Understanding trade unions...a thought about pensions

****

To what extent this applies in the UK, I'm not sure but:

...labor overhaul is something of a make-or-break moment for Italian labor unions, which still hold sway over negotiating national labor contracts and have held a series of demonstrations against the changes. But today, the unions represent more retirees than workers, and younger Italians have come to see them as part of the problem.

Given the age profile of public sector employment (at least here in Bradford), it seems to me that pensions rather than wages will come to dominate trade union activism - indeed, many public workers seem far more keen to strike over pensions than over wages.

....

More on those interests (just for the lawyers among you)

****

Following Bradford's recent debate on what have been dubbed 'pilgrims', I commented on the somewhat odd advice regarding interests:

I found it exceedingly odd how the City Solicitor deemed that receiving a declared donation to an election campaign or other political activity isn’t a prejudicial interest. I’m pretty sure that the same answer wouldn’t apply to me if the matter concerned say, Cullingworth Conservative Club (I sort of asked but got something of an equivocal answer from the City Solicitor).

So we asked for a definitive answer and here's an excerpt from the City Solicitor's response:

I stated at the meeting that I felt the creation of a prejudicial interest was ‘borderline’.  There are two reasons for my view.  Firstly the Code of Conduct states that a Member does not have a prejudicial interest in any business of the Authority where that business does not affect their financial position or the financial position of a person or Body described in paragraph 8 (the trade union).  It is debatable whether the withdrawal of facility time would automatically have a financial impact on the trade union.  It is not payments made directly to the trade union, but rather the provision of facility time for trade union officials.  Whilst I appreciate this represents a cost to the tax payer, it is by no means certain that that would automatically be reflected in a cost to the trade unions. 

Secondly, I considered the significance test in terms of whether the interest created (the payment towards election expenses) is sufficiently significant that it is likely to prejudice the judgement of what is in the wider public interest.  Standards for England have considered this significance test and their advice is that almost any degree of personal involvement or knowledge of a particular circumstance is likely to affect a Member’s judgement.  However, they recognise that a Member may well have been elected precisely because of his or her local knowledge or position/opinions on particular matters.  For an interest to be prejudicial it must be ‘likely to prejudice’ the Member’s judgement.  In other words the interest must be likely to harm or impair the Member’s ability to judge the public interest.  Standards for England are clear that the mere existence of local knowledge or connections with the local community will not normally be sufficient to meet the test.  There must be some factor that will positively harm the Member’s ability to judge the public interest objectively.  Further, Standards Board for England consider that if a Member shares a personal interest with a large number of people, it is less likely that a prejudicial interest will exist.

All very lawyerly but still pretty odd. But this little paragraph did make my eyebrows twitch a little:

Having regard to this guidance in the context of the matter under debate, although I agree it is borderline, my opinion is that the payment of election expenses is not sufficiently significant to create a prejudicial interest.

Bear in mind that we made a distinction between mere membership of a trade union (where I guess the individual gives the trade union money) from having your election expenses paid by the union.

As I said, I bet this wouldn't apply if Cullingworth Conservative Club were to pay mine!

....

The problem with trade unionism - revisited...

****

OK it's America and this sort of thing is illegal in the UK (although don't pretend for a second that no pressure is ever put on non-union labour or on contractors in this country):

A Quincy mom has disconnected her support for striking Verizon workers yesterday after a group of mouthy picketers surrounded non-union repairmen and turned a phone-line fix at her home into what she is calling a “ridiculous” protest scene.

“I looked in the street and there are picketers, 10 of them or more, doing a circle around the Verizon truck,” said Karen Austin, 64, a mother of five who lives on Forest Avenue. “Every time (the repairmen) would walk up to my house they would follow them. I couldn’t believe my eyes. This is ridiculous. Why are they picketing my house?”

 

Now understand this, workers have every right to withdraw their labour. But they have no right - no right at all - to prevent another man from choosing to the job for which he is paid and contracted.

This is absolutely the problem with trade unionism - too many of its leaders and vocal apologists believe that having 50%+1 means they can berate, threaten, bully and cajole others into complying with their wishes.

This is wrong and should not be allowed in a free society.

...

When did charities stop understanding the meaning of 'charity'?

