Labour fury over ‘scandalous and outrageous’ claims as union funding row boils over

Labour councillors reacted with fury over ‘scandalous and outlandish’ claims about trade union funding as a row at yesterday's (26 February) council meeting threatened to boil over.

It came at Rochdale Council’s annual budget setting meeting, where the Conservatives called for £100k in union support to be cut and spent on improving community safety.

Labour staunchly defended the funding – claiming they had provided ‘academic evidence’ that unions save councils money by reducing workplace injuries and illnesses as well as cutting down tribunal payouts.

But Tory leader Ashley Dearnley said it ‘could not be right’ that the ‘hard working, lowest paid, poorest people’ in the borough should have their money spent on a union that represents 30% of the council’s workforce.

However, the most contentious attack of the night came from his colleague Councillor John Taylor, who was once a union rep himself.

“The Labour Party receives a significant amount of funding from trade unions - I have no quarrel with that whatsoever,” the former police chief inspector said.

“But what wrong, is when the Labour Party then take the money given to them for political means and uses it to fund trade unions.

“Suddenly, money that was earmarked for public services becomes political services and I cannot see how that can be right. It simply can’t.

“The unions use the money to finance the Labour Party. The £100k earmarked for trade union should, in my view be spent on community safety.

Despite uproar from the Labour benches he added: “The unions use the members money to finance the Labour Party and, in return, the Labour council uses public services money to fund the unions. That’s what you are doing.”

However Labour members hit back, pointing out that union members have to opt-in to the political levy, and that cash pays for the ‘facility time’ reps need to deal with workplace issues.

A furious Councillor John Blundell challenged Councillor Taylor on what he was implying, saying it was ‘outrageous’.

“What you have said is very, very dodgy indeed,” he said.

“Trade unions cannot give any money to the Labour Party unless that member has given consent.

“What you have just accused us of is the Labour party taking money from trade unions and then us giving public money to trade unions – and that’s tantamount to bribery.

“Before you make statements like that, think twice about them. We would not say that about you. 

“I’m very upset about what you have just said, it implies I have done something wrong by agreeing to money being spent on trade union officers at the council that protect workers’ rights.”

Referring to a report for the TUC by Gregor Gall, professor of industrial relations at the University at Bradford, Councillor Liam O’Rourke accused the Tories of ignoring academic evidence that facility time saved councils’ money.

“For every £1 spent, it’s £2 saved – it’s a necessary cost. If you removed it you would inflict more difficulty on staff and residents.”

And council leader Allen Brett said he was ‘very, very annoyed’ by Councillor Taylor’s comments, which he branded ‘scandalous and outlandish’.

But he said he was willing to put it down to the Conservative being relatively new on the council if he apologised for the remarks.

However, the Tories vowed to keep bringing the proposal to budget council year-on-year, despite Labour complaints it was getting ‘tedious’.

Councillor Peter Winkler said: “We are not against trade unions, what we are against is public funds, every member of this community – whether they are in a trade union or not – having their money used to subsidise that service that only provides for 30% of council staff. That’s our objection.”

The Conservatives amendment was defeated, despite support from the Liberal Democrat group.

It also proposed taking an extra £3m from reserves for investment in safety and community projects.

The Tories also wanted borrowing for capital projects to be reduced by 10%, to allow a further £155,000 to be ploughed into community safety. This was to reflect the ‘typical level of rephasing’ - i.e. delays - associated with such schemes.

Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporter