"Union reps are good for workers and employers and we can prove it"

Check out TUC risks and link to Stronger Unions response to the latest nonsense from the Tax evaders alliance.

"The TUC has ripped apart the latest attempt by a right-wing lobby group to claim paid release for union reps comes at a cost. TUC national organiser Carl Roper said the annually regurgitated claim by the Taxpayers’ Alliance that union volunteers are a drain on the public purse and taxpayers gets picked up uncritically by sections of the media, despite the irrefutable evidence proving precisely the opposite. 

Writing in the TUC’s Stronger Unions blog, he points to research and government publications showing the union role in the workplace is good for business, the economy and the health of workers. He says this establishes five areas that benefit from the activity of workplace union reps: skills and training; exit rates, labour turnover and dispute resolution; productivity, and worker safety. He said in workplaces where there is direct trade union health and safety representation there were much lower injury rates, translating to between 34,000 and 52,000 fewer working days lost. 

“There are just 170,000 union representatives in the UK amongst a workforce of around 25 million. It would be difficult to find another group of employees who in addition to carrying out their regular job make such a significant contribution to the UK economy as a result of volunteer activity,” Roper concluded. 

“It is a role acknowledged and valued not just by unions and their members, but also by some of the UK’s biggest and most successful employers. Jaguar Land Rover, British Aerospace, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, British Airways, Morrison’s, Asda to name just a few all have and provide paid time off to union reps. Their contribution is also acknowledged by the CBI. The case for union reps and the small amount of paid time off that they receive is conclusive.”

Ÿ TUC Stronger Unions blog. TUC guide to the union safety effect. The Guardian.

Mansion tax would affect just four families in every thousand

If you own a £2million home you can afford to pay the Mansion Tax to help save the NHS. As Ed said it's Pure and Simple. 

Amazing that the Tories think its okay to throw poor people out of their homes if they can't pay the bedroom tax but want rich millionaires to to pay less income and property taxes.

Check out the truth about the tax here. I know that some have genuine concerns about this policy but I cannot wait for a Labour Government to introduce this measure. The report below shows that it will only affect 4 families in every 1000.  I am bothered about the needs of the many and not the rich. It is simply about time that the rich and wealthy in this county paid their fair share of taxation.

"A study compiled for the Evening Standard newspaper suggests that Labour’s proposed mansion tax would only be paid by 110,000 households, of which 86,000 would be in London.

This needs careful examination, as there is obviously a concerted campaign going on against this proposal.

First, DCLG statistics suggest that there are 27.7 million homes in the UK. The Mansion Tax would be levied on a small minority of very expensive properties worth more than £2 million. 110,000 households equates to 0.4 per cent of the UK total – just four households for every thousand.
Second, despite misinformation to the contrary, there is actually a very close association between owning a house worth £2 million and having a very high degree of income and other forms of wealth. In blunt terms, a mansion tax would be a tax on the rich".

hat tip stronger unions Paul Sellers

115th company signs Bangladesh safety accord

Good news from Stronger Unions Last "Tuesday, Edinburgh Woollen Mill (EWM) - which runs stores across Great Britain under its own name and as Peacocks – finally signed the union-sponsored Bangladesh Fire and Safety Accord, becoming the 115th company to do so. It was a big win for months of campaigning by unions and NGOs, including another push planned for this weekend, the first anniversary of the Tazreen Fashions factory fire which killed over a hundred people....."

True Price of Cheap Fashion: 120 burnt or jumped to death at Bangladesh Texile Factory Fire

Check out TUC Owen Tudor post at Stronger Unions on the latest fire massacre at a Bangladesh textile factory.

It is estimated that 120 workers are dead, many of them young women who died behind locked fire escapes while some even jumped to their deaths to avoid being burnt alive.

Owen is completely right that the best way to protect these vulnerable and exploited workers are strong and independent trade unions.

But this does not let British, European and USA companies which invest in such factories or source cheap clothes in Bangladesh to sell in the West off the hook. Nor pension or insurance companies who make money from these companies or to be frank the consumers who buy products without knowing the conditions that the human beings who sweated to make them endure. Have we all got blood on our hands?

