Threadbare socialists?

There's a muddle of tales in the media and blogosphere today that, in isolation, don't seem to have a common thread, but Mrs Rigby has managed to tie some stories together.

Let's start with Old Rightie who says, None So Blind .... As Those Who NEVER See. and

The only criteria a successful society should have is to ensure those from disadvantaged backgrounds with ABILITY and INTELLIGENCE are not passed by. Sadly, Socialists believe we are all the same, except when doling out the top Labour and Union jobs.

And from there straight on to the Mail, reporting that dear Arthur Scargill, ex-President of the once wealthy and which-once-had-187,000-members-but-now-has-only-about-1,600 National Union of Miners, is is threatening to sue his own Union.

He's doing this because the NUM has reduced his benefits, and he doesn't think it's fair. He's doing it because he's losing ... ... around £5,000 a year ... in 'perks', and reckons the Union is breaking a contractually binding obligation to keep his house nice and warm in winter.

Although he retired in 2002 Mr Scargill retains the post of "honorary president" of the Union. He's fortunate to have the use of three-bedroom flat luxury apartment at the Barbican in London - which costs the Union around £33,000 a year in rent and running costs. Mr Scargill's own home is a bungalow near Barnsley - a bungalow that's called a cottage and looks, to Mrs Rigby, very much like a big house (picture Mail)

Mrs Rigby wondered why the NUM might have made this decision now, especially as their membership (and income) must have fallen quite considerably over the years because there's so little mining in Britain. So she went to have a look at that Certification Officer site to see if she could find out a bit more.

Here's an example, which was chosen at random :-

North Staffs Federation of NUM has just one member - according to their 2009 return to the The Certification Officer. This branch of the NUM has, according to the return, zero income from subscriptions, zero income from members, but £7,500 from 'other sources' - listed as "monies received from solicitors for use of office costs and staff". Administrative costs are £8,914 - the breakdown is, to Mrs R's eyes, peculiar but it seems that the branch is being kept open to pay the wages and National Insurance contributions of one 'secretary' - and that's it. This individual is paid a wage, but doesn't seem to pay a Union Subscription.

Try as she might, and despite wading through the tortuous website that is NUM.org, Mrs R can find no indication of what an individual mineworker might pay to be a member of this union. However, according to the to 2009 NUM returns there were indeed a mere 1,611 members, with income from 'contributions and subscriptions' of £162,325.00 - which suggests that each active, paying, member pays about £100 a year.

The union does have other assets and receives investment income, which has reduced due to low interest rates and, presumably, the recession. But to simplify things let's imagine the NUM only uses membership fees ... to pay Mr Scargill's fuel bills would take the full subscription payments of 50 members, with another 330 subscriptions paying for his London flat luxury apartment. Which means that 385 people - almost 25% of the fee-paying members of the NUM - are paying their dues to ensure there is £38,000 a year available to maintain Mr Scargill's two-homes lifestyle and to keep him warm and cosy. That, Mrs R needs to remind you, is in addition to any pension/salary he may also be receiving, from the union.

Another 89 members' dues are needed to pay the wages of the single North Staffs NUM Federation employee - a 'wage' that equates to about a quarter of Mr Scargill's 'expenses' and/or 'perks'.

That's nice, don't you think? Don't you think all those NUM members are pleased to see their money being used so wisely?

Looking at the rest of the balance sheets it suggests that between 2007 and 2008 the NUM took quite a hit financially, with more going out than coming in - and so there was less money at the end of the year than at the beginning. Hardly surprising really, when you think about it, and hardly surprising that they're trying to take steps to cut their spending and balance the books.

Let's change tack, and quickly whizz over to the current issues with "Unite" - the Union chosen by many of British Airways' cabin crew - and staying with the Mail which reports that

Britain's best-paid flight crews – with the most senior staff earning up to £56,000 a year – are questioning the wisdom of signing up to a ... summer of strikes

because

'Many ... simply can't afford to go out on strike

Mrs R recalls, back in April, that Unite imposed a compulsory fund-raising levy on its branches, aiming to collect £700,000 towards a strike fund. At the time the union was 'paying' striking staff the grand sum of £30 a day - £150 for five days, which would not cover living costs for most people and is less minimum wage ... which in itself generates all sorts of state handouts because it isn't enough to live on. It's also almost exactly half as much as Mr Scargill gets, or was getting, in 'perks'.

Another Mail article suggests that BA has won the battle, that staff are demoralised and "Willy Walsh has won". If this is true it's possible that BA staff could have realised they were being taken for mugs by their union bosses - one of whom tweeted the proceedings of Acas arbitration discussion, whilst another who earns £122,000-a-year (courtesy of union members) decided to go off on holiday - using EasyJet.

It's also possible that some of the BA staff recall the 'striking' 1970s. Mrs R's blog isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of these 'famous' strikes - but will say that the industrial action overseen, and seemingly encouraged, by Mr Scargill caused a lot of heartache, upset and discomfort for many, many, working-class people who had no dispute with their own employers and who were themselves struggling to make ends meet at a time of rising prices and recession.

Mrs R hasn't a clue if anybody predicted that the strikes, which included a no-maintenance agreement that extended to not pumping water out of mines, would result in mine-closures and almost all Britain's coal being imported - but that's what happened and as a result whole towns and communities suffered for very many years, and we now pay miners in other countries to extract the coal that is used to make our electricity. The people who weren't hurt too much by those strikes were the union officials, safe with their subscription-funded salaries and nicely useful 'perks' which, it appears, at least one very important ex-union official continues to enjoy - even in retirement.

So, let's imagine for a moment what would happen if, as a result of ongoing strike action, BA were to fold. It wouldn't necessarily affect the whole country, and probably wouldn't affect whole towns and communities in the same way as mine closures did. But, if BA were to be sold abroad and the company was rebranded, restructured, and based at an airport elsewhere in the world there would be significant British job losses in a huge range of associated services. This would have a knock-on effect in local communities (reduced income for shops, clubs, small businesses etc) which could be devastating. It would affect many, many, more people than the few striking BA cabin crews but would be unlikely to touch the lives of those who are encouraging the strikers -  the few very important Unite Union officials who will continue to receive their salaries and any associated perks, because they work for the union itself.

It would seem to Mrs Rigby that going on strike at the wrong time in the modern world only seems to hurt the strikers themselves, and their friends and neighbours.

And maybe that's where a bit of education, a bit of reading, a bit of logical thought and an element of caution might just come in handy, especially when you compare Mr Scargill's current situation with that of the BA strikers - part of whose dispute with BA relates to their contractual 'perks', as does his with the NUM, hence his complaint that ...

'They agreed I should rent a local authority flat during my period in office and following my retirement that would carry on until my death. There are many people who have two homes.'

Mrs Rigby wonders if, maybe, Mr Scargill should take unilateral strike action, and withold his services as honorary president until the union capitulates. That, surely, would be the thing to do rather than resorting to using solicitors - because, after all, that's what he told/encouraged his union members to do all those years ago - and most of them only ever had one home, and their homes could have looked something like this. (Picture Sunniside Local History Society)

Socialism eh! All the same, all in it together, and all aiming for a common cause - to help ... actually, Mrs R wonders to help just who, precisely?

Is it to help the poor, downtrodden 'working man'* battle against punitive, dangerous or unfair working practices, or is it 'these days' merely to help massage over-inflated egos of a few self-styled very-important-people who see their own empires crumbling along with falling union membership?

..........

*

As an aside - Mrs Rigby wonders how many 'top' union officials are women?

....

Unite imposes £700k fund-raising levy

Mrs Rigby thought she heard this mentioned on the radio the other day, but as she wasn't listening properly she thought she might have imagined it, however the story was carried by BBC on 29th March.

It appears that Unite union is to raise £700,000, and is planning to do this by imposing a levy of approximately £230 on each branch.

The money is, according to BBC, needed to pay £60 to each of the union members who were balloted (i.e. not necessarily only those who took strike action).

BBC quotes Mr Woodley as saying:

"This is an unprecedented move and it shows that Unite is absolutely determined to give our members all the support they deserve in winning this battle against ... BA"

Yes, it is unprecedented, and Mrs Rigby thinks it's a most peculiar thing for a union to do, especially as it's been in receipt of quite a bit of public money and appeared to be fairly wealthy - see here (about Union fees) and here (government funding).

Mrs Rigby thinks Unite must, surely, have made sure they had enough in their coffers to fund strike action so quite naturally wonders why they need this additional income - and need to raise it quickly.

