Angela Rayner suspended from Unite Union

Oreo

That’s about it Casdon the Council want to fire and rehire the workers for around £8,000 less per year, who would put up with that?

Not all the workers, or so I understood. The Council claims that only 17 workers would face a pay cut, those in the Waste Recycling and Collection Officer (WRCO) role which is being abolished.
If the role is not essential and to be abolished , why can they not offer those Officers redundancy and a payout as would happen in industry?

I believe the Union claims that 170 workers are involved.

So who is telling the truth?

It's complicated, but yes, Birmingham Council has had problems for quite some time.

Unite’s move against Rayner appeared to be largely symbolic given the deputy prime minister had already cancelled her membership payments, although she was still recorded as being a member of Unite on the last list of ministerial interests published on 29 May.

So who is being inefficient? Angela Rayner or Unite?

Meanwhile, parts of Birmingham must be stinking in this weather.
I hope it's resolved as a matter f urgency.

M0nica

Spinnaker

The cynic in me says that she's been deliberately suspended from Unite so as to put some distance between her and them. Then along comes Starmer's position and hey ho, we have a new PM with whom relations with Unite will suddenly be all good again. Just a thought ...

I was about to post saying exactly the same thing!

Time will tell MOnica 😉😉

Apparently she quit Unite a number of months ago

Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said: “Unite is crystal clear that it will call out bad employers regardless of the colour of their rosette. Angela Rayner has had every opportunity to intervene and resolve this dispute, but has instead backed a rogue council that has peddled lies and smeared its workers fighting huge pay cuts.”

“The disgraceful actions of the Government and a so-called Labour council is essentially fire and rehire and makes a joke of the Employment Relations Act promises. People up and down the country are asking whose side is the Labour Government on – and coming up with the answer ‘not workers’.”

Trouble in camp …

I'm still a paying member of Unite.

Not all of us support the Labour Party. When I first joined (as an NHS professional, they took over NALGO) they ask you if you wanted to contribute to the Labour Party, it was a No from me.
This Union supports Professional as well as "Blue Collar" workers across the UK, I don't remember Corbin being pushed.

Visgir1

I'm still a paying member of Unite.

Not all of us support the Labour Party. When I first joined (as an NHS professional, they took over NALGO) they ask you if you wanted to contribute to the Labour Party, it was a No from me.
This Union supports Professional as well as "Blue Collar" workers across the UK, I don't remember Corbin being pushed.

I’m a still paying member of Unite and I did/do support the Labour Party. However, Sarah Graham on her election manifesto for Unite promised she would always support members above a political party. It was for this reason I voted for them. Whether Rayner left or was suspended first I don’t know but I’m perfectly happy Unite are supporting their members.

I have just watched an interview with Sharon Graham on BBC breakfast news.

795 delegates out of 800 voted to suspend Angela Rayner, and the same amount voted to re-examine UNITE’s relationship with the Labour Party.

UNITE spends its time re-examining its relationship with the Labour Party😄.

But as it no longer funds the Labour Party, most of its decisions are immaterial.

As Rayner had resigned, nor sure what the vote to suspend her achieved?

Labour needs to find new sources of funding. The unions are no longer representatives of the broad working classes but limited mostly to the public sector.

It's time that all political parties were state funded. Then they couldn't be accused of being in thrall to any particular interest.

Yes, but could we match the amounts paid to certain politicians by the Russians and other foreign nations?

Why would we have to match them? They are bribes, after all. As are huge donations from businesses. And payments that give preferential access to ministers.

Parties should be able to charge membership fees of a reasonable amount (capped, perhaps, to prevent bribes disguised as membership fees) but after that the state could pay enough to cover their expenses, e.g. admin costs and election costs.

I wonder how much Sharon Graham gets for representing her members. Like all union leaders, it will be considerably above 100k a year, plus she can claim everything on expenses, have a chauffeur driven car and her pension paid for by the union. Like a lot of politicians, these jumped up union reps are only in it for themselves and love going on television.
I am in a union and most of the time it's dominated by hard left relics who fight among themselves and in the 28 years I've been a member, it hasn't really achieved much.

I turned down a job I was offered in London (Fleet Street Newspaper) because I found out it was a closed shop and I would have to join the appropriate union.

I live in Birmingham. We do not however come under Birmingham City Council. I travel around various parts of the city and have not seen any rubbish piled up anywhere. The news reports have picked out the worst places to film where people have used the strike to throw old mattresses and furniture out onto the street. Most people are being as responsible as they can,

GrannyGravy13

I turned down a job I was offered in London (Fleet Street Newspaper) because I found out it was a closed shop and I would have to join the appropriate union.

Blimey that must have been a few years ago😄

Oops...going to the tip, helping those who can't get there. My own sister has been visiting a the tip regularly. She said there are no queues. I resent my city being portrayed as a smelly dump, as was suggested to me whilst on holiday recently.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

I turned down a job I was offered in London (Fleet Street Newspaper) because I found out it was a closed shop and I would have to join the appropriate union.

Blimey that must have been a few years ago😄

Many many moons ago 😹

Before they moved to Wapping.

MaizieD

Why would we have to match them? They are bribes, after all. As are huge donations from businesses. And payments that give preferential access to ministers.

Parties should be able to charge membership fees of a reasonable amount (capped, perhaps, to prevent bribes disguised as membership fees) but after that the state could pay enough to cover their expenses, e.g. admin costs and election costs.

That would be much much better.

Empty posturing by Unite.

Oreo

Before they moved to Wapping.

The days when The Times was on strike for a year because the unions didn't like new rechnology, other papers were continually disrupted by printers strikes, and British papers in black and white looked archaic compared to ones from other countries. Wapping might have been controversial, but it led to the creation of the country's first all colour paper( Today) and other papers followed suit.

GrannyGravy13

I turned down a job I was offered in London (Fleet Street Newspaper) because I found out it was a closed shop and I would have to join the appropriate union.

Sounds good to me, missed opportunity.

Still, it turned out well in the end.

Did not mean we should, MaizieD. Was being a wee bit cynical about why some people enter 'public service' as politicians.