Overpaid GMB union rates - Help Please

Southend1

Buellguy wrote: »

Well the union do have to have some way of paying it's general secretary £121,000 per year

Why is it whenever unions are mentioned on this board someone makes a silly comment like this? Why shouldn't someone running a large and complex organisation be paid a salary that reflects their level of responsibility? With 617000 members a salary of £121k means the general secretary costs each member 19p a year, which doesn't seem excessive to me. You can also be sure that the gap between the highest and lowest paid employees of GMB is nothing like as wide as it would be at somewhere like say Barclays Bank.

mountainofdebt

well when you consider Dave Cameron is getting paid £142K then a salary of £121K is put into perspective isn't it, not to mention the other perks the leader is getting.

I think what is being said here is that if the Union can't right a wrong fully who will?

Buellguy

mountainofdebt wrote: »

well when you consider Dave Cameron is getting paid £142K then a salary of £121K is put into perspective isn't it, not to mention the other perks the leader is getting.

I think what is being said here is that if the Union can't right a wrong fully who will?

Exactly, the Union is supposed to be there to work for it's members (NOT to act as a political force) to help and benefit them. The union have been taking too much money from OPs Mum, I would expect them to sort this out rather than just try and fob her off with 1/19th of what (from what OP says) she is supposed to be receiving.

Southend1

mountainofdebt wrote: »

well when you consider Dave Cameron is getting paid £142K then a salary of £121K is put into perspective isn't it, not to mention the other perks the leader is getting.

I think what is being said here is that if the Union can't right a wrong fully who will?

Comparing anyone's salary with the PM's is pretty meaningless really.

I agree that the member should be able to get back any overpaid subs but she should of course have to support her claim with evidence. If she has destroyed the payslips then perhaps a letter from a manager or HR will suffice.

Southend1

Buellguy wrote: »

Exactly, the Union is supposed to be there to work for it's members (NOT to act as a political force) to help and benefit them. The union have been taking too much money from OPs Mum, I would expect them to sort this out rather than just try and fob her off with 1/19th of what (from what OP says) she is supposed to be receiving.

I'm not sure she's being fobbed off. She doesn't seem to have backed up her claim with any evidence yet they have already refunded a year's worth of overpaid subs.

mountainofdebt

Southend1 wrote: »

Comparing anyone's salary with the PM's is pretty meaningless really.

I agree that the member should be able to get back any overpaid subs but she should of course have to support her claim with evidence. If she has destroyed the payslips then perhaps a letter from a manager or HR will suffice.

Animal Farm springs to mind

liam8282

Southend1 wrote: »

I'm not sure she's being fobbed off. She doesn't seem to have backed up her claim with any evidence yet they have already refunded a year's worth of overpaid subs.

The union can see from their system how long my mother has been a member and they have never had any recorded hours for her. They told me this.

Their default must be to put everybody on the higher rate, unless or until the person realises something is wrong and decides to question it. Which in my opinion is wrong, especially for an institution like a union.

I have only just sent the letter to the union requesting that the full difference be repaid and if they request any evidence or information, I am more than happy to assist in providing that information.

My personal opinion on this, is just that the union should do the right thing ethically and morally by it's members, and the right thing to do would be to repay a member in full if they have overpaid their rate.

The main problem I can see here is, how many other people is this happening to and would it open up a can of worms for the union, if every member decided to check what rate they were paying and they all asked for a refund if they too have been overpaying.

agrinnall

liam8282 wrote: »

My personal opinion on this, is just that the union should do the right thing ethically and morally by it's members, and the right thing to do would be to repay a member in full if they have overpaid their rate.

Of course they should, and I expect they will, but not simply because somebody asks for it, they have to be responsible to their members for their financial conduct so a request for evidence would seem to be sensible.

If they simply reject your claim then could could ask for further suggestions on how to proceed.

Southend1

agrinnall wrote: »

Of course they should, and I expect they will, but not simply because somebody asks for it, they have to be responsible to their members for their financial conduct so a request for evidence would seem to be sensible.

If they simply reject your claim then could could ask for further suggestions on how to proceed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This....

Southend1

liam8282 wrote: »

The main problem I can see here is, how many other people is this happening to and would it open up a can of worms for the union, if every member decided to check what rate they were paying and they all asked for a refund if they too have been overpaying.

Your mother could propose a conference motion (via her branch) to amend the system so that it defaults to part time subs rate or will not process a membership without knowing the working hours. If her fellow members are in agreement this would become union policy.