Union salaries

I WOULD add two factors to John Birkett’s criticisms (Letters, 5 November) of trade union attitudes: leader elitism and public subsidy.

Union leadership can’t be more than a part-time post, so why do many of them earn several times as much as their full-time members?

No fewer than 37 of them are paid over £100,000 a year, which would be the unions’ own business if it all came from members’ subscriptions. However, unions receive massive public subsidies: in 2009-10 this amounted to £18.3 million from public sector organisations, along with £67.5m in paid staff time.

In the same year, a full-time equivalent of 2,493 public sector employees worked for unions at taxpayers’ expense. This should surely be financed by the unions involved? There is also the matter of union political party donations: if any part of this derives from the taxpayer element of union funds, it means that people like myself, with no connection to either unions or parties, are subsidising both.

The proud tradition of trade unionism grew out of cynical manipulation by uncaring employers: there is now a clear danger of a measure of role reversal.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent, East Lothian