16,000 officials and civil servants are paid by the taxpayer to work full time for their unions, new figures show

Thousands of officials and civil servants working across the public sector are paid by the taxpayer to work full time for their unions, new figures show. Government figures will published  on Monday will show that there are more than 16,000 full time union officials who are on the public pay roll.

The figure is far in excess of previous estimates. An investigation by the Telegraph in 2011 estimated the number to be around 1,785 public sector workers, costing tens of millions of pounds in wages. Public bodies have a duty by law to start to publish the information by the end of July and are now committed to publish the information annually.

The issue rose to prominence in 2011 when Jane Pilgrim, an NHS worker who worked full time for health union Unison criticised the Government’s health policies. The trawl of Government records shows there are 16,664 full time "Pilgrims" across police forces, NHS bodies, councils, and Government departments.

The actual figure is likely to be far higher because a wide range of public bodies are still to report their figures.

In Opposition the Tories pledged to clamp down on this so-called "facility time" - the official term for the practice of allowing staff to undertake trade union business during work hours.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/18/16000-officials-civil-servants-paid-taxpayer-work-full-time/

What a joke

16,000 basically paid to do nothing but promote Marxist doctrines

+1

the unions are really taking the piss. this money should be paid by the unions, not the council tax payer.

+1

Wait, so do these government employees not have supervisors who are supposed to make sure they're doing their jobs?

Or does the UK government knowingly and willingly pay people to run their unions?

This is confusing.

Another bullshit union-bashing windup from the profoundly anti-worker 'The Telegraph'.

A leading proponent of lower wages for workers and lower taxes for big business; while championing conservative faux_'austerity' policies and privatising healthcare at the same time..

The very same ' Telegraph that publishes pro-paedophile "opinion" columns, celebrating the reknown paedo' "Viscount" William 'Bill' Slim as supposedly Britain's "greatest war hero".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8436002/Bill-Slim-was-an-inspiration-andthe-greatest-of-our-generals.html

Yep, the good ol' British 'The Telegraph' --  the "establishments" best friend when attemptIng to whitewash their beloved perverts..

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4240947.htm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Another bullshit union-bashing windup from the profoundly anti-worker 'The Telegraph'.

A leading proponent of lower wages for workers and lower taxes for big business; while championing conservative faux_'austerity' policies and privatising healthcare at the same time..

The very same ' Telegraph that publishes pro-paedophile "opinion" columns, celebrating the reknown paedo' "Viscount" William 'Bill' Slim as supposedly Britain's "greatest war hero".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8436002/Bill-Slim-was-an-inspiration-andthe-greatest-of-our-generals.html

Yep, the good ol' British 'The Telegraph' --  the "establishments" best friend when attemptIng to whitewash their beloved perverts..

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4240947.htm

Apart from the fact that as an income and council tax payer I resent paying full time trade union officials' salaries (as a member of the National Union of Journalists for many years I paid my union dues to fund the officials whose job it was to represent my interests) when were the accusations about Field Marshall Viscount William Slim actually proven to be true?

I don't recall  reading anything other than allegations - much the same as those against Field Marshall Lord Bramall. Those, I do recall, turned out to be malicious garbage.

The UK Daily Telegraph is, in my opinion,  a superb newspaper, as is the UK Daily Mail which you hate in equal measure. I doubt whether the proprietors and editors of either publication are too concerned by the personal opinions of a less- than-knowledgeable, inexpert and  politically biased Australian.

Taxpayer funded quangos and bogus 'charities' also need to be stopped!

Wolf, do you actually read The Mail, or are you swayed by other peoples opinions ?

nicko wrote:Wolf,  do you actually read The Mail,  or are you swayed by other peoples opinions ?

I do read the links that people that pit up on here, nicko...

That's how I know that it is the Telegraph leading this round of union-bashing -- anything to deflect attention from how badly their beloved Tories are floundeeing so badly over there at the moment..


And I gave the link to the Telegraph's whitewashing efforts that I'm abusing them over on here; (even though that opinion piece was originally written over 6 years ago, they had reposted it online only two weeks ago.)

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:Wolf,  do you actually read The Mail,  or are you swayed by other peoples opinions ?

I do read the links that people that pit up on here,  nicko...

