Funding union reps ‘costing taxpayers millions of pounds’

By SCOTT MACNAB
Published on Tuesday 24 January 2012 12:11

MILLIONS of pounds of pounds in taxpayers’ cash is being used to fund the work of union reps in workplaces across the country, figures obtained by The Scotsman show.

Union leaders insist their presence in the workplace is saving employers about £700 million a year across the UK, through better trained and more productive workforces.

But the money for reps across Scotland’s public bodies has been described as “unacceptable and antiquated” by opposition leaders, who insist unions should be paying for their own activities.

“It dates back to the days when trade unions were very dominant and enforced their views on the rest of us without asking the question first,” Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone said yesterday.

“When trade union members jobs are under threat due to the lack of resources available, it’s unacceptable that public money should be going into that.”

About £2.8m was paid out in 2010-11 across Scotland’s public sector to fund union facility time, which sees staff work for their unions instead of on their normal jobs, a freedom of information request has shown.

Almost £2m is being paid out by councils alone, according the figures. The biggest payout was in Edinburgh where 13 staff work on facility duty at a cost of £409,000. Across the public sector there were 73 reps who spent all their time in the workplace devoted to union duties.

A full-time union rep on a council could spend a day negotiating with senior council officers and councillors on behalf of the thousands of union members in each authority.

Discussions over pay and conditions, the market testing of council services and advising the council on equality and employment matters, are among the other issues they could deal with. They could also be supporting union members who are being made redundant, or facing a disciplinary, or who have raised whistleblower-type concerns.

But Mr Johnstone added: “I would like to see the trades unions justify the role and if they can, volunteer to take a significant role in the funding of it.

“At the moment it’s absolutely essential that we get the maximum return from the limited public money that’s available. I don’t see this as being an effective use of that resource.”

But a report issued today by the TUC finds that the presence of unions in workplaces could be saving employers in the private and public sectors as much £701m a year – or £2m a day.

It says that in workplaces where there are union reps negotiating on behalf of their colleagues, there are significant cost savings to be had. More productive and better trained workforces, along with fewer cases taken to employment tribunals are among the benefits. Staff are also less likely to leave, meaning less is spent on recruitment.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “The highly exaggerated and wholly inaccurate figures being bandied around are supposedly borne out of a desire to save money. In reality they are nothing more than a thinly-veiled attack on unions.”

Comments

There are 11 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

11

samcoldstream

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM

The Federal Government in Germany funds trades union representation in the workplace and has done so since Adenauer's time. Even after crippling reunification, the federal Government retained this policy. Every German company has work councils which include trades union reps. Historically, Germany has had the lowest rate of industrial disputes in the EU. (Source: CIA World Factbook)

• Report Unsuitable

10

Tintock Pete

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 04:31 PM

Yes the unions saved employers a fortune by denying women equal pay.

• Report Unsuitable

9

Tintock Pete

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 03:13 PM

Bob needs an office, secretary and loads of admin and postage as well.

• Report Unsuitable

8

A Friend of Fernando Poo

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 03:09 PM

While unions have a few full-time workers, most activists are just people working as union reps extra to their jobs. Facilities time pays the bosses of those people something in return for their taking some work time to do union work. If we didn't do it, employers would be forced to do consultation with their workforces anyway and they'd have to do it with workers individually. Since few of those workers would use their own time to educate themselves about the detailed workings of HR, pensions, disability law and so on, it could take a bit of time (out of working time) to bring them all up to speed on the consultations. That's what people mean when they say union representation is easier for the employers and saves money all round.

• Report Unsuitable

7

Bourneville

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 02:04 PM

Of course, the cost's sort of twice as much. Since if you're paying Bob the Union Rep's salary while he does union work, since he has a meaningful job, you can't leave that job un-done. So you have to employ a second person to do Bob's job too.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Tintock Pete

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:36 PM

East Dunbartonshire council funds three full time reps. Unison, EIS and Unite. The £2m is probably just their salaries and not the actual true cost overall.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Andrew B

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:29 PM

For the TUC report - http:www.tuc.org.uktucfiles206FacilityTimeSeparatingFactfromFiction.pdf

• Report Unsuitable

4

Bourneville

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

If you're working for the union you should be paid by the union, seems pretty simple ... not as though they don't take in plenty money in union subs?

• Report Unsuitable

3

Velv

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 09:52 AM

While I think most Union reps are too full of their own importance, £2.8m is an insignificant sum in the grand scheme of things, and since the law requires employers to permit time off for Union activity, what would the loss of productivity equate to if dedicated union officials weren't paid for. It is however public money going to certain public sector unions, where unions that cover the private sector need to fund their own reps. Lies, damned lies, and government statistics.

• Report Unsuitable

2

Hector the Lessor

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 02:55 AM

Comment removed by moderator

1

nightwatchman

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Comment removed by moderator

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.