The Mail carries a similar story but says

A proposal for a mandatory 2 per cent levy for the next quarter to support the BA strikers was approved by the union's general executive

and goes on to say that the money would

... go on strike pay and other ways of supporting union members involved in the dispute

Okay, fair enough, but the BBC reckons it would only be enough to give the strikers £60 each. Assuming the numbers quoted by Unite are correct - 12,000 strikers - it leaves them £20,000 short and doesn't allow for any of these extras.

But the Guardian 29th March said

Unite, which is paying cabin crew £30 a day, has agreed to pay crew for the duration of their roster duty if they walked out on a long-haul shift. Its main cabin crew branch, Bassa, has incurred expenses by hiring football club premises near Heathrow as strike headquarters and leasing minibuses to drive striking crew members to picket lines around the airport.

Mrs Rigby scents a large rodent - the figures simply don't add up and who, these days, can expect to pay their household bills (including mortgage etc) on the £30 a day quoted by the Guardian?

£30 a day is less than minimum wage.

Is the union out of touch with reality?

This isn't the 1970s and these people aren't impoverished labourers - and to be honest, £30 is a bit of an insult. These BA staff are used to earning considerably more than £30 a day, more than £60 a day too and are probably used to a fairly decent standard of living and are likely to have fairly high living costs.

So, will there be a next swathe of action? Can the union afford it? Can the strikers afford it?

As an aside, Mrs Rigby doesn't, actually, like what these pictures from the Mail show. It may be that these pictures indicate that the strikers aren't necessarily 'wealthy' enough to pay for decent childcare during industrial action

Children should have no place on, or near, the picket line, but their parent(s) and/or carers must have thought it was a reasonable place to spend a day out - either that or the children had nowhere else to go.

It would be interesting to know what Social Services would say if one of the parents/carers was a smoker as well as a striker.

....

GOS on rail strikes

From here

The GOS says: ... just a thought about these rail strikes.

All my life I've been OK with the idea of strikes. It's always seemed to me that the decision not to go to work has to be one of the few great freedoms we can exercise - provided we are prepared not to get paid for it, of course. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

But I understand that next week rail staff are withdrawing their labour only between 6 and 10 in the morning, and again between 6 and 10 at night. If that's true, it stinks. That's not just exercising your democratic right to stay in bed of a morning. That's deliberately targeting innocent travellers who have done nothing to you, causing them absolutely the most inconvenience that you can - while still presumably drawing a full day's pay since 10 in the morning until 6 in the evening is 8 hours.

No doubt somebody who knows can write in and correct me if I've understood it wrong, but on the face of it that's vicious, calculating, cynical and unprincipled.

Mrs R wholeheartedly agrees, which is why she's quoted this in full - no point in duplication is there?

And thanks to The Filthy Engineer for pointing Mrs R in the right direction to read Grumpy Old Sod's thoughts.

....

Unions and politics and money.

When you join a Union part of your membership fee counts as a "Political Levy" and goes towards a "Political Fund".

The following is taken from DirectGov

Some trade unions maintain a political fund. This is a separate account which the trade union can use to provide financial support for a political party. For example, they could donate to a party or particular politician, produce leaflets in support at an election, or support party conference costs.

You can find out which Political Party, if any, your Union supports by checking "The political fund rules"

A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund rules. These too have to be approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union’s political fund rules will specify how money is collected for the political fund, and the amount to be paid into the fund by the members who contribute to it.

A trade union must pay for party political activities from its political fund, and must not use money from its other accounts for this purpose.

Once a political fund is established, it is up to the trade union to decide, in-line with its rules, how the money is spent.

If you do not wish to make this donation pay this levy it isn't a matter of ticking a box. The only way to opt out is to

If you wish to contract out, you must do so in writing. If you ask your trade union’s local office or head office for a form to contract out of political fund payments, they must supply it. You can also ask the Certification Officer for a form.

You can complain

You can make a complaint to the Certification Officer if you think your trade union:

* has spent money from its other accounts on political matters that must be paid for from the political fund
* is still making you contribute to the political fund when you have contracted out of contributing to it
* has excluded you from any trade union benefits because you have contracted out
* has treated you unfavourably compared with other members because you have contracted out

Mrs Rigby's only experience of trying to 'opt out' of paying the levy was years of letters getting lost in the post, it was amazing how terribly careless the Post Office was - recorded delivery solved those problems though. She never met a "Certification Officer", didn't ever know there was such a person.