That's how  I know that it is the Telegraph leading this round of union-bashing --  anything to deflect attention from how badly their beloved Tories are floundeeing so badly over there at the moment..


And I gave the link to the Telegraph's whitewashing efforts that I'm abusing them over on here;  (even though that opinion piece was originally written over 6 years ago, they had reposted it online only two weeks ago.)

What a load of disingenuous crap.

The Daily Telegraph quite properly published the information ahead of the scheduled release of government statistics concerning the number of trade union officials being paid out of taxpayers' money, using its own research of seven years ago and the fact that the Tory government had promised to curtail the system and had not done so, as factual background material.

Whether you like it or not, this issue constitutes news. Newspapers are there to report the news. The Telegraph is a newspaper. It is entitled to support or to oppose any political party that its proprietors and editor wish - exactly the same as in the cases of the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and the Morning Star. End of story.

Quite what the employment terms of trade union officials has to do with the unproven allegations against a retired British Field Marshall while serving as Governor General of Australia escapes me, but since you raised the issue:

The Telegraph piece that you cited is NOT a "pro-paedophile opinion column"; it is an article, first published in April 2011 and contributed by the former Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Lord Dannatt (himself the victim of unproven allegations of abuse), the sole purpose of which was to compare the military successes and leadership qualities of historic British generals Cromwell, Marlborough, Wellington, Haig and Slim.

The specific issue of the (unproven) allegations of child abuse against Slim and the subsequent inquiry into a Trust that was allegedly implicated were properly covered in a dispatch by Telegraph reporter Johnathan Pearlman from Sidney in March 2014 in which two leading complainants' stories were fully, and no doubt accurately, reported.

There was probably further coverage by the Telegraph; I simply can't be arsed to look for it simply to accommodate your obsession with the matter.

He doesn't read the Mail, he doesn't read the Telegraph, he gets his knowledge from the opinions of others. Am I reading that right ?

What do both Nicko and Fred think about the Guardian?. A quality broadsheet that probably doesn't to in with their own political leanings.

nicko wrote:He doesn't read the Mail,  he doesn't read the Telegraph, he gets his knowledge from the opinions of others.   Am I reading that right ?

Come off it, nicko...

When people give a proper link to an article, anybody is then free and able to look at that particular item for themselves...

IF somebody then wants to defend the Telegraph or the Daily Flail over the way that they report those stories, then I can only assume that they are also defending the pro-Tory, anti-worker and pro-establishment angles that those newspapers always seem to follow..

You have to remember that Dacre has an agenda to smear Labour and Corbyn , even if it prints outright lies and contravenes the press code of conduct. It did the same to Ed Miliband and his late father.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Wait, so do these government employees not have supervisors who are supposed to make sure they're doing their jobs?

Or does the UK government knowingly and willingly pay people to run their unions?

This is confusing.

Anybody care to explain to me how this happens?

Andy@ Wolfie, both hard boiled Labour Supporters who wont believe anything if it goes against their beliefs that the Labour Party is the only way forward !

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Wait, so do these government employees not have supervisors who are supposed to make sure they're doing their jobs?

Or does the UK government knowingly and willingly pay people to run their unions?

This is confusing.

Anybody care to explain to me how this happens?

Think it is to do with this...


https://www.gov.uk/rights-of-trade-union-reps


And many are claiming that they spend so much time doing 'union' business, that they are effectively always being paid to have time off to do that...

Angry Andy wrote:What do both Nicko and Fred think about the Guardian?. A quality broadsheet that probably doesn't to in with their own political leanings.

Yes it is a quality broadsheet, and I like The Guardian and buy it occasionally as I occasionally buy other UK National newspapers with the exception of the red top tabloids. This is because I enjoy reading a variety of styles, editorial viewpoints and different writers. That's not surprising; I spent many years in the trade

Because we don't have regular daily newspaper deliveries I read the Daily Mail Online There is no subscription fee, finding what I want to read is easy...and it has some cracking good writers; some of the best imo.

I do make a point of going out and buying the Saturday issue of the Mail, primarily because it has a good separate radio and TV magazine.

Angry Andy wrote:You have to remember that Dacre  has an agenda to smear Labour and Corbyn , even if it prints outright lies and contravenes the press code of conduct. It did the same to Ed Miliband and his late father.

