You are here: Home » Comment »

The Value of Trade Union Facility Time

July 12, 2012 2:39 pm

Author:

Gavin Edwards

Share this Article

Decent employers know that it makes sense to give trade union reps time off in order to represent workers, negotiate with employers and attend meetings with managers – among a raft of other things. A widespread practise, it was not controversial issue until the hard-right of the Tory Party and various unaccountable right wing pressure groups decided this was an issue ripe for misrepresentation and mischief making. Why call it trade union facility time, when you can call it “taxpayer funding of trade unions”?

Regularly pumping out misinformation about the expense to taxpayers of facility time these right wing groups are using a classic diversionary tactic. Some Tories hope that if they can peddle enough misleading information about trade unions, people will pay less attention to the real source of service cuts and growth-strangling economic policy – the Tory led government itself.

Unfortunately, these extremist views are in danger of influencing Government policy. The Cabinet Office is in the process of producing a policy paper on the use of facility time in the civil service.

The danger is that the Government will fail to hear the sensible voices of employers and trade unionists. The TUC has already published research on the value of trade union facility time , and a new report for UNISON by Nat Cen Social Research – an independent organisation that works for Government departments and operates a research ethics committee system to oversee its work – highlights the particular value of workplace reps in the public sector.

The report, based on three focus groups and 129 written submissions from both trade unionists and employers, revealed that facility time provides the following benefits:

Provision of a ready-made structure for meaningful consultation and negotiation saving organisations money and providing reassurance to members that their views are valued in decision-making.
Facilitation of partnership working with trade unions that improved workplace relations and the reputation of an employer as ‘a good place to work’.
Earlier intervention in relation to complaints, grievances and disciplinaries preventing escalation into more serious problems; thereby saving organisations and taxpayers money by reducing the impact on staff time and possible legal costs.
Better communication to manage change during restructuring and redundancy processes; thereby improving understanding of decisions, minimising negative impacts and reducing the number of working days lost through industrial action.

They also concluded that giving reps time to complete their duties helps them to focus more on their duties, prepare better for discussions with managers and build up relationships of respect trust with managers over time.

The report also shows how facility time can help in certain situations – especially important given the scale of the cuts hitting the public sector. Here is one example form the report describing how facility time minimised the impact of cuts in local authority library services.

“The council had to reduce its staffing numbers due to central government finance settlements. The trade union worked with management to avoid compulsory redundancies, put support packages in to enable redesign of services to protect the frontline; exercised council’s legal requirements without any challenge saving money and upset. Worked with staff to move people into different careers that benefitted the Council and the local community. The trade unions had local knowledge and was responsive to ensure the Council met its requirements without industrial unrest in a very difficult situation”

This important new research gives the lie to the political propaganda put about by the right wing pressure groups. Trade Union facility time is the rock on which constructive workplace engagement is built. It would be folly in the extreme for the Government to do away with it.

Gavin Edwards is a policy officer for Unison

Keith Newman

I’m neither extremist nor right-wing, however I do object to paying the wages of a union rep to do unionised work which negates the need for the union to pay their rep thereby leaving the union with more money in the kitty to donate to the Labour party which then attacks the government whom I support.
- Redshift
  
  Not all unions are affiliated to the Labour Party and more importantly if you have such a big problem with it I don’t suppose you’d mind paying a greater amount of tax for having such crap industrial relations that the taxpayer pays out more in tribunals, lost days from industrial action, less productive staff, etc.
  
  This saves the taxpayer far more money than it saves the unions.
  - Keith Newman
    
    There would be no industrial action if the unions we’re done away with.
    - Alan Giles
      
      “There would be no industrial action if the unions we’re done away with.”
      
      Pretty rich coming from the man who said:
      
      “I’m neither extremist nor right-wing, “.
      
      If some employers behaved more responsibly there would be no need for industrial action. For exampl: Transport for London are going to pay btube train drivers a bonus of £500 for extra duties during the Olympics.
      
