The insidious Unions

TonyH Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:42 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

After rallying to Labour’s financial cause, the Unions are “licking their lips” (according to Iain Dale) and are set to "make demands" of Gordon Brown according to this article in the Guardian.



So what might these “demands” that highlight the Unions “strength” be?

The public services union Unison is to propose that primary school children should all get free school meals to help families and increase healthy living.

The GMB is tabling amendments that would allow environmental workplace representatives to be created to encourage "green" workplaces.

Unite, the largest union, is proposing that employees have better access to flexible workplace leave. At present parents with children up to the age of six may request time off if their child has an exam or a medical appointment. The unions want the age limit raised to 16.

Feeding children, protecting the planet and helping parents to be parents.

Have these brazen Unions no shame?

It’s almost like they have people’s interests at heart!! Hopefully, some large Tory donors will dig deep for Cameron and save the country from these people because Conservative backers never want anything in return for their financial support.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
The insidious Unions | 28 comments (28 topical)

Re: The insidious Unions (#1)

by otware on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM GMT

I especially like the school meals idea, how great! It will probably cost too much for Alistair Darling though, it's far too radical for New Labour.


Re: The insidious Unions (#2)

by bobbysilby on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:31:54 AM GMT

When it was introduced in Hull it proved unpopular with the electorate as a whole. A real shame as it actually produced real results, if you want kids to eat healthily at school you have to make the meals free otherwise takeup will plummet.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#4)

by otware on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM GMT

Why on earth was it unpopular?! Did people think it was costing the tax payer too much?


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#3)

by TonyH on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM GMT

I do like it too. It will cost serious money but in the long run make a serious saving in what is spent on tackling health problems like obesity.

Not to mention help the "hard working families" everyone never shuts up about.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#5)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM GMT

Those bastards! Next they'll be proposing for agency workers to have equal rights. They know how to blackmail.

Excellent post, as it serves as an antedote to the hyperbole of how the unions are suddenly about to 'control' Labour.


Re: The insidious Unions (#6)

by e10rifles on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:22:59 PM GMT

Nothing wrong with any of those but hopefully it's just a start. The unions should be wringing every last policy out of the government in the current financial climate.


Re: The insidious Unions (#7)

by DavidPrescott on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:53:30 PM GMT

Great post Tony. I'd actually blogged on this, this morning too.

Bobby - whilst Free School Meals weren't popular with the majority of the 25% who bothered to vote in the Hull City Council election, this has the potential to be a massive vote winner.

At a time of rising food, energy bills and childcare costs, anything that helps ease the financial pressure on hard-working families is not only morally right, it makes enormous political sense.

Hull City Council's  'Eat Well, Do Well scheme' delivered impressive results - average school meal uptake went up from 35% to more than 73% (78% amongst low income families) and teachers reported calmer classes and an increased willingness to learn.

It's also key to getting kids into healthy eating habits that could last a life time and the argument to do so is becoming more compelling.

Last year's Foresight report on obesity revealed 60% of men, half of all women and a quarter of children and young people will be obese by 2050 unless we start to do something now.

The conservative cost of providing school meals for ALL children is estimated to be £2 billion a year - but we already spend about £3.5 billion tackling obesity problems.

With this expected to rise to a staggering £45 billion a year by 2050, universal free school meals suddenly becomes a pretty shrewd investment.

So it'll take the stigma away from pupils having to claim free school meals, encourage healthier eating habits, combat obesity, improve a pupil's receptiveness to learn AND ultimately save us billions of pounds.

Finally, how refreshing is it going to be for us all to get behind a policy that helps improve the quality of life for the public, not restrict it.
 
Brilliant idea.

But please sir, can I have some more?


Re: The insidious Unions (#8)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM GMT

Absolutely. The stigma attatched to kids on free school meals would disappear. Children with a healthy diet behave and peform better in classes. It would increase people's confidence as well. Imagine how humiliating, seeing your friends going out to buy lunch is, when you have to stay inside because you can't afford it.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#9)

by bobbysilby on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM GMT

True, the policy was an excellent idea but there was a lot of vocal opposition to it. I remember it was very hard to get past the argument "why should all council tax payers subsidise professional working parents?" and the only defence our own Labour councillors ever had was similar to a 1950s defence of universal welfare benefits. Also didn't help that we reduced school uniform grants which are means tested to help pay for a universal benefit.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#10)

by DavidPrescott on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:36:56 PM GMT

Hello Bobby.

I accept it was a bit unpopular at the time in Hull, especially with a few pensioners questioning why they should subsidise it (people who, of course, benefited from the universal benefit of a bus pass)

There was also a lack of unity in fighting for Eat Well Do Well, with a couple of Labour candidates dismissing it on the doorstep. (I seem to recall it didn't stop one of them getting soundly beaten.)

But as I said in my earlier post, times have changed, household budgets are tighter across the board and you know what , it's just morally the right thing to do. 

I don't think we're going to have a big problem with universality, especially when it's going to save the Treasury billions in the long run, combat obesity and relieve some of the burden on the NHS.

But that's why we got involved isn't it - to make the case and fight for the things that we believe in. So let's make the case.

By the way, how's China? I hear you've lost a stone since you've left Hull. Obviously, your healthy eating habits have improved.
 