Tazreen Fashions who owns the factory apparently makes goods for "H&M, Walmart, Denim, Marks and Spencer, Carrefour, IKEA and others". It is alleged that it was widely known that this factory was unsafe but nothing was done.

Next week there is a meeting of the UNISON London Pension network and I will be asking members to bring up this up with their fund managers. What are they doing to make sure that the companies we invest in make sure that such things cannot happen again? This is an investment as well as an ethical issue. Not only should pension funds (and pensioners) not want to prosper from investing in companies that kills its workers but there is now overwhelming evidence that companies that act responsibly produce superior long term financial returns. 

We need to make sure at a minimum that all the companies in the supply line we invest in recognise and support trade unions (Please note this also applies to all those UK organisations who disgracefully refuse to recognise and bargain with independent trade unions at home. What message are they sending?) but also that they make sure that act at all times responsibly.  

On Wednesday evening at the LAPFF conference I spoke to a Governance adviser for a leading fund manager, who told me that due to rising wages in China, mass textile production is moving to cheaper zones such as Bangladesh. So the problem is likely to get even worse. 

On Thursday evening at the LAPFF conference hotel there was a false fire alarm at 4am. While I am not for a moment comparing things with that at Tazeen Fashions, it did make me think at the time what I would do if I was trapped by raging fires and locked safety doors in my 3rd floor room. 

Unless we all do our bit as consumers and investors to demand effective change I have no doubt that I will be reporting on something equally horrific sometime soon.  

"Union Busters" and Cranberry Fools

Check out this post on "Stronger Unions" about Derby based Cranberry Foods (Poultry) hiring  USA "Union busters" the Burke Group and the intimidation of workers.

Why on earth are Cranberry Foods hiring union busters? 

It is an absolute human right to belong to a trade union and for that union to collectively bargain with the employer. 

Frankly, while I accept that I don't exactly know first hand what is going on in Cranberry - any organisation that refuses to recognise trade unions and/or to bargain with them - are in my view just the same as those who discriminate on any other basis such as race, gender or disability.

Torygraph and Tax Avoiders Alliance “twaddle” about unions

What a lot of old twaddle from the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders’ Alliance about “millions” being (so called) wasted on time off for trade union stewards and safety reps to represent their members.

So every time a rep goes to a meeting with a member or sits down with management to sort out local problems - this is somehow “fund (ing) the activities of the union barons”? How silly.

So what exactly are these “Big Society” Tories clones proposing should happen instead?

a. Workers facing discipline or sickness hearings should be banned from having trade union colleague representing them?
b. safety reps should not be allowed to carry out workplace inspections or investigate accidents ?
c. organisations should not consult elected staff representatives on pay, proposed redundancies or changes to terms and conditions?

This is all politically motivated stuff and nonsense and I suppose in one way we should expect such “tic for tat” attacks on the unions due to our support for Labour. Frankly, I would have thought that they could have come out with something just a little more intelligent to have a go at us.

If you are thinking about efficiency I would suggest the Tories and their allies look into the number of HR personnel in large organisations (and wages paid to the HR directors!) compared to the facility time offered to trade union reps?

The only really sensible quote in the Torygraph article is from UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis about the role of union reps "Far from causing industrial strife, paid facility time has contributed to the lowest levels of strikes on record. In short – trade union facility time makes good business sense."

The TUC blog “Stronger unions” reports on the Tax Avoiders that “The voice of employers is also absent from the report – quite odd given that I assume that the TPA would regard itself as a friend of employers. Is this because only last year the CBI joined with the TUC and BIS to publish a report – Reps in Action – on the role of union reps and stated that it;

“Believes that modern [union] representatives have a lot to give their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them”

The Ultra right wing “teenage scribblers” of the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders' Alliance have (self evidently) no idea whatsoever of industrial relations in the real world.

UNISONactive and Socialist Unity have sensible posts on this as well. Caption from here