...it simply isn't required.

[mk1]

Only a very stupid employer would deliberately set out to 'rob' an employee these days.

Like Angie you mean?
I bet she ran a non-union workplace as well.
Strange thing is  a few moths back ARC would be praising her to the heavens simply because she was a Labour Councilor!

[ARC86]

MK1 ridiculous statement that.. i posted a few months back about the late John Reid who was chair of the manor west centre where i was once employed, which had to close its doors due to lack of funding all the while the leech that is wilcox carried on as normal..somewhere up there John will be laughing his head off now.. right from the start of all this i have expressed my disgust at her behaviour.. this doesnt just start from a couple of months ago when you jumped on the bandwagon as you normally do.. this has been going on for years

[mk1]

MK1 ridiculous statement that.. i posted a few months back about the late John Reid who was chair of the manor west centre where i was once employed, which had to close its doors due to lack of funding all the while the leech that is wilcox carried on as normal..somewhere up there John will be laughing his head off now.. right from the start of all this i have expressed my disgust at her behaviour.. this doesnt just start from a couple of months ago when you jumped on the bandwagon as you normally do.. this has been going on for years

Bandwagon? The only bandwagon I see started when she resigned from the Labour Party (can you believe she was not kicked out?) and was considered fair game.
Whilst she was in the tent pis*sing out the faithful kept their mouths shut. A grubby deal done where her silence was bought by leaving her in charge so as to hide her tracks. I have no hesitation is saying whoever allowed her to do that is just as culpable as her. A filthy back-street deal in order to preserve the reputation of the party no matter how much it cost. I realise I will get your standard 'I am not connected to Labour' mantra and it is just a coincidence you always slip a positive spin/good word  in for the local Labour party.

In light of your proven doublespeak (re: I help anyone even those not in a Union) chose your words carefully before replying.

[brassed off monkey]

What a nauseating thought being, "In A Tent With Her Pissing Out"... although "The Mob" were obviously used to that kind of behaviour.

[craig finton]

If there were only 1000 union members within HBC paying £11 per month in dues then that would still result in 1000 x 11 x 12 = £132,000 per year in union fees collected. This is more than enough to fund a couple of full-time reps and still leave 70 or 80 grand to send off to union HQ - so why are they been paid by the taxpayer?
and don't forget that's only for 1000 members. I wouldn't be surprised if there was double that.

[steveL]

This is an extract from Guido Fawkes Blog: August 2011

Unison boss Dave Prentis isn't exactly famed for honesty about his salary:

So imagine Guido's surprise when it appeared Prentis got litigious on the Mail on Sunday:
"Last Sunday we said that Dave Prentis, the Unison general secretary, had secured a 31 per cent increase to his pension contributions from the union. This was incorrect. In fact as a member of the Unison staff pension scheme, Mr Prentis is paying the increase himself under the union's 'salary sacrifice' scheme. We apologise to Mr Prentis for our mistake and for any distress caused."

The Mail were close, but not quite there. The question they should have been asking is why should someone who is a member of a very generous union final salary scheme choose to sacrifice yet more money to pay into the scheme?

Well a good place to start in the hunt for an answer is Unison's own Annual Report. Specifically page 16. You won't be surprised to see that comrade Prentis is one of those unfortunate fat-cats who earn between £100,000 and £112,950. Someone on that money is subject to Gordon's personal allowance tapering. This means his marginal rate of tax was 60%.

Rather than pay this rate of tax though, Prentis has engaged in some personal tax avoidance and paid the money into his pension, ensuring the state couldn't get its hands on it. By doing so he has effectively got a 60% tax relief on those payments. Because the Unison financial year doesn't match the fiscal year, its not possible to say exactly what Mr Prentis's pay in 2010/2011 was, but Guido understands that it was not more than £99,999...

Only a fool would go out of his way to pay more tax and many up and down the country use this same technique to minimise their bill. However what if you scaremonger about this sort of behaviour for cheap political points? Five days ago Prentis said:>"The Government would be better advised to look at plugging tax loopholes for the rich and tackling tax evasion that costs us billions, rather than giving top earners a cash break."Did you have any particular "tax loopholes for the rich" in mind Dave?

A hypocritical, fat-cat union baron... Now Guido has seen everything...

[ARC86]

Double speak re union members? What on earth are you talking about i am not obliged just as you arent to help anybody out except members of my branch.. normal rules state you must be a fully paid up member for at least 4 weeks to be able to access full services of UNITE.. so its not a matter of me standing up for people or not because regardless what i say or do you cant access the legal help required if your a TU member or not.. the starting point now for a tribunal fee is £250.. a lot of money to pull out to access justice.. but a TU member gets that included in their subscription fee

good point craig and 10% of that goes into branch funds to spend on whatever they deem suitable

[mk1]

Double speak re union members? What on earth are you talking about

You said you only helped Union members.
I said I helped everyone.
You then threw a hissy fit and said you too  would help anyone.
Cue  re-post of your earlier claim you only help Union members.
Then you confirm  you only help Union members.


That doublespeak.