Shock TUC report says Unions should get taxpayers money!

I saw that there's been a report from the TUC that says that Union Reps being paid by the employer is a good thing.  Shocking position for a report from the TUC to take, right?

(Report: http://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/206/FacilityTimeSeparatingFactfromFiction.pdf)

It seems that part of their argument is based on survey data, and the rest is questionable:

They rely on data from a previous report that cited savings as follows:

i)Dismissal rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps – this resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £107m-£213m pa

Surely this is because the Unions make it hard to fire people.  So if someone is crap at their job, you can't replace them with someone good at the job.  Without looking at the relative productivity rates of unionised vs non-unionised workplaces this is meaningless, but I reckon that preventing you from firing people who are crap would lower productivity and thus constitute a cost, rather than a benefit - and the magnitude of that cost will be significantly greater than the benefit, as you'd not want to sack someone unless you could get a better person in and make more money after costs were taken into consideration, so the costs must be smaller than the benefit.

ii) Voluntary exit rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps, which again resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £72m-143m pa

People stayed longer (albeit because the benefits/pay were likely better) - this could be a valid benefit.

iii) Employment tribunal cases are lower in unionised workplaces with union reps resulting in savings to government of £22m-43m pa

See (i) - this is likely because tribunals were threatened in any number of cases, and the employer forced to back down.  If you sack less people, less people will complain.  I'd count this as a part of the cost of replacing crap people with good people, and would expect the benefit thus to far outweigh this cost.

iv) Workplace-related injuries were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps so resulting in savings to employers of £126m-371m pa

Really?  What were the additional costs of complying with increased health and safety requirements placed there by the Union rep?

v) Workplace-related illnesses were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps so resulting in savings to employers of £45m-207m pa

What about non-workplace related illnesses?  Is this just a case of the union rep saying "don't put it down as workplace related, or you could get in trouble"?

Taking points (i) and (iii) as negative (i.e. assuming that the productivity increase from replacing bad staff would be at least enough to cover the costs of replacing bad staff twice) and disregarding point (iv) as we have no idea of the actual costs involved in reaching this point gives a total saving from having union reps on the order of £40m (using average figures).

By the methodology in the report, 60% of this is public sector, so £24m.  Uprating to now gives £28.7m - call it £30m if you like.  So we get a benefit of £30m for an expenditure of £113m.  Sounds like a good deal to me... 

They question the £113m figure, suggesting that £80m is more reasonable - so we're getting back a massive 38% of what we spend.  That's the kind of deal our government should be fully in support of!

Is this right?

I regularly read JuliaM's blog at http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/ so I wasn't shocked to see the case in the paper today where 4 girls racially abused and beat up another girl, yet didn't get sent to jail, receiving only a suspended sentence

Then today I was reading the news sent round at work, and I saw that the first conviction had been made under the bribery act.  This chap took £500 to refrain from entering the details of a traffic summons in a court database.  He was sentenced to 6 years in jail (3 for the bribery and 6 for misconduct in public office, to run concurrently).

Now don't get me wrong - what he did was very wrong, but 6 years in jail?  That seems a little over the top.  Sacking him and giving a very honest reference would pretty much destroy his career prospects, and seems like it would nearly be punishment enough on it's own.  Throw in a big hefty fine and I'd say you're good.

The first case I mentioned?  Jail seems to be the least we could be expected to do...

How did we get so turned around?

One to watch

As if evidence were needed that our current benefit system is not fit for purpose: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3655837

Basically, there's a chap who earns £65k and faces losing his child benefit.  He asks if it's possible to use salary sacrifice to commit enough of his salary to pension so that he won't lose the benefits, and wonders what happens if he goes further.

Based on the responses and what I know of the matter, if he were to put £50k a year into his pension (plus another ~£2k into childcare vouchers) he'd be assessed for benefits as if his income were just over £12k - meaning he'd get all sorts of benefits.  He reckons he'd go from an income of £3300 per month (after paying for childcare vouchers and nearly £4k a year into his pension) to about £3100 per month thanks to all the benefits he could claim.  He'd lose £200 per month, but would have an extra £46k in his pension pot per year (nearly £4k per month).

Sounds like a good deal?  So the benefit state is really good for people with incomes of £65k or so...

The new 50% tax rate: a sure winner!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8911390/50p-tax-band-will-cost-Britain-1bn-a-year.html

So now someone's come out and said what a lot of us have been saying all along.  The 50% rate will not make any money, and may in fact cost the government £1bn in tax revenues.

That's not all though, because that £1bn in revenue is lost because wealthy individuals seek to avoid the tax, in part by moving their operations offshore.  This can cause the loss of jobs in the UK, and will have a knock on effect.

I find the details interesting as it shows the true pettiness of the left:

Mr Osborne and David Cameron are in favour of abolishing the top rate but are under intense pressure from the Liberal Democrats not to cut taxes on the wealthy. 

Even though cutting taxes on the wealthy will mean more money in the kitty, so less that the poor have to pay?  Who cares, right?  We're not trying to make the lives of the poor better, but the lives of the rich worse.

This is not the answer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8882173/Let-pensions-fund-homes-for-first-time-buyers-says-CBI.html

We keep being told that more and more people are suffering in retirement as they don't have enough pensions, so the article linked above came as a bit of a shock.

Potential first-time buyers should be allowed to use their pension savings to buy homes, according to a new report on how the boost the housing market.

Well - that would go some way towards boosting the housing market, but is it really the best answer?  More money available to buy homes will mean house prices rise, so the problem gets even worse.  Surely it'd be better to find some way to bring house prices down, like relaxing planning permissions?

The number of property sales in the UK has crashed since the recession despite 5m people "languishing on waiting lists", the CBI claims today in its Unfreezing the Housing Market study.

I assume that they mean social housing waiting lists, rather than waiting lists to buy a house.  As far as I know (and my brother is in the process of doing it right now) all you have to do is find a house for sale, plonk down the cash and it's yours.  Sure - there are contracts to exchange and the like, but no waiting lists.  So realistically speaking, how many people waiting for a council house are going to be able to buy a house, even if they could access their pension funds?

The CBI said housebuilding, which is at the lowest peacetime level for 90 years, also needed to be increased. It called on the Government to address "structural housing market failures" and allow offices to be turned into homes without planning permission. 

That at least sounds sensible...

Think it through

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8865772/Temps-get-out-clause-could-be-tested-in-court.html

“We live in perpetual hope that maybe, down the line, we might get a small pay increase,” says Mark, an agency driver currently working for Tesco. “We’re not necessarily looking for pay parity, we’re just looking for the crumbs from the table.”

Fair enough, I suppose.  Everyone wants a pay increase, but the terms and conditions were laid out when you joined - they're not cutting your pay, they're just not paying you as much as you might get if you worked in another role for Tesco.

Mark is one of thousands of agency workers up and down the country who has recently been asked to sign away his rights to the same pay as permanent staff at the supermarket – overriding new equal pay rules which came into effect last month. He stands to lose about £150 extra a week.

No he doesn't.  He had a choice - sign away the "rights" or lose his job.  The £150 a week was never on the table - he never had it, so how can he lose it?  If he was happy to work for his current salary when he got the job, why should he suddenly get a big pay rise now?

On average, temps currently get paid about a third less than permanent staff doing the same job, according to the TUC.

That's usually for a number of reasons.  For example, they've often not been with the company long and are not expected to stay all that long, so they don't get the same level of training as permanent staff, so they don't produce the same quality of work as permanent staff.  Also, they can usually leave with a minimum of notice (1 day is not unheard of) and thus the company can't rely on them to the same extent as they do their own staff.  Also it's often a lot easier to get a temp job (my company has a battery of tests and assessments that you need to pass to get a job, to ensure that they get people who can cope with the role.  For temps who are mostly filing or putting letters in envelopes it's not necessary for them to have the same level of ability, so they don't get the same pay and don't have to do the tests).

I'm sure there are some workers out there who do complicated, detailed work and are employed as temps.  All I can say to them is that if you don't like it, get another job.  If you're vital where you are, threaten to leave.

Fundamentally, I just don't see why companies should be forced to treat temps and permanent staff the same given that there are significant differences between them.

(I also don't think government should be involved at all in what people do in their private interactions and should just stop trying to tell us all how to live, but that's never going to happen)

Civil servants should never be allowed to make agreements

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8867315/Police-force-to-pay-out-for-overtime-officers-never-worked.html

Under the generous arrangement officers working in the Operations and Communications Branch (OCB) are paid for a minimum of six hours overtime when called in on their day off - even if they work fewer hours.

The local branch of the Police Federation, however, noticed that staff were only being paid for the hours in which they worked and took the force to court.

Oh no - they were only being paid for the hours that they worked!  But wait a minute - police officers are on a starting wage of around £30k for 37 hours a week, so that's roughly £17.50 per hour (accounting for holiday), so that's £105 for 6 hours work.  Not bad if you're only called in for 1 hour.  Sounds like a stupid policy.  Sure, allow a little extra for travel if need be, but to have a minimum of 6 hours?  That's definitely stupid.

Never mind the rights and wrongs of it - if the agreement was that they get paid 6 hours for coming in, then fair enough, although you'd hope that the authority wouldn't have to be forced into keeping it's agreements.  Still: a very generous and stupid policy.

This is why civil servants should never be allowed to make agreements (or decisions.  Or anything, really...)

Strike action to go ahead

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/880294c4-062e-11e1-a079-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cjg5v14k

Good.  I don't think the government should have made the pension offer any better, and now that they're striking they'll have to remove the improved offer.  That's what they said they'd do, anyway.  Of course, these people being politicians, there's no telling whether or not they have the guts to stick with it...

Let's face it, Final Salary pension schemes are expensive.  The government has no money (borrowing about £0.5bn a day)so it needs to cut costs.  The fact that most of the private sector got rid of final salary pension schemes already isn't really anything to do with it (although it's a helpful guide as to best practise).

I reckon if the govt really wanted to stop the strikes, they'd just have to say that anyone who strikes will not have access to any future final salary option, but would move to DC instead, as most of the private sector has.

For those that blame Grand Theft Auto for rising crime

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/04/gaming_makes_kids_more_creative/

Computer games good, mkay!

Things I saw in the news today - part 3

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/2121212/warning-record-cpi-force-govt-dump-pensions-triple-lock

This is a really quick one.  It just really bugs me when people say "oh noes!  The guberment are being ebil and nasty and screwing over pensioners" before we actually know.  I know that the lefties don't like what they're doing, but please can they not at least find something that's confirmed: why not criticise over the lack of a referendum on the EU (oh, sorry, forgot that Labour were part of that too), or the pisspoor sentencing that's happening (hmmm - that wasn't much better under Labour, was it?) or something like that?  Don't just make crap up.

If they announce the end of the triple lock, then pensioners will be no worse off than they were under Labour, will they?  But let's at least wait until they do...