      They intyended paying nothing at all to bus drivers, whose workload will also be increased (and also have the extra pressure of traffic jams). TfL bus drivers staged a 24 hour strike, and now TfL are talking to them. What else could the bus drivers have done?
      - treborc
        
        I would not bother he’s obviously a bit of a Tory and Blairite
      - Keith Newman
        
        your point being?
      - Alan Giles
        
        I think his point, Mr Newman, is that this is supposedly a Labour site, and your remarks might be better suited to the Daily Telegraph
        
        The fact remains if you give one set of workers in a company a bonus, you have to give it to another section who dopes the same sort or volume of work.
        
        You might think that the tube drivers shlouldn’t have got a bonus to begin with – I’d like to see you try and take it away from them now – so the bus drivers deserve to be treated equally.
      - KonradBaxter
        
        The Tube drivers were given a bonus to stop them striking – again – in order to gouge more money out of the taxpayer. It was another demonstration of the contempt they hold the rest of London in and their greed.
        
        They are the biggest argument for non unionised / automatic trains and are making it happen.
      - Keith Newman
        
        The definition of Socialism, two wrongs mate a right. No wonder we’re in such a mess!!
      - Alan Giles
        
        “two wrongs MATE a right”
        
        Freudian slip?
      - Keith Newman
        
        I do my job day in day out for the same money whether I’m mad busy or quiet. I don’t ask for extra money, nor would I get it!
      - KonradBaxter
        
        They could have done the job they are already paid to do.
        
        They do not deserve a bonus, neither do the Tube drivers and neither do the execs at these companies either. Just do your job without trying to blackmail and screw over everyone else.
- treborc
  
  I worked for Balfour, did not know the meeting we had once a moth was paid for by taxation, well well you live and learn oh i see your talking about the public sector.
  
  No company has to pay a Union rep, it does for a reason, poor old tax payers
- treborc
  
  Progress chap then
KonradBaxter

Time off? Yes. Full time members of staff doing only / mainly TU work which means less resources for everyone? No.

For example, teachers should teach. Union members who were once teachers but who now receive the same salary to not teach should be paid for by the union not by the taxpayer who is already having to pay for a replacement for one ‘lost’ teacher.

THAT is where the issue is. It was not controversial until people found out that they were paying for two people to do one job.

“Why call it trade union facility time, when you can call it “taxpayer funding of trade unions”?”

Because it is taxpayer funding of trade unions.
- Redshift
  
  FFS. Can you not read?
  
  It INCREASES efficiency because it results in less legal costs, prevention of issues escalating into industrial action or tribunals, better communication with staff, etc.
  
  It isn’t taxpayer funding of trade unions, it is taxpayer funding of effective industrial relations. It is like having an HR team, only a hell of a lot cheaper.
  - treborc
    
    I would not bother you cannot explain this to people unless they have been into a situation like a large company which has Union meeting once a month as did my last employer.
    
    Just wasting your breath
    - KonradBaxter
      
      I have been and I am which informs my stance.
      - treborc
        
        So have I for thirty years, twenty years as a shop steward and then safety rep.
      - Keith Newman
        
        Non-job then!!
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Great role, safety rep. Very worthwhile. Just so long as you were paid for by the union, not the employer. The argument isn’t that you do the job, it’s that the tax payer pays for you when you’re representing the union.
      - treborc
        
        Actually I was paid for by the employer, trained by the Union and used by the company to write the companies safety manual .
        
        Then again most people here are either ex Liberals, swing voters or of course Tories.
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Safety I totally agree with. But who paid your time when you were the union rep, the employer? And was it a state funded organisation?
  - KonradBaxter
    
    Yes I can read Mr Sweary.
    
    I pay for teachers, doctors, nurses etc – not full time union hacks who work on political issues as well as workplace ones. These full time people mean other full time people have to be hired to cover the work they no longer do. We pay for two teachers instead of one.
    
    It is taxpayer funding of TU’s because the taxpayer lets someone not do the job they were hired to do and has to pay for someone else to do it instead. Without the taxpayer funding the replacement then the TU person would have to do their job or pay someone else to do it.
    