No, The Daily Mail's stated and long-established editorial policy is to support the Conservative and Unionist Party in precisely the same way as the editorial policy of the Daily Mirror is to support the Labour and Co-operative Party.

Specifically targeting the policies, leader, politicians and political associates of the Labour Party, and ensuring that negative aspects - a leader's record of contact and association with terrorists and terrorist organisations for example - are fully reported and are not suppressed by the party's Press office and its supporting newspapers is not smearing.

The Guardian and Mirror's exposures of wrongdoings, questionable associations and flawed policies of the Tory Party, its leader, politicians and political associates are not smears.

In both instances it is straight forward reporting of the facts in accordance with their established editorial policies, allowing readers to make up their minds.

It's what a free Press is fully entitled and has a duty to do - and in this country it generally does it pretty well.

So far as "lies" are concerned, one person'e lie is another person's truth. Most accusations of "lying" - and they are made by both sides - generally turn out to be based on interviews with third parties that make up the bulk of any newpaper's coverage.

Not all interviewees tell the truth, and journalists are just as prone to be taken in by lies anyone else, particularly in these days when newsgathering and dissemination take place at speeds never before heard of and against a background of intense commercial competitiveness and the need to get the story out first.

And the Mail, incidentally, has a far better record of admitting its mistakes than either the Mirror or The Guardian.

Finally, Paul Dacre is retiring in November at the age of 70 - after one of the longest, most distinguished and successful careers in newspaper history.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:He doesn't read the Mail,  he doesn't read the Telegraph, he gets his knowledge from the opinions of others.   Am I reading that right ?

Come off it, nicko...

When people give a proper link to an article,  anybody is then free and able to look at that particular item for themselves...

IF somebody then wants to defend the Telegraph or the Daily Flail over the way that they report those stories,  then I can only assume that they are also defending the pro-Tory, anti-worker and pro-establishment angles that those newspapers always seem to follow..

Since by your own admission you rely solely on the links that other posters introduce with the obvious intention that they should be the subject of debate and argument (specifically what this site is all about otherwise we are all wasting our time) your endless strictures on the qualities and policies of UK national newspapers would appear to me not to be worth a great deal.

You do realise, of course, that the Daily Mail has been among the most virulent of critics of some Tory politicians and government policies in the past?

No? But then, why should you, you don't actually read the newspaper - only limited bits of it - and then only if they have been chosen by someone else.

Well said, Wolfie has been found out, he should now retire defeated !

Just checked out the Mail online.
Just shy of soft core porn with their sidebar of shame featuring hosts of nubile (and bra busting ) girls with 'eye watering' cleavage, pert derrieres and taut abs.
That excludes the scores of stories about underage girls and their blossoming womanhood.
Is the online editor a paedo?
It kinda makes sense now why it is a Tory rag and so many conservatives. drool over it.

Angry Andy wrote:What do both Nicko and Fred think about the Guardian?. A quality broadsheet that probably doesn't to in with their own political leanings.

I would like the grauniad to pay some tax and not have its parent company shelter almost £1billion offshore. But I guess that is too much to hope for as it has never paid a penny in tax as it has never made a profit. I wonder how a business manages to stay in business as it makes a loss every year

Angry Andy wrote:You have to remember that Dacre  has an agenda to smear Labour and Corbyn , even if it prints outright lies and contravenes the press code of conduct. It did the same to Ed Miliband and his late father.

Dacre is retiring in november, what on earth will you do when you cant whine about him

Angry Andy wrote:Just checked out the Mail online.
Just shy of soft core porn with their sidebar of shame featuring hosts of nubile (and bra busting ) girls with 'eye watering' cleavage, pert derrieres and taut abs.
That excludes the scores of stories about underage girls and their blossoming womanhood.
Is the online editor a paedo?
It kinda makes sense now why it is a Tory rag and so many conservatives. drool over it.

Like all the other popular big circulation nationals the Mail carries "celebrity" news because, sadly imo, that is what sells on today's readership market - and celebs tend to gain their fame (and fortune) by posing with their bits hanging out.

If you don't like it, don't read it. I certainly don't.

So why should its editor be a paedo? I would have thought that even you had realised that tits 'n' bum celebs tend to be adults, and that paedophilia is centred on children)?

Has the MailOnline been running illegal material featuring underage girls and little boys? If so it's news to me.