The point of charity is that it is a voluntary act - something we choose to do not something forced upon us. It seems that the newly-knighted Sir Stephen Bubb - the bloke in charge of ACEVO, the voluntary sector bosses union - doesn't quite understand this:

He suggested that a tax on bank bonuses – which are expected to top £7bn this month – was now necessary to prevent thousands of organisations from closing or scaling down. Billions of pounds raised from such a levy could be fed directly into the Big Society Bank set up by the coalition to encourage social enterprise, Bubb told the Times. Charities would then be able to bid for the funds to help to fill the gap left by the estimated £1bn being shaved off local government grants, he argued.

Sir Stephen, rather than urging his members to go knock on the doors of those bonus-rich bankers and ask for a donation - you know guys, the charity bit - he wants the government to do it for him. But why stop with bankers bonuses eh Steve? What about all the other people making millions on the back of risk and hard work - haven't you forgotten them?

Or Sir Stephen, did you just want an easy, lazy story so as to get your newly-knighted monniker into all the papers on New Year's Day?

...

Why Cameron is wrong to have a Business Council to advise him...

****

I am a member of the “Party of Business” – or at least many of my fellow members remind me often of this. Indeed, in the mythology of past dualist politics, we in the Conservative Party armed ourselves in the great battle with Labour – the “Party of The Unions”. This great duel characterised – indeed corrupted – debate. And that debate was couched in the manner of a war between these two great forces – between business and organised labour.

The result of this was the terrible destructive, protectionism of the peace deals between these two factions – the arrangements that suited the big business and the big union. Everywhere we look – be it agriculture, aerospace, steel, motor manufacturer or mining – everywhere we find the deep scars of that battle of old. A battle in which we all were losers.

It’s OK, there’s no need to panic. I have not suddenly become some advocate of a middle way – I remain unequivocally committed to the irreducible truth of the free market. But I am not “pro-business” any more than I am “pro-union”. These two beasts of that past battle still strut the land baying and bellowing – laying claim to special privileges and trying to guide or control the parties they once commanded to fight on their respective behalves.

It is gross and corrupting that the baneful influence of unions determined who became leader of the Labour Party – indeed that the campaigning arm of those unions were directed to procuring a particular, protectionist, anti-business position from that new leader. I weep for socialists – and other left-leaning folk – who have had their party stolen from them again.

And it is just as gross and just as corrupting for the leader of my party to announce panel of business people – a Business Council. David Cameron is granting a certain set of people – already wealthy and powerful – a special position of access and advice. And this access is granted because they are business people – apparently representing sectors that are strategically important (whatever that may mean) to the country.

Why not a panel of consumers Mr Cameron – of ordinary men and women who do the buying, the eating, the living and the dying across most of the nation? Why not a council of corner shopkeepers? Or a committee of street sweepers, drain clearers and plumbers? Are these people less important? Less valued? Less significant? I fear that is the case.

I fear my party is being taken from me by this coalition of wealth and power.

...

Breaking News: Public Sector Unions Cultivate the Money Tree!

It is more and more apparent that the representatives of many public sector workers have only a tenuous connection to reality:

Four unions representing tens of thousands of youth and community workers in the voluntary sector have said they will demand a substantial pay rise.

There is apparently a world shortage of such workers and whacking up the pay is the obvious route to close that gap (although the unions aren’t at all clear quite how they arrive at a shortage of “about 4,000”).

So who’s going to pay this “substantial” pay rise?

1. The taxes of ordinary hard-working folk
2. The charitable donations of ordinary hard-working folk

Either that or the unions have finally cultivated a money tree (scientific name; Quantitivus easingii).

....

Using strikes to change policy is wrong

***

I had planned to pen a little rant about the iniquities of the assorted teacher trade unions who - as it their Easter wont - are threatening all kinds of dire consequences should the government not do what they say. All the familiar public sector union buzz words are featured - "cuts", "privatisation", "overwork", "under pay" - plus a selection of moans specific to the education industry such as SATs and training.

But instead I want to meander around a rather important issue - the point at which trade unions overstep their proper role of representing members and stray into the running of overtly political campaigns directed at changing policy. Now this latter role is - if members ordain - a proper role for the union. Clearly those who work in a given industry and especially one predominantly government directed have a legitimate (and often informed) voice that trade unions can direct. So the NUT are quite entitled to argue for the abolition of SATs, for a wholly state-managed education system and for the compulsory teaching of Marxism if that is the wish of its members. But they are not entitled - in my judgment - to support such arguments with the threat of industrial action.

