To think his latest attack on the unions hits a new low?

[Sixweekstowait]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/06/public-sector-workers-stopped-automatically-union-subscriptions-pay-cheque

With computerised pay rolls, what is the cost to the employers of the automatic deductions of union fees? Another reason the government puts forward is that it will lead to greater transparency as workers will realise they are paying - ffs. No this is just sheer vindictiveness because public sector unions are still relatively powerful. The lessons of history show a close correlation bewteen attacks on union rights and fascism .

PS I wasn't too clear in my post:: as far as a I remember, when you join the UCU you have to set up a DD as part of the online form. I'd never really thought of people doing anything else.

unions exist for the benefit of their members only

I've not been a member of a union to date but I'm pretty sure that I've benefitted too.

Pink - when you are employed by the public sector, you have a choice to join a union. If you decide to join, you have to pay union membership fees. You can choose to pay these in a variety of ways but in the public sector, you can decide to pay them monthly by having them deducted from your salary, you sign a form to allow this, the employer, at almost nil cost, puts this information on the pay roll. At regular intervals it then transfers, at almost nil cost, the subs collected to the relevant unions. If you wish, you can decide to set up a direct debit and as said above, unions are encouraging this. The government is going to stop this because it knows full well with malice aforethought that some people who lead busy lives or are otherwise disorganised will take the form home and put it behind the clock on the mantle piece ( shows my age). This will reduce union funds, reduce membership in the work place and so weaken the unions and the support they can offer to their members.

Museum - I agree with much of what you say and unions are encouraging dd ( it's clearly in their interests) but there will still be a possible loss of members when the change comes in. As for online voting, the government has categorically ruled this out and all ballots have to be postal. the deduction from salary system is withering on the vine anyway so why does the government have to waste parliamentary time on this and not just let it wither? Because it helps to set up a froth of anti union feeling

Do you can't pay for your membership by DD?

*So

Bourdic 'malice a forethought'

So what? Why would the loss of apathetic members weaken the unions? Maybe they are nice to have, in terms of funding without the fuss of them making any opinions heard, but surely that is just supporting another form of Status Quo which does not do much for social justice either...

Even the Telegraph have headlined the story 'Conservatives launch new assault on union funds'. And I didn't realise that 4 m people are still paying by deductions from salary . Capsium loss of members (apathetic or otherwise) weakens unions because they lose money and influence. Unions do a great deal for social justice and as pp have said, many of us members or not benefit from this. What I am sure of is that weaker smaller unions will do zilch for social justice. And that is precisely the point of this isn't it?

Pink - yes you can - it's in my post

I don't get what the problem is then, sorry.

Pink - it's the attrition that will probably result during the changeover

But if people 'can't be bothered' to set up the DD then they may not have been that interested in being in the union in the first place.

What's attrition?

Bourdic strength is not always in numbers. If we are talking only about a vocal few and an apathetic / quiet for whatever reason, many, this, IMO, is not representative of the views of the whole. Which is not social justice and not strength of ethos but simply different few potentially exploiting the masses to their own ends.

I agree the unions have, in the past, done a lot for social justice - however there has also been a darker side. I remember my father dreading more strikes in the 80s, we were barely able to survive...loan sharks were making good business then....

Capsium - of course unions have had their darker side but I don't want to start trading the darker side of exploitative employers with you. Of course strength is not always in numbers but numbers help with the finances. One problem is that people often don't realise what unions do for the benefit of a workforce - some of their unsung work is in what may seem like tedious boring consultations and meetings. Because people are quiet doesn't mean they don't care or shouldn't be represented. People sign up freely to deductions from salary - it's just as patronising to take that away from them on the basis they don't realise what they've done as it is to say they are too disorganised to remember to set up a dd. The main difference between the two is that they stand to benefit from the former but not the latter and that's the motivation behind the proposal.

Pink - use a dictionary

Pink: attrition means theprocess of reducing something's strength, (in this case the union's) by putting pressure on them, or attacking them.

Unions do not exist for the benefits of their members only. What an ignorant thing to say.

So the Tube drivers striking today are doing it for the benefit of everyone in London?

Well I pay my Union fees by direct debit each month, but I'd be grateful if I could keep the money which the Union then give to labour. I appreciate the support of my Union just in case, but I don't want to help to finance a political party that I don't support.

We will dismantle the unions piece by piece.

Working conditions will worsen as the UK becomes a theme park to 1800s employment standards.

Unions will be needed once more.

Rinse and repeat - as with most things. Just because someone wears an iWatch, doesn't mean they aren't driven by exactly the same motivation as their forbears.

Anyone who has studied any of the great empires in history will know there's nothing new under the sun (although the trick of the elite is to fool people into thinking there is*).

Weare - i thought you could opt out of the political levy? OT - thats not really logical - the point that was being made upthread is that non union members benefit from the existence of unions - I don't think anyone meant everyone benefits all the time. Bad employers don't for example

This will save taxpayers £6m a year - the cost of public sector paytolls processing these payments. Payroll should process work related stuff, I shouldn't be allowed to ask them to pay my gas/electricity/charity monthly payments, so why my union subs? Private companies can do what they want, as the cost is on them, not the public purse.

Some can do your charity donations carol, it's called GAYE.

And any cash saving is utter BS. It'll save two minutes here and there for payroll staff, which in no way can be converted into cash savings. Unless, of course, the likes of Logica who run our payrolls are actually going to give us some money back. As if.

I don't believe the savings assessment either, certainly wouldn't take any figure in an impact assessment at face value (if that's where it's from?) I presume they've deducted the cost of the time etc taken to make this change from the figure?