Or is that the hometown temptations are out of reach? I bet you miss chips from Carvers!

Take care,

DP


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#11)

by Rathfelder on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:47:16 PM GMT

This story misses the central point, which is that unlike the last round when the Unions set up a co-ordinated offensive culminating in the Warwick agreement, this time the various Unions are putting up a variety of policy proposals. 

For my money the school meal proposal is not radical enough.  School meals should not only be free but be compulsory.  Learning how to eat properly should be part of a child's education.  That way we could protect children from exploitation at least during the school days. 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#21)

by Sensible Comrade on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM GMT

I agree, and like the idea of free and compulsory school meals.


I think putting such a policy into action would, however, expose some of the difficulties of trying to practise universalism in modern Britain. Can you imagine the arguments of parents demanding halal/kosher/vegetarian/vegan meals for their children?


Overall, though, the idea is straightforward and would surely have a great degree of populist appeal.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#28)

by bobbysilby on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM GMT

Yes and when I stood for election in Hull and used the policy on my literature, defended it on the doorstep and ran petitions to save it I was soundly beaten as where a lot of other Labour candidates. Not sure I ever saw you defending it on the doorstep Dave.

 

I agree the policy was the morally correct thing to do but I don't think the council should have cut school uniform grants to pay for it especially when the number of kids entitled to free meals under means testing was already pretty high anyway.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#12)

by RedRooster on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:59:49 PM GMT

If school meals were free for all, we'd have to come up with a new measure for number of socially disadvantaged children per school.  That's not at all a reason for not doing this, but I can hear the conspiracy theories forming already...


Re: The insidious Unions (#14)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 06:59:04 PM GMT

But the NPV of universal free school meals, as David Prescott pointed out, was £1.5 billion.

You need long term savings, not short term savings. Universal childcare, and REACH proposals to beef up a Corporate Manslaughter bill have short term costs, but long term savings for our economy, pensions, benefits, education and healthcare systems.


Re: The insidious Unions (#15)

by madasafish on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM GMT

I'm sorry. Any new suggestions that involve spending extra monies are just politically and financially unacceptable.

You don't seem to realise the Government finances are dire, revenues are falling (stamp duty on housing, new car sales)... and meanwhile the Unions want the Government to spend more.


Tax and spend.. tax and spend...

Try to learn something from prior election defeats and not repeat the errors of the past...


Re: The insidious Unions (#16)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:01:27 PM GMT

Alternatively you could tax the rich more, to give tax cuts to the poorer, and use some of the money to spend on public services.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#17)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:31:34 AM GMT

I was pleasantly surprised by the list of 'demands' that the unions thought of. Most of them seem quite sensible.

The only problem with the free school meals is that whilst it's great in principle, we do need to make sure it is costed before we give it the go-ahead. With people complaining about high taxes and a high government budget deficit, it may be politically difficult to do right now.


Re: The insidious Unions (#18)

by madasafish on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM GMT

Give tax ciuts bto the poor? Good idea. How about a 10p starting rate of income tax.


Re: The insidious Unions (#19)

by PhilipBristol on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM GMT

Now...back in the real world...

So Dale isn't meaning the unions threat to tear up all those wonderful three year agreements our esteemed leader trumpeted as stability in our time then...?

Or the fact that as soon as the unions have the power to control  we will back to 20% wage demands and worse.  We have all seen recently what happens when a union has the country by the b**ls...Shell drivers are an excellent example.

I know they say the "man" been dragging them down over the years...that is not the point.  The real point is unions will misuse their power if they think they can get away with it...and they did.




 


Re: The insidious Unions (#20)

by treborc on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:20:59 PM GMT

What the hell are you talking about without Unions we would still be paid 50p an hour as hospital cleaners, we have no rights at all, and the shell workers were only asking for parity with other drivers.

Morons like you live a better life because of Unions then moan like hell.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#25)

by e10rifles on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM GMT

I'd ignore the lunatic in Bristol.

20% wage demands indeed.

Get a grip.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#27)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:27:22 PM GMT

Absolutely.

Furthermore, the super rich distort inflation far more, with rediculous pay increases for them, than if we give a £30 million pay award to the police.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#22)

by Wiseman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM GMT

I think that the way forward is to encourage as many young people to join unions. I hope we reach at least 10,000,000 union members.  I for one we be championing the cause.

John Wiseman
Unite Shop Steward


Re: The insidious Unions (#24)

by PhilipBristol on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM GMT

treborc

Good to know their are people within the Labour movement who can make a rational argument without resorting to name calling.


Re: The insidious Unions (#26)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:01:40 PM GMT

treborc has deserted Labour (splitter...)


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#30)

by Free Radical on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:13:14 AM GMT

But Treborc did make a valid point. And he is one of many people who feel let down by New Labour... people that we need to get back on board in the party if we are to have a good future as a socialist party rather than a New Whig party under someone like Purnell or Milburn.


[ Parent ]

Re: The insidious Unions (#29)

by Free Radical on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM GMT

BritishAsian

Union members would of course contribute to funding such measure through the money they already pay in taxation. As I'm sure you are aware, the burden of taxation falls disproportionately on those workers on PAYE, as companies often manage to find ways of avoiding and minimising tax and the super rich often avoid it altogether.


The insidious Unions | 28 comments (28 topical)