The taxpayer funds a Union to preach to nobody
Posted on August 8, 2011I’m back from holiday, so it’s a return to service as usual.
The row over taxpayer-funded Trade Unions has grown steadily over the last few months, particularly as the unions have greedily clung onto their subsidies for non-front line activities that often stray into political activism while other areas face spending reductions.
A great example of taxpayers’ money being funnelled into unions only to be wasted has come to my attention in the form of the Creative Toolkit website launched by BECTU, the media and entertainment union. According to BECTU’s website the Creative Toolkit was funded by the Union Modernisation Fund, one of the two main routes by which millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is poured into the unions.
The site is intended to campaign against unpaid internships and volunteer posts – some would say that if you want to work for free to beef up your CV you should be allowed to, while BECTU argue that it is fundamentally wrong to let anyone give labour for free, ever. We can leave that debate aside, though, and look at whether the project has delivered value for money to the taxpayers that funded it.
I don’t know how much the project and the website cost, though it’s a fairly shiny site and appears to be run by at least one BECTU member of staff. Given the profligacy of publicly funded digital projects, it’s safe to say it didn’t come cheap.
In return for our money, what impact has it had? Well, the site launched on the 10th of August, and so far it has….drumroll…58 signed up users. Including me, as well as several BECTU staff and members of their NEC.
So far there have been a mighty 7 posts made on their Community forum – of which three are from Sharon Elliott, a BECTU staffer, one is from Benetta Adams, a BECTU NEC member, and only three are from other users.
If a company had funded this, they would be furious – undoubtedly thousands of pounds spent on a campaigning website that has engaged 50 people. When will BECTU be asked to justify this taxpayer-funded failure and to give the money back? For that matter, when will taxpayer funding of trade unions cease outright?
Tags: BECTU, Cuts, Internships, opinion, Pay, Politics, public spending, Socialism, Strikes, Tax, Taxpayers, Trade Unions, Union Modernisation Fund, Waste
Categories: Opinion, Politics, Public spending
More money down the drain. This shameful practice of taxpayers funding trade unions has to end.
30.08.2011 15:10
You ever tried to launch a social network? 50 sign ups in 20 days is not bad for something that doesn’t seem to have been advertised – at that rate there will be hundreds by year end. Compare this to the UK Film Council’s social network that cost £3m and peaked at maybe a thousand users before becoming FindAnyFilm.com. Agree re being able to chose to work for free, but the rest of this seems snide point scoring – the number of business who try and launch a community forum and fail to get posts is staggering – and we have no idea how much this cost.
30.08.2011 16:46
Fair points, Garf – and if BECTU were using their own money to fund a failing project then I wouldn’t care less. Using cash from taxpayers, though, which people did not give of their own free will, is wrong.
01.09.2011 11:50
On the face of it, this sounds like a very understandable reason to be against such a union. But what if the union here did turn out to be successful? Would it still be such a problem? After all, the same amount of taxpayer’s money (maybe more) would have been invested in the project. I completely agree with you though, if a company had funded this they would be fuming with such a poor result.
Sophie Hobson, deputy editor, London Loves Business
31.08.2011 14:23
Typical blogger no attempt to check any facts. Laziness, supposition and assumption are the by words. Most of the facts are wrong. The union, BECTU, does not decry ‘beefing up your CV”. However working and being paid less than the minimum wage is illegal. Many companies abuse actors and young workers by only ‘beefing up their CV’s', not paying them the legal minimum. BECTU is working hard to protect workers from this. Bectu is also financed by media and entertainment workers not just tax payers. I have given you 1 post, few postings on the Bectu financed website does not mean that people are not using it. Andy (union member since 1979)
31.08.2011 17:01
Andy, would you like to point to any facts that are wrong, as you claim?
I state that BECTU decries working for free to beef up your CV – that is true.
As for BECTU being financed by members, If you look I also clearly state that this project was funded by the union modernisation fund – taxpayers. That is according to a BECTU puff-piece in your own in-house magazine.
01.09.2011 11:48
Thanks for publishing my response. I apologize to you for expecting you to be on call 24/7. BECTU is ok with ‘cooperative type’ films being made, where nobody is paid. So you are wrong on that count.
There are some occasions, like , for instance, in educational courses where working for no pay is legal. But you did not check that did you? That’s legal, so BECTU agrees, work unpaid. I think you’d have to admit being wrong, or misled.
Bectu are keen to put a stop to production companies & media companies taking on workers that are not paid. The NUJ are also involved with this. As are HMRC. You’d agree this is bad? Kids working for no pay?
I wonder how many unpaid workers there are in Conservative, Labour party HQs? (Interns they are usually called)
I believe that the Bectu main website had a government subsidy when it was setup. As it, and Creative toolkit are of use to the general public as well as paid up union members, in telling workers their rights, is that such a problem? There are few websites available to inform young workers about their rights. It’s probably more cost effective for a union, keen to support workers, to run a website rather than some quango.
You could phone the union and ask how much the creative toolkit
website cost. Then check on their hits. Perhaps you’d get a ball park value for money figure. A bit of research rather than an an uninformed attack. After all my website costs barely £100 a year. Your piece has the word millions close to the query about the cost of the website. That’s not a fair way to write a piece . A simple phone call to BECTU would give you a figure.
Yes Clive and another email address was me checking to see if there was a conspiracy.
If you need to blog at least get the facts right . I see from the responses above that some people agree with you, they believe what you say. It would be best to be accurate. Andy and Clive
01.09.2011 17:52
Mark Wallace why was my comment deleted? It’s been published by shooting people. So I feel you should have a right if reply. Have you called the union press office to check your facts?
