Bradford Council’s union bill is ‘shocking’, says Tory leader

Bradford Council’s union bill is ‘shocking’, says Tory leader

Bradford Council’s union bill is ‘shocking’, says Tory leader

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , City Hall Reporter

The amount of taxpayers’ money Bradford Council spends on the wages and perks of union officials is “truly shocking”, its Conservative group has said.

Their leader, Councillor Glen Miller, said the bill was £764,300 a year – higher than he had previously thought.

He said this diverted vital funds from frontline services, and called for the salaries of union representatives to be paid for out of members’ subsidies instead.

But unions have responded by saying Coun Miller doesn’t understand the arrangements and that the services they provide save the taxpayer money.

Coun Miller, who is working on his party’s alternative budget plans, said: “I know that I have banged on incessantly about the cost to the Council taxpayer of union staff wages and other costs for some time now, but I never cease to be amazed.”

He said he had previously believed the cost was around £500,000 a year, but had now discovered that union representatives in schools alone were costing £510,600, with Council union staff costing a further £253,700.

In total, it pays for the equivalent of 21 full-time union workers, although many are on a part-time basis. The unions involved are Unison, Unite, the GMB, the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Association of Head Teachers.

Coun Miller said some unions also got free parking and free use of rooms in City Hall which members of the public would have to pay for.

Ian Murch, of the NUT, said reps were entitled to get paid time off their duties to work on union matters.

He said with more than 3,000 NUT members in Bradford, this allowed for his own four-day-a-week union role, as well as other part-time staff.

Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”

Councillor David Green, leader of Bradford Council, said the payment of school union staff “did not come out of people’s Council tax and could not be used for services outside schools”.

He said these payments were a decision for the Schools Forum and not the Council.

Coun Green said the money paid included £190,000 for health and safety reps, who did an important job “making sure there was a safe working environment and a safe environment for young people attending school”.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:46am Mon 20 Jan 14

thatsnotmyname says...

"He said this diverted vital funds from frontline services"

Maybe he should look to his own party when it comes to taking vital funds away from frontline services. Typical tory blaming unions and having a pop at the their staff.
"He said this diverted vital funds from frontline services" Maybe he should look to his own party when it comes to taking vital funds away from frontline services. Typical tory blaming unions and having a pop at the their staff. thatsnotmyname
  • Score: -23

8:42am Mon 20 Jan 14

whisky1 says...

Quite why Council Taxpayers should be paying for Union Reps is beyond me. This should come from Union Subs alone. The profligacy of Local Government is breath taking. Shameful.
Quite why Council Taxpayers should be paying for Union Reps is beyond me. This should come from Union Subs alone. The profligacy of Local Government is breath taking. Shameful. whisky1
  • Score: 43

8:46am Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

Ah the Unions....fighting for the rights of the working class...all the time whilst sitting there in their mansions funded by their own gullible members

Its the people that pay into and support these fools that make me laugh
Ah the Unions....fighting for the rights of the working class...all the time whilst sitting there in their mansions funded by their own gullible members Its the people that pay into and support these fools that make me laugh Andy2010
  • Score: 16

8:55am Mon 20 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill? alive and awake
  • Score: 41

9:02am Mon 20 Jan 14

bd7 helper says...

Reduce tax bill by removing the union
Reduce tax bill by removing the union bd7 helper
  • Score: 32

9:24am Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -25

9:39am Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough)

You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible.

No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar.

If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough) You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible. No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar. If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that) Andy2010
  • Score: 29

9:46am Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week Andy2010
  • Score: 27

9:47am Mon 20 Jan 14

james craggs says...

Thank God for the Unions, if it wasn't for them the Tory and Liberal dogmatic Juggernaut would have wiped out all Council Services ,all the Workers Jobs apart from the profit making ones which they would have transferred to their friends in the private sector.
Thank God for the Unions, if it wasn't for them the Tory and Liberal dogmatic Juggernaut would have wiped out all Council Services ,all the Workers Jobs apart from the profit making ones which they would have transferred to their friends in the private sector. james craggs
  • Score: -12

9:52am Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough)

You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible.

No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar.

If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)
The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough) You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible. No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar. If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)[/p][/quote]The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -16

10:01am Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough)

You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible.

No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar.

If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)
The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now.
You mean like Labour sold off our gold reserves and other interests abroad ?

They are ALL as bad as each other tbh.

Like I said its everyone's democratic right to either agree or disagree with the Unions but money to pay for them shouldn't come the council tax payers. It should come from their own members not the council.

From personal experience of dealing with Union officials I always found they not only were obstructive towards benefits to their members but clearly a closed ranks organisation who looks after the people at the top first. The members at the bottom are sometimes extremely blind at what their "leaders" get up to.

End of the day why cant union members pay for salaries and running costs etc? Why should the taxpayers?.

