Tag Archives: unions

A new Unions policy from the Tories?

by John Ritchie

The Torygraph reports that their political namesake is considering reducing the “power of the unions.”

There’s no real question that this is simple knee-jerk opportunism on the Tories’ part.  We’ve had a teachers’ strike (whose justifications were admittedly dubious) and a strike of chemical workers (whose justifications seem perfectly commendable), and Osborne is trying to craft a winter-of-discontent image of unions holding the country to ransom.  Pathetic, George: and the Daily Mail-style scare tactics aren’t befitting even of the current Tory frontbench.

What is slightly more scary is the tone of this message and the exposure it gives to the Tories’ hypocrisy.  Only this morning, Cameron was telling us how he was only worried for the poor people of the country in opposing the abolition of the 10p tax rate.  Nonsense.  In a climate where the poor are being squeezed whilst the rich are getting better off (one of the legacies of the current government of which I am less proud), workers need the protection of the trades unions – they do not need yet further erosions to their powers.

In another blindening dose of inconsistency, when it comes to the blame game between employer and union, Osbourne believes the unions are to blame and need to be cut down (cf. Grangemouth), yet when it comes to Civil Servants and the employer happens to be Gordon Brown, can you guess who is to blame?

Striking was not the right way to tackle the issue, he said, adding that the “real culprit” was Gordon Brown.  By that reasoning, who was to blame for the miners strikes of the 80s?

… the unions, I guess.

What makes three thousand people take to the streets?

by Brigidjones

 Because I am not at all bitter about being stuck in my house with an exam in the morning and no one to watch Super Tuesday coverage with, I am going to blog about something entirely un-Super Tuesday related.

 So, yeah, three thousand people. That’s how many council staff flooded Birmingham’s Victoria Square today in protest over the new pay scheme being introduced by Birmingham city council. The issue seems to be a tricky one; while the pay shake-up is designed to bring balance to the gender pay gap by valuing male and female jobs equally (hurrah) allegations abound that it will not in fact achieve that. Also, and highly significantly, many staff are set to lose life-changing amounts (up to twelve grand in some cases).

 The issue has been dogged with controversy, not least the binmen pay deal, which was accepted against union advice. It has also been alleged that the council has long since spent the money set aside to neutralise the pay cuts on other things.

 What has really interested me here is the position of the unions. As the Birmingham Post points out, less than 1/4 of members voted in the strike ballot and the binmen rejected union advice… Still, three thousand people took to the streets today.

 Which is the number needed for a quorate referendum in my own union this week, the Guild of Students. I wonder how this union will fare? Since there is no money at stake here I fear far less well… but I hope I’m wrong.