TUC Conference.

tomstickland

I heard some interviews today with a TUC spokesman who said they wanted Gordon Brown to "do something " to help the economy. Their requests were for more tax for high earners, a windfall tax on the utilities and above inflation pay rises for public sector workers. It all sounds rather like the 1970s to me.

I read somewhere a while back that the unions are now the main source of Labour party funds.

How's this all going to pan out? At the least some negative publicity and maybe some media fuelled argumentation.

Why do they think that the government can stop a recession?
Are they motivated by a hatred of wealth?
Are they going to pressurise the government into some bad decisions?

tomstickland

Onions vote for mass pay protests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7602986.stm

Generali

tomstickland wrote: »

I heard some interviews today with a TUC spokesman who said they wanted Gordon Brown to "do something " to help the economy. Their requests were for more tax for high earners, a windfall tax on the utilities and above inflation pay rises for public sector workers. It all sounds rather like the 1970s to me.

I read somewhere a while back that the unions are now the main source of Labour party funds.

How's this all going to pan out? At the least some negative publicity and maybe some media fuelled argumentation.

Why do they think that the government can stop a recession?
Are they motivated by a hatred of wealth?
Are they going to pressurise the government into some bad decisions?

The trade unions are by far the biggest funders of the Labour Party - one of the great inequities of the Closed Shop was that you had to give money to the Labour Party regardless of your political beliefs. According to Some Bloke on the radio this evening, Amicus alone has given £11,000,000 to the Labour party since 2000 (I think that's what he said).

How is this all going to pan out? IMO a Super Tax of say 50% on incomes above £100k (which won't raise much money but is a nice symbolic gesture to the left) and a new Winter of Discontent as public sector employees try to maintain their standard of living and employment in the face of falling living standards and employment levels among taxpayers.

A friend was drummed out of the union bascially for getting a rich boyfriend. Most trade unionist activists I've met (not many I confess) seem to be motivated by a mix of class hatred and envy directed to those with more money than they have.

Gorgeous_George

Without doubt, many of the high earners could and should pay more. I'd like to see personal allowances increased so that tax starts at £7K and for them to be transferable between spouses i.e., non working husband could transfer his allowance to his working wife.

Then, something along the lines of ...
... 20% tax on the next £20K
... 25% tax on the next £20K
... 30% on the next £20K

... and so on up to 60%

Cue the brain drain argument.

GG

Plasticman

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Without doubt, many of the high earners could and should pay more. I'd like to see personal allowances increased so that tax starts at £7K and for them to be transferable between spouses i.e., non working husband could transfer his allowance to his working wife.

Then, something along the lines of ...
... 20% tax on the next £20K
... 25% tax on the next £20K
... 30% on the next £20K

... and so on up to 60%

Cue the brain drain argument.

GG

But that could result in a "brain drain" as the top earners move overseas.


(didn't want to disappoint you!!! )

Plasticman

Why do they think that the government can stop a recession?
They don't - they are just using it as an excuse to get as much cash as possible for their members.

Are they motivated by a hatred of wealth?
No, just by getting as much cash as possible for their members.

Are they going to pressurise the government into some bad decisions?
The government won't bow to pressure - they will make bad decsions without any help from the unions.

lostinrates

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Without doubt, many of the high earners could and should pay more. I'd like to see personal allowances increased so that tax starts at £7K and for them to be transferable between spouses i.e., non working husband could transfer his allowance to his working wife.

Then, something along the lines of ...
... 20% tax on the next £20K
... 25% tax on the next £20K
... 30% on the next £20K

... and so on up to 60%

Cue the brain drain argument.

GG

I hate to say it but there probably is a point with taxation where we would leave UK . I think however, if personal allowance was sharable with spouse the whole way up the grading it would be a long way off for us.

Taxation is currently far too complicated.

fiodyl

In the interview I watched with Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services union, he wasn't assking for above inflation payrises. He was asking for pay that kept in line with inflation which it hasn't done for quite a few years and are currently capped at under 2%. This isn't for the chief executives who are on hundreds of thousands, this is the frontline staff, some of which are on minimum wage.

Also PCS is not affiliated to the Labour party, and I'm sure a rule was brought in a few years back which meant that if your union did affiliate you could ask them not to take the extra money on your subs for it.

lynzpower

A friend was drummed out of the union bascially for getting a rich boyfriend. Most trade unionist activists I've met (not many I confess) seem to be motivated by a mix of class hatred and envy directed to those with more money than they have.

Ive been a union shop steward before in Local government no less , and to a degree in my experience there is SOME truth in it. The problem is is that at the top of unions they really are the die hard left, and to that extent they do not represent the views of many of thier members. I unfortunately cannot see there to be any alternative to this, until the unions stopped funding labour.

I have always likened it to the "cash for questions" and other MP sponsor ship scandals. Amazing how some groups can do it legitimately and some really just cant. That isnt democracy.

On a personal level, the trade union I worked for predominantly dealt with serious employment issues- management bullying and sex discrimination, and people being illegally sacked for becoming ill. The fact is while there are still employers that flout the law there will always be a need for trade unionism, and no private insurance policy can do what unions do. Even worse when its the government breaking thier own laws ( all too common)

neverdespairgirl

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Without doubt, many of the high earners could and should pay more.

Why? Actually, I think there's quite a lot of doubt, you need to spell it out a bit.

epz_2

fiodyl wrote: »

In the interview I watched with Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services union, he wasn't assking for above inflation payrises. He was asking for pay that kept in line with inflation which it hasn't done for quite a few years and are currently capped at under 2%. This isn't for the chief executives who are on hundreds of thousands, this is the frontline staff, some of which are on minimum wage.

Also PCS is not affiliated to the Labour party, and I'm sure a rule was brought in a few years back which meant that if your union did affiliate you could ask them not to take the extra money on your subs for it.

the problem is to much money is being spent on public servants, the government could get away with it in the good times but now the tax base is going to drop and the dole costs rise sharply.

in the real world a company would have to restructure and sack a bunch of employees so the income met its expenditure or go bust. because of political and cultural reasons the government will not do that so needs to cut the wage bill, encourage employees to give up their gold plated pensions and better working conditions by reducing their wages.



re my dealings with shop stewards, i will not comment as it would contain a lot of profanity