Please explain that
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough) You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible. No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar. If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)[/p][/quote]The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now.[/p][/quote]You mean like Labour sold off our gold reserves and other interests abroad ? They are ALL as bad as each other tbh. Like I said its everyone's democratic right to either agree or disagree with the Unions but money to pay for them shouldn't come the council tax payers. It should come from their own members not the council. From personal experience of dealing with Union officials I always found they not only were obstructive towards benefits to their members but clearly a closed ranks organisation who looks after the people at the top first. The members at the bottom are sometimes extremely blind at what their "leaders" get up to. End of the day why cant union members pay for salaries and running costs etc? Why should the taxpayers?. Please explain that Andy2010
  • Score: 28

10:26am Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough)

You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible.

No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar.

If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)
The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now.
You mean like Labour sold off our gold reserves and other interests abroad ?

They are ALL as bad as each other tbh.

Like I said its everyone's democratic right to either agree or disagree with the Unions but money to pay for them shouldn't come the council tax payers. It should come from their own members not the council.

From personal experience of dealing with Union officials I always found they not only were obstructive towards benefits to their members but clearly a closed ranks organisation who looks after the people at the top first. The members at the bottom are sometimes extremely blind at what their "leaders" get up to.

End of the day why cant union members pay for salaries and running costs etc? Why should the taxpayers?.

Please explain that
Tell you what Andy you've given figures for their wages that are around the same as the millionaire Cameron gets, excluding his expenses obviously, and complained that some of that money may come from the taxpayer. Lets compare that with the wages and bonuses of the bankers who have caused the financial problems we face who are being rewarded millions for their failure. They haven't paid back the taxpayer bailout money so isn't that taxpayer funded? Who do they represent and fight on behalf of? Are these union representatives totally taxpayer funded? I don't think so. It will be a percentage. If they were in it purely for the money then they wouldn't be union reps. Councillor David Green, has said the payment of school union staff “did not come out of people’s Council tax and could not be used for services outside schools” is he lying? he also mentions health and safety reps, who did an important job “making sure there was a safe working environment and a safe environment for young people attending school”. Are these health and safety reps not deserving of a little council tax money?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]You mean Scargill that is currently suing his own very Union to make sure they pay for his cushty retirement and salary until the day he dies (which cant come soon enough) You are so blinkered not to understand whilst the Unions were set up initially with their members interests at heart all they are now is a pig trough for certain people to get as much financial gain out of them as possible. No-one begrudges them if members want to join and pay into them but this shouldn't be paid out of council tax as the money could be better spent elsewhere and not every council tax payer agrees with them anyway. As the Unions them contribute to certain political parties its exactly the same as for example Bradford Council contributing large payments to UKIP etc etc each year. If they did they would be uproar. If Unions are needed let them go it alone then see how many of their so called "chiefs" hang around when the money dries up.....Workers rights hell yeah (as long as I get paid vast amounts for saying that)[/p][/quote]The claim was that they are getting paid 3 times as much as the clown Cameron. Is that BS? I think it is. The Tories robbed this country back then and they are robbing us now. Thatcher has been shown as the liar she was in the recently released documents and her selling off of the nations assets has resulted in us being robbed by the privatised fuel companies. I know not everyone agrees with unions but then those same people would have probably been the same sort of people who fought against the ending of slavery and even with the few unions that remain we are barely much more than slaves now.[/p][/quote]You mean like Labour sold off our gold reserves and other interests abroad ? They are ALL as bad as each other tbh. Like I said its everyone's democratic right to either agree or disagree with the Unions but money to pay for them shouldn't come the council tax payers. It should come from their own members not the council. From personal experience of dealing with Union officials I always found they not only were obstructive towards benefits to their members but clearly a closed ranks organisation who looks after the people at the top first. The members at the bottom are sometimes extremely blind at what their "leaders" get up to. End of the day why cant union members pay for salaries and running costs etc? Why should the taxpayers?. Please explain that[/p][/quote]Tell you what Andy you've given figures for their wages that are around the same as the millionaire Cameron gets, excluding his expenses obviously, and complained that some of that money may come from the taxpayer. Lets compare that with the wages and bonuses of the bankers who have caused the financial problems we face who are being rewarded millions for their failure. They haven't paid back the taxpayer bailout money so isn't that taxpayer funded? Who do they represent and fight on behalf of? Are these union representatives totally taxpayer funded? I don't think so. It will be a percentage. If they were in it purely for the money then they wouldn't be union reps. Councillor David Green, has said the payment of school union staff “did not come out of people’s Council tax and could not be used for services outside schools” is he lying? he also mentions health and safety reps, who did an important job “making sure there was a safe working environment and a safe environment for young people attending school”. Are these health and safety reps not deserving of a little council tax money? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -14

10:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

Olivermac says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
Agree and what should happen is one union rep for all, that's all you need.
The Law on workers rights are all the same Teacher/Fireman/ Nurse etc this warrants a salary on a comparable wage structure like the PM that should save about 600k of tax payers money
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]Agree and what should happen is one union rep for all, that's all you need. The Law on workers rights are all the same Teacher/Fireman/ Nurse etc this warrants a salary on a comparable wage structure like the PM that should save about 600k of tax payers money Olivermac
  • Score: 9

10:46am Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid RollandSmoke
  • Score: -12

10:58am Mon 20 Jan 14

Joedavid says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
How many working for Council get more than the PM we know Tony Reeves does for one.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]How many working for Council get more than the PM we know Tony Reeves does for one. Joedavid
  • Score: 14

11:10am Mon 20 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest? tinytoonster
  • Score: 10

11:14am Mon 20 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

james craggs wrote:
Thank God for the Unions, if it wasn't for them the Tory and Liberal dogmatic Juggernaut would have wiped out all Council Services ,all the Workers Jobs apart from the profit making ones which they would have transferred to their friends in the private sector.
bit naive if you believe that.
employers and government give the unions just enough to keep em happy.
i'm in the union and trust me, no matter how many strikes we have we still end up taking whats offered just lose a few days pay 1st.
they just butter it up to look good.
[quote][p][bold]james craggs[/bold] wrote: Thank God for the Unions, if it wasn't for them the Tory and Liberal dogmatic Juggernaut would have wiped out all Council Services ,all the Workers Jobs apart from the profit making ones which they would have transferred to their friends in the private sector.[/p][/quote]bit naive if you believe that. employers and government give the unions just enough to keep em happy. i'm in the union and trust me, no matter how many strikes we have we still end up taking whats offered just lose a few days pay 1st. they just butter it up to look good. tinytoonster
  • Score: 12

11:19am Mon 20 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

health and safety reps are the reason our children no longer play at school.
ooh dont run about having fun, you might trip up and graze your knee!
no school nurses to put a plaster on anymore.
drag the parents out of work instead and scare them over nothing!
sack the lot of em and get somebody sensible to do it!
health and safety reps are the reason our children no longer play at school. ooh dont run about having fun, you might trip up and graze your knee! no school nurses to put a plaster on anymore. drag the parents out of work instead and scare them over nothing! sack the lot of em and get somebody sensible to do it! tinytoonster
  • Score: 13

11:29am Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 1

11:34am Mon 20 Jan 14

JAtkinson says...

Das Komentors are out in force today showing the blind bias of the blinkered Tory / UKIP right. It's like the fanatical wing of the Daily Mail has taken over - "Unions? Hang em and flog em and forget the facts."
Das Komentors are out in force today showing the blind bias of the blinkered Tory / UKIP right. It's like the fanatical wing of the Daily Mail has taken over - "Unions? Hang em and flog em and forget the facts." JAtkinson
  • Score: -11

11:37am Mon 20 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
It's also worth mentioning that Bob Crowe lives in a council house that he refuses to leave despite earing a huge salary. Man of the people eh?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]It's also worth mentioning that Bob Crowe lives in a council house that he refuses to leave despite earing a huge salary. Man of the people eh? Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 13

11:50am Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all. Andy2010
  • Score: 16

12:17pm Mon 20 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

RS I had rather hoped you had disappeared, however you are back and as confused as ever. Your figures are as wrong as you claim mine to be, although they do prove my point somewhat. I heard Union leader admit to being on £400,000 per year 3 years ago. Will he be on less now?
As for tory bashing and Lady Thatcher bashing re mine closures, Harold Wilson closed far more mines than the good Lady did. There again he was a fine upstanding honest man wasn't he.
RS I had rather hoped you had disappeared, however you are back and as confused as ever. Your figures are as wrong as you claim mine to be, although they do prove my point somewhat. I heard Union leader admit to being on £400,000 per year 3 years ago. Will he be on less now? As for tory bashing and Lady Thatcher bashing re mine closures, Harold Wilson closed far more mines than the good Lady did. There again he was a fine upstanding honest man wasn't he. alive and awake
  • Score: 10

12:17pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -12

12:25pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RS I had rather hoped you had disappeared, however you are back and as confused as ever. Your figures are as wrong as you claim mine to be, although they do prove my point somewhat. I heard Union leader admit to being on £400,000 per year 3 years ago. Will he be on less now?
As for tory bashing and Lady Thatcher bashing re mine closures, Harold Wilson closed far more mines than the good Lady did. There again he was a fine upstanding honest man wasn't he.
Did you now? You talk out of your backside. I heard a Tory MP say he liked to fiddle with children on a regular basis. Obviously I can't prove it or name names but you believe me don't you? No? Why not, does it not sound plausable? If you wish to make claims then back it up with something more than your word because that doesn't mean jack to me.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: RS I had rather hoped you had disappeared, however you are back and as confused as ever. Your figures are as wrong as you claim mine to be, although they do prove my point somewhat. I heard Union leader admit to being on £400,000 per year 3 years ago. Will he be on less now? As for tory bashing and Lady Thatcher bashing re mine closures, Harold Wilson closed far more mines than the good Lady did. There again he was a fine upstanding honest man wasn't he.[/p][/quote]Did you now? You talk out of your backside. I heard a Tory MP say he liked to fiddle with children on a regular basis. Obviously I can't prove it or name names but you believe me don't you? No? Why not, does it not sound plausable? If you wish to make claims then back it up with something more than your word because that doesn't mean jack to me. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -13

12:25pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that? Andy2010
  • Score: 12

12:38pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -10

12:48pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
You still don't get it do you

If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that.

