Labour Branch Office Election

[Nearly Sane]

Feel the socialism




http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15539296.Anas_Sarwar_confirms_no_union_recognition_at_family_firm/?ref=mr&lp=3

[Rhiannon]

I can't read it because it wants me to fill out a survey about shoes first.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't read it because it wants me to fill out a survey about shoes first.

You should just be able to click 'Skip Survey'

[Rhiannon]

Indeed I can. (I didn't bother reading down that far.)

[Anchorman]

I can't believe Sarwar is even a candidate.
A millionaire who has invested in his family firm - a firm which does not recognise trade unions?
How can he contemplate representing the Labour movement?
Its this how far Labour has degenerated in Scotland?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't trust the idea that millionaires can't stand for Labour branch leader, nor that association with a family businessman's you are supportive of all decisions  of that business. There is a real issue though about how things appear, and it seems to me that Anas has not really made the effort to understand that. Makes me miss Kez.

[Rhiannon]

Jeremy didn't like her though, or so I heard.

[Nearly Sane]

Jeremy didn't like her though, or so I heard.

To be fair, Kez didn't like Jez either. And while I was never her biggest fan, she was getting better IMO.

[Rhiannon]

To be fair, Kez didn't like Jez either. And while I was never her biggest fan, she was getting better IMO.

Lots of people don't like other people that they work with, but she seemed to be doing ok and her suddenly going isn't a good look.

[Nearly Sane]

Lots of people don't like other people that they work with, but she seemed to be doing ok and her suddenly going isn't a good look.

Agree, she seemed to be just about getting an identity and now, the appearance of the branch office is back. She seemed to be getting a lot of flack for her partner being an SNP MSP, and I still have no understanding why anyone other than a mad person should want to be a politician because stuff like that is prevalent
 

[Anchorman]

Scottish Labour used to produce giants as if they had a production line of 'em.
The problem, though, is that, with very few exceptions, those giants went to Westminster, even when devolution became a reality in 1999.
Sinc then, there have been too many Scottish Labour leaders to really establish stability in the party up here - with the reult that there is uncertainty in the Labour movement as to which direction to jump.
Sarwar, though - a Blairite - would, imho as an onlooker, be a move in the wrong direction; however, I fear that the urge to appear 'diverse' might cloud the judgement of the members somewhat, and do nothing to stabilise the paRTY UP HERE.
It might be significant that several 'names' have not announced their candidacy. SLAB leasership seems to be a poisoned chalice.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah the joy of a united SLab


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41413587

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't believe Sarwar is even a candidate.
A millionaire who has invested in his family firm ...

Why shouldn't a millionaire running a family business be a Labour supporter and member.

I remember meeting David Sainsbury a few times in the late 90s and early 2000s - he was Labour's Science minister (and widely regarded by scientists as being very good). I think you will find he is a millionaire who ran his family's business.

[Anchorman]

The problem, Prof, wasn't only his millions; it's the fact that his family firm, in which he has shares and received dividends until 2915, when he surrendered the income, but retained the shares, will not recognise Trade Unions nor pay the living wage. Not exactly an advert fro Labour values, then.
Kez never had it easy; even at her electionvas leader, the divisions were obvious. She sprnt most of her time battling rival factions under the surface. Add to that the fact that her father kept putting out pro-SNP and independence tweets, and her opponents were never short of ammuniotion. The gaping gulfs in SLAB which existed before her election are coming to the surface with a vengeance. I doubt whether either leadership candidate will be able to heal the divisions.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Feel the socialism




http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15539296.Anas_Sarwar_confirms_no_union_recognition_at_family_firm/?ref=mr&lp=3

There is a difference between not recognising a trade union, and banning membership.

But I agree this does seem hypocritical.

[Walter]

Feel the socialism




http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15539296.Anas_Sarwar_confirms_no_union_recognition_at_family_firm/?ref=mr&lp=3

Walter asks , 'is this about politics? cos if it is he would rather prise the hard bits from his bollocks with a rusty nail than engage with the shite 'ticians say

[Nearly Sane]

Walter asks , 'is this about politics? cos if it is he would rather prise the hard bits from his bollocks with a rusty nail than engage with the shite 'ticians say

Good to see your identity carapace is in better fettle today.

[Walter]

Good to see your identity carapace is in better fettle today.

When I awoke this morning I thought , what does today have in store for me? then I thought ,before I do anything else  I must get my carapace sorted out , yep

[ProfessorDavey]

There is a difference between not recognising a trade union, and banning membership.

I think that is right - and from the article it would appear that their has never been a request from the workforce to officially recognise a trade union. And while it would be quite wrong to refuse to recognise a union against the request of the workforce, it would also be wrong to, in effect, impose a union on the workforce without a request from that workforce so to do.

If a workforce isn't unionised (in other words very few staff are members of a union) it would seem very odd to recognise a union, which would then be empowered to be the recognised organisation for negotiations with the management even though the workforce aren't members.

I own a small business (rather smaller than this one) but I'm not aware that any of the staff are members of a union and there has certainly never been a request for us to recognise one - it would be bizarre to unilaterally recognise a union, and require processes to be routed through that union rather than directly with the small number of staff. Were the staff to take a collective (or majority) decision that they wanted a union recognised, then of course we would - however I doubt that would happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem, Prof, wasn't only his millions; it's the fact that his family firm, in which he has shares and received dividends until 2915, when he surrendered the income, but retained the shares ...

But firstly he isn't a director so has no formal say in how the company is run - so the things you are complaining about aren't his decision.

will not recognise Trade Unions

Not true - see my comment above and also note this from the article:

'The Scottish Labour leadership hopeful said no union had ever asked to set up a collective pay bargaining unit at United Wholesale (Scotland) since it was formed in 2001.'

If that is the case it wouldn't be legal for a company to recognise a union. The law only permit a company to recognise a union where the request comes from the union and its members (for obvious reasons). So they are simply adhering to the law.

nor pay the living wage.

Although presumably they fulfil their legal obligation to pay the minimum wage, at least. Actually the notion of the Living Wage Foundation-defined 'Living Wage' is fraught with difficulties, albeit seems like a good idea in theory. First, apart from in London it is the same everywhere, which makes no sense. You cannot claim that the cost of living in Glasgow is the same as where I live in prime commuter belt Hertfordshire where a 3 bedroomed house will set you back upwards of £600k with rental costs similarly exorbitant.

Also the vagaries of the tax and benefits system mean that the actual difference in what someone has to live on (taking into account pay rate, tax/NI and benefits) between the current minimum wage of £7.50 and the Living Wage Foundation-defined 'Living Wage'of £8.45 are rather less than you might imagine.

And of course the decisions aren't being taken by Sarwar.

[Nearly Sane]

More 'socialism'


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15553767.Anas_Sarwar_admits_previous_shareholding_in_tax_haven_firm/?ref=twtrec

[Robbie]

Is that, on its own, bad?  Or should he have taken his spare money and distributed it evenly to the poor.

[Nearly Sane]

Is that, on its own, bad?  Or should he have taken his spare money and distributed it evenly to the poor.

Bad? Depends on your values and morals. Don't think tax avoidance sits well with socialism

[Robbie]

Is it tax avoidance though or is it just a way of legally avoiding paying more tax than necessary.
I don't know, just asking.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it tax avoidance though or is it just a way of legally avoiding paying more tax than necessary.
I don't know, just asking.

That is avoidance. The illegal bit is called tax evasion. And it appears that JC agrees that it isn't moral.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41883472