Unison job dispute is still rumbling on

Unison branch secretary Bob Cretchley and assistant branch secretary Karla Bradford Unison branch secretary Bob Cretchley and assistant branch secretary Karla Bradford

THE dispute over Swindon Council’s decision to remove taxpayer-funded salaries for Unison jobs at the authority is still rumbling on – nearly a year after the union staged its first protest at the Civic offices.

Branch secretary Bob Cretchley and assistant branch secretary Karla Bradford share a full-time post, which faces the axe after the council voted in February 2012 to withdraw £29,000 in Unison support as part of an efficiency drive.

The move sparked opposition from Unison and other trade unions, which held rallies outside of the Civic Offices, in Euclid Street, to keep the issue in the public mind eye during negotiations with the Conservative-run council.

In a bid to seal the issue, Swindon Council later offered to provide 18.5 hours a week in facilities time funding for union work – which equates roughly to one part-time post – although Unison could top this up with its own funds if required.

Unison tabled its own proposal which it says would eventually remove the need for a separate budgeted amount of money to be provided for unions, as the work would be funded from existing budgets. Both sides have rejected each others proposals.

Gavin Brooks, Unison’s regional organiser, said the two staff, who have remained in post during the negotiations, had been “in limbo” over their futures but expected the issue would come to a head when the 2013/14 budget was set next month.

He said: “We have continued to meet and discuss issues. We’re continuing to meet all the way through it because there’s all sorts of follow-on impacts.

“We’ve demonstrated that the value the council receives from having the dedicated representatives in place far outweights the costs of having that dedicated facilities time.

“We have given reasonable rational alternatives that would see the costs reduced to nil in effect, and we don’t see why it’s rejected if it’s not about money.”

Mr Brooks added: “If any of our representatives ends up being dismissed as a result of that, we will look to see what legal action we can take.”

Coun Fionuala Foley, cabinet member for streetsmart and corporate services, was unavailable for comment.

A Swindon Council spokesman said: “We are currently working with Unison to confirm which post will be allocated the new level of funding.

“It is our understanding that elections for the post will take place at the end of next month.”

Comments(8)

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:53pm Mon 28 Jan 13

No tax payer funding of the unions!

If the unions want to fund their own staff, fine.

house on the hill says...
8:32am Tue 29 Jan 13

Totally agree Lord Ash. If people want a union they should pay for it and already do, so why do we have to subsidise it too?

No wonder they atre fighting so hard to keep the funding and thier jobs. Most dont actually care about those they represent just themselves and their own egos. Yes we need some sort of employee body but the unions in thier present form are not it. And politics should be kept out of it too.

StillPav says...
8:51am Tue 29 Jan 13

I bet the unions don't fight this hard to protect the jobs of their members.

The Real Librarian says...
9:02am Tue 29 Jan 13

Its hard to believe this is really happening in 2013. Its not April 1st is it?

Having the Council pay union saleries is totally indefensible.

At all.

Doing so when the council are making redundundancies amonst people who actually provide services to the public is even worse.

Continuing to do so for a year because the unions don't like it, well that's just a pigging joke.

Oy Rod. Cut the funding and sack these two immediately. let Unison pay for them in future.

Tim Newroman says...
9:07am Tue 29 Jan 13

All the hard working people out there, getting up early, slogging through difficult conditions, working 8 or 9 hour days for relatively low pay must be delighted to know that the tax they're forced to pay is being handed over to the tune of £30,000 per year to keep this pair of trouble making Unison 'staff' in extra payments.

In terms the Left might appreciate, that's £30,000 NOT spent on front line services, a nurse, a teacher, a policeman. No, it's £30,000 of public money spent on people sitting around in warm council offices, eating biscuits and trying to work out how to disrupt public services in return for even more of our money.

It is an absolute and utter disgrace that our council have been wasting OUR money for this long.

benzss says...
10:15am Tue 29 Jan 13

"The move sparked opposition from Unison and other trade unions, which held rallies outside of the Civic Offices, in Euclid Street, to keep the issue in the public mind eye"

What, to remind us that we're paying their salaries so they can buy rubbish coats?

And trade unions wonder why nobody except other trade unions like them.

Peter Mallinson says...
4:52pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Give them a desk a chair and a telephone. Then tell the union to pay them and the telephone account.

If not then finish with the current setup and get together an employees committee to sort out their local problems.

As a tax payer I resent a penny of my tax going towards any trade union activity.

These comments will no doubt upset our Labour Party members, so be it.

Tim Newroman says...
10:46am Wed 30 Jan 13

Read this and weep:

Trade unions received a subsidy of at least £113 million at taxpayers’ expense in2011-12. This is made up of an estimated £92 million in paid staff time, plus £21million in direct payments.

At least 3,041 full-time equivalent public sector staff worked on trade union duties at taxpayers’ expense in 2011-12.

This has to end.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree