The political fund of Unions is needed for any political campaigning! Even an advert in the local paper in support of public services, or helping an anti-facist campaign, or something has to be paid for out of the political fund.

If you don't want your Political Fund money going to New Labour campaign to stop it happening... all the political funds have to be accountable to the members somehow.

I can understand author "TU" point of view, but how can TU leaders justify demanding such salary? It is sad to reflect that it doesn't just stop there, most NGO groups which depends heavy on volunteers (Oxfam, Save the Children, etc...) also demand similar salaries.

Why do we let them happen?

No one can physically on their own, can create goods in a single year that would match anywhere near the sum money they are earning. The TU leaders/ NGO groups and others can only physically do that on the back of other people physical earning but those people receive less pay, in return for thanks.

A classic example of enforcing class division by salary earnings.

Such claims made by these big earners justify their pay by making an excuse, that organisations need the best people. To do that, they need the salary to match the completive employment market. I would argue since these organisations are working for the benefit of people's welfare, such jobs should be expected with a certain moral obligation for pay to reflect their real work value and set a positive example for their staff.

Rule one, read the comment and don't assume the comment!

My mistake on the last point.

Never the less my points are Valid.

if
The political fund of Unions is needed for any political campaigning! Even an advert in the local paper in support of public services, or helping an anti-facist campaign, or something has to be paid for out of the political fund.

then, What do TUnionists pay their subs for?

and,
if you don't want your Political Fund money going to New Labor campaign to stop it happening... all the political funds have to be accountable to the members somehow.

Trade Unionist, If you had any idea how TU's work you would not talk such niave crap, or maybe you are a new laborite? all members of TU's can refuse to pay to the political fund.

The problem with the old guard trade unionists is that they worked for years to elect a labor government and when they got one it was worse than the tories!! Be honest you've been had, you let multimillionaires get to the helm of your ship and they sold you out and you are all too fuckin' proud to admit it.

What happened to the promise to repeal the anti TU legislation? lets not forget that founding principle of public ownership? and thats just off the top of my ed

lets face it the only union that does owt about public service, and with fuck all success, is unison and they're new labor through & through at senior level or managers or SWP in the offices.

Anyone doing paid work for a charity, union, ngo, political party or executive should earn the national minimum wage. That'd soon raise living standards. As it is, anyone who is a member of the labour party or any associated group, or anyone who pays taxes to political parties or this state, is complicit in elitist genocide.

Ethical foriegn policy = Iraqi genocide

End to tory sleaze = Direct mafia links to 10 Downing Street

>> The political fund of Unions is needed for any political campaigning! Even an advert in the local paper in support of public services, or helping an anti-facist campaign, or something has to be paid for out of the political fund.
> then, What do TUnionists pay their subs for?

For what all Unions do well, individual representation in the workplace; and what some do well, collective representation in the work place. Campaigns directly and specifically related to their workplace can also be paid for from general subs.

>> if you don't want your Political Fund money going to New Labor campaign to stop it happening... all the political funds have to be accountable to the members somehow.
> Trade Unionist, If you had any idea how TU's work you would not talk such niave crap, or maybe you are a new laborite? all members of TU's can refuse to pay to the political fund.

Refuse to pay the political fund and you remove all opportunity for your Union to campaign on stuff I'm pretty sure we both agree it should. Well, should you wish to pull your finger out and actually take part in it instead of moaning about the SWP holding all the officer positions (it's only because no other fucker puts themselves up for it... most Unions are crying out for people to volunteer to be officers).

I note you have not responded to my point about millionaires running the TU Movement at a national level or Managers at a local, Millionaires and managers can be members of unions if they wish, but not where there is an obvious conflict of interest.

As for the SWP I consider them to be just like you beloved labor party, to be a corrupt group that will not represent those who they claim to once they have acquired power.

I have once or twice pulled my finger out, having been a regional officer, and held branch officer posts for over 20 years, worked tirelessly for the miners, dockers and print workers and my own colleagues, been imprisoned and dismissed more than once for TU activities, and my considered opinion is that you should NOT pay political fund contributions.

In justification of this I need offer no more than the fact that such funds go towards the labor party, yet the labor party have not even repealed the anti TU legislation introduced by the tories!

Do you really need more than that?

But of course maybe you have examples of the good use these funds have been put to?

> I note you have not responded to my point about millionaires running the TU Movement at a national level or Managers at a local, Millionaires and managers can be members of unions if they wish, but not where there is an obvious conflict of interest.

Correct I ignored it as another discussion not specifically about if you pay into the Political Fund. It is a discussion where you need to clarify if you believe that you should be a member of a Trade Union or not - no question about paying into the fund if you aren't a member. If you are a member it is a discussion about what you do want to do with the Union and your fellow workes.

> As for the SWP I consider them to be just like you beloved labor party, to be a corrupt group that will not represent those who they claim to once they have acquired power.

I agree

> In justification of this I need offer no more than the fact that such funds go towards the labor party, yet the labor party have not even repealed the anti TU legislation introduced by the tories! Do you really need more than that? But of course maybe you have examples of the good use these funds have been put to?

Sure... the Unison General Political Fund gives money to organisations including Liberty, the Committee for the Administration of Justice (in Northern Ireland), the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, the Institute of Employment Rights, the Stephen Lawrence campaign, the Respect Festival, the Durham Miner’s Gala and the Bevan Foundation (in Wales). Best bit about the funding for charities is it isn't restricted by charity law.

The GPF is also accessible to service groups, self-organised groups, branches and regions which want to run their own campaigns. These are often against PFI, outsourcing and other forms of privatisation or in support of anti-racist initiatives.

Opting out of the Political Fund completely because some of your money is going to New Labour isn't the answer. The RMT's funding is falling as the article says... expelled from New Labour and now only supporting MPs directly who support RMT policy - not ideal but getting better. The FBUs leadership were given a kicking from their members over funding for a party that was abusing them.

Better to mobilise people to campaign for more direct control over the political fund then open out and make it impossible for Unions to do anything outside casework in the workplace. You never know it might make some of your fellow workers more aware politically of the relationship between the leaders they are voting for and the Labour party.

I know pronounce you man and wife - and anarchists to boot - you may now kiss the bride.

That last post wasn't mine. Not that I claim the right to post under the name Danny always, but once I have done so on a thread it is obviously dirty tricks to use the same name. I just trounced a right-wing troll who posts under the name M and I bet this is their ridiculous attempt at revenge. So be it, I'm happy to post under any name, I've only stuck to the one name to maintain clarity and to avoid being exposed as a fraud. Unlike the Danny who just posted.

If any of the IM volunteers want to publish the IP addresses of that Danny against mine to prove the point, I have no objection as I have fairly good security. Also, if I ever say anything that causes the cops to hassle IM , just pass them straight onto me, I have no objections.

Sorry Danny imc don't do that sorta thing. Though the fbi machinery did swipe imc servers from london two yrs ago but no ip logs existed so they would not have gotten anything in that regard.

Yeah, I know, I was just trying to scare off the poster who was being disruptive without being too disruptive myself - well, not any more than usual. And it seemed to work although having to explain has hijacked the thread somewhat, so apologies for that.

Anyone who has access to an IM server can check IP addresses of posts as they arrive whether they are logged or not but that's an internal security matter I won't comment on here.

I think it should be pointed out to everyone that while IM don't log IP addresses of folk who post here, the same can't be said of your ISP. This information is supposedly aimed at terrorists but we all know about the number of peaceful protestors who are stopped under terrorist legislation.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4527840.stm