    It’s not like having a HR team becasue they are trained professionals. In my experience TU people are often passionate and well meaning but not well trained and with an understanding of employment law no greater than that of a well read layman as well as often having a chip on their shoulder and seeing everyone in any kind of management role as evil and any change as bad.
    
    TU’s are a good thing but there does need to be a debate about whether the taxpayer should pay the salaries of their staff. Facility time is fine. But not when it is someones full time job paid for by the taxpayer with no debate.
Robert_Crosby

Almost all union work involves sweeping up the mess left behind by hopeless or rotten managers and working constructively with decent ones that you can find. Anyone who thinks different – and who doesn’t see proportionate and sensibly agreed facility time as an investment rather than a problem – has never tried their hand being a workplace representative or steward.
- Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
  
  Fine, let them sweep up. But make sure they’re paid for by the union!
  - Robert_Crosby
    
    You don’t get it, do you? The whole point is that if you recognise unions (you know… those things we celebrate in Eastern Europe and in North Africa??), you have to endow workplace union representatives with some facilities to make negotiations and representation of members’ interests meaningful. If the government wants to start interfering in this, then they had better introduce some draconian measures against rogue employers and personnel sections as a deterrent too.
    I have always left members to decide whether I do a decent job as a rep, but I’ll tell you for a fact that I’ve spoken to numerous Personnel Directors (while doing the job) who have readily welcomed union involvement and have conceded that they have idiot managers within their organisations. If an employer thinks that facility time is being abused, they should refer to their facility agreement and resolve any problems with full-time union officials – who are by and large far more sensible than many of the employers they deal with.
    - KonradBaxter
      
      They have the facilities to do so and are given time. This is all good.
      
      What people don’t like is the taxpayer having to pay for an extra teacher / doctor / nurse / etc to make up for a member of staff who is now missing from the workplace and spending their time on other matters rather than the job they are / were employed to do.
      
      Is it interference to ask that people do the job they are paid by the taxpayer to do?
      
      What unions and others are trying to do is confuse facility time with full time union staffers paid for by the taxpayer – and of course they are as this could cost the unions more money, prestige, power, members and influence if their taxpayer funded full timers haave to go back to their jobs again. Make people think that this is about giving no time for union work as opposed to cutting out those situations where we have to hire two people to do one job.
      
      Abuse of facility time is a different issue to full time members of staff paid for by the taxpayer to spend all their time on union / political work.
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you are generalising a bit too much?
        
        I have met a handful of people on full or more or less full facility time, but they have been people who have been responsible for co-ordination of negotiations with managers and representation of members and member casework across NUMEROUS sites within an employer. I have met teacher union reps for example, who carry out this kind of work across very wide geographical areas. Surely the issue is not necessarily how much facility time any one person gets, but the amount of facility time reps as a whole get across the whole of the employer’s operations, the extent of those reps’ obligations and what they do with the time.
        
        As has already been said, there are already means available for employers to test the use of facility time. I’d also say that no union official I know will ever turn a blind eye to misuse of facility time by any rep. They expect reps to use the time for the benefit of members.
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Robert,
        
        None of this issue is about misuse of facility time. It’s all about who pays for people doing union work. Should it be the state or the union who pays for officias on union business. personally I say the union.
        
        Representation of members and member casework is union work. That should not be done by employees of a state organisation. It should be paid for by the union.
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        What about where managers have screwed up because they don’t know what they’re doing – or worse, because they are bullying or victimising employees? I have always told members straight when I think they’re in the wrong, but there are always plenty of cases where it’s managers who are at fault. In any event, many cases go to full-time officials – and you can rest assured that the union pays in full.
      - John Dore
        
        Who decides the managers screwed up or if the employee is at fault?
        Who decides if their is bullying?
        In most cases their is little evidence and its the word of the Employee v the manager.
        
        all shades of grey. But the point stands, the Union pays.
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        Yes, it may be hard (sometimes impossible to prove), but I have seen countless cases of managers who habitually bully, abuse, harass and generally discriminate against some staff. It tends to be the same ones and they don’t usually get dealt with by their managers.
        
