Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
... from Conservative MP, Alan Shelbrooke.
A Tory MP, incidentally who has been a member of the Union Unite for a lot of years.
He has suggested that Trade Union members should be expected to opt IN (currently there is an opt OUT provision) to a political levy every year and they should, by entering their postcode, should have that levy directed to the local branch of the political party of their own choice....
Now that is a good idea that should be taken up.
I would add to this a couple of things too.
Unions should also lose all of the money they get from government immediately. There is no justification for that. Likewise where Union officials are allowed to do Union work on the employer's time, that too should end. Seeing the Unions are strongest in the public sector we are paying for that time which would be better delivering the services to taxpayers that earns their salaries.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
A 'good' idea from somebody who has been a Conservative for a great many years and who knows the value of union membership when it suits him?
I wonder how the pension and insurance policy holders will take to the idea that they should be required, year-in year-out, to do likewise?
...and bonuses and share options awarded either for poor performance or by some back-scratching circular arrangement, awarded just because they can. Should all this not also be part of a share-holder/investor 'plebiscite' motion?
How many man-hours are mutually alibied and spent upon the golf course when really the hours and salary of those attending could be halved or better?
What about Political Partys having only the money they take in from membership subs?
And further; Why should the public purse be milked for the benefit of any Political Party that has more than a tiny percentage of the voters as members?
[thus freeing-up funds to aid the creation of small partys and independent PPCs and growing our Democracy?]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Barry you are getting an obsession with all things Union, try focussing on the Government, the decision makers, and where their money comes from.
Audere est facere.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not at all Martin. The Unions have been a menace to their members for decades and have seriously damaged the economy over all that time.
What can be wrong with the suggestion? It gives power and choice to the members and takes it away from the Union bosses. That can only be a good thing. Unless of course you prefer to preserve the rather underhand way the Labour Party gets funded and to keep the corruption inherent in giving Union bosses control over Labour policy, not to mention in electing a Labour leader not wanted by the membership.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
This is all a smokescreen to cover the money for tea and policy making with the Camerons , the Union money is good honest money donated in small amounts by individual Union members.
Audere est facere.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barry,the unions are only a menace if you rub them up the wrong way,best to get them on goverment side by reguly talking to them and not trying to force an issue.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
I've always thought that the link with the labour party and the unions to be an anachronism from a bygone age. I've been with several different unions over the years and found the funding of the labour party from union dues akin to buying something in, say, a supermarket chain and having to donate a small percentage of the cost of goods bought to the conservative party as an example merely because the Chairman is a supporter of that party.
When I used to vote (Conservative) this always stuck in my craw. I refuse to vote now and don't belong to a union so it's not an issue for me any more but it's still wrong.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Then what have you to fear Martin? If that is what it really is then make that more explicit in the way Alan Shelbrooke suggests. I expect though that the truth is most Union members could not care less about the political stance of their leadership and will not opt in to contribute. If members are meant to be in charge then it is time for the Unions give way to this idea.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
I have nothing to fear, surely Shelbrooke should be trying to put his own house in order before worrying about the opposition. The opposition do not make policy that affects peoples lives the Government and their sponsors do.
Audere est facere.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I was a union member once. I joined because workplace bullies were making my life a misery as a non member. When they called me out on strike I refused and resigned from the union because in my opinion the strike was unreasonable. During the strike I made huge quantities of tea and bacon butties for the pickets and we all remained friends afterwards.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"If members are meant to be in charge"
"IF"?
'Ingrained Feebleness' of the argument?
I am sure that over the past many years union after union has disaffiliated themselves from the New Labour Party.
What might be suggested after wholesale willingness for contributions to continue be established?
Instead of commenting on the 'fraud' that must be happening vis-a-vis contributions to the Conservative coffers much effort is made to, yet again, try and push for there to be but one Political Party in the UK (England?).
And yet, like so much the Tories touch, this too crumbles through their claws.
Not to worry, perhaps that 'I FUN' fellow that has just passed on may have left a will.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the idea is one of those that look good at first glance but totally unworkable.
the amount of union members and company shareholders that would bother to vote is likely to be very low raising the question of what is the minimum number of votes to be to reach a decision.
the unworkable bit is where say for example a pension fund has shares in a company would they have to ballot all investors.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Businesses are totally different to Unions so two different issues are being mixed up here.
I would, however, be supportive of a limit on political donation from businesses of £50,000, something Labour has opposed.
I seem to have sparked a response from Labour devotees who clearly feel their Party will lose out if real choice and control is taken away from their Union paymasters. Good, it shows this is a good idea.
Martin, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a 'government in waiting' - though for the sake of all of us they had better be kept waiting for decades to come. The point is the issue should be addressed given their policies are being dictated by the Union leaders who, clearly, are out of touch with their own membership and would prefer to deny them an adult choice.
As for Alan Shelbrooke, Martin, he is just a backbench MP so his house is indeed in order. Cameron though does have to get some reforms through but these, up to now, have been blocked by Labour.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - I missed your point, so I will deal with it now.
The governance of pension and mutual funds does not work that way. The member holds units in the fund, not own the underlying assets, it is the owner of the individual assets in which the fund is invested who has voting rights whether a pension company, investment company or trustees. I certainly have no problem of voting shareholders raising such issues at shareholder meetings, being the owners of the company it is their right to do so.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
My job had a voluntary opt in to union membership so it's not new or hard to organise. Upside of not joining is you save money and don't support the Labour Party, downside is you get no say in votes and no protection from the union to sort out grievances.
I was a member of the Musicians Union for a few years (bit of an anomaly there, it's also a trade association for self-employed musicians including part timers), opted out of the political levy but still got sent a form to vote for deputy leader of the Labout Party.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
who is deputy leader of the reds nowadays, you must know you voted for him ray?
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Voted tactically Howard, worth the price of a stamp for a bit of fun! I think it was the vote that saw Harriet Harman voted in, only time it ever happened so must have been a computeer glitch.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Barry my response is nothing more than you are addressing the wrong problem as a smokescreen to divert attention from the dinner with the Cameron's and access to the policy committee for money scandal , far more damaging than the traditional Union support for the Labour Party who are not in Government, but obviously you will see no wrong in the scandal.
Audere est facere.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think this shelbrooke chap knows what he is doing, with all the publicity over the robin hood in reverse budget.
i think he has bided his time to make this a public issue to score brownie points with dave by helping to deflect attention from damaging issues.
he will probably go far.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think this shelbrooke chap knows what he is doing, with all the publicity over the robin hood in reverse budget.
i think he has bided his time to make this a public issue to score brownie points with dave by helping to deflect attention from damaging issues.
he will probably go far.