Conservatives branded ‘nasty’ in alternative budget debate (From The Bolton News)

WHY should I and other council tax payers be paying for the trade unions? If I wish to join a union or any other "club" I pay for it myself. Let the council employees who wish to be union members pay for it themselves and spend the savings on something that benefits the entire community.
There is nothing nasty about asking employees to pay for something that is only of benefit to themselves and not others

Same old Labour - in it for themselves. Why should tax-payers help fund Trade Unions??? Tade Unions should be funded by subscriptions of their patrons ONLY!!!

Pathetic.

It goes to show how up their own arses that Labour are in Bolton - bloody Pathetic.

We are living in difficult times thanks to Bankers, Credit Scoring Agencies and free spending last Labour government - although the Conservatives have doen very little to reduce the debt (in fact it has risen, due to the mass losses in the public sector which has had a knock effect in the public sector!!!).

But all parties should be working together to get teh best from the money the Council does have instead of stabbing each other, having a go and generally mocking poltics - hence one of the main reasons for voting apathy.

Problem is the ruling Labour party, Bolton currently has, do not give two hoots and are just there for the power and show that they can do whatever they want - even going against teh people who voted them in.

Labour need to be voted out - in fact a whole new look is required for the political system in bolton as the 3 main parties have failed the town and the one-trick ponies, such as UKIP and BNP are not good enough!!!

Andy Higham wrote:
WHY should I and other council tax payers be paying for the trade unions? If I wish to join a union or any other "club" I pay for it myself. Let the council employees who wish to be union members pay for it themselves and spend the savings on something that benefits the entire community.
There is nothing nasty about asking employees to pay for something that is only of benefit to themselves and not others

Council workers do pay union subs this is not a 'free' service for them. However, if Union Officers need to attend to duties (negotiations, disciplinaries, training etc.) during working hours, this does not incur a loss of wage for them - neither should it. This applies to all Union representatives, no matter what industry they are in.

In reply to Andy Higham, I would like him to ponder on the following:- If we had not had unions in the past and present, we would still be touching our forelocks and sending ten year olds down the mines. (If we had any) Mr Higham is guilty of taking for granted the welfare gains the unions have gained over the years.
He should also understand that a single non union protester will ever change anything and will become down trodden.

The Conservatives also wished to reduce Councillors expenses and allowances. I would go further than that, I would aboluish all Allowances for all Councillors and return to the systems used so successfully until comparatively recently where Councillors were only entitled to 'out of pocket' expenses for attending a meeting. In those days Councillors served for the good of the local community not to make money.

Labour have always challenged anything and everything put forward by other groups, without any consideration whatsoever to the merits. Narrow minded, socialist, egotistical morons at the head of the peoples council. No wonder the town is in dire straits with such a mentality in force.

oftbewildered2 wrote:

Andy Higham wrote:
WHY should I and other council tax payers be paying for the trade unions? If I wish to join a union or any other "club" I pay for it myself. Let the council employees who wish to be union members pay for it themselves and spend the savings on something that benefits the entire community.
There is nothing nasty about asking employees to pay for something that is only of benefit to themselves and not others

Council workers do pay union subs this is not a 'free' service for them. However, if Union Officers need to attend to duties (negotiations, disciplinaries, training etc.) during working hours, this does not incur a loss of wage for them - neither should it. This applies to all Union representatives, no matter what industry they are in.

Hang on, if union members/officers are tending to union business then surely they should get renumeration from the union that raises funds from its members, not the public purse!
Just by the by most other 'industries' don't have half or even any of the 'full time' union officers local authorities have.

Looks as though Cllr Cliff "3 Jobs" Morris is online again as anyone downing the Labour are being marked downwards on the thumbs!!!

Bolton is like an old Soviet Union country - has a political party thats thinks it knows best on veerything - but look what happened to the Soviet Union!

I think you'll find the Conservative proposal to cut the trade union subsidy was aimed at the 3 or 4 full time officials who do nothing other than trade union work together with the office accommodation all provided at tax payers expense. If trade unions wish to campaign against the employer they should pay for it themselves.

Agreed that trade union officers should not be funded out of council tax and it is, of course, the case that Bolton Council's central corporate charges have got out of control in recent years, as, for instance, the recent CIPFA report on the library service has shown in connection with the cost of support services.

However, neither the Tory nor LibDem proposals really address the funding shortfall. This can only be dealt with by radical measures.

Many services do not require to be provided by each council individually. The Greater Manchester authorities could provide such services as legal, libraries, social etc., jointly, thus saving considerable expenditure on back offices and enabling more to be spent on the front line It has worked in London - see the Tri-Borough project.

The Audit Commission has recommended that, in these difficult financial times, local authorities should look at the size of the reserves and,consider releasing part of these to fund services. Bolton Council seems to be completely resistant to this. The Audit Commission says councils should be transparent as to policy in this connection. Cliff & Co., need to provide an explanation to the council tax payers.

Trade unions should be self funded and not by the taxpayer. I despise trade unions after the way their members -as part of the UAF- hurled missiles at me and others who were standing with the EDL 3 years ago at the big demonstrations at the town hall square. As for the 3 main political parties they have nothing new to offer except the same rehashed failed offerings.

Brumas wrote:
In reply to Andy Higham, I would like him to ponder on the following:- If we had not had unions in the past and present, we would still be touching our forelocks and sending ten year olds down the mines. (If we had any) Mr Higham is guilty of taking for granted the welfare gains the unions have gained over the years.
He should also understand that a single non union protester will ever change anything and will become down trodden.

and if the unions hadn't formed the jack-boot tactics they employ to threaten employees and employers alike, who refused to join their ranks, then many businesses would not have been forced into liquidation, nor would villages have disappeared as they did in the totally mis-handled miners' strike, which left many without a home or employment, yet saw many union officials very well off. Remember that evil person, scargill, arriving at the front line of the strike in his Jaguar, with his wife receiving a fat wage as his 'secretary', whilst honest miners were starving. If they refused to join the strike, they were blacklegged and physically abused. So much for your unions working for the common man.

berushka wrote:

Brumas wrote:
In reply to Andy Higham, I would like him to ponder on the following:- If we had not had unions in the past and present, we would still be touching our forelocks and sending ten year olds down the mines. (If we had any) Mr Higham is guilty of taking for granted the welfare gains the unions have gained over the years.
He should also understand that a single non union protester will ever change anything and will become down trodden.

and if the unions hadn't formed the jack-boot tactics they employ to threaten employees and employers alike, who refused to join their ranks, then many businesses would not have been forced into liquidation, nor would villages have disappeared as they did in the totally mis-handled miners' strike, which left many without a home or employment, yet saw many union officials very well off. Remember that evil person, scargill, arriving at the front line of the strike in his Jaguar, with his wife receiving a fat wage as his 'secretary', whilst honest miners were starving. If they refused to join the strike, they were blacklegged and physically abused. So much for your unions working for the common man.

But in that case teh Unions were proved right as Thatcher closed EVERY government controlled mine in the country, which made millions unemployment, both directly and indirectly of mining and ended up paying a higher premium for coal shipped from overseas or from private companies!!!

but if the unions had asked the workers to carry on working, and make the mines pay, instead of a full year without production, with machinery rusting away to a useless state, then perhaps many of them would not have closed down. Typical of the moronic union hate-mob, call a strike at any time, and as long as they keep their fat allowances, hard luck to the real workers. The unions are a wart on society and should be scraped off with a blunt blade.