        Most will accept that this kind of thing goes off. So if everyone (often including Personnel) knows that these people are breaking the law and doing so knowingly, why should the union pay. Unscrupulous managers who have a problem with unions might see it as an incentive to bleed them dry, don’t you think?
    - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
      
      Wrong, You don’t get it. I can accept, just, that some employers find it useful to have union reps. But that’s not what all this is about.
      
      This isn’t about letting union reps have time off. What it is about is who pays for their time, their wages, expenses, pension when on union duties.
      
      Bringing in comments about Africa is a complete red herring. Here in the UK it is totally unnecessary to provide union reps paid facilities and time off. Union reps and their facilities hould be paid for by the union, out of the subs the union members pay. Thats what subs are for surely? If not that then what are they for? This is just a cheap union subsidy.
      
      What pisses many people off is seeing people employed as teachers, nurses etc, acting as full, or part time union officials whislt being paid the be a nurse, teacher, etc.
      
      You’re creating a srraw man if you are accusing these proposals of trying to limit union time off. The proposals are about who pays for them.
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        Of course it’s relevant to mention North Africa. The government here that I guess you support trumpets trade unionists who have taken part in uprisings that have resulted in despots being toppled.
        
        As I’ve said, there are mechanisms available to employers and trade unions to resolve disputes over facility time. Very few trade unionists are ‘Bob Crow-types’, whatever you may think!
        
        Finally, why not temper your language a little? Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing, but using unnecessary foul language is another.
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Robert,
        
        For you I will withdraw the p*sses off bit. I can get a little heated and will accept your comment.
        
        However, as far as i am concerned you comment about North Africa is irrelevent as far as a discussion that is purely about the allocation of UK trade union activity. As far as i am aware Frances maus’s proposals do not propose changing the cost centreew for trade union activities in North Africa.
        
        Here in the UK we have rich trade unions fuelled by members subs. Why should tax payers pay double for something I see as should reasonably be paid for by the trades unions and their members via their subscriptions.
        
        None of the proposals do anything to limit trade union activity in any way. Please show me where that is stated in the proposals. All that is being challanged is who pays for that activity.
        
        Personally I expect the teachers my taxes help to pay for should teach. If they wish to take part in any union activities, for whatever reason then that time and resource should be paid for by the unions and their members.
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        No problem. I do understand the serious – and to an extent valid – point that is being made. Because I’m a strong believer in trade unionism (including using strikes as a weapon if and when it is necessary), I get annoyed if I ever see anyone associated with a union misbehaving or abusing facility time.
        
        All I’d say is it that the issues are not quite as straightforward as some on here think. Much more importantly still, people in authority and the media should stop vilifying trade unionists… we are very much back to the days of “the enemy within” right now. Let’s debate this by all means, but not within such a poisonous climate. It’s facts and evidence that counts.
        
        Best wishes.
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Robert. I don’t think many people are vilifying trade unionists in all this. It’s just that a large swathe of the population resent payingfor them. Given that trade unionists are funding political parties whilst atthe same time being subsidised in their work
      - Robert_Crosby
        
        Francis Maude and his chums are doing exactly that. The whole background narrative is one of them encouraging people who aren’t unionised (and perhaps think they’ve “lost out” in some way) to turn on unions for defending the pay and conditions their members have got.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Your point might have more weight were it not for the fact that the number of people you’re complaining about was utterly trivial. For 2009/10, the number of full-time reps in the Home Office was 12 out of 481, or, by my reckoning, 2.5%.
http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

I pay my taxes to fund the Government’s work. I pay my Union subs to fund the Union’s work.

