Like many of the TPA’s ‘reports’ it is heavy on statistics presented as revelations (despite many already being in the public domain) that it then deploys in any way that best serves its ideology.   So, in this report we have the present state of the public finances, the proposed cuts in public spending, the role of unions reps and political activities of unions all rolled together and set alongside the costs to public sector organisations – government departments, local authorities, NHS Trusts and government quangos – of the time off given to union reps to represent members and negotiate with management.

As is usual with the TPA, it’s a somewhat one-sided report and the costs of facility time are based on calculations of costs that, to be fair, I’ll describe as having been rounded up somewhat. So, they will gladly tell you that the cost of union facility time to Hammersmith and Fulham Council is just short of £200,000 per year – but won’t mention that this represents an incredibly small proportion of that local authority’s total expenditure, which annually is in the region of £180 million.  The same applies to the Ministry of Defence’s facility time bill of £4 million against a total departmental expenditure of £44 BILLION.

And rather than representing a cost and drag on efficiency, the reality of course is quite different – unions save employers money. Union reps in private and public sector organisations help make workplaces run more smoothly by sorting out problems before they start to reduce productivity and by challenging managers to do better by communicating better and treating staff well, rather than relying on command and control. Official statistics suggest unions reps save UK employers up to £43 million a year by avoiding the need for employers to fight cases taken to employment tribunals. And the time that union safety reps spend helping employers make workplaces safer and less hazardous places to work help save society as a whole up to £371 million through reducing the number of working days lost to workplace injury and up to £207 million a year by preventing days lost from people becoming ill at work.

An impartial reader, noting the TPA’s call for unions to cover the costs of their own representatives and campaigning work may think this reasonable but would, if they thought this, also probably be unaware of unions having their own (self-funded) full time officers, organisers, policy staff and researchers all of whom support the work of reps (the training of whom training is funded by unions).  In addition, they would probably be also unaware of union political funds – funded from member subscriptions – that they are legally obliged to establish (with members consent) for political campaigning.

In its determination to make an ideological point about the ‘activities’ of union reps in respect of political campaigning, the TPA quickly skates past an admission in its report that there is NO OBLIGATION for employers to give union reps PAID time off for activities – defined in the ACAS Code of Practice as attending meetings to discuss internal union business, attending workplace meetings to discuss union negotiations with employers, meeting with union officers to discuss workplace issues, voting in union elections and accessing the services of Union Learning representatives – and instead makes a huge assumption that most reps get time of for activities, and just in case you hadn’t already got their point, they come up with their own much more political definition of what these activities constitute.

And oddly for a report that purports to be about what reps get up to there is no properly researched or referenced mention of what reps actually do.  The reality here is that the overwhelming majority of the time taken by most reps is used to represent and advise their colleagues at work and negotiate with their employer.  But clearly this doesn’t fit with the TPA’s preconceptions and prejudices.   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 that “modern [union] representatives have a lot to give their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them”?

Reps in Action – TUC/CBI/BIS report on the role of modern union reps.

Whilst paid union officers are well catered for in respect of development programmes in relation to both organising and wider subject areas – via the TUC’s Union Professional Development programme, the TUC Organising Academy and of course Leading Change – there is currently no single distinct programme available for senior lay reps that  covers  matters related to development of innovative organising and recruitment strategies, use of resources, campaigning and work with unions in the  EU and globally.  The Lay Leadership Development Programme is designed to fill this gap.