Why did she decide to opt out? Simple. She doesn't contribute to any political group or party and doesn't like the idea of anybody else doing it on her behalf, and for them to choose which party gets supported and which doesn't. She was sure all that would have changed, but it seems not.

Oh, and having opted out the union subscription got smaller - until then Mrs R hadn't know how much had been given to the political fund, and even now some unions don't state the amount - Unison does, which is one of the reason's it's been used as an example later on.

It would seem, from the DirectGov information, that Unions choose to support different parties - if they want to. But that isn't entirely true, more especially when looking at the umbrella organisation for all British Trade Unions (see later).

But let's look at one union first. Here are some extracts from Unite's explanation of "The Political Fund ".

The Political Fund enables us to campaign for or against government policy, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. In years to come a Conservative government could be returned to power and it is essential that Unite retains its Political Fund to be able to defend our members against a return of the attacks on employment rights that we remember from the 80s.

It starts off well, but clearly Unite presumes that a not-Labour government will be detrimental to the interests of any employees.

And, actually, Mrs R and the wider Rigby family remember a bit further back than the 80s, we remember trying to get homework done by candlelight, trying to keep warm using imported coal that was mostly cement dust. We remember waiting far too long to bury more than one deceased relative, and we remember the distinct lack of rubbish collections too. We remember the picket lines and the "scab labour" as well, and people being beaten up because they either didn't belong to a union or didn't want to strike because they were reasonably content with their wages, and how some people were angry when Arthur Scargill bought himself a posh bungalow.

We have a strong tradition of campaigning for our members who stand for public office, but we also campaign effectively against the BNP in elections. Without the Political Fund we would be unable to continue that vital work.

Does it say in the union rules that no member of Unite is allowed to be a member of the BNP, does it say nobody is allowed to vote for the BNP?

Isn't is slightly presumptive of any Trade Union to assume that all members will automatically want to support one particular political party?

Unison is at least up front about it, saying  "All members of the UNISON Labour Link National Committee must be contributors to the UNISON Labour Link fund and paid up individual members of the Labour Party." Although Unison also claims that the General Political Fund is "... not affiliated to any political party, but the money in the fund is used to support local campaigns, to give a boost to our big national political campaigns and to pay for political advertising. "

Oh, and Unison says this too

UNISON in the TUC and the Labour Party

UNISON is the largest union in the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and plays an important role in developing policy. It has a big voice too in the Scottish, Welsh and Irish trades union congresses.

To make sure that issues affecting our members are heard in the outside world, UNISON has a political fund. This money - collected from our members - can only be spent on political and social campaigning. Unlike any other trade union, UNISON offers you the choice of two funds to pay into:

* The Affiliated Political Fund works to support the Labour Party
* The General Political Fund campaigns in a non-affiliated way to further the interests of our members.

Remember that thing they say about the TUC - you'll see why later.

But back to Unite, which is where we started, and only because it's a fair example of what other unions say on their websites.

Many Unite members are politically active in their local communities, in their trades councils, as school governors, as councillors, on learning and skills councils, MPs and MEPs. They form a powerful network. The Political Fund ensures we can keep them informed as to our priorities so they can effectively represent Amicus members at the decision making table.

That might explain why so many Unite people have been parachuted into 'safe' Labour parliamentary constituencies - taking away the choice of local people, and local committees, who might actually have preferred to choose their own electoral candidate.

Unite has a powerful voice in the political arena, we ensure our members voices are heard by political parties, employer organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI, think tanks such as the Fabian Society and the Labour Research Department, government and non-government organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission ... (and so on, and so on)

Mrs Rigby thinks all too many people are well aware of this, and would be interested to know how much funding strolls round in circles.

Mrs R's memory is a bit rusty, but she's sure she recalls an MP who, when facing charges relating to mishandling his expenses, couldn't understand how it was against the law to take money out of one financial budget and spend it on something else. Or is her memory playing tricks?

Anyhow, back to how that Political Fund is paid for - it's paid for by ordinary union members, some of whom are earning minimum wage - of £5.80 an hour. Let's see how much they pay their unions.

Staying with Unite as an example, because at least their information is on the website, unlike some of the others. Let's break it down a bit, and see how much, or what proportion, of a person's membership fees goes into the "Political Fund"

Union fees - Unite charges full-time employees (>21 hours a week; >18 yo) to pay £131.52 a year, or £2.53 a week. Part time employees (over 18 and working less than 21 hours) pay £59.76 pa, or £1.15 a week - even if they only work a couple of hours.