Unionised workplaces are generally a force for good, and members pay a fee because the work of a union costs money, and the protections unions give you are worth paying for. But I want my teachers to teach, my nurses to nurse and my policemen to police. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
John Dore

Thanks for that, its been an OK day but it started to rain and I was feeling down. I just PMSL at that piece.
Bill Lockhart

” The TUC has already published research on the value of trade union facility time”

Get away. Whatever next- the Pope extolling the benefits of Catholicism? Ursine approval of sylvan defecation?
- Brumanuensis
  
  How about Channel 4? http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-does-cameron-have-the-stomach-to-hit-the-unions-where-it-hurts/8668
  - KonradBaxter
    
    This does not support the concept or reality of full time taxpayer funded union staff.
    
    Support from and for the union? Yes. Time off to do union work to benefit all? Yes. Tax payer funded full time members of staff who can either help colleagues or be political agitators? No.
    
    “…The then Labour government’s researchers actually put the notional cost to the public sector of paid time off for unionists far higher than the TaxPayer’s Alliance does, at £230m to £243m. Include the private sector and that rises to a total of between £408m and £431m to society.”
    - Brumanuensis
      
      Funny how you neglected to quote the next paragraph:
      
      “But they also say the benefits that flow from union representation could be anywhere from £476m to £1.1bn. That’s a reflection of savings made from fewer tribunals, sick days, accidents and dismissals, as well as higher productivity”.
      
      Your first two paragraphs make no sense. Do you even understand what facility time actually is? It’s in the article:
      
      “Union reps have a legal right to get “reasonable” time off work to do certain activities on behalf of their union, without having their pay docked.
      
      These include negotiating with employers over pay and conditions, representing workers in grievance and disciplinary procedures, providing training, doing health and safety work and attending training sessions themselves.
      
      There’s no legal right for a union activist to get paid while he or she takes time off to vote in a strike ballot or attend a political rally”.
derek Lancaster

Get rid of the unions, not really needed in the modern world. Everything unions have ever wanted is now enshrined in common/case and european law. Nowerdays they just like to strike to flex their muscle, get greedy un-earned bonuses and perks cause trouble, and moan.

Take the bus workers wanting to strike during the olympics. Will their hours be longer. NO. Will their routs be longer. NO. Will they be stopping at more bus stops. NO. Will they be having more occupied seats. YES.
So give Mr greedy bus driver £500 or he’ll ruin olympics.
TFL should turn around a say fine here is £500, but whenever the bus is less busy you get less pay. Thats fair right?

Unions dont live in economic reality.

With the many millions in their kitty I would love to see them buy a struggling business and see how they’d run it. (In to the ground most likely).

What was the unions response when gordo brown raided private sector pentions. Answer: they gave millions to him to make sure the guy had another 5 years in office.
Thanks but no thanks.
derek Lancaster

Get rid of the unions, not really needed in the modern world. Everything unions have ever wanted is now enshrined in common/case and european law. Nowerdays they just like to strike to flex their muscle, get greedy un-earned bonuses and perks cause trouble, and moan.

Take the bus workers wanting to strike during the olympics. Will their hours be longer. NO. Will their routs be longer. NO. Will they be stopping at more bus stops. NO. Will they be having more occupied seats. YES.
So give Mr greedy bus driver £500 or he’ll ruin olympics.
TFL should turn around a say fine here is £500, but whenever the bus is less busy you get less pay. Thats fair right?

Unions dont live in economic reality.

With the many millions in their kitty I would love to see them buy a struggling business and see how they’d run it. (In to the ground most likely).

What was the unions response when gordo brown raided private sector pentions. Answer: they gave millions to him to make sure the guy had another 5 years in office.
Thanks but no thanks.
- treborc
  
  Lets see fairness…. no…
  
  Everyone wants a successful Olympic Games this summer and this action
  is the wrong approach at a time when London is preparing to welcome
  visitors from around the world to the capital.”
  Deals have been announced giving workers at Heathrow Express
  £700, Network Rail £500, Docklands Light Railway £900, London Overground
  £600 and London Underground at least £850, said Unite.
  