If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes?

Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding?

Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one..
..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did.

Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation.

The answer is THEY WOULDN'T.

Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world

To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing

Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that. If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes? Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding? Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one.. ..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did. Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation. The answer is THEY WOULDN'T. Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees? Andy2010
  • Score: 11

1:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
You still don't get it do you

If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that.

If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes?

Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding?

Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one..

..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did.

Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation.

The answer is THEY WOULDN'T.

Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world

To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing

Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?
When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that. If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes? Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding? Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one.. ..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did. Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation. The answer is THEY WOULDN'T. Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?[/p][/quote]When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -7

1:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

I've no problem with unions, I just don't want taxpayers money spent on them. Let the union subs cover the cost and if they don't raise the subs.

Being in a union is down to the choice of the employee. Don't have the council making that choice on behalf of people who have chosen not to be part of a union by handing over taxpayers money.
I've no problem with unions, I just don't want taxpayers money spent on them. Let the union subs cover the cost and if they don't raise the subs. Being in a union is down to the choice of the employee. Don't have the council making that choice on behalf of people who have chosen not to be part of a union by handing over taxpayers money. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 13

1:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
You still don't get it do you

If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that.

If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes?

Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding?

Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one..


..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did.

Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation.

The answer is THEY WOULDN'T.

Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world

To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing

Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?
When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.
Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there

But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things.

my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money.

The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone

Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that. If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes? Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding? Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one.. ..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did. Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation. The answer is THEY WOULDN'T. Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?[/p][/quote]When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.[/p][/quote]Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things. my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money. The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable? Andy2010
  • Score: 8

1:41pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
You still don't get it do you

If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that.

If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes?

Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding?

Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one..



..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did.

Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation.

The answer is THEY WOULDN'T.

Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world

To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing

Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?
When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.
Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there

But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things.

my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money.

The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone

Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable?
I'm past caring. Everything and anything is acceptable when the public is as dumbed down and apathetic as they are in this country.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that. If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes? Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding? Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one.. ..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did. Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation. The answer is THEY WOULDN'T. Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?[/p][/quote]When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.[/p][/quote]Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things. my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money. The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable?[/p][/quote]I'm past caring. Everything and anything is acceptable when the public is as dumbed down and apathetic as they are in this country. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

1:59pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
unison and unite are both in the story you berk!
if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata.
and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around?
as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them.
its in the title, CHARITY!
i do not agree with overseas aid in any form.
sort our young, elderly and infirm first.
unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?
Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.
Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government.

This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money.

Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session?

We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever.

All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.
The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.
See your off again on a tangent

No one is saying Unions should be banned

All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members.

Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that.

And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding.

You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again.

Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it.

Can you do that?
No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this.
" Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided.

She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher.

She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.”
So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.
You still don't get it do you

If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that.

If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes?

Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding?

Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one..




..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did.

Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation.

The answer is THEY WOULDN'T.

Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world

To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing

Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?
When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.
Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there

But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things.

my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money.

The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone

Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable?
I'm past caring. Everything and anything is acceptable when the public is as dumbed down and apathetic as they are in this country.
Indeed we are....its the British way
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]unison and unite are both in the story you berk! if you compare they work around 3 days at the most compared to cameron's full time it probably is at least double what he gets pro rata. and if he is so incompetent why is he managing to turn labour's damages around? as for charities, i think it should be a voluntary position to run them. its in the title, CHARITY! i do not agree with overseas aid in any form. sort our young, elderly and infirm first. unions represent workers anyway, so why the interest?[/p][/quote]Unison and Unite may well be in the story but that doesn't mean that the heads of Unison and Unite will be the ones having meetings with the council does it? David Cameron is the top dog of the Tory party, does that mean that any dealings with the Tories will be done through him? No of course not you berk. I don't entirely disagree with you on the charities. They do deserve some reward for their efforts but the sums of money paid to those at the top are beyond a joke given the nature of charities and the means by which they obtain their money. Cameron has turned things around? What's the national debt stand at? Why has borrowing risen so much and what has the money been spent on? Sorry tinytoonbrain but I really can't take you seriously. You are a fool. I'm glad you have a little concern for our young, elderly and infirm but it isn't shared by Cameron and the other millionaire con-artists in Westminster.[/p][/quote]Why are you drawing comparisons with the Government. This story is nothing to do with them. Its about Union's receiving taxpayers money. Why do you turn every single comment board into a Tory bashing session? We get it Rollie....you don't like the Conservative government and blame them over the course of history for every ever. All anyone is saying is that Union's should not be in receipt of one penny of council tax money as that is the council tax payers money and should be sent on services for all.[/p][/quote]The only ones saying that are the Tories or have you not noticed? Of course you haven't because you see what you want to see which isn't a great deal is it? Tinydeludedbrain was trying to tell us that the scum are doing a great job of turning things around. I disagree as I've seen absolutely no evidence and the thumbs down brigade are unable to provide any despite me asking repeatedly. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell us how all is rosy. Explain to me why the unions are not needed when so many are on poverty wages and therefore reliant on YOUR TAXES to survive? Make me feel good about the rocketing numbers of foodbanks. I could go on but I've noticed how quickly you all bog off when I ask questions that don't fit with your insane view that so long as you're ok it doesn't matter how much the world turns to crap around you.[/p][/quote]See your off again on a tangent No one is saying Unions should be banned All anyone is saying is they shouldn't by funded by the council at all. All funding for Unions should come from the members. Just think about it before going on about Tory this and Tory that. And how do you know everyone saying above are Tories. My best friend is a staunch Labour supporter but disagrees with Unions in their present format and certainly disagrees with council funding. You are simply trying to derail this thread with your agenda again. Go on then tell us all why every single council tax payer should pay for Unions......Without bringing the Government into it. Can you do that?[/p][/quote]No I'm not going to answer any further questions from you Andy as you don't answer mine but if you had taken the time to actually read the story you were commenting on you would have seen this. " Pam Milner, of the NASUWT, said teachers facing meetings over disciplinary, sickness or redundancy matters were entitled to representation, a function which union reps often provided. She said if schools instead had to pay lawyers, the bill to the taxpayer would be much higher. She said: “We would be more than happy to have a round-table conversation with Coun Miller to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the evidence and let’s take it from there’.” So you're happy to pay more (and it would be much more) to line the pockets of lawyers. Please yourself.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you If members of Unions are attending hearings or meetings concerning redundancy or disciplinary then of course they are entitled to have a representative present. They can choose either a colleague or Union rep to attend...no-one is disputing that. If they are in a Union they will presumably pay Union Fees yes? Therefore why cant the Union attend if they don't get council funding? Whats this talk of solicitors? Who takes a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing or redundancy meeting.....no-one.. ..why?....because they could not do anything even if they did. Should an employee be that a Union member of not want to employ a solicitor then that's fair enough....they can pay for it themselves. Why would schools for example have to pay for the employees legal representation. The answer is THEY WOULDN'T. Its just the usual Union way of blowing everything out of proportion and not living in the real world To go back to the original point. As this ridiculous statement (lawyers will cost more in the long run...just lol) means nothing Remind me again as a council tax payer why I should pay for representation of teachers (from your example) at disciplinary hearings? Should they not pay for that themselves or their beloved Union cover it out of the members fees?[/p][/quote]When you pay your tax in whatever form you don't decide what it gets spent on. If you did you would be able to say No you can't spent billions on illegal wars, No you can't hand money over to the banks, No you can't commission paintings of politicians. The fact of the matter is that once it is in the hands of the elected representatives in the council or the government they will spend it however they see fit. Whinge about it all you like, it's not your decision. If your argument is that the councils decision is somehow corrupt then prove it. When you have then tough luck because the politicians couldn't give a toss. In the grand scheme of things you are argueing about peanuts and even if they stopped spending money in this way it wouldn't effect the amount of tax you pay in the slightest, it never does, that's not how it works.[/p][/quote]Your totally correct that tax payers money and what it is spent on is in the hands of the elected officials. Totally agree with you there But this story isn't about illegal wars or paintings. Its about money being handed to a "business" from the council and as a council tax payer I have the right to object do I not. Just like you object to certain things. my OPINION is that Unions shouldn't need to receive council funding as it does not benefit all the people that contribute. Yes the same thing could be said of a lot of council services like Library's for example but you don't find library managers working for outside companies being paid an obscene amount of money. The massive difference here is that Unions are businesses with agenda's and investments and should go it alone Where do you stand on the banking Union that pushes for even bigger bonuses for their members even after receiving funding from local government? Would this be acceptable?[/p][/quote]I'm past caring. Everything and anything is acceptable when the public is as dumbed down and apathetic as they are in this country.[/p][/quote]Indeed we are....its the British way Andy2010
  • Score: 2

2:16pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Tinybantam says...

I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful
ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say.
I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say. Tinybantam
  • Score: 11

3:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

It's lucky we have people like Roly to remind us that before the banking crisis there was absolutely no poverty in the country, hospitals and doctors had no waiting lists - you could pretty much walk in off the street and jump onto the operating table. School classes were so small that it was almost a one on one situation with regards to pupil/teacher ratio. The UK was Utopia after all those years under labour and the citizens danced in streets that were paved with gold.

I bet there was a mess in your undies when the banking crisis was first reported. Gave you something to harp on about besides Thatcher..
It's lucky we have people like Roly to remind us that before the banking crisis there was absolutely no poverty in the country, hospitals and doctors had no waiting lists - you could pretty much walk in off the street and jump onto the operating table. School classes were so small that it was almost a one on one situation with regards to pupil/teacher ratio. The UK was Utopia after all those years under labour and the citizens danced in streets that were paved with gold. I bet there was a mess in your undies when the banking crisis was first reported. Gave you something to harp on about besides Thatcher.. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 10

3:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

Tinybantam wrote:
I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful

ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say.
Well said, I have myself voted for the 2 main parties over the years, never Liberal of course. I am sick to death of party politics, it has to be anti democracy. I admire the outspoken independants that are around.
I don't expect any party to work miracles in one term of office, although this coalition has had a very good go. What my concern is the damage a party can do in a very short space of time, and were living through the result of years of damage done by Blair and Brown.
[quote][p][bold]Tinybantam[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say.[/p][/quote]Well said, I have myself voted for the 2 main parties over the years, never Liberal of course. I am sick to death of party politics, it has to be anti democracy. I admire the outspoken independants that are around. I don't expect any party to work miracles in one term of office, although this coalition has had a very good go. What my concern is the damage a party can do in a very short space of time, and were living through the result of years of damage done by Blair and Brown. alive and awake
  • Score: 9

4:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

BierleyBoy says...

David Green has taken to twitter to say this article is unfair & so is the poll.

The truth is that the whole of this £750k comes from Bradford Council coffers.

I have absolutely no objection to trade unions having staff in the workplace. I totally object to a single penny of council tax money being donated to trade unions.

Trade unions are the biggest funders of the Labour Party. In turn those council that are Labour run return the favour by throwing money at trade union staff in local authorities.

A corrupt little scheme that others are made to pay for.

Green has the temerity to say budgets are being slashed, but he is still quite happy to feather the next of his own political party and it's allies at our expense.

What a truly disgusting, corrupt politician he is.
David Green has taken to twitter to say this article is unfair & so is the poll. The truth is that the whole of this £750k comes from Bradford Council coffers. I have absolutely no objection to trade unions having staff in the workplace. I totally object to a single penny of council tax money being donated to trade unions. Trade unions are the biggest funders of the Labour Party. In turn those council that are Labour run return the favour by throwing money at trade union staff in local authorities. A corrupt little scheme that others are made to pay for. Green has the temerity to say budgets are being slashed, but he is still quite happy to feather the next of his own political party and it's allies at our expense. What a truly disgusting, corrupt politician he is. BierleyBoy
  • Score: 6

5:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ravacity says...

BierleyBoy wrote:
David Green has taken to twitter to say this article is unfair & so is the poll.

The truth is that the whole of this £750k comes from Bradford Council coffers.

I have absolutely no objection to trade unions having staff in the workplace. I totally object to a single penny of council tax money being donated to trade unions.

Trade unions are the biggest funders of the Labour Party. In turn those council that are Labour run return the favour by throwing money at trade union staff in local authorities.

A corrupt little scheme that others are made to pay for.

Green has the temerity to say budgets are being slashed, but he is still quite happy to feather the next of his own political party and it's allies at our expense.

What a truly disgusting, corrupt politician he is.
Many conservative councils throughout the country pay for union officials so its not just unique to labour or Bradford so I doubt its a corrupt little scheme,I remember the shop steward and the health and safety rep were volunteers within the workplace and union business or meetings were conducted in our own time, personally i m still a union member but it should be funded by the unions and its members directly and not the taxpayer,the Tory's were in control for quite a long time in Bradford why didn't they try and do something then why now
[quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: David Green has taken to twitter to say this article is unfair & so is the poll. The truth is that the whole of this £750k comes from Bradford Council coffers. I have absolutely no objection to trade unions having staff in the workplace. I totally object to a single penny of council tax money being donated to trade unions. Trade unions are the biggest funders of the Labour Party. In turn those council that are Labour run return the favour by throwing money at trade union staff in local authorities. A corrupt little scheme that others are made to pay for. Green has the temerity to say budgets are being slashed, but he is still quite happy to feather the next of his own political party and it's allies at our expense. What a truly disgusting, corrupt politician he is.[/p][/quote]Many conservative councils throughout the country pay for union officials so its not just unique to labour or Bradford so I doubt its a corrupt little scheme,I remember the shop steward and the health and safety rep were volunteers within the workplace and union business or meetings were conducted in our own time, personally i m still a union member but it should be funded by the unions and its members directly and not the taxpayer,the Tory's were in control for quite a long time in Bradford why didn't they try and do something then why now ravacity
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Mon 20 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

I think now is the time to address this issue, any Council tax payer should be able to opt out to the amount the Union reps get. It's only like union members opting out of the Labour Party. I could think of many other things I would like to opt out of, but one thing at a time eh!
I think now is the time to address this issue, any Council tax payer should be able to opt out to the amount the Union reps get. It's only like union members opting out of the Labour Party. I could think of many other things I would like to opt out of, but one thing at a time eh! alive and awake
  • Score: 2

8:43pm Mon 20 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Tinybantam wrote:
I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful

ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say.
Maybe you could highlight the successes of this government? I agree Blair and Brown destroyed the Labour party. They did so by adopting Thatcherite policies and turning their backs on Labours socialist principles. I am not a Labour voter. They have so far come up with nothing to persuade me to vote for them. In the last general election I voted Lib Dem because I was aware that labour were not on the right path and I certainly wasn't going to vote Tory. I, and all other Lib Dem voters were betrayed and they will not get my vote again. My family have traditionally been Tory voters but they will no longer do so after seeing how they have attacked the weakest in society. The fact of the matter is there are no parties that are worth voting for and whilst all they do is stick their noses in the trough lifting their heads only to bicker with the other pigs this country is going down the toilet and the people who they are supposed to serve suffer. Our political system is a joke.
[quote][p][bold]Tinybantam[/bold] wrote: I am fed up of all those idiots who use any story to start bashing the Tories! Fact is, that the last Labour government did enormous damage to the economy and other things too, and this Tory government is turning around the country and sorting the economy out.........thankful ly. Before any one jumps down my throat and accuses me of being a Tory voter let me tell you this. I have voted in practically all elections for the last 47 years, including council and general. I voted Labour for 40 of them until first Blair and then Brown, came along and destroyed a decent political party, mostly for their own aims, as well as destroying our once proud country. I changed my vote because I examined the facts and arguments put forward by all parties, before I cast my vote. It is a shame that all you blinkered Labour voters don't do the same before you vote, and think, instead of blindly following what your Fathers did or what your peers say.[/p][/quote]Maybe you could highlight the successes of this government? I agree Blair and Brown destroyed the Labour party. They did so by adopting Thatcherite policies and turning their backs on Labours socialist principles. I am not a Labour voter. They have so far come up with nothing to persuade me to vote for them. In the last general election I voted Lib Dem because I was aware that labour were not on the right path and I certainly wasn't going to vote Tory. I, and all other Lib Dem voters were betrayed and they will not get my vote again. My family have traditionally been Tory voters but they will no longer do so after seeing how they have attacked the weakest in society. The fact of the matter is there are no parties that are worth voting for and whilst all they do is stick their noses in the trough lifting their heads only to bicker with the other pigs this country is going down the toilet and the people who they are supposed to serve suffer. Our political system is a joke. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -2

1:55am Tue 21 Jan 14

Ahrmen Aleg says...

I think the majority of comments and votes on this thread agree.
Unions should be funded by their members not the taxpayer.

They are indeed all hypocrites.
Coming out now that Scargill tried to buy his union provided Barbican luxury flat, taking advantage of Thatchers sell council houses off at discount to those occupying them.

And the same release of previously undisclosed restricted sensitive information shows us that Thatcher lied.There was always a plan to close our mining industry and on that one Scargill was right.

The more I live the more I realise we are all pawns.

The Establishment will always ensure the wealth is still in the hands of the few.Bank collapses or not.
They will always recover at the expense of the people.

So unions are important in the fight for the people.
But should be funded by members.Teachers earn enough.Why should the poor and vulnerable contribute through local taxation.
Even those on benefit have to pay 20 per cent of full council tax these days.
On £3000 a year.
Not £40000 as most teachers and police and all government workers.
Even a bin man is on £30000.
And all they do these days (after we have done most of the work)is pull the thing to the back of the lorry.They cannot even pick up the litter blown as emptied.The union say they may hurt their back bending!
You could not make it up.
21 st century workers.
Not allowed to bend their back.That is what the Health and Safety reps ensure.

Let them eat cake.

The namby pamby state.
Formerly known as GREAT BRITAIN.

That with its British Empire a little over 100 years ago controlled 2/5ths of the worlds landmass and riches.

How the mighty have fallen.
With unions partly to blame.

And dear old Thatcher.Closed all our manufacturing industry to create a dependency on Financial Services.40 per cent of our economy now.3 per cent when she came in in 1979.
Didn't she do well.

2008 showed us how well.

Greed Corruption everywhere.

A country with nowhere to go.
Except exit Europe.
I hope
I think the majority of comments and votes on this thread agree. Unions should be funded by their members not the taxpayer. They are indeed all hypocrites. Coming out now that Scargill tried to buy his union provided Barbican luxury flat, taking advantage of Thatchers sell council houses off at discount to those occupying them. And the same release of previously undisclosed restricted sensitive information shows us that Thatcher lied.There was always a plan to close our mining industry and on that one Scargill was right. The more I live the more I realise we are all pawns. The Establishment will always ensure the wealth is still in the hands of the few.Bank collapses or not. They will always recover at the expense of the people. So unions are important in the fight for the people. But should be funded by members.Teachers earn enough.Why should the poor and vulnerable contribute through local taxation. Even those on benefit have to pay 20 per cent of full council tax these days. On £3000 a year. Not £40000 as most teachers and police and all government workers. Even a bin man is on £30000. And all they do these days (after we have done most of the work)is pull the thing to the back of the lorry.They cannot even pick up the litter blown as emptied.The union say they may hurt their back bending! You could not make it up. 21 st century workers. Not allowed to bend their back.That is what the Health and Safety reps ensure. Let them eat cake. The namby pamby state. Formerly known as GREAT BRITAIN. That with its British Empire a little over 100 years ago controlled 2/5ths of the worlds landmass and riches. How the mighty have fallen. With unions partly to blame. And dear old Thatcher.Closed all our manufacturing industry to create a dependency on Financial Services.40 per cent of our economy now.3 per cent when she came in in 1979. Didn't she do well. 2008 showed us how well. Greed Corruption everywhere. A country with nowhere to go. Except exit Europe. I hope Ahrmen Aleg
  • Score: 2

12:15pm Tue 21 Jan 14

They only do damage! says...

The unions do nothing and did nothing for the working poor, when unlimited immigration brought wages down and Made schools worse for their children, with all funding and teachers time going on these new arrivals, where were the unions?Those who benefit from these unions should be the ones who pay not everybody!.
The unions do nothing and did nothing for the working poor, when unlimited immigration brought wages down and Made schools worse for their children, with all funding and teachers time going on these new arrivals, where were the unions?Those who benefit from these unions should be the ones who pay not everybody!. They only do damage!
  • Score: 4

1:55pm Tue 21 Jan 14

StevieLad says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?
Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.
Derek Simpson Unite £196,626
Dave Prentis Unison £150,109
Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230
Bob Crow RMT £135,011
Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634

The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000

Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week
It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid
Cameron also gets rent free accommodation at Downing Street and at his country retreat at Chequers. That's got to be worth a few quid
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: I am a Bradford Council tax payer and I do not want to pay a penny to these Union people. STOP wasting my money, I am fed up of it. Some of these Union leaders have a salary 3 times that of the P.M. fgs. anybody remember Scargill?[/p][/quote]Which union leaders have a salary 3 times that of our incompetent P.M.? Are you going to make unsubstanciated claims all day? I remember Scargill, it was 30 years ago and he was fighting for peoples jobs that were being destroyed by another lying Tory scum P.M. who's destruction is still affecting peoples livelyhoods today.[/p][/quote]Derek Simpson Unite £196,626 Dave Prentis Unison £150,109 Matt Wrack Fire Brigades Union £147,230 Bob Crow RMT £135,011 Mark Serwotka PCSU £135,634 The Prime Minister of England's Salary £145,000 Agreed not double but in context the most important job in the UK compared with so low-lifes milking their members and only really working 3 days a week[/p][/quote]It looks to me like you've given figures for the heads of various unions who will indeed be paid through members subs and who I very much doubt will be getting anything from any councils. The representatives will not see anything like these sums of money and even with the people you have quoted these figures are not much different and in many cases much less than the heads of charities get paid[/p][/quote]Cameron also gets rent free accommodation at Downing Street and at his country retreat at Chequers. That's got to be worth a few quid StevieLad
  • Score: -2

2:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

StevieLad says...

Less than a third of the Council's income is from Council Tax.

But yeah I demand that my £2k pays for a policeman. Well, part of his leg at least. Oh and it has to be a british white male one, named Colin. Lol
Less than a third of the Council's income is from Council Tax. But yeah I demand that my £2k pays for a policeman. Well, part of his leg at least. Oh and it has to be a british white male one, named Colin. Lol StevieLad
  • Score: -1

2:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

losttheplot says...

Just to clarify.
Workplace representation is a right under British Law.
Tu's in councils deal with issues between that employer and their staff.
There is a legally binding agreement that union members have a right to access TU advice.
TU's are used as consultants by HR officers when changes are made to services and staff organisation.
It makes much more sense for everyone that the employers allows TU minimum facilities to do their jobs properly. This often avoids very expensive legal cases for Councils. For example Birmingham C.C, may well be bankrupted because it failed to pay its staff equal pay, despite TU warnings that to lose such a court case would cost them millions.
Most of the time taken up by work based TU officers is because of cack-handed management, by HP etc.
Much of this chaos is sorted out sensibly because of full time TU officers (who HAVE to be given paid time off to do their work).

It really would be more expensive to do it any other way.
It has got nothing to do with national politics.
I wager that most TU workplace reps are decent honest people who really care about their members interests.
And remember - nothing good about anybodies working practices (holidays, sick pay, health and safety, wages, training etc) came beacaus your bos was a nice fella. They all cam from workplace organisation.
All of them!!

The headline is a quite spurious log rolling effort from a councillor who cant be bothered to learn the facts.
Just to clarify. Workplace representation is a right under British Law. Tu's in councils deal with issues between that employer and their staff. There is a legally binding agreement that union members have a right to access TU advice. TU's are used as consultants by HR officers when changes are made to services and staff organisation. It makes much more sense for everyone that the employers allows TU minimum facilities to do their jobs properly. This often avoids very expensive legal cases for Councils. For example Birmingham C.C, may well be bankrupted because it failed to pay its staff equal pay, despite TU warnings that to lose such a court case would cost them millions. Most of the time taken up by work based TU officers is because of cack-handed management, by HP etc. Much of this chaos is sorted out sensibly because of full time TU officers (who HAVE to be given paid time off to do their work). It really would be more expensive to do it any other way. It has got nothing to do with national politics. I wager that most TU workplace reps are decent honest people who really care about their members interests. And remember - nothing good about anybodies working practices (holidays, sick pay, health and safety, wages, training etc) came beacaus your bos was a nice fella. They all cam from workplace organisation. All of them!! The headline is a quite spurious log rolling effort from a councillor who cant be bothered to learn the facts. losttheplot
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree