Unions subsidised by the taxpayer - £500,000 in Sheffield alone..

[jgharston 11]

"All 429 councils across the country were asked to disclose the number of council-paid employees working full-time on trade union business

How would they know? What an employee, council or otherwise, does in their own time is entirely their own business.

Correct me If I'm wrong, but you have previously stated that you are unemployed, If that is the case you will be Council Tax exempt anyway.

People aren't council tax exempt because they are unemployed, or for any other reason. Properties may or may not be council tax exempt. People may or may not qualify for Council Tax Benefit with which to pay their council tax.

[PeteM01 10]

How would they know? What an employee, council or otherwise, does in their own time is entirely their own business.

 

You need to ask the Daily Mail about that.

[convert 10]

Where's Wildcat when you need him?

 

He's probably doffing his cap at THE wedding...

 

 

[barny_100 10]

I have to disagree with you there, the bit about employers not liking it, that is. Where I work people, are encouraged by the employers to become workplace reps. The main reason being that it cuts down on HR costs. It's a lot easier and cheaper for the business to delegate a lot of HR's work to part time, volunteer reps than it is to employ more HR personnel. Someone who has an issue with, for instance, their line manager can more easily take it up with their rep, who is usually known to them, than with someone in HR who is unlikely to work in the same city let alone the same office.

 

As most reps are trained in industrial relations and health & safety law they are often consulted by management about both areas. Workplace reps also have objectives in their annual appraisal which directly relate to their union activities.

 

If anyone thinks for a moment that employers, whether private or public, would pay for full time reps or for time off for local reps without it being beneficial for the organisation then they know little about business.

 

This story is about the public sector which is not a business by any definition. Your conflating of the two leads me to believe you don't know about business.

 

Your argument of it saving HR costs isn't based on any facts. I'm fairly sure Sheffield council has just as many people in their HR department as they would anyway.

 

The reps "loyalty" is evidently to their union who's aims are often very narrow and relate to the well-being/conditions of their members. That's fine as long as their activities are self funded. The taxpayer (AKA Customer) shouldn't have to pay so that Union members can spend their time lobbying for better pay and conditions that in turn lead to higher costs for taxpayers!

[barny_100 10]

How would they know? What an employee, council or otherwise, does in their own time is entirely their own business.

 

You didn't read the story did you?

 

This isn't their own time. They are being paid by the taxpayer but instead of doing their job they work full time for their Union. Normally under the pretence of "Liason". I'm sorry but any liaison required between employer and Union can be done within normal working hours. A weekly meeting or whatever is perfectly normal and proper, this however is subsidising Unions at the taxpayers expense.

 

A "Nurse" who doesn't Nurse

 

More examples in here (PDF)

[sixer 10]

I am confused by this. I am a union rep working within the public sector. All reps are allocated a percentage of time within the working week to spend on TU time. This is not unusual & is how the system works in the private sector. We also have recourses allocated for TU work, how else would we be able to carry this out. This is a legal reuiremen of the employer. If anyone on here actually knows what is involved it is beneficial & cost effective for the employer in the long run as Max explained.

 

Any full time officials are paid employed by the union and paid by them not the employer. I have a feeling that the figures quoted are the number of hours etc for all the p/t reps added together. I think for example the articles quoted 18 full time officials in Sheffield alone. That is not true - there will probably be 1 or 2 full time officials for the whole region.

 

This is just a case of people twisting the information.

[max 13]

You didn't read the story did you?

 

This isn't their own time. They are being paid by the taxpayer but instead of doing their job they work full time for their Union. Normally under the pretence of "Liason". I'm sorry but any liaison required between employer and Union can be done within normal working hours. A weekly meeting or whatever is perfectly normal and proper, this however is subsidising Unions at the taxpayers expense.

 

A "Nurse" who doesn't Nurse

 

More examples in here (PDF)

 

You really have no idea how either business or the public sector operate with regard to Unions, do you? Both sectors are happy to live side by side with the Unions. Without a close working relationship between employers and trades unions more cases would go to tribunal which costs money. As the majority of tribunal findings are in favour of the employee it is only fair to say that this will save money for employers in the long run and, by extension, the tax payer in public sector cases.

[boldforester 10]

And Sheffield easily came top of the list, blowing £504,585 of our money on these wasters.

 

Ah Grafikhaus, here we are again - or are you Tebbit in disguise? I don't know what job it is you do in order to finance the good things in your miserable, stinking life.....but you might care to reflect on that fact that practically every employment right, which you no doubt take for granted, is in place because trade union activists, at some point in the near or distant past, put themselves on the line to secure a better deal for collective workers. Perhaps you've achieved the right to redundancy pay, the right to take out a grievance against your employer, etc., etc., on your own, have you? Nope, thought not. Grow up and stop spouting Cameron's rubbish for him.

[Gordonb 11]

Reading this thread am I correct in noticing that the cost for the 18 reps in Sheffield is £504,000? My simple calculator tells me that equals £28k each. Can this be as straight forward as it seems? Is the cost of a normal hard working admin person or a planner or a rent collector £28k.

I think I must be reading this wrong and missing something.

Someone fill me in please.

[mj.scuba 10]

Correct me If I'm wrong, but you have previously stated that you are unemployed, If that is the case you will be Council Tax exempt anyway.

 

So a person's opinion on the spending of public funds doesn't count now just because they're unemployed?

[Sarkysod 10]

So a person's opinion on the spending of public funds doesn't count now just because they're unemployed?

 

It tends to grate those who are actually paying in the system, when money is misspent, then those who's pocket is not directly affected.

I think that was the main point of that post.

[mj.scuba 10]

If this is true that SCC are paying over half a million quid for Union Reps off its own payroll, I think it is deplorable.

 

I'm not against Union Reps, but not a penny should come out of public purse to fund their salary other than for their normal work duties. If they're conducting Union business, then it is the Union that should be paying them.

 

I think I will be contacting my local councillors to clarify this but I suspect with all three of them being Labour they will fully support the misuse of public funds in this manner. I will not be leaving them with any doubt of my opinion!