Unite has announced it has suspended Angela Rayner from her membership of the union, in an escalating row over the long-running bin strikes in Birmingham.
The deputy prime minister has been urging striking bin workers to accept a deal to end the dispute tabled by the Labour-run city council.
In an emergency motion at its conference in Brighton, the union said it would also re-examine its relationship with Labour if the council makes any of its members redundant.
[…]
A spokesperson for Rayner said she is no longer a member of the union - although Unite is insisting that she is on its membership system.Unite is affiliated to Labour, and is the party's biggest union funder.
It did not donate to the party's election campaign last year, but made donations worth £10,000 towards Rayner's campaign, according to her register of interests.
Members of the union walked out in January over plans to downgrade some roles as part of the city council's attempts to sort out its equal pay liabilities.
An all-out indefinite strike was announced in March, and a deal to end industrial action has not yet been reached.
They also suspended Birmingham Council leader John Cotton.
Is her position wrong?
Honestly when I visited Birmingham it looked like an actual shit hole. And this is supposed to be the second city?
Are you suggesting it is the striking workers to blame. Rather then the council refusing to meet Thier requirements?
Because that is why she is suspended. Buy a union who exists purely to stand up for the workers.
I'm saying is her position wrong? Equally I could say the same about the striking bin workers - are they wrong to be striking? Just because they're part of a union doesn't make their position automatically correct. Same goes for Rayner. Just because she's part of the government doesn't make her position automatically correct.
All I know is that nobody is winning and neither is the city of Birmingham or it's people. It was honestly a disgrace.
Great well done, so everyone's wrong and you've "both sided" this.
Meanwhile in the real world the truth is the council tried to cut people's jobs because of a technicality. Not because they couldn't afford to pay them, but because it was the easiest way for them to tick a box.
Everyone's equally to blame, sure.
Please read people's comments before deciding for them what their position is and demonising them for what you decide they are saying.
manny has not said anyone is wrong never mind "both sides" and their point is a fair one. Personally given an industrial dispute I am heavily baised towards beliving the union is more likely to be in the right that the employer. In this case however the employer is local government who are essentially out of money due to the cuts imposed on them by austerity over the past 15 years. Further than that I dont know the details so I cant say if these strikes are justified or not, but asking who is in the right is not heresy that must be cleansed from discourse.
Ironic that you would say that since you didn't actually bother to interpret my comment.
I have no problem with understanding both sides of the arguement. As you say it's an important thing to do, but that wasn't what happened with this comment. What happened with this comment was virtue signalling, they actually bother to understand both sides of the argument they just said that they had with no understanding of the situation.
No, you were quite literally projecting that, they asked if the government position was wrong. You are assuming bad faith and it's poor behaviour.
Me trying to see both sides of a complex matter.
Great well done, so everyone's wrong and you've "both sided" this.
FML. 🥲
You're equating the council bigwigs fiddling with finances for technicality reasons with people who are only trying to advocate for fair financial compensation.
Not really the same thing
You're equating the council bigwigs fiddling with finances for technicality reasons with people who are only trying to advocate for fair financial compensation
No, you've misunderstood completely what I'm saying and are making assumptions. Are you able to point to where I am equating the two sides like you claim?
Would it help you if I reiterated the following:
So is Rayner's stance unreasonable given this? And it's all right if the answer is no but I'd like to understand why. That's my position. Not something you've dreamt up.
Right or wrong.
The Union is required to support the needs of the workers. That is why they exist and why said workers fund them.
So the Union is right to remove her membership when she openly argues against the needs of the workers.
You also need to consider what is actually happening when working class people strike against a government.
You have 2 sides. The workers are giving up their very ability to live and support their families. To fight for a cause. While they have 0 other way to fight the local government.
So it has always been common when such fights effect voters. For the government to use public inconvenience or "disgust". To weaken support for the workers.
Yeah true. But you can apply that logic the other way around too. There's massive public inconvenience and health issues living in a city that doesn't have waste services functioning so the Unions are using that to force the government's hand. Give us what we want or the city suffers.
I don't think either approach is working, do you?
so the Unions are using that to force the government’s hand. Give us what we want or the city suffers.
This is disengenuous when the other side of the argument is "we dictate the terms of your work". Working isn't slavery, it's voluntary, and has to be agreed by both parties. It isn't "give us what we want or the city suffers", it's "give us a fair deal or we stop working".
I don’t think either approach is working, do you?
In this kind of negotiation nothing "works" until the negotiations are concluded.
You can only really apply it the other way around.
If you totally ignore 15 years of austerity politics. Plus huge cost of living rises.
Unfortunately that shit did happen. As such all council paid utility workers have are seriously under paid and over worked.
So no in no way shape or form is she correct to blame the workers. As this is clearly what she is doing. As such yes the Union is entirely correct to indicate her membership is unwelcome.
The shit in Birmingham is the direct result of 15 year of governments refusing to fund the cost of maintaining our infestucture/staffing. And the fact Birmingham is our so called second city. With the 2nd greatest costs of all staffing and inferstructure. But without the funding protection London gains. Is why the funding has hit that location first. Other cities will follow if this shitty attitude to service funding continues.
I don't disagree that austerity hasn't been extremely difficult for people. However how does that explain other cities not facing the same issues Birmingham is facing? Manchester doesn't have the same waste problem. Newcastle doesn't have the same problem. Neither does Liverpool. Neither does Edinburgh. Neither does Cardiff. Have these places not suffered austerity? What is unique about Birmingham that it can't clean it's streets? And is Rayner not right in pointing out that, even if there are differences regionally, it can't be this difficult to come to an agreement to keep your city clean.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.