Module dates and themes for the inaugural programme are;

• Module 1: Challenges, Strategy and Resources – January 20 & 21, 2011
• Module 2: Effective Organising & Campaigning – March 24 & 25
• Module 3:  Global Organising – May 5 & 6

Nominations from unions and supported applications from appropriate senior lay representatives are welcomed.  Additional details about the programme are available from Carl Roper, TUC National Organiser at croper@tuc.org.uk

• Help unions to engage difficult to organise segments of the workforce, particularly through the learning agenda
• Enhance the capacity of unions to achieve their core objectives, most notably around service delivery
• Project positive images of trade unionism in various ways, and

The report also identifies the factors that need to be present if union community engagement strategies are to be successful.  These include:

• Trust and flexibility – on the part of both unions and community organisations
• Leadership – in providing direction to community-based strategies
• Involvement of union reps and activists – whose own networks can serve to create new community links and expand existing ones

The report argues that the time is ripe for greater community engagement by British trade unions given that on the one hand, the Big Society agenda may allow unions to promote their unique position between the community and the labour market and on the other, community-based strategies will be crucial to the success of campaigns against imminent public sector cuts, determining whether unions can successfully win the hearts and minds of the broader public.

If you would like a copy of the full report, please send me an email at croper@tuc.org.uk

This is a line of questioning that fits with attempts by some of the more extreme wings of what we’ll call ‘Conservative’ thinking, to use the reaction to the financial crisis and recession as an opportunity to realise long held ideological objectives in respect of the size and role of the state and public services.  The questioning and critique of employer provided facilities to union representatives that we’ve seen over recent months in the press and from groups such as the Tax Payers Alliance (which we must of course always remember is NOT actually an alliance of taxpayers) forms part of this,

Anyway, back to Priti Patel’s 67 questions.  The answers to most of them will be published in September when Parliament returns from its summer break, however from the answers received so far, if Priti’s concern about facility time is based on the cost to the tax payer then she can relax.

For instance the Department of Energy and Climate Change spent between £35k and £41k on the salary costs of a full time trade union side secretary out of total departmental expenditure of £2.1 billion.   Similarly small proportions of total expenditure are spent in Local Government where for example, an authority like Hammersmith and Fulham spent £300K on facility time out of a total expenditure of £198million.

What of course Priti Patel didn’t ask about was the value of the work that union reps do and the benefits that accrue for union members and employers.  If she had, she would have discovered that the benefits far outweigh the costs as evidenced in both the TUC’s ‘Recovery from the Recession’ Touchstone Pamphlet and ‘Reps in Action’ a publication highlighting the value of union reps published jointly by the TUC and the CBI.

Finally, the final cost to the tax payer of answering Priti’s 67 questions – which, given that union reps in workplaces were there is a recognised union are legally entitled to facility time, were essentially about how government departments comply with the law – will come out at around £10,000 (nearly £150 a question).

Carl Roper is TUC National Organiser

The judges – IPA Director Nita Clarke, freelance journalist Gaby Hinsliff, Liberal Conspiracy Editor Sunny Hundal, FBU Head of Communications and Research Duncan Milligan and Chief Executive of Grandparents Plus Sam Smethers – were really impressed with the range and vibrancy of submissions this year, and they had to make some tough calls as the standard of entries was so high.

The USDAW magazine Arena scooped the coveted best journal/magazine prize, with its outstanding balance between union news and giving vital information to members. The extremely readable pieces in UNISON’s U magazine and the excellent format of Nautilus’ Telegraph newspaper also won high praise from the judges.

CWU fought off stiff competition to top the best campaign category with its Keep the Post Public campaign, an imaginative campaign that used visual aids well, and UCU’s Stand up for Research campaign was highly commended.

UCU hit the top spot in the best one-off publication category with The Holocaust: It Happened! Never Again! – a well presented educational wall chart with strong visuals and clear expression. CSP won the best feature award, just ahead of NASUWT, for Party Without Pain – an amusing article with a serious message about the number and variety of injuries at major festivals and events.

The FDA won the best use of a photo or illustration award for a detailed and eye-catching cartoon by David Simonds about unemployed professionals using job centres, while the CWU and ATL were also applauded for their entries.

The best website award was picked up by Nautilus, for its smartly produced site and PCS topped the best use of electronic media category with Motions Online: Submission of Motions for the 2010 Conferences.

