So yet again the tax payer is paying for left wing politicos

[ellroy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

The Labour party and its friends really did have its hand in the till. This is a disgrace, but I suspect naff all will happen.

[Sticks.]

I don't see why this is news. Trade Union reps have been allowed time to represent their members for many years. I'm not a union member but so I don't know if it's changed.

Papers have moved from bashing the banks to the pub sector.

[don4l]

Sticks. said:

I don't see why this is news. Trade Union reps have been allowed time to represent their members for many years. I'm not a union member but so I don't know if it's changed.

Papers have moved from bashing the banks to the pub sector.

Using the same logic, we should still be burning witches!

The fact that it has gone on for years does not make it right.

Cuts have to be made, and we should ask if "union representation" is an essential service.

Don
--

[ellroy]

Sticks. said:

I don't see why this is news. Trade Union reps have been allowed time to represent their members for many years. I'm not a union member but so I don't know if it's changed.

Papers have moved from bashing the banks to the pub sector.

I have no issue with unions per se. If they are doing the job of representing their members then the union should pay for that time, not me and the rest of the country's hard pressed tax payers.

If they are effectively not doing the job for which WE paid then that is tantamount to theft.

[Sticks.]

I don't know whether it's right or not, but it's old news, that's all. Not a lot of money, compared to what gov spends that you/we/I don't agree with.

[colonel c]

ellroy said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

The Labour party and its friends really did have its hand in the till. This is a disgrace, but I suspect naff all will happen.

I suppose it would depend if the activity of these individuals is political or not as to whether it involves the Labour party.

It would be interesting to know what the public is getting for 50 grand though.

[Randy Winkman]

ellroy said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

The Labour party and its friends really did have its hand in the till. This is a disgrace, but I suspect naff all will happen.

This isn't new - it's been the same as long as I can remember.

[Chris Hinds]

It's not unique to the public sector either. Go into any business with a trade union present, be it Unite, Amicus, RMT or whoever and you'll find convenors on the books, being paid by the company and looking after the union members. Within reason there is nothing wrong with it happening either. I'm in no way left wing but I do believe unions are entitled to ensure their representatives in an organisation have time to do TU work too.

Regards

Chris

[fido]

Now here's the real deal .. Ken in bed with the Unions - quelle surprise?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/1...

[Bluebarge]

I think the general principle should be that you work for the person who pays your wages. If you want to be a full-time union rep, get the union to pay you, there is absolutely no reason why the taxpayer should do it.

[johnfm]

I think you guys miss the point.

If staff have union duties that take, X% of their time, the unions should pay x% of that worker's pay.

I expect unionised workers pay fees to be a member of the union? This is what should fund these cost.


What's that? They can't afford to? After paying Bob Crow his £140k and funding the labour party there's not enough left to pay union reps?

Now there's a surprise.