Unions and public funding

spudbynight

spudbynight

spudbynight

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
7,595
Location
Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I came across this the other day and was suprised to see it hadn't been brought up already.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ho...er-funding-trade-unions-gathers-momentum.html

Essentially the Taxpayers Alliance has done some research and shown that Unions in the UK last year received £133million in direct and indirect public funding.

Now I don't want to get in a discussion about whether unions are good or bad. That isn't my bone of contention. I have an issue with them receiving public funding. They often work against the greater good. If people want to join unions then by all means let them. I don't see why others should have to subsidise it.
 
The taxpayers alliance, a nice balanced source of information.

Lead & inhabited by the UK's version of the tea party, mostly rich people who wish to benefit from living in a society (but paying nothing to contribute towards it) & stupid poor people who don't know any better.

While I do have a problem with certain aspects of unions - they have done more for women's rights & the rights of the average worker over the last 100 years than any government,

Unfortunately the owned media has been trying to make demons of them for generations - sadly it's starting to sink in (to this stupid population of half-wits).

Not to mention they are lead by somebody who hasn't paid taxes in the UK for the last 7 years (Matthew Elliott).
 
You might object to the TPA - but on this they have obtained their information legitimately and sourced it. I didn't start this thread to object to the existence of unions - just to object to them being funded from the public purse.
 
spudbynight said:
You might object to the TPA - but on this they have obtained their information legitimately and sourced it. I didn't start this thread to object to the existence of unions - just to object to them being funded from the public purse.
Click to expand...
Name something which isn't funded by the public purse in one way or another.

The purpose of unions is to ensure that various people or groups in positions of power do not stamp over the rights of the working population.

99% of the population greatly benefit from the existence of unions & I can fully understand the subsidy.

The tax-payers alliance is going to put a bias spin on everything, it's a mouthpiece for people who just don't want to pay tax - the entire basis of the movement is based on a flawed view of economics (that the invisible hand will take care of it, so governments are not needed).

Sadly there is no such thing as a invisible hand.

People should treat any group with scepticism who is preaching for a change which would directly & financially benefit the person asking for it. (that includes people on benefits asking for more money, or millionaires asking to pay less tax) - you are not going to get an honest answer out of either & both will pretend it's better for society (when in reality on thinking about lining there own pockets).
 
Last edited:
spudbynight said:
My business.
Click to expand...
A union isn't a business.

I think you are sounding like another business owner who wants to pay less tax.

If your business can't make money with the already very low corporation tax rates then perhaps you should get a regular job.

You take advantage of the state educating people by the employees you get yes?.
You don't have to pay for the medical care of the people who work for you yes?.
Your business property is protected by the fire/police service yes?.
Your company uses the roads/infrastructure yes?.

This is what it means to be part of a society, I'd really like to see how well somebody's business would do if they really did have to "go it alone".
 
Last edited:
You can also ask does your business use any electricity? The infrastructure for that was publically funded. Water, publically funded. Sewage. Publically funded.
 
Hmm, the TPA could teach the Daily Mail a lesson or two on sensationalising information. This issue has been debated here before, the money "given" to the unions is actually for investment into programmes that improve industrial relations in this country, exactly the sort of national interest projects that public spending should be used for. You might not agree with this, it might well get cut, but don't portray it as the taxpayer funding unions - it isn't, it's paying them to provide a public service, the same way the likes of Serco and Capita are paid. Once that money goes, the service will stop and very likely industrial relations in this country will deteriorate as a result.
 
Well what do you expect, labour is practically in bed with unions. I am not surprised that the government gives unions money. Some of the biggest and most powerful unions are for the public sector. Private sector unions don't usually get as big or protest like the public sector do. Private sector unions are more about basic improvements and not about blackmailing their employer in to giving them more money.

Talk about a conflict of interest, you have union members receiving public funds for a public sector department. One big happy family, you scratch my back and ill give you some tax payers money. The biggest argument with these public sector people is, HOW DO WE SPEND OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.... *rubs hands together*
 
So the public pay out £130 odd million and save up to £400 million.

Public-sector union Unison cited research commissioned by the Department for Business suggesting that union representation saves the public purse between £170 million and £400 million a year by improving retention, training take-up, health and safety and dispute resolution.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom