Paying the Unions to trash the country

Crash Bang Wallace reports that the Tax Payers Alliance have discovered that:

'As well as the Union Modernisation Fund, which lives on despite its growing notoriety, the TPA have uncovered 2,493 full time Union employees who are paid for by public sector bodies at a cost of £67.5 million a year.

This is crucial for two reasons. First, it means that key union overheads like recruitment and organising of branches are funded by the general public without their knowledge or approval. Even more importantly, it means that the levies raised from union members are freed up for campaigning war chests.'

The Tax payers Alliance report includes this key passage:

'The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills granted £13,028,285 in 2008-09 and £14,854,453 in 2009-10 to trade unions under the two funds. The projects funded were, in the main, geared towards expanding union membership. For example, in 2009 the UMF awarded money to a GMB ‘engaging communities and building social capital’ project. According to the BIS website:

“The project seeks to reach out beyond the union’s usual boundaries into vulnerable communities, breaking down barriers to employment rights knowledge, developing relationships with community leaders and providing training to build capacity and leadership amongst vulnerable workers.”

Most independent organisations would expect to pay for expanding membership and business development – trade unions receive significant membership subscriptions fees yet they still receive considerable direct funding from Government to help them achieve this. Funding for training should be spent where it is most effective, not through a special fund for trade unions that will push their own agenda. Direct funding from these programmes again frees up funds for political activity.'

I couldn't agree more...


I last blogged about the Union Modernisation Fund in March but previously I reported Francis Maude's statement that:

"This really looks like money laundering - taxpayers' money is being funnelled into Unite then put straight back into Labour's coffers.

It's a real racket, with taxpayers' money being round-tripped into Gordon Brown's re-election fund. We must have much greater transparency on what unions are receiving from the Labour Government in return for their backhanders."

Crash Bang Wallace concludes that:

'Some Conservatives may believe that by continuing these payments they will be able to keep the unions sweet. Far from it. The union movement as a whole is bitterly, eternally opposed to the essential spending cuts that must be carried out. They’ll merrily pocket cash from a Tory Government – but they certainly won’t change their tune just because the enemies they love to hate are foolish enough to appease them.

Continuing to make these payments would mean that the Coalition is actively subsidising groups who intend to apply political pressure against Coalition policies. Worse, when the inevitable strikes begin, those 2,493 paid officials will be manning the pickets, rallying the troops and helping to organise the disruption of public services. This is worse than appeasement – it’s helping to pay the wages of the opposing army.

Some Conservatives may be wary of provoking the unions, and the theme that “we have got to work with them” is recurring more and more often on ConservativeHome and elsewhere.

However, I used the phrase “inevitable strikes” advisedly. The Coalition must accept that no matter what they do to butter up or bribe the unions, they will strike against spending cuts.

Faced by an enemy who intends to attack you regardless of what you do appeasement would be an absurdity. Instead, you should make the most of it – if they will strike against small to medium cuts anyway, then implement larger cuts. The first cut should be these hefty subsidies.'

I would go further if Francis Maude, when Shadow Cabinet Office Minister in March this year, thought that the Union Modernisation Fund amounted to 'a real racket' maybe now he is Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General he and the government could actually do something about this 'racket'.