Union bid to save council activists (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Union bid to save council activists
10:50pm Sunday 19th February 2012 in News By Josh Layton
TWO leading union activists threatened with redundancy by Swindon Council are at the centre of a campaign by Unison to save their posts.
Bob Cretchley and Karla Bradford share a full-time job which faces the axe in April as part of the local authority’s efficiency measures.
The campaign has received support from local and regional unions, the South West TUC and national TUC sources such as Stronger Unions, who campaign on trade union rights.
Joanne Kaye, Unison’s south west regional secretary, said: “This is an appalling attack on the local union which would save an amount equivalent to less than a quarter of one millionth of a percent of the council’s budget, but which gives a voice to thousands of public service workers in Swindon.
“At a time when redundancies are being made, services privatised or outsourced to social enterprises and our members are struggling to do more at work with fewer staff as well as pay the bills and support their families, a trade union voice to speak out for them is absolutely vital.
“The council has legal obligations to consult with their recognised unions and like nearly every other council in the country, they have met these obligations by funding central posts. They now want to tear this agreement up and make our two representatives redundant.
“This move is a textbook blueprint of the demands being made by radical Tory groups such as the Trade Union Reform Campaign, who want to see the rights to paid time off ended for Trade Unions, so that workers in public services have no one to speak out for them.
“As well as seeking legal advice, we will fight a vigorous campaign.”
Activists at the council are elected by the 3,000 members of the local branch and carry out trade union duties on their behalf.
A lobby is being called for February 23 at 6pm at the Council Offices, in Euclid Street, and UNISON has already received pledges of support from trade union branches across the region who will attend.
Keith Williams, cabinet member for leisure and corporate services, responded: “The union is only representative of 40 per cent of council employees and they are 100 per cent funded by taxpayers, which is paid by residents, not from union memberships. None of the other unions of the council are publicly funded in this way. This is coupled with the fact the staff only do union work.
“My suspicion is that if the public were aware council tax is funding union activity, they would rather the money be spent on council services directly. When you are talking about front-line services every penny counts in this current climate.” The council is currently undergoing a restructuring process which will involve axing 140 jobs.
Mr Williams said a staff forum would be set up to represent all union members at the council.
“We have offered to allow Unison to continue to have access to the IT facilities and the council, with union memberships paying for these two posts,” he said.
Comments(35)
SpeakUp
says...
1:20am Mon 20 Feb 12
Robh wrote:Dear Swindon Council
Too right. If the union wants reps then the union pays. They probably share one of these non-jobs created by Labour.
What do you think you are doing? Why are you using my tax to pay for reps for union members? How dare you! Union members pay their fees for the services they believe the union provides them so why are the union not paying for these reps? What exactly do their fees pay for? Either way you have absolutely no business picking up the tab using my cash!
old 'arry
says...
7:29am Mon 20 Feb 12
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:49am Mon 20 Feb 12
If its such a small amount of money then the union should pick up the bill.
TinkeyWinkey
says...
8:07am Mon 20 Feb 12
oldbutawake
says...
8:15am Mon 20 Feb 12
In other companies I worked for the reps were fiecely independent on management and were either volunteers or in the case of full-time reps paid by the members from their Union subs.
How on earth did SBC get themselves conned into footing the bill?
(Oh and I am not anti-Union. I was a union rep myself in the '70s and a member of Unsion when I was at SBC)
gordonchalmers
says...
8:26am Mon 20 Feb 12
Robfm
says...
8:53am Mon 20 Feb 12
This new government said they were going to close this scam down.
gordonchalmers
says...
9:59am Mon 20 Feb 12
The Tax Payers Alliance has the same right as anyone to go to law; provided they have the evidence.
Factually Council accountants and auditors would have great difficulty discovering this.
My experience on this is that by law shop stewards are elected by members in the employment area and thus called upon to take any issue by a single person or group to the management as their spokeperson. Full time union officials are paid by the union. I understand a works convenor can also be an employee with greater latitude. Fortunately in my time as a Councillor we had no disputes as it was a well run Council.
Robfm
says...
10:25am Mon 20 Feb 12
Hmmmf
says...
10:31am Mon 20 Feb 12
.
In this case one job is being made redundant but TWO people are 'at risk' because the Unions managed to shoe-horn a pair of their mates into one role paid for entirely by us. Nice 'work' if you can get it.
.
If both do have to leave, the Unions can take comfort from the fact that their members can easily elect another pair of free-loaders from their ranks to poke their snouts into our trough, while Cretchley and Bradford enjoy their golden handshakes.
scottwichall
says...
10:53am Mon 20 Feb 12
Hmmmf wrote:Thanks for that Hmmmf, I had a mouthful of coffee when I got to the part about snout's in the trough... :-)
Every time I've been made redundant it was clearly pointed out that actually, it was the job that was redundant, not the person. If another job was available, then the 'at risk' employee could receive preferential consideration for it.
.
In this case one job is being made redundant but TWO people are 'at risk' because the Unions managed to shoe-horn a pair of their mates into one role paid for entirely by us. Nice 'work' if you can get it.
.
If both do have to leave, the Unions can take comfort from the fact that their members can easily elect another pair of free-loaders from their ranks to poke their snouts into our trough, while Cretchley and Bradford enjoy their golden handshakes.
woodhouse66
says...
11:06am Mon 20 Feb 12
1. The Council has a legal obligation to provide time off for trade union reps to represent their members in the workforce on issues such as redundancies, outsourcing, transfers of staff, disciplinaries and grievances to name but a few. If the Council do not provide this time off, they could be taken to court. This is a legal right, which has been in place for decades and was not even removed by Margaret Thatcher.
2. What the Council have done is the same as any other council of a similar size - rather than time off being taken by people who also have frontline posts, which causes service disruption - e.g a social worker or teaching assistant having to be covered while absent, they have offered to fund dedicated posts, which are elected every year and open to all 3000 of the union members.
3. The cost of these posts would not even buy each household a pint of milk. However, the Council plan to spend £1.3m on consultants this year, an increase on last year. £1.3m to highly paid outside firms - this amount would pay for the trade union time off for 45 years and will cost each household around £14. But instead they are choosing to attack those from their own workforce who speak up for cleaners, home carers, social workers, refuse workers, customer service staff - who will give them a far more useful view than a highly paid consultant.
Old Town
says...
11:20am Mon 20 Feb 12
.
Please explain to me (and a lot of others) why I should pay for two union officials out of my council tax payments ?
.
I do not want to pay for this - i do not see it as a service.
.
My personal belief is that if the Union wants a member in the organisation, then the Union should pay for it - not me and my fellow Swindonians who do not want to.
woodhouse66
says...
11:39am Mon 20 Feb 12
A government report, based on independent research showed that trade union reps in fact saved employers millions of pounds each year. But I suspect, this is just about the commenters above having a political axe to grind, as is generally the case. If you want a world where people can be hired and fired, where services can be sold off, as happened with home care, then you're welcome to it. I'm glad we have laws which give rights to those facing the sack to have someone to speak up for them
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
11:41am Mon 20 Feb 12
.
Want to be in a union? fine. no problem. The union must pay for the representitive.
Robh
says...
12:24pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Robfm
says...
12:28pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Please explain why they can't pay for a full time dedicated official from this money.
woodhouse66
says...
12:44pm Mon 20 Feb 12
And Robfm (similar names, are you same person?!), the union already pays for full-time union staff, around 40-50% according to UNISON's accounts. The employer must still provide paid time off to local reps of a recognised union, according to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. That is what this money is for. And local reps are people who work for the council, not outside officials who have never done the job. Trade unions are one of the remaining few places where ordinary people have a say.
Of course if you object to a cost of less than 30 p per household each year to give the workers of the local council a voice, then it's pretty obvious you just don't like trade unions. Consultants, councillors etc will cost you all a lot more
Robfm
says...
12:50pm Mon 20 Feb 12
And no I'm not Robh. If you can't see that unions exploit their members and the general public, that's your problem.
Hmmmf
says...
1:49pm Mon 20 Feb 12
woodhouse66 wrote:
Robh, the job isn't redundant, that's the point.
Clearly it is. With only 40% of the total workforce in a Union the SBC has obviously recognised that one centrally-funded full-time post being occupied by two activists doing nothing else but represent a minority of the workforce is not cost-effective. Especially since any one of the 40% of the union membership can carry out the 'legal obligations' you keep banging on about in addition to their own frontline work (for which they're already being paid).
You also wrote:
Of course if you object to a cost of less than 30 p per household each year to give the workers of the local council a voice, then it's pretty obvious you just don't like trade unions.
"30p per household" is typically disingenuous NuLab spin; assuming 2008 figures of 84000 'households' that works out to over £25k per year to give less than half of the workers on the local council not one but two voices. Voices which could be provided by any of those 4 out of 10 at substantially less than twenty five thousand two hundred pounds per year of taxpayers' money. Imagine how many bus services could be saved with that kind of money :) And yes, it's pretty obvious that at the local council, 6 out of 10 workers don't like trades unions enough to not want to join them.
house on the hill
says...
1:53pm Mon 20 Feb 12
The only reason your memebers are "struggling" to do more with less is because they have never actually had to work hard before and the current crop of managers have no idea how to streamline and run an efficient business. I have worked in both public and private sectors and most of those in the public sector wouldnt know hard work or real customer service or being cost effective if they fell over it.
With a non competative environment and a guaranteed customer base and income, council workers dont have a clue what working in the "real world" is like where you have to put your customer first and give a good efficient value for money service or you go out of business. They have all their flexible working and flexitime, free parking, 6 months full sick pay per year and 30 days annual leave and have escaped the mass redundancies and pension scheme closures the private sector have put up with for any years and still they moan.
The unions should be more interested in why it costs so much to run the council and be working with them to get rid of all the dead wood and the sicknotes and those who push the limits as far as they can instead of expecting the taxpayer to fund their "complacency" and use this money to improve our town and give us what we are forced by law to pay for!!!!
Peter Mallinson
says...
2:56pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Hmmmf
says...
3:23pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Peter Mallinson wrote:Well well. That's a bit more than woodhouse66's "30p per household" just to give 4 out of 10 local council workers two voices.
Under a freedom of information question the council stated that £73,000 is spent on financing union activity. This comes from your council tax.
Old Town
says...
3:38pm Mon 20 Feb 12
woodhouse66 wrote:Sorry woodhouse you are talking more union mantra nonsense !
Because, Old Town, no one gets to choose when it comes to the law. The Council have legal obligations and your political opposition to them does not change that in any way.
A government report, based on independent research showed that trade union reps in fact saved employers millions of pounds each year. But I suspect, this is just about the commenters above having a political axe to grind, as is generally the case. If you want a world where people can be hired and fired, where services can be sold off, as happened with home care, then you're welcome to it. I'm glad we have laws which give rights to those facing the sack to have someone to speak up for them
.
It absolutely is NOT the law for my council tax to pay for your Union freeloaders !
.
I DO want a world where market forces dictate whether people need to be employed to do these jobs
.
In this case I DO NOT want to pay for this. Unions are outdated and frankly dangerous, cause MORE problems than they solve and should be abolished......
If.you.say.so.....
says...
4:11pm Mon 20 Feb 12
It makes me laugh, hundreds of council worker have lost thei jobs over the years because of cut backs and we hardly hear a thing from the union!!! Yet because there are a couple of their own getting the boot there's a big up roar!!! Maybe Karla and Bob should have joined a union!!! haha
Always Grumpy
says...
4:49pm Mon 20 Feb 12
If.you.say.so..... wrote:Take a look at how much your union bosses are being paid and the luxurious expenses they enjoy and you'll see quite clearly where your £13 a month is going.
Well i pay £13 something a month for unison, but if the council is paying their wages then what is the £13 a month going on?
It makes me laugh, hundreds of council worker have lost thei jobs over the years because of cut backs and we hardly hear a thing from the union!!! Yet because there are a couple of their own getting the boot there's a big up roar!!! Maybe Karla and Bob should have joined a union!!! haha
Plus of course the generous donations they make, on your behalf, to Labour party coffers.
martinwicks
says...
5:32pm Mon 20 Feb 12
The 2 people in question only get the wage of their substantive post. if they aren't re-elected by the members they go back to their substantive job.
The same happens in much of the private sector where the workforce is big enough to justify full-time release.
The Council would still have to release staff to represent the members, even if there was nobody on full-time release. Of course, individual managements would be obstructive in giving release to their staff. That's what the purpose of the Tories is in thsi case - to place obstacles in the way of union organisation.
Union subs, of course, go towards the employment of full-time officials who cover big geographical areas, not local reps.
Robfm
says...
5:34pm Mon 20 Feb 12
I think with respect we know who the mugs are not, and that is the Union.
Not only are all rate payers being ripped off, as I said the members are.
Old Town
says...
6:32pm Mon 20 Feb 12
martinwicks wrote:What planet are we on ?
What planet are some of you people on? Every Council in the country gives full-time release to unions in workplaces which are very big. How do you think 3,000 people can be represented on a part-time basis?
The 2 people in question only get the wage of their substantive post. if they aren't re-elected by the members they go back to their substantive job.
The same happens in much of the private sector where the workforce is big enough to justify full-time release.
The Council would still have to release staff to represent the members, even if there was nobody on full-time release. Of course, individual managements would be obstructive in giving release to their staff. That's what the purpose of the Tories is in thsi case - to place obstacles in the way of union organisation.
Union subs, of course, go towards the employment of full-time officials who cover big geographical areas, not local reps.
.
I would suggest we are the ones with our feet on the ground - unlike the Unions !
.
I do not like the unions - neither do a LOT of other people.
.
I COMPLETELY reject paying council tax and other taxes in order to employ someone who works for and represents this outmoded, outdated and frankly dangerous union
.
I do not want the unions to be part of modern day society
.
I do not want them bleating on and causing more and more trouble
.
The hospital is a PERFECT example of when a union should stay out of it !
.
Is that clear enough Mr Wicks ?
sn5
says...
7:33am Tue 21 Feb 12
i don't want sbc to pay for union staff to be in full time employment. perhaps having a few members of staff given part of their time to do this job would be better. at least then they will have a proper job as well & will understand what's really happening in the company / council.
Robfm
says...
7:36am Tue 21 Feb 12
candid friend
says...
12:26pm Tue 21 Feb 12
Interfered in the management-because Labour would do what they said-and opposed all change.
The sooner they go from their council funded union activist, troblemaker, posts the better.
candid friend
says...
12:39pm Tue 21 Feb 12
If the political parties want these people they should pay for them.
"What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander"
Robfm
says...
12:47pm Tue 21 Feb 12
Robh says...
11:20pm Sun 19 Feb 12