  The last London-wide bus strike took place in 1982.
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18461358
  
  Oh yes and the boss who runs the bus company will only get a bonus for the games of lets see…. £80,000
  
  And, according to Mr Kavanagh, even the managing director of surface
  transport at Transport for London, Leon Daniels, with a basic salary
  £234,000, is in line to earn an Olympics bonus of £80,000Other directors will get the £500 for the extra pressure of working in offices, but not the people at the sharp end.
  
  if bull sh*t was gold you be worth a mint
  - derek Lancaster
    
    No ones should get a bonus during the olympics be it boss or driver, unless they had actually put in extra work. If the boss had extra workload to make the the games run more smoothly then fine. I have no problem with him getting extra cash. If not then that money is unearned and he should not have it. So on that point I am in complete agreement with you.
    
    But tell me, are the Heathrow Express, Network Rail, Docklands Light Railway workers etc going to be working longer or harder during the games? Well???
    
    This so called bonus is little more than protection money so the olympics wont be ruined. I think you can call what the unions are doing RACKETEERING.
    
    You quote directors pay, but fail to mention the six figure salaries union barrons award themselves. Hypocrits.
    - Alan Giles
      
      Ignorance is bliss, I suppose, Mr Lancaster.
      
      There will be millions of extra people in London for the Olympics – there will be bigger traffic jams (as if they are not bad enough already) and as a consequence bus drivers, for one example, will be working well past their scheduled hours. In my own area because of the number of roadworks many of our bus drivers already have to work beyond their shift end – and I am on the edge of outer London.
      
      So of course the answer to your question “But tell me, are the Heathrow Express, Network Rail, Docklands Light Railway workers etc going to be working longer or harder during the games? Well???” is – YES they will be working quite a lot longer. Alright?????
      - Hugh
        
        As I understand it, they’re paid hourly and would in any case get overtime. They’re asking for £500 on top.
      - derek Lancaster
        
        Wow the f****rs are more greedy than I thought. Thanks for the info.
      - Alan Giles
        
        If you recall, TfL gave the tube drivers a bonus of £500. It is therefore understandable that bus drivers, who have just as much responsibility, should get the same.
        
        Just think of the sort of obnoxious passengerrs (like Mr Lancaster) thjey have to deal with every day
      - Hugh
        
        Sorry, I must have misunderstood; it seemed before that you were arguing the payments were justified due to the longer hours.
      - derek Lancaster
        
        Oh right, so working longer is in your opinion sitting on your arse in a traffic jam, I must tell my boss that one. (so mr manager I was late for work because of a jam, your still gonna pay me for those hours right? In fact pay me for those hours… And give me a bonus too
        
        And how exactly will road works effect the river (made of water not cement) the railways (no tracks in the middle of the road last time I checked), the underground. (which is err… UNDER the so called road works)
        
        I think you have proven my point. Want to run a successful business? Stay away from Unions….. Before you reply, name as many world class companies that are unionised??
      - Alan Giles
        
        You sound about 16 Mr Lancaster (use of the word “ar*e” – how clever!). The driver has responsibility for the passengers. Would you prefer he just get up out his cab when his shift ends and leaves them stranded?
        
        Obviously the railways will be carrying extra passengers. To prove how jejune you are, you darg the river into it. Well, I suppose a drowning man will clutch at straws.
        
        I daresay the river won’t be jammed but (just between you and me) you do not get that many people travelling to work on the river.
        
        Why is it people like you have to revert to course langauge and bumptiousness just to try to get your point across?. You sound a very resentful, jealous and disapppointed little man, if I may say so.
      - derek Lancaster
        
        I’m resentful that my taxes pay for lazy workers who get paid more, have more time off retire ealier and still complain. Just because they are part of a club that can blackmail a government.
        
        I’m bitter because I have no pention becasuse of Mr brown. and said lazy workers still complain about a pention I could never have.
        
        I’m dissapointed that a great olympic event could be ruined by lazy greed workers.
        
        But I guess I shouldn’t be shocked. I was was brought up with a work ethic unlike some people.
        
