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 .

Andrew - mmmm - would you like to borrow my knife sharpener?

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

I just think of it as a convenient way to do something that someone has chosen to do. I expect it will be phased out at some point through natural attrition, but I can't help but be cynical on the desire to do it right now. I think any savings will be minimal (not much more than having to change systems rather than just let it naturally move to DD).

If you've always paid subs by salary deduction and you have to go to the effort of changing of course it's relevant.

And I still think that people should have the choice of deductions at source if they want it.

bourdic The unions pay a % to some public sector payrolls, about 23% of them IIRC, the rest do not charge. If the unions pay for the service, it is an acceptance it costs money and this should not be bourne by the taxpayer, whether it is £6m or 60p.
GAYE is run by some payrolls, but, AFAIK limited to one or a small number of charities by company as they do not want the hassle of making payments to any charity that an employee may choose.
You can't donate to the Conservative party, UKIP or Greens through payroll deduction, so why the Labour party - tis a point of principle.
There is an argument for allowing union subs to be collected this way, with a payment by the unions of the cost, but not allowing any political levy to be collected.

The advantage of GAYE is that you can make contributions from your pre tax salary, saving your chosen charity the bother of reclaiming the Gift Aid on your post tax contribution.

Trade union subs are payable after tax so the benefits of doing it via a payroll deduction are not the same.

I think the point of doing it as a payroll deduction is that it fosters goodwill and closer links between the employer and the representatives of the employees - it's an intangible benefit.

What's gay?

Give As You Earn - not as interesting as you might have hoped

Members who pay the political levy do so with their subs - and as caroldecker says it is wrong in principle for the public sector to collect one party's subs and not another's.

Obviously the unions will need a sensible time to ask their members to sign a DD form and to set the DDs up but that's an issue of transition. The principle is right.

Pink - give as you earn. It lets you donate to charity before you pay tax as Treats explains in her helpful post

Can't get too excited either way, but the arguments against seem rather inflated. I can't really understand why the payroll subscription thing was not fixed years ago - it seems an anachronism. How is it difficult to set up a DD? It takes 3 seconds!

I think this was imposed on the private sector several years ago.

Well since the public sector tend to go on strike the minute the Tories get elected, I can kind of see why they want to do this!

It was autocorrect that made it more interesting!

I have never heard of this and was once a member of a union. Don't think it will make much difference?

Guilty here Blister

Sorry pink - cynical old gimmer here who remembers the late 1970's

I was laughing as its true, but I work as a teacher so should be left wing apparently!

bestiswest This has never been 'imposed' on the private sector. If employees opt in and the company is happy, they can make whatever payroll deductions they want and nothing the government can do about it. Some private companies offer it, some do not.

I really can't see this as a big issue. I joined a union earlier this week and it was a very short, simple form for DD. Can't see it making that much difference. And I would much rather spend £6 million on schools or the NHS than saving public sector workers filling out a form.

We have the first majority Tory government since about 1994 (remember John Major effectively did not for the last three years).

Why is anti-union laws from a Tory government such a surprise then to anyone?

Blister, umm, the torys have been in power for quite a while now, we are hardly over run with public sector strikes are we? You wouldn't be falling for a load of out dated right wing spin would you?

Mumsnet at its finest. People so far removed that they think that union membership is opt in.

Perty, spiteful and wholly unnecessary. Like most of the Tory policies.

the torys have been in power for quite a while now, we are hardly over run with public sector strikes are we? You wouldn't be falling for a load of out dated right wing spin would you?

Exactly, we've had the usual actions from the usual mob at the usual time of year but no upsurge in strike action from those allegedly affected the most....

I don't get it Lostlight - unions are opt in aren't they? You have to actively choose to join a union, membership is not the default position. The only exception I can think of is when a regulatory body and union are one and the same, e.g. the GMC. The closed shop went decades ago.
Unless I'm missing something.

I worked in the public sector and my union was Prospect and that was always done by direct debit. It does mean the union actually has to have contact with its members.

You could look at it the other way round - as long as the employer does the processing they know exactly who is in the union.

All employees I have ever dealt with who have been caught committing fraud - I want my union rep (checks payslip, no union subs) which union do you pay your direct debit to? "I don't pay a direct debit to the union" then you're not a member and they probably Won't see you but you can ask if they are willing to take you on "I'm not paying!"

Its interesting, according to one the introduction of this was an attempt to break union power by the lefts favourite demon, now removing it is an attempt to break union power. Outside the public services do unions have any power?

OP, you're absolutely right to raise this! Am mystified by some of the misunderstandings about unions on this thread. Clearly there are more Daily Fail readers on here than I had previously accounted for! You're right, strikes are but a small part of what unions are about and it's the members who vote for them anyway. By campaigning for years and years, unions have achieved gains in employment rights and protection that we ALL enjoy, whether union members or not: paid holiday, better protection for agency workers, (theoretical) protection against discrimination, improvements in health & safety etc. So I would ask those complaining e.g. about (a tiny % of) tax payers' money going towards facilitaing the union membership fees of public sector workers, and any other 'free loaders' who are moaning about unions if they're willing to give those hard won rights up?? Ah, I thought not.

Another MN thread that is trending at the moment is also relevant here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2432996-New-report-on-maternity-discrimination-share-your-experiences Thousands of new mums losing their jobs. If only they'd been in unions and if only the ability of unions to defend their members (and non-members) against such injustices wasn't being eroded by this Government at a shocking pace. Or do the union deriders think maternity discrimination is ok?