If not, I hope that you and your Labour friends are not too disappointed at not being able to read it.

nicko wrote:
Well said,  Wolfie has been found out, he should now retire defeated !

Stop talking shite, nicko...

Nothing new has been "found out" about li'l ol' moi..

All Fred has done here is to confirm what a pair of hard-baked Tories the two of you are.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Wait, so do these government employees not have supervisors who are supposed to make sure they're doing their jobs?

Or does the UK government knowingly and willingly pay people to run their unions?

This is confusing.

Anybody care to explain to me how this happens?

it's the same here but no where near as many.
it's a mix of 'full time' HR function in larger workplaces and people getting a few hours a week to do it in smaller ones.

the public service union is very powerful, it's main role is in negotiating pay and conditions for public servants, which are paid a 'Tiered award wage' based on a fairly strict grading not individual merit.
And the Union does represent the majority of public servants so the threat of going on strike does mean crippling gov't services, which the public will blame on the government of the day.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:
Well said,  Wolfie has been found out, he should now retire defeated !

Stop talking shite,  nicko...

Nothing new has been "found out" about li'l ol' moi..

All Fred has done here is to confirm what a pair of hard-baked Tories the two of you are.

Really? And what was "hard-baked Tory" about what I posted?

I was simply trying to explain - unsurprisingly with little success in your case - the basic workings of  UK newspapers and in particular one that you constantly and carpingly criticise in spite of the fact that you you don't even bother to read it; only selected extracts that others choose for you. And even those you appear incapable of being able to understand.

And you accuse other posters of "talking shite."

He's been "outed" Fred, we now know he has no opinions of his own, he's just a copy cat

nicko wrote:He's been "outed" Fred,    we now know he has no opinions of his own,   he's just a copy cat

Just another tiresome Left winger who likes to pin labels like "Nazi" and "Fascist" on anyone who doesn't subscribe to his views.

Perhaps if he actually knew what the words meant he wouldn't be quite so free with them...I don't know about you, Nicko, but my home town was bombed to ruins and two of my own school friends and their families killed as a result of a country having real Nazis living in it, and I can tell the prat that there are no Nazis in this place.

Because Ben, Eds, Vic and Veya banned Allakaka, Smelly Bandit and Major Stormee.

There USED to be, Fred.

Angry Andy wrote:Because Ben, Eds, Vic and Veya banned Allakaka, Smelly Bandit and Major Stormee.

There USED to be, Fred.

They may well have been Far or even Ultra Right (your perception, not necessarily mine even though I strongly opposed many of their views) but they were NOT  - repeat NOT - either Nazis or Fascists.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:You have to remember that Dacre  has an agenda to smear Labour and Corbyn , even if it prints outright lies and contravenes the press code of conduct. It did the same to Ed Miliband and his late father.

Dacre is retiring in november, what on earth will you do when you cant whine about him

I am sure Dacre will be replaced by a fellow far right, immigrant  hating, Corbyn smearer .
At least balance will be restored when the failing, flailing UKIP supporting Express hands over ownership to the Mirror Group.
It will be interesting to see whether their rather extreme brand of politics is moderated.
.
Had to chuckle at your new Tory hating poster, Dyk. How long before you ban him, as you have done virtually every other left winger.
"All Political Persuasions welcome!!!" Don't make me larf.

Angry Andy wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Dacre is retiring in november, what on earth will you do when you cant whine about him

I am sure Dacre will be replaced by a fellow far right, immigrant  hating, Corbyn smearer .
At least balance will be restored when the failing, flailing UKIP supporting Express hands over ownership to the Mirror Group.
It will be interesting to see whether their rather extreme brand of politics is moderated.
.
Had to chuckle at your new Tory hating poster, Dyk. How long before you ban him, as you have done virtually every other left winger.
"All Political Persuasions welcome!!!" Don't make me larf.

The new editor of the Daily Mail has been named as  Geordie Greig, editor of the Mail on Sunday.

Interestingly enough, through the Daily Mail was firmly pro-Brexit the MoS under Greig was on the side of the UK remaining in the EU.

However, Greig will be expected to conform to the DM's stated editorial policy, which is supportive of the Conservative and Unionist Party, notwithstanding Brexit considerations.

The newspaper's attitude towards Brexit remains to be seen.

My own opinion is that although the Daily Mail's approach towards remaining in the EU may well soften (Greig will, after all, report to "Remainer" Lord Rothermere) it will still largely reflect the readership's majority leaning towards leaving in accordance with the results of the referendum.

Commercial considerations remain in these matters!

So far as the Mirror Group's takeover of the Daily Express is concerned, I would rate it as unlikely that because of the growing influence of Express Deputy Editor Michael Booker there will be any major change of political preference. In my book he is an excellent journalist and might well emerge as editor fairly soon. Centrist would be my prediction; neither slavish allegiance to the Conservative Party nor boot-licking, grovelling endorsement of a Labour leader who is now regarded as a highly dangerous prospect by an increasing number of politicians as well as electors.

And Andy, as I have tried to explain to you in words of as few syllables as possible, newpaper exposes of the truth
about politicians - including Corbyn - are not smears; they are legitimate reporting and comment on matters that affect democracy.

I lost my faith in red tops of all persuasions after the various hacking scandals, added onto the Hillsboro smears and lies, as well as the concerted efforts by some to lie about a Labour leader's father.
The only paper I ever buy ( for rail journey's) is the I. Factual, politically neutral and some good articles.

Angry Andy wrote:I lost my faith in red tops of all persuasions after the various hacking scandals, added onto the Hillsboro smears and lies, as well as the concerted efforts by some to lie about a Labour leader's father.
The only paper I ever buy ( for rail journey's) is the I. Factual, politically neutral and some good articles.

The red top tabloids are facing a losing battle. The Daily Mirror is now down, I believe, to something not much over a half million a day sales compared to the 1.2 million of the Daily Mail, and while The Sun reigns supreme in the readership stakes it is generally down to tits, bums and salacious so-called celebrity gossip as its main attractions.

And I can read up to date news from a variety of sources, from BBC, ITN, Sky News, Reuters, CNN and Up day literally on my phone, anytime.

Angry Andy wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Dacre is retiring in november, what on earth will you do when you cant whine about him

I am sure Dacre will be replaced by a fellow far right, immigrant  hating, Corbyn smearer .
At least balance will be restored when the failing, flailing UKIP supporting Express hands over ownership to the Mirror Group.
It will be interesting to see whether their rather extreme brand of politics is moderated.
.
Had to chuckle at your new Tory hating poster, Dyk. How long before you ban him, as you have done virtually every other left winger.
"All Political Persuasions welcome!!!" Don't make me larf.

we dont have a new poster, we had phil posting in the guest section which is there for that very purpose of stopping phil getting not the site.
Odd how you seem to know everything that goes on on a site you have sworn you never visit or read.

Angry Andy wrote:And I can read up to date news from a variety of sources, from BBC, ITN, Sky News, Reuters, CNN and Up day literally on my phone, anytime.

so you get almost all your news from left leaning sites then

Says a far righter who says stuff like this :

"Flap Zappa Today at 8:28 pm

@dragonfly wrote:head/flapper, can you ban this loon. Can be doing with these outbursts, the guy can't converse in a normal civilised manner and posts Owen 'my arse is on fire' Jones garbage.

poor sad deluded drunken phil seems to think he is making a stand when in fact he is just giving me more and more proxies to ban.I suggest you dont engage him and he will fuck off and die like his aids riddled paedo moderating boyfriend.".

You really are a charmer.

Do you know Phil, Andy,? it appears that you don't,
I'v "known" him for years, A bigger piece of shit than any one on any Forum.!

Are you a friend of Phil, Andy ?

I know him from ADO, not the nicest bloke, and clearly has some issues, but is there any need to hope he catches AIDS and dies?

Little wonder the once thriving flop forum ( in Dyk's words) into the wretched place it is now. ( albeit is is certainly less sick than when Kaka and Major ruled the roost.

Angry Andy wrote:I  know him from ADO, not the nicest bloke, and clearly has some issues, but is there any need to hope he catches AIDS and dies?

Little wonder the once thriving flop forum ( in Dyk's words) into the wretched place it is now. ( albeit is is certainly less sick than when Kaka and Major ruled the roost.

Would this be the same "not the nicest bloke" who has "some issues" who posted after my wife's funeral that "they should dig her up and throw her into the cesspit and him (meaning me) after her..."?