Peterborough residents discover the true extent to which they are funding the trade unions 6

Jonathan Isaby Campaign

Peterborough City Council has been on the TPA radar of late because of their plan to increase council tax by 2.95% each year for the next five years. Senior Tory councillor David Seaton was awarded our “Pinhead of the Month” gong for January in recognition of his efforts to increase the burden on his local residents.

And as the councillors continue to insist that they have no option but to increase council tax – despite the Government offering funding to allow for a freeze – figures have now come to light showing the true extent to which those funds are being used to subsidise the trade unions.

Our report into the taxpayer funding of trade unions last November suggested that the two Full Time Equivalent Unison activists being funded by Peterborough City Council (see p.52) were costing £56,385 of council tax payers’ money (based on them each being paid the median gross annual public sector salary of £22,902 and then taking into account pension and NI contributions, taking their cost to £28,192 each).

However, today we can reveal the identities of the two full –time tax-payer funded UNISON activists and how their higher than median salaries are meaning that even more of Peterborough council tax payers’ money is being channelled to the unions than was first thought.

A letter from Cllr Irene Walsh, Peterborough’s Cabinet member for Finance, to Stewart Jackson, Peterborough’s MP, has reached our attention and we have published it online today in order that people can see the costs for themselves.

Rona Hendry is the UNISON branch secretary and will cost the Peterborough council tax payer no less than £43,600 over the coming year. Her branch Assistant Secretary, Mark Burn, is also being fully funded by the taxpayer to the tune of £29,700.

Cllr Walsh adds that when you include the value of free office facilities and other costs, the estimated bill to the Peterborough tax payer of supporting this branch of UNISON is £83,500 – 48% more than the cautious TPA estimate.

We maintain that while trade unions can have a role to play in workplaces, it should not be for taxpayers to foot their bills – that is exactly why people pay a subscription to a union. Likewise, they should be invoiced for their taxpayer-funded offices, yet in her letter Cllr Walsh opines that “I do not believe it would be in the interests of promoting good industrial relations to do so.”

It’s a shame that Cllr Walsh is not more interested in promoting better taxpayer value for money in Peterborough by stopping this subsidy to the unions and more closely monitoring other staff time taken off for union meetings – activities which she says are “more difficult to monitor”.

This makes it all the more disappointing that civic leaders are intent on hiking the council tax in Peterborough.

Jonathan Isaby

Jonathan is Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and never tires of reminding people that there’s no such thing as government money - only taxpayers’ money.

Follow @isaby

Blarg1987

Although this is good research, and I agree needs review, surely it is a small drop in the ocan compared to tax payer subsidies to rail operators who use the money for profits which cost the tax payer billions of pounds with no real direct or indirect improvement?

Orac54

Quickly! Someone has proved that public money is being wasted on unions! Wave chairs and create an irrelevant diversion about the private sector or rail operators! Always the same tactic….

Blarg1987

If you read my statement carefully I didn’t say I disagree, but since the above organisation is meant to be representing tax payers money, they seem to ignore elephants in the room, now which would you be more annoyed about several million going to unions, or several billions going to rail operatiors? Granted both are not acceptable but to go after the peanuts instead of the larger waste of tax payers money shows either a vested interest or a lack of common sense.

I believe most people with a neutral standpoint would agree that we should be chasing the billions in waste first then move down the list as any private buisness would .

bewick

As someone once , inter alia, responsible for industrial relations in a large and major LA I can see at least some sense in Cllr Walsh’s letter.
In my , then, Labour controlled authority any suggestion of controlling “facility time” was rejected out of hand. Consequently there were several dozen “union reps” who spent their time demanding meeting after meeting on trivial matters (better than working).
The cost must have been horrendous but was never formally costed.
To be fair the “branch secretary” of what then was NALGO (now merged into Unison) held a senior job and managed to run that satisfactorily (or so his Chief Officer said – I asked)) whilst still also using “facility time”. He was one alone though.
The figures quoted do not indicate whether they include or exclude “oncosts” – employer NI and pension contribution, costs of the work related offices and equipment, costs of training, costs of work supervision, centrally provided services, and so on. Every job has a cost way beyond salary. Simple NI and pension adds perhaps 25% to salary cost. The other oncosts may inflate that to over 35% or more and perhaps even 50%. Depends.

Cllr Walsh is entirely correct. The current law DOES still require employers , private as well as public service, to provide the means for employees to be represented and DO NOT ,currently, require the unions to pay for that. That can only be changed by Parliament whether or not that would be a good change in the law.

From an IR stance it is my view that it is actually to the benefit of both employer and employee for some “facility time”. It must however be controlled and limited. Currently there is NO national guidance or limit whatsoever. It is simply ridiculous that someone earning perhaps £43k (or even £100k) can engineer ( a word I choose with care and experience) their own election to a union position which removes them from the main job and instead lets them full time undertake “negotiations” or “consultations” ( both misnomers when unions are involved) with the employer on behalf of mainly apathetic union members.

A “cap” per employee head, per annum, and graded according to total numbers in the organisation needs to be established. By that I mean that in an authority with 1000 employees (there are still some) the cap per employee might be higher than one with 20000. The law of diminishing returns.
That alone might make union members less apathetic when they discovered that all of their “allowance” was being used by fewer but highly paid individuals and to their own detriment.

I must say that when I had to call in the union employed and union paid full-time organisers they were, perhaps still are, appalled at the antics of the “union reps” on facility time.

Changing the law? I would hazard a guess that it could be achieved via Statutory Instrument rather than a new Act of Parliament but that might not suit the politicians wanting a fanfare.
Pingback: The Real Cost of Peterborough Pilgrims - Guy Fawkes' blog
Pingback: TURC » Blog Archive » Peterborough “Pilgrims” maintain funding due to a 2.95% council tax increase.