The announcement that the Tory Government are to ban the collection of union subscriptions via ‘check – off’ – deduction of union subs directly from wage packets in the public sector – a system which has worked for years drew massive criticism from unions today. (August 6th).
And a letter from a previous minister immediately blew a big hole in the Tory policy.
Former Chief Secretary To The Treasury Danny Alexander said in a letter last year there was no public policy case to end check-off in the public sector.
Unite said that ministers should come clean about how stopping public sector union members paying their membership dues though the long-standing payroll âcheck offâ system will achieve a saving of ÂŁ6.5 million to the public purse.
Unite with 250,000 members in the public sector, including the NHS, has written to cabinet office minister Matthew Hancock and minister for trade and investment Lord Maude asking for an urgentÂ explanation as to how the cost estimation has been arrived at.
In her letter, Unite assistant general secretary Gail Cartmail asked how the ÂŁ6.5 million figure squared with the advice of former coalition chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, who in a letter to Whitehall departments in July 2014, advised that âthere was no fiscal caseâ for terminating the âcheck offâ arrangements.
Gail Cartmail said: âIt is a great shame that government decided to announce this decision and bypass unions, which is a discourtesy I would not have expected from your office.Â
âOur members in the public sector will be concerned to understand why, after five years of pay constraint and the additional loss of income that the tax credit changes will cause them and their families and why your government is singling them out once more for harsh treatment.Â
âYour full explanation of your cost estimation is therefore urgently sought. It would be helpful to know how this figure of ÂŁ6.5 million was arrived at.âÂ
Gail Cartmail asked a series of probing questions of the two ministers:
â˘Â Â Â Has the calculation taken into account employer charges paid by unions that vary from one to five per cent?
â˘Â Â Â Does government believe the cost of deductions is consistent across all payroll systems and, if so, what is the cost per employee; if inconsistent what is the range of variation?
â˘Â Â Â Is the saving claimed annual or representative of the lifetime of this government?
She continued: âCrucially, if we are able to show there is no cost as current payments to employers cover any incidental administration will employers have the flexibility to retain the existing system of payroll deduction?Â
âThe Conservatives have consistently advocated âchoiceâ yet choose to close off choice and interfere in the relationship between hundreds of employers and their recognised trade unions.Â
âIt is bewildering why you persist in denigrating deductions via payroll for trade union contributions when other deductions seem to be efficiently made such as charitable donations.
âI believe it is fair and proportionate that my request for details on how the financial justification was arrived at and look forward to your response.â
TUC’s assistant general secretary Paul Nowak said: “If payroll payment for union membership was outdated, it would not be popular with so many of the UK ‘s biggest private companies with positive union relations.
“Instead of going out of their way to poison industrial relations, the government should engage positively with workers and their representatives for the good of public services and the economy.”