It is clear unions take campaigning very seriously – whether it’s on specific issues of immediate and direct relevance to their members or of wider social concern – and we hope this year’s Award winners inspire another great year for union campaigns and communications. Keep up the good work!

Confirmed speakers are Frances O’Grady (TUC Deputy General Secretary), Sally Hunt (UCU General Secretary), Dave Prentis (Unison General Secretary) Mehdi Hasan (Senior Editor, Politics at the New Statesman) and Christine Payne (Equity General Secretary).

In addition the event will feature workshops arranged by Unions 21 and Compass.  To register for the event email Debbie Cleary at the TUC on dcleary@tuc.org.uk

Surely in our democracy, any organisation based in the UK should be allowed to deploy its resources in whatever way it thinks will further its particular aims and objectives.  Employers have their own financial links to political parties and influence policy via organisations such as the CBI and the Institute and Directors – and unions do the same kind of thing. The issue is the system of regulation that governs how contributions are made and how transparent and open this process is and how this then allows the public to make their own judgements about the policies that political parties come up with.

Fifteen of the fifty-nine TUC affiliate unions also affiliate to the Labour Party.  It’s easy to find out who they are and why they support the Labour party – it’s all there on their website www.unionstogether.org.uk.  In addition, the mechanism that allows them to use member’s subs to fund the party is heavily regulated.  To be able to spend ANY money on ANY form of political campaigning (not just funding the Labour party) unions have to ballot members on setting up a political fund and any decision on affiliation to a political party would also be subject to reference to the membership.  Even after a union has affiliated, individual members then have the right to opt out of the political levy, i.e. they have a choice as to whether or not a proportion of their subs are given to the party the union is affiliated to.

This regulation, which incidentally is much heavier than that governing political contributions made by private companies, strikes me as justification for saying that trade union money is, perhaps with the exception of the subs that individual party members pay, the cleanest money in politics.  We know who is donating and why they are doing it and the very fact Michael Gove was able to fill his speech with details of how much unions have contributed to the party is proof of the transparency.

But I guess what is most worrying about Gove’s speech is how it betrays a deep antipathy towards trade unions.  He gives the impression that he believes unions are anti-ambition and against people getting on in life and can only act as a drag on anything ‘progressive’.   But if that’s really what he thinks, Mr Gove really needs to get up to date.  Yesterday, the TUC published its latest Touchstone pamphlet “The Road to Recovery – how effective unions can help build the economy’ which highlights not only the benefits that union membership gives to individual employees but also the broader economic and social benefits that effective unions bring to workplaces.  These include BETTER long-term employment relations, reduced staff turnover and a positive impact on the effects of workplace change or innovation.

Over 6 million people know about the work of modern progressive unions in the UK.  They appreciate and recognise the value of our 200,000 union reps who as well as assisting them when they face individual problems,  give them opportunities to update their skills and work to provide them with healthier, safer, greener workplaces.  They know the real work and value of unions in the 21^st century – it’s for others to catch up with them.

It’s an excellent production that is right up to date with current organising priorities and practices and is relevant and should be of interest to all reps, officers and organisers regardless of where they live or work.  Thanks go to two great trade unionists, Ann and Dave McCall who produce ’Union Hour’ and to all the reps and organisers who took part in this special edition.  

You can listen to this edition at the link below;

North West TUC ‘Union Hour’ – Organising special edition

The training included sessions on the union organising challenge, employment relations, unions and politics and European and international trade unionism.  Leading each session was an academic or expert in the subject area being discussed.  The course was a pilot for Prospect who may now consider the feasibility of rolling the course out and also for us at the TUC as we look at whether there is scope for developing a programme for union reps that is similar to the Leading Change programme that we run for senior paid officials.

The feedback from the Prospect reps was really positive and I got a real sense that those people who deal with the nitty-gritty of trade union activity on a daily basis at the workplace – where the benefits of trade unions are most obvious and valued  - really appreciated the chance to take a step back to consider and learn about the broader issues that shape the context in which they carry out their trade union activity.