01.09.2011 08:00
I see you have deleted my response. It was critical of your accuracy. However it’s been published by shooting people on their website. You must have a right of reply to my comment (although you have denied me that) Kind regards. Andy
01.09.2011 08:05
Andy, I haven’t deleted any comments – I take a responsible approach to comments so when you’re a new commenter it requires my approval for the comment to go up. As I was very busy yesterday your comment didn’t go up til today – apologies for the delay but no need to immediately jump to a conspiracy theory!
(By the way, why did you repost one of your comments under the name Clive?)
01.09.2011 11:49
I see you have deleted my response. It was critical of your accuracy. However it’s been published by shooting people on their website. You must have a right of reply to my comment (although you have denied me that) Kind regards. Andy
01.09.2011 08:06
The site has been advertised in a double page centrefold in Stage, Screen & Radio which goes out to all 30,000 members. According to the article in SSR, it was also pre-launched with BECTU’s “Student Register”. Plus lots of tweeting from Sharon Elliott, the official BECTU twitter account and the creativetoolkit twitter account. Someone has been very busy!
It’s also been discussed and plugged on Shooting People who also have about 30,000 subscribers to their bulletin.
As for Andy / Clive: oh dear, union nutter alert!
Hopefully Mark’s blog will lead to massive spike in membership.
We live in hope.
01.09.2011 13:22
Dear, Clive, Andy, Sock Puppetter: You really haven’t done yourself or BECTU any favours.
02.09.2011 09:31
Matt. Perhaps you could explain? Mr Wallace was inaccurate. I have shown that above. (maybe you never read my reply. It is a bit long.) To help you: Bectu does allow work free from pay, in certain circumstances. And websites can be very cost effective.
Your sock reference, sad to say, is lost on me. Probably very funny. As for your Statement. I never intended to favour BECTU. I favour truth and accuracy.
Thank you for allowing me to make my points yet again. Kind Regards Andy
02.09.2011 15:34
As a 20-something new entrant I find you all embarrassingly argumentative. Seems to me that BECTU is trying to do its job to the best of it’s ability, however I agree that it might not be that effective at reaching its intended audience. Spending taxes on unions is an interesting debate, I guess that really unions should be funded by their members, and perhaps the government should give a small % of that amount in addition.
There are of course a variety of websites all over the internet trying to do similar things to what BECTU is trying to do, so I think launching another one was perhaps somewhat short-sighted, or perhaps just a little slow on the uptake.
FYI, I am a member of BECTU because I think they are out to do good for their members, so far I give them 10/10 for effort and 7/10 for effectiveness.
http://www.tvwatercooler.org/viewforum.php?f=3
http://www.myfirstjobinfilm.co.uk/index.html
http://www.futureinfilm.com/welcome
etc
04.09.2011 15:26
Well said Daniel – obviously some of these people feel very strongly about BECTU. I am not a member myself but I have worked with them and I know that there are very good reasons for not supporting unpaid work in particular circumstances. Qualified skilled workers should not be bullied into working for free on commercially viable productions – we are trying to move towards a fairer society whereby people are employed because of their skill and not because of who they know or the fact that they will work for free. BECTU aims to promote equality – you cant ensure this if people are being encourged to work for free – remember that a large majority of the population dont have the financial ability to do this. Do we want to go back to a creative industry being run by middle class white men? I dont think so – its boring and unhip but the fact is you have to actively promote employment equality to ensure a culturally rich and diverse workforce and the only way to do this is through the basic concept of paying your employees – it shows respect for the skills and knowldege that they have. If a project is commercially viable then its the Director and Producers job to ensure that the books balance and people are paid fairly – you can bet they are being paid! I think people are missing the point here – some good ideas take a while to take off – especially when organisations that rely free labour/products are actively trying to muddy the waters.
When the NHS came into being Doctors accross the UK actively opposed it as they thought it would impact negatively on their proffession by reducing their income – does anyone know of any doctors now who think that over all the nhs is a bad idea – sure it has issues and they need to re-look at how its funded – but the basic idea of healthcare for everyone regardless of income is quite a popular one these days.
07.09.2011 12:48
I think Andy (or Clive or whatever he’s called) has actually proven Mark’s point. The site was set up to engage “new entrants” not union stalwarts who by their own admission have been members since 1979!
Strip out the union stalwarts and BECTU own staff and how many “new entrants” have been engaged. And what cost per “new entrant” engaged?
If BECTU spent its own money on this scandalous waste then it would be a matter of concern only for its own members whose subs had been frittered away on a pointless project. However, given that the project was funded exclusively by taxpayer’s money it is a matter of concern for everyone who pays taxes.
Well done Mark for highlighting this!
14.09.2011 06:07
The debate about BECTU is interesting, let me give you some very real facts on how they operate. I do some filming for a grass roots motorsport team on a voluntary basis. Approximately 2 months ago I placed an advert on starnow.co.uk for a presenter to help me with this year’s promotional material for the team. I now find that on the say so of one random internet individual, BECTU have presented this advertisement to HMRC for potential investigation regarding the National Minimum Wage Act. This is without ANY contact with me to verify the facts. They have so far refused to tell me who in HMRC they have been communicating with, so I can’t even clarify the facts with HMRC before they themselves waste even more taxpayer’s money on the matter. It is very clear that BECTU do not support co-operative type media and in fact they have been pretty clear that I will be breaking the law if I actually engage someone to help me.
24.02.2012 20:00