        Before you reply, name as many world class companies that are unionised??
      - Alan Giles
        
        You are resentful of “lazy workers”. A bus driver isn’t responsible for traffic jams he has to sit in (as part of his job). You would resent him even more if he were jobless and claiming JSA.
        
        You are bitter about your pension arrangements – fair enough, but why be bitter about fellow workers who had no access to Gordon Brown.
        
        You are disappointed about the Olympics perhaps not being the rip-roaring success Sebastion Coe envisages.
        
        I am sure your disappointment is as nothing compared to all those small businessmen who were forced out of their workshops and factories in the E15 and E10 areas under the Compulsory Purchase scheme, many of whom failed to find suitable low budget property to rent, because compensation was small and rents throughout East London (thanks to the Olympics) rocketted.
        
        I know of somebody who had run a small company in Stratford, it had been there 60+ years and his father started the business, but thanks to the Olympics the company ceased trading in 2010 because there just wasn’t another property available for their business for a reasonable rent.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Well, Tesco and USDAW have very good relations. Most major steel companies have fairly close relations with the trade unions, usually in order to improve work safety.
        
        ‘Oh right, so working longer is in your opinion sitting on your arse in a traffic jam’.
        
        Well, when your job is to drive a bus. Yes.
- derek
  
  U got to be joking man! are you Norman storming Tebbit? zee fruit in zee nut! lets give a private security firm 300m to under employ under train and put the whole Olympics in danger of a security mishap. While everyone else has to work their behind off . Well we’ll see if any driver breaches the driving code by driving over their allocated 4.5 hours without a break?
Pingback: Tax Funded Union Research Backs Tax Funding of Unions - Guy Fawkes' blog
Voltaire

The article tries to make the case for the principle of facility time, arguing (or rather pointing to other people’s arguments) about the value that such activities can bring to a company.

But that misses the point entirely.

The argument isn’t about the value that reps on facility time can add. The argument is about the sheet scale of facility time being taken. You can fully support the notion of employers paying for SOME facility time whilst at the same time thinking that the amount of facility time taken in the public sector is excessive.

Pretending that to question the AMOUNT of facility time taken is the same as questioning the whole principle of facility time is dishonest and disingenuous. But that is the heart of the argument above (and of the unions’ case).
- Brumanuensis
  
  So for, say, the Home Office, what percentage of the staffing budget is taken up by facility-time related payments?
  - Voltaire
    
    LOL Trying to play the percentage game, eh? In other words, trying to justify pissing millions up the wall on the basis that it’s only a small percentage of the overall budget. Whatever the percentage, millions of pounds is still millions of pounds and we (the taxpayer) have to pay for it. It doesn’t just grow on the magic money tree.
    
    If you want to play games with numbers, why not play that other favourite game – how many nurses or policemen could you pay for with the millions spent on facility time?
    - Brumanuensis
      
      It does raise the question of why you’re obssessing about facility time though, compared to other potential ’savings’. Do you have a genuine interest in fiscal rectitude or are you just looking for an excuse to bash trade unions? (I suspect the latter).
      
      I note you haven’t bothered to present any actual evidence to support your contention that facility time is currently being taken excessively.
      
      Answer to the first question: about 0.6% by my reckoning.
John Dore

As Ed said, leave the politics to him and the unions need to look after their members.
- treborc
  
  John Prescott said it all really:
  The Labour Party stands on the verge of bankruptcy. We
  are more than £20m in debt, facing a long-term decline in membership and
  a crisis in funding.
  We are only kept alive by the Herculean work of party staff and
  volunteers, trade union contributions, high-value donations and the
  goodwill of the Co-op bank.
Brumanuensis

You’d never guess that a Conservative government introduced facility time would you?

Latest

Europe Featured
You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

By Douglas Alexander

Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]
Read more →
News Seats and Selections
Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]
Read more →
Comment
Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

By Mike Ion

Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]
Read more →
News Seats and Selections
Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]
Read more →
Comment Seats and Selections Unions
Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

By Paul Wheeler

It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good. But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]
Read more →