How do you judge this man?

[Wilf]

When the three Militant supporting MPs were elected, they "took" the full wage but only lived on the average wage of the workers they were representing. The rest they donated to charitable causes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-23289962

We don't know if Mark Serwotka does the same.

To be honest, if he was donating the surplus he gets over and above a workers wage, I imagine we'd hear about it whenever he gets attacked on the issue. I don't know the reality of the situation, but if you make a public donation to a worker's wage, you aren't likely to achieve it in secret.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

To be honest, if he was donating the surplus he gets over and above a workers wage, I imagine we'd hear about it whenever he gets attacked on the issue. I don't know the reality of the situation, but if you make a public donation to a worker's wage, you aren't likely to achieve it in secret.

This is mentioned in his Wikipedia page but I don't know how up to date it is.

 

[Looby]

The original arrangement when he was elected was that he would be paying 1k per month back to the political fund. He wasn't allowed to refuse the salary.
I have no idea if he still makes this donation.

 

[Wilf]

This is mentioned in his Wikipedia page but I don't know how up to date it is.

Cheers. The page links to this article:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/union-boss-mark-serwotka-hits-1822982
... which has him paying the union back £8000 per year, out of £83000 (as of 2011). Not quite as bad as the figures in the OP, which will be up to date and also includes pension contributions - but a long way from a workers wage.

To be honest, whilst it would be better if union bosses were earning something like their members - a much healthier situation - it's not a massive priority for me. Same time, it was Serwotka who said he was going to do it, so he's created this situation for himself.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Cheers. The page links to this article:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/union-boss-mark-serwotka-hits-1822982
... which has him paying the union back £8000 per year, out of £83000 (as of 2011). Not quite as bad as the figures in the OP, which will be up to date and also includes pension contributions - but a long way from a workers wage.

To be honest, whilst it would be better if union bosses were earning something like their members - a much healthier situation - it's not a massive priority for me. Same time, it was Serwotka who said he was going to do it, so he's created this situation for himself.

What situation? it seems that he is handing back £12,000 a year to the union's political fund as he promised.

 

[Wilf]

What situation? it seems that he is handing back £12,000 a year to the union's political fund as he promised.

I haven't got time to dig into it now, but it looks like he was donating £8000 per year, not £12000, at least through to 2011. Its something certainly, but not a worker's wage. By 'situation' I simply mean leaving himself open to criticism as in the article in the OP. Like I said, not a priority for me, but there is at the very least a gap between the promises he apparently made to get elected and the reality of his wage slip.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

.

 

[Looby]

PCS, mainly HMRC and DWP? Just imagine the pain they could cause this government if they came out on strike? Or took other meaningful forms of action!

They are large groups in PCS and could do some damage. This is why the government are making a concerted effort to break them.

Leaked documents from HMRC excom detailing how they intend to undermine PCS and target particular reps to do so.
Facilities time slashed so their group president has to undertake her duties in annual or unpaid leave.
Checkoff (deduction of subs from salary) being withdrawn. This has already been announced in DWP and HMRC will be next. They've just opened 'consultation' and intend to make a decision by christmas.

This is not a financial decision, it costs a ridiculously tiny amount to do this and I believe PCS have said they would pay for this.
Francis Maude et al fucking hate unions and they particularly hate PCS. They want to break us and it might work.

Whilst we should be preparing for targeted, indefinite action with our fighting fund helping members stay out, we're frantically trying to get members signed up to direct debit so they don't lose representation and we don't lose much needed subs to keep going. All this work being done at weekend, evenings and in unpaid leave too.

Reps are exhausted and aren't getting any break. Their leave is being used up with meetings, conference and all the day to day work that needs doing. There's no leave left to actually rest.

 

[coley]

They are large groups in PCS and could do some damage. This is why the government are making a concerted effort to break them.

Leaked documents from HMRC excom detailing how they intend to undermine PCS and target particular reps to do so.
Facilities time slashed so their group president has to undertake her duties in annual or unpaid leave.
Checkoff (deduction of subs from salary) being withdrawn. This has already been announced in DWP and HMRC will be next. They've just opened 'consultation' and intend to make a decision by christmas.

This is not a financial decision, it costs a ridiculously tiny amount to do this and I believe PCS have said they would pay for this.
Francis Maude et al fucking hate unions and they particularly hate PCS. They want to break us and it might work.

Whilst we should be preparing for targeted, indefinite action with our fighting fund helping members stay out, we're frantically trying to get members signed up to direct debit so they don't lose representation and we don't lose much needed subs to keep going. All this work being done at weekend, evenings and in unpaid leave too.