Every single member of Unite, irrespective of the hours they work and irrespective of the level of their Union fee contributes 14p weekly or 51p monthly to the union's Political Fund.

Doesn't seem very much does it? Less than a loaf of bread, less than half a dozen eggs a week.

Over a year the weekly contribution adds up to £7.28 whilst those who pay their fees monthly contribute £6.12 - so the person who prefers to pay weekly contributes more to the political fund than those who pay monthly - presumably administration costs make a difference.

Oh, Unite says in the banner header that it has 2 million members - so that's about, errm, let's average the contribution at £6.70 a year, which is half way between the two figures quoted - it's  just guessing that half the membership pay their fees weekly and half of them pay monthly.

£6.70 x 2,000,000 = £13,400,000 - that's 13 million, 4 hundred thousand pounds.

For one union to spend on political activities.

There are lots of unions, they all collect together in Trades Union Congress -  the TUC, which is that umbrella organisation mentioned at the beginning, and also mentioned by Unison. Here's how it describes itself :

... the national organisation which represents trade unions in Britain. It is made up of 69 unions with a combined membership of nearly 6.7 million workers.(my bold)

Our main role is to act as a voice for working people. We promote the rights and welfare of people at work and campaign for policies which help the unemployed get back into jobs.

Since we were formed in 1868, we have grown in size and stature to become Britain's largest voluntary organisation and one of the biggest trade union centres in the world. The TUC is now one of the best known institutions in British public life.

The TUC is, apparently, a "voluntary organisation" - which many people would think is akin to a charity - even though it developed from the "Labour Representation Committee".

After the 1906 general election there were 29 Labour Representation Committee MPs and became "known as The Labour Party"

So it's hardly surprising the TUC supports the Labour Party - it obviously doesn't support the Greens, doesn't support the Lib Dems, doesn't support UKIP, or the Conservatives, nor does it support any of the 'minority parties'. Presumably every single trade union member in Great Britain, who is represented at the TUC by their local and regional representatives, is a Labour supporter too - otherwise this would be morally wrong, wouldn't it?

Because the TUC supports the Labour Party and gets its' funding from the unions, it obviously isn't possible that some of those union members - who have been automatically opted in to paying the political levy - might prefer to go with UKIP's ideas, or might want to vote for the Lib Dems, or even the horrible Tories, the cuddly Greens or the Monsters who rave with the Loonies? It can't be possible, otherwise the TUC wouldn't be telling people to talk to Mr Darling and Mr Osborne, and tell them not to make any cuts in public spending,  because the TUC is

"... backing a campaign, Don't Risk the Recovery, along with 38 Degrees, the Fabian Society, Left Foot Forward and IPPR ... " (last 4 links added by Mrs R)

- and, of course, none of these four campaigning organisations is linked in any way with either the unions or any political party? Even though, for example, Left Foot Forward is run by Jack Straw's son and the Fabian Society is referred to as a "British intellectual socialist movement" and the IPPR is "Centre-left". At least 38 Degrees says it has, "... no ties to any political parties" - that's a relief.

The TUC and any of the unions can't presume to know how ordinary subscription-paying members would vote, in secret elections, it can't (or shouldn't) assume that all union members would do what Amicus - as "the second largest trade union in Ireland" wanted all its' members to do in the 2007 election, which was

"... to support their local Labour party candidate this Thursday."

The EU ruled that Microsoft was breaking competition rules by making all users of their software use Internet Explorer. As a result there is now an obvious choice - Microsoft have been forced to offer a choice - of internet browsers, it has been forced to make everybody who buys their operating system to them choose between Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and so on. This is fairly trivial to some people, but is mindblowingly complicated and frightening to others - but it's something that doesn't affect politics and the way a country is governed - at least Mrs R hasn't heard if Bill Gates or his successors at Microsoft sit in the US Senate.

Consumer Direct offers advice on "unfair" terms - before you buy on HP for example, safe shopping, and reading the small print and matters relating to legal services .

The government offers advice relating to buying insurance, and how to shop around

Where is the similarly overt advice relating to 'buying' union membership? - Is there a real choice, or do people get advised which union to join by the local secretary, without realising they all, ultimately, support the Labour Party through the TUC.

How would the EU would rule on the "Political Levy" - money is that is used to further and promote the interests of only one of the many political parties there are in this country.

Would Harriet Harman agree that this levy is "equal opportunity" and would the law lords and EHCR agree it is "freedom of choice and political thought"?

How would the EU view a political levy that is automatically deducted unless a union member writes a letter to opt out - no simple tick box to opt in. Opting out has to be done consciously, it isn't a simple matter, it has to be done by filling in a form or by writing  a letter, putting the letter in an envelope and sending it through the post - not very 21st century is it?

Things have gone a long way since 1868, when the LRC (TUC) was formed. Back then only a few people could read, and most workers were too tired at the end of the day to do much more than eat and sleep.

Surely it's time that the unions were modernised, and pulled into the 21st century and they should acknowledge, and accept, that if their members choose to pay (not choose to opt out of paying) a political levy, they should also be able to choose where their money goes - or don't the people that run the unions think their members are grown up enough to know how to make their own choices?

....

Spring of discontent?

The Unions always seem to flex their muscles when Labour's in power. They've been remarkably quiet for the last few years, but it looks as if they're getting twitchy and want to show us who's really in charge of the country.

Britain poised for first national rail strike in 16 years

Easter rail travel is under threat from three industrial disputes which could halt trains in the first national rail strike for 16 years.

Signalmen, maintenance staff and supervisors are all poised to strike in disputes over job losses, pay and changes to working practices.

Knowing the dire state of the motorway network, it'll be interesting to see how quickly the whole country grinds to a halt. Do they care whose holidays they mess up?

Seems not :

Bob Crow, the general secretary of the RMT union, which has balloted thousands of signalmen and maintenance workers for a possible strike, said: “I am not Mystic Meg **, but I would not book any rail travel for the Easter period.”

As Robin Gisby, Network Rail’s director of operations, said

“I can’t live with the RMT holding the whole country to ransom. The union wants a cast-iron guarantee there will not be any compulsory redundancies. I cannot give that guarantee.”

Odd, don't you think, that none of the Union high-ups seem to have any idea what's going on in the country, have no idea what the word 'recession', 'broke' or 'running out of money' mean.

Maybe they think Mr Brown's high tax policies are for their benefit, so the money would land in their pockets, and their pockets alone. Tough luck - it doesn't work that way, not in the real world.

They should try tracking the pennies backwards, and work out where they come from. The money always starts off in the private sector, it only gets into the public sector via taxation , government fees and charges, so if the big boys who pay lots of tax leave the country, as they are, then there won't be anything to pay public sector wages with - it doesn't matter how much tax those in the public sector pay, it's only pushing the cash round in circles, it's an illusion of wealth, an illusion of prosperity.

The unions, and government, can vilify rich people as much as they want - but when they leave Britain they take their money, and their taxes, with them. All they leave behind are empty offices, empty shops and empty houses - no income from communality charges, no income from business rates, no VAT on shopping, no car tax, no fuel duty, no national insurance contributions - nothing,  zilch, zero. But the country they move to gets a little bit richer.

The Unions chaps could also take a peep at the trade figures.

Excluding oil and erratic items, the volume of exports fell by 6.0 per cent and the volume of imports fell by 1.2 per cent, compared with December.

Mrs R doesn't even pretend to be an economist, but even she realises that there's less money coming into the country than for years. Fewer exports, she thinks, means less home-grown money and could also mean that we're importing essentials, rather than making (or growing) them here which, ultimately, increases Britain's dependency on the rest of the world. And, of course, the rest of the world doesn't pay UK tax, even though Mr Brown thinks it should.

Mrs Rigby can't imagine any of the union activists will be giving charts and graphs more than a cursory glance though, they're probably too busy wondering what's happening wrt to Jordan's marital woes, or Lady Gaga's hat.

** Mystic Meg, by the way, is an astrologer from The Sun newspaper

....

PCSU plan to unleash Prescott?

Although Mrs Rigby thinks there might have been a bit of a typo and they were referring to the "forces of Hull", you'd think, wouldn't you, that they'd have waited until after the election to make a threat or two, especially as the government hasn't yet repealed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that limits protests around Parliament. and Generally extends to whole UK - otherwise they won't get to have their well-supported protest marches.

We'll 'unleash hell' on Tories, threaten unions as public sector is gripped by new militancy

And you think, wouldn't you, that because the Police aren't allowed to take industrial action the vitally-important-to-national-security PCSOs would be bound by the same rules.

Seems not.

· Solid support among civilian staff working for the Met Police, including 999 operators, community support officers and House of Parliament security.

Goes to show that they're no better than the rest of us and maybe, if anybody sees a PCSO chewing gum and then chucking it on the ground, any of us could issue them with a fixed penalty notice for littering.

Sauce for the goose and all that? No?

Anyhow, it looks as if, if the Tories win the next election (and the Unions seem to think it's a foregone conclusion) there might be more "public sector" strikes called by the PCSU - which might make it easier to take photos of the sights of London.

Some clouds really do have silver linings.

....

Jobs lost.

Quoting the Express

More than 3,300 cuts were announced or confirmed, hitting council, retail and manufacturing workers in different parts of the UK.

The most drastic news came from Birmingham City Council, which is planning to shed up to 2,000 jobs over the next financial year as it strives to "do more for less".

Administrators of discount retailer Ethel Austin and sister homeware chain Au Naturale cut 469 jobs and launched a closing-down sale at 129 stores.

German manufacturer Bosch confirmed it was pressing ahead with plans to close a car parts factory in Miskin, near Cardiff, employing 900 people, by the middle of next year.

and

The black day followed announcements of 1,600 job losses on Tuesday, including 400 at Cadbury's Somerdale factory in Somerset

And the reaction

Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary of Unite, said: "Jobs and services in Birmingham are being blitzed by an uncaring Tory council. Services to the community will suffer from savage job cuts in a city already hit by high unemployment."

Unite, that'll be the Union that made sure Cadbury's workers kept their jobs.

Cadbury goes to Kraft

A few months ago Mrs Rigby said this

Today the media announce that the takeover by Kraft Foods is going ahead.

On the BBC

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the government was "determined" to ensure that Cadbury jobs were secure.

"We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the United Kingdom are maintained and we are determined that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, that jobs in Cadbury can be secure," he said.

But the whole thing goes a bit peculiar if you look at some of the comments in the Mail including this note of caution from Ipswich

Cadbury employees beware! I worked for a company over here that was taken over by an American parent company. Almost overnight new layers of management were put in place & bullying in the workplace encouraged. Managers who seemd reasonable before turned into bullyboys & the workforce reduced to sub humans with no human rights. We walked through the gates we lost all rights of decency. By the time I left 5 years later a huge number were on anti-depressants.

Surely he has to be wrong,Mr Brown says the jobs will be safe.

Also, people in Britain have rights - they're all written down on pieces of paper and enforced by lawyers paid for by the Unions.

The British Unions are renowned for looking after their members, and working people always pull together to help each other during difficult times - just like in Redcar and Scunthorpe.

Read this

Note the supportive comments.

There was a time when the media announced job losses, but they don't seem to do that any more.

I wonder why.

Censorship by Postie?

Mrs R has noticed that posties in the West Country are being threatened with disciplinary action (the sack) if they refuse to deliver thousands of BNP leaflets that they claim are "right wing rubbish". It says so in the Times, here

Mrs Rigby's house is listed with the mailing preference service, so she doesn't get much junk mail, although she does get local, unaddressed, leaflets - some she reads, some she recycles unopened. That's the thing Mrs Rigby likes, she chooses what goes into the bin, and why.

Mrs R doesn't think it's up to a postie to decide what she can and can't read. She thinks that, if they could do that, they would be censoring her mail and censoring the information she can receive. She thinks they could limit her choices and influence her personal decisions, according to their own, and she doesn't think that's the right thing for a postie to do.

As Mrs R sees it, if an individual, group or organisation has paid a delivery fee it's up to the postie to do the delivering. Nothing more, nothing less.

She wonders, for a silly moment, what would happen if posties were allowed to filter mail according to any one of their personal scruples, preferences, prejudices and choices, and were allowed to choose to deliver only what they believe in. Would her household get any mail at all? Would Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP leaflets be delivered, would somebody refuse to deliver Christmas cards or postcards describing a delicious meal of lamb, steak or chicken?

Reading the article a bit more carefully, Mrs R noticed this little snippet. It says

The Communication Workers Union claims Royal Mail is breaking a “conscience clause” agreed four years ago which allows staff to refuse to deliver literature they find offensive.

and

The clause says members don’t have to deliver material if they feel threatened or if it is against their personal beliefs.

So, that's all right then! They aren't doing anything wrong!

Actually, Mrs Rigby disagrees, for the reasons she's outlined above, she doesn't think her postie should try to act as her moral guardian.