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 .

It's another attack on union membership. If they can administer pensions etc through salary they can administer union subs. It's not compulsory and you have to opt in. I think the point about the low paid benefiting through the deduction at source is a very sound one.
And as far as I'm aware you can opt out of any political levy.
I don't think this government will be content until unions are completely disempowered and workers have no protection at all.
Where do people think the minimum wage, paid holidays, maternity rights etc originated?

YANBU, I am horrified by this policy. It is a direct and vindictive attack on the unions.

£6 million a year- they really do think we are complete idiots don't they? For one thing, I wonder what the figures of new starters are in the public sector? Most public sector bodies are losing staff not getting new ones. Existing staff paying by salary are already in the system. Those who are new will be strongly encouraged by their unions to do dd. The computer software for sending the subs to the unions is already in operation and it will require how much time a month ( if they do it monthly even) to send it on? And just heard on WAO that the unions pay a % to the employers for administering the deductions - so as well as thinking we are idiots , they have lied by omission - vindictive spiteful fucking tories

So now the argument about it costing employers has gone, what's left?

[My union subs have always been taken by direct debit. I prefer it that way, too. I don't see why employers should have readily-accessbile lists of who in their organization is a union member]

Because Margaret Thatcher deemed it so. Checkoff was introduced by the Tories in the 1980s as an attempt to further break the unions as reps no longer collected subs. It didn't work. The unions got organized and used lunch breaks etc to spread the word and membership actually rose.
Now checkoff is threatened I anticipate more union awareness.

I'm certainly not always in the side of the Unions but hearing Francis Maude talking on this has massively annoyed me. So disingenuous and just seemed dishonest.

Binky - yy. It's the dishonesty - I can appreciate that there will be Conservative policies that I don't agree with but this one really takes the proverbial . It is naked ideology but even worse, it is an attack upon those aspects of our society that contribute to it being a democracy. Why wouldn't we want an effective and functioning opposition( and I mean more than the official opposition in parliament) When Labour were in power, there were the employer organisations not to mention the majority of the press. Plenty of opposition and very well funded opposition at that. If what the Conservatives stand for is so wonderful and is going to make this country a virtual paradise, why can't they tolerate opposing forces without wanting to castrate them. I suppose that's why I originally used the word fascism because that's the defining characteristic of a fascist government - brook no opposition. As they say 'first they came for the trade unionists '. How much longer before there is only you left to come for?

Why is there this assumption that everyone in a union is automatically Labour and anti-Tory? The leadership might be, but lots of union members don't vote Labour.

why are people banging in opting in you HAVE to opt in it's not automatic

this is just a way of messing with democratic unions

it's like they don't want them to exist or something - which can;t be true - no one wants to damage workers rights now do they?

Why is there this assumption that everyone in a union is automatically Labour and anti-Tory? The leadership might be, but lots of union members don't vote Labour

I don't assume that.

Well I'm still lost, sorry.

So something that I still don't fully understand is changing how people pay their union subs but they can still pay by DD which most people do anyway, is disempowerment unions?

FWIW when I was teaching I cancelled my membership as they were pretty useless - most people I know were in a union because they wanted legal backup should they need it, although it never seemed to emerge.

Binky - that wasn't directed at you. Someone was going on as though the aim of these changes was to hamstring the Tories' political opposition.

I manage payroll in an organisation that deducts union contributions from salary. When I heard the "£6 million saving" trotted out on the news this morning I immediately thought - "Bollocks!".

I spend less than a minute processing union deductions each month. My two colleagues who also contribute to the process spend no more than a few minutes each. Of course if you aggregate the cost of that time across the public sector you might get close to £6 million but there's no way you can realise that saving in any meaningful way.

Saving ten minutes max per month of admin time across my organisation is not going to result in any loss of headcount or anything more productive being achieved instead. The time saved is not going to be significant enough in any individual payroll to be able to make a tangible saving.

It's a naked attack on the unions and that's all. I'm not a union member or particularly a supporter, so no axe to grind on their behalf, but that much is clear to me.

Pink - I now know that about half pay by dd and yes OThe that's exactly what the changes are aimed at. What else ? If by someone you mean me why not say so?

I didn't say someone - I really genuinely don't have a clue what you mean.

I said 'something I still don't fully understand' and meant it. I do not understand even remotely what is going on.

If someone could explain in English I would be grateful! But I didn't refer to you or anyone else in my post explicitly or otherwise.

Neither opt-in nor opt-out. DD from the member's bank account. Give the union a year to make the transition.

How many other private voluntary organisations are allowed to use employers' pay-roll systems to collect dues? It's a carry-over from the revolting closed shop system which is now mercifully receding into history.

I think it's a bit different as union representation is closely associated with the place of work. I think you can choose to make direct donations to charities too?

I think you can choose to make direct donations to charities too?

Yes, and I have never been comfortable about that - I think that's my business, not my employer's business.

The union is an organisation which the individual can choose to join or choose not to join, and those who choose to join can pay it directly.

The days when the bulk of the manual workers did not have access to banking, and many of them were illiterate, are long behind us.

I think this is a wrong move. People have to agree to be in Unions they are not opted in. If they want to pay their subby salary deduction then they should be able to. It's certainly a sly move by the government to weaken unions.

If they want to be in, fine, but what is the difference between signing a form to opt in to deduction from salary and a form to set up a direct debit?

Not read all the thread but am surprised many people think that the Union fees are just taken without consent from the individual.
Being in a Union is not compulsory - you have to join and if you join your subs are taken from your wages. If you don't join they are not.
I agree with you OP,..YANBU

You can also opt out the contribution for the Labour party if you support Unions but not the Labour Party.
The Unions pay a percentage to the Labour party - but you can decide you don't want to, and your subs are reduced by that amount.

Yanbu op, this is just one of many measures being taken to try to break the unions for good. Never mind that it's the financial institutions and big businesses that actually hold the country to random, never mind that there's actually more collective action taken by those in the media, big business and government to protect their own interests, let's try to break the unions who represent, you know, the ordinary workers. Because those ordinary workers pose such a threat to the government!
It's bullshit.
I just hope that union members will join together and fight back, if we just roll over and take it then we deserve what we get quite frankly.

That's what I don't understand Andrew! I was starting to think I was thick mad!

No pinktruffleschoc you and I are the sharp knives in this box!