Reps are exhausted and aren't getting any break. Their leave is being used up with meetings, conference and all the day to day work that needs doing. There's no leave left to actually rest.

Seems you fight now or risk slowly being emasculated, this lot and I mean the whole HoCs are dedicated to breaking the workers, and unfortunately most workers seem to be going along with it.
I employ 32 people, only four of whom have bothered to join a union, despite being encouraged to do so.
When asked why,most reply it's a waste of money unions ain't bothered about their members any more etc etc, unions have to ask themselves why this perception has taken such a firm root.
I think that unions about now have one last chance to unite and make some serious changes, if they wait until after the election they might as well take their funds and have a damn good winding up party.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Sparklefish, that sounds desperate and very grim. The bit about "They want to break us and it might work" especially. You must do everything not to get into a mood of defeatism.

 

[Looby]

Seems you fight now or risk slowly being emasculated, this lot and I mean the whole HoCs are dedicated to breaking the workers, and unfortunately most workers seem to be going along with it.
I employ 32 people, only four of whom have bothered to join a union, despite being encouraged to do so.
When asked why,most reply it's a waste of money unions ain't bothered about their members any more etc etc, unions have to ask themselves why this perception has taken such a firm root.
I think that unions about now have one last chance to unite and make some serious changes, if they wait until after the election they might as well take their funds and have a damn good winding up party.

We are fighting but we can't fight everything at once. The priority at the moment is transferring members to direct debit. If we don't do that, we have nothing.

It's not about the election, not for PCS anyway. We're not affiliated to Labour or any party.

 

[butchersapron]

I'll tell you how you judge him - you first judge him within a wider historical context and recognise that he is one of the end products of 100 year process of union professionalisation that saw a developing caste of bureaucrats with different immediate individual and group interests than the mass of membership, that favoured stability rather than risk the existence of the union by challenging bosses and state interests and that to some extent merged with managements or even became a conduit for management to workers (depending on what period of course) and that as a result failed to then put up a challenge to the union laws of the 80s and 90s thus tying themselves down in their freedom of action ever further.

And then you judge him in a more localised personal context and recognise that within the above limits he sought to gain a wider understanding of the changes required to move beyond this state of affairs for the good of the union (but still within those group/individual interests mentioned above) and that we are now far far beyond the social-democratic union-led and union centred compromise and that a fight-back of some sort with mass support was the only way that a) this could happen and b)those union interests have some stake/say in where the wider social movements would go. And then did his best to move the union to move towards this - including by attempting (and probably failing) to set a good example by his own actions.

How you don't judge him is a single individual wanker just doing things as he likes and as he chooses and so choosing to sell out. That's pure childishness.

On the case mentioned you need to get more details than this.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Seems you fight now or risk slowly being emasculated, this lot and I mean the whole HoCs are dedicated to breaking the workers, and unfortunately most workers seem to be going along with it.
I employ 32 people, only four of whom have bothered to join a union, despite being encouraged to do so.
When asked why,most reply it's a waste of money unions ain't bothered about their members any more etc etc, unions have to ask themselves why this perception has taken such a firm root.
I think that unions about now have one last chance to unite and make some serious changes, if they wait until after the election they might as well take their funds and have a damn good winding up party.

As I've said before, ad nauseam, the issue for unions is that the legislation passed in the '80s has made any union with substantial assets utterly risk-averse - sequestration being the main thing feared - with regard to militancy, or even asserting their rights. We had the despicable shambles of Bill Morris hanging the Liverpool dockers out to dry because he didn't want to to risk the courts if he supported them with anything but words, to show us just how degraded some of the bureaucratic class that staff the unions have become.
That they don't bother about their members is not a perception that can be easily shed in the light of acts like Morris's.

 

[coley]

As I've said before, ad nauseam, the issue for unions is that the legislation passed in the '80s has made any union with substantial assets utterly risk-averse - sequestration being the main thing feared - with regard to militancy, or even asserting their rights. We had the despicable shambles of Bill Morris hanging the Liverpool dockers out to dry because he didn't want to to risk the courts if he supported them with anything but words, to show us just how degraded some of the bureaucratic class that staff the unions have become.
That they don't bother about their members is not a perception that can be easily shed in the light of acts like Morris's.

There's also the blackleg culture, where non unionised members feel they have no dog in this particular fight they need to have a good look at the UDM and what happened to them!
And if unions are going to let themselves be paralysed by fear what's the point in their existence?