Nor is it right for trade unions - whether mandated by their members or not - to seek to prevent others, through private adventure from challenging the current status quo. The stifling of competition has been a theme in trade union activism across time - ironic in the case of the very competitive world of teacher trade unions!

What is clear is that the public sector unions are lining up a series of oppositional positions ahead of a possible Conservative government. And, given the radical nature of Conservative proposals in education, the teaching unions are at the forefront in developing this opposition. However, to propose industrial action because someone else - in line with Government policies - has set up a competing school outside the cuddly local authority sphere should be a matter of concern. And - as an overt political act - such action should not be taken.

There is a big difference between lobbying for policy change - a quite legitimate act - and using industrial power to achieve policy change - which is illegitimate.

....

Of course the Unions own the Labour Party - they always have...

Why do we act so shocked and surprised at the fact that the Labour Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement? Apart from a fleeting moment under Tony Blair the party has always been controlled by the unions. After all, the unions set the party up – it’s their plaything.

Any Labour Government is a government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions. There might have been a day when this came close to being a government representing “the people” but today it is not. According to the Government’s own statistics:

“Private sector union density fell by 0.6 percentage points to 15.5 per cent in 2008, whereas public sector density fell 1.9 percentage points in 2008 to 57.1 per cent.”

And most of that private sector union membership is in privatised industries – air travel, gas, water , electricity. In the rest of the wealth creating sector, trade union membership is rapidly approaching zero. Any private sector employee voting Labour is voting for a Government controlled by and operating in the interests of public sector trade unions. In other words, voting for higher taxes, more regulation and more bureaucracy.

....

No.......

***

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the kind of meeting where the Chief Executive paints the gloomy picture of the business - pay freezes, shorter hours, no promotion raises and the dread spectre of the 'R' word - redundancy. I spent yesterday morning in one of those meetings - depressing stuff.

So imagine my delight when opening my council e-mail to read this:

Councillor

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAY AWARD 2010- 2011

We are writing to you as the UNISON members representing NJC workers in Bradford Council to make you aware of our members’ anger at the pay ‘freeze’ imposed on them for the 1 April 2010 – 2011 pay settlement. We believe that, as a councillor, you should be aware of this, particularly in a year of local – and the General – elections, when issues such as pay will obviously influence how our members vote. We are urging you to ask our council and the LGA to reconsider their support for an effective pay cut for our members this year.

There have been no negotiations over our pay this year. At the last meeting of the NJC Joint Secretaries – at which they were expecting to open negotiations – they were told that the Employers’ Side had decided that there would be no increase in pay for our members this year. We understand that there was cross-party consensus amongst LGA Group Leaders on this decision. We are surprised and disappointed at the decision itself and the manner in which it was arrived at. The consequences of it are likely to be very serious indeed – for our members, service users and for local government itself.....

The letter carries on in this mildly threatening vein for several more paragraphs ending with this:

Below-inflation pay increases in recent years have already left our members – your employees - struggling to make ends meet. As a councillor, we know that you will appreciate the vital contribution they make to local people in our local authority and will want to ensure that our council can continue to recruit and retain such dedicated staff. We are sure that you will be seeking their support to continue to provide vital services as redundancies and workloads increase, but they will be reluctant to do so with only a pay cut to reward them for their efforts! Their commitment is being severely challenged and you will appreciate that 1.6 million employees, their families and friends will be unlikely to show electoral support for those who appear to value them so little.

We would like to hear from you and would ask you to give us a response to the following questions:

Do you agree with this year’s pay cut for NJC workers in our council?
What was the budget for pay this year in its Medium Term Financial Plan in 2008-9?

How does this council intend to use the pay element of the formula grant from central Government?

If you support our members’ right to a pay increase this year, we would ask you to write to the Chairman of the LGA, Margaret Eaton, urging the LGA and the Local Government Employers to change their minds.

We look forward to a response to our letter.

With best wishes,


UNISON Rep

Well that just took the biscuit. I thought about writing a long, considered response but why should I bother?

Dear Unison Rep

Why should you get a pay rise when others (equally poorly paid and without your lovely index-linked final salary pension) are facing pay cuts - assuming of course they've kept their jobs.

You and your members don't have a "right" to a pay rise - you get one when it's affordable just like everyone else. And in case you haven't noticed there's not a great deal of spare cash around out there.

So do I support your case? In a word....

++++++++++NO++++++++++

Yours etc.


Cllr Simon Cooke

.....