Collective bargaining is a fundamental rightUKWatch.net - 11 Sep 2008The right of employees to engage in collective bargaining with their employer about the terms and conditions of their employment is a fundamental human right. In the absence of collective bargaining the employment contract between an individual employee and their employer reflects inequality. Predominant strength resides with the employer. A modem society that does not promote collective bargaining as an essential part of public policy for human rights is democratically defective. The contention that the state should be neutral on whether collective bargaining should be promoted disregards the reality of power. Every step for the improvement of working conditions, for the protection of labour, for adequate occupational pensions, for proper grievance and disciplinary procedures and for occupational health and safety, has been opposed by some employers. Economic power has been used to defer or deny protection to working people. This is not to deny that that some employers and persons other than workers have made a memorable contribution to the struggle for the rights of working people. Robert Owen, Lord Shaftesbury and Richard Oastler, for example, have an honoured place in British history as campaigners for the protection of labour. Credit is also due to the Liberal Ministers who supported the passing of the historic Trade Disputes Act of 1906. This Act gave rights to trade unionists, some of which, many years later, were withdrawn by the Thatcher government and have not been restored to this day. Today the proportion of the British workforce covered by collective bargaining is much less than it was 30 years ago. And this, after 11 years of Labour government! In 1975 the then Labour government under Harold Wilson sponsored an Employment Protection Act which in its very first clause established the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ?charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery.? Unfortunately the duty to encourage collective bargaining no longer exists as a statement of public policy. Support for collective bargaining as an expression of public policy did not begin with the foundation of ACAS. As long ago as 1894 a Royal Commission on Labour, chaired by the Duke of Devonshire, supported the growth of voluntary organisations for collective bargaining. In 1917and 1918, the Whitley Committee, appointed by the government of the day, urged the development of collective bargaining at workplace, district and national level to cover not only wages and basic conditions of employment but a wide range of other issues of mutual interest to employers and workers. In the years immediately following the First World War major advances were made in the development of collective bargaining in industries and public services where hitherto it had been very much weaker. There was a simultaneous growth in trade union membership outside the more traditional areas of strength. With the support of a newly-formed Ministry of Labour no less than 73 national joint industrial councils were established between 1918 and 1921. The general workers? unions played a major role in this development of collective bargaining. It was not until the depressed economic conditions of the later 1920s that this expansion came temporarily to a halt. Expansion returned in the mid-1930s. It would, of course, be wrong to argue that the vitality of trade unionism and collective bargaining depends solely on support from public policy. Much always depends on the consciousness of working people. The level of social consciousness is influenced not only by experience at the workplace but also by events at national and even international level. After the Second World War there was a mood of determination and optimism to build a new social order following the defeat of fascism. Trade unionism was a vital part of this forward-looking movement. Even after the First World War the pressure for social reform stimulated by a stronger labour movement owed something to the international influence of the Russian revolution of November 1917. The time has surely come when the present Labour government, following the example of earlier governments, should firmly declare for all to hear that public policy is in favour of collective bargaining between employers and workers in all areas of employment.
BNP accounts don?t add upUKWatch.net - 11 Sep 2008When the British National Party told its members in January that it had raised 70,000 as a result of its ?Building to Grow? appeal, Searchlight was sceptical. After all, the appeal was launched just as the internal crisis erupted last December. Who in their right mind, we thought, would donate such sums to a party that seemed about to collapse. We were wrong. A printout of transactions on the BNP?s main bank account, which fell into our hands recently, shows that between 14 and 31 December alone Ged Munns, the BNP?s chief fundraiser, paid in 41,605 described as ?appeals?. During January he paid in a further 30,011.50, making a total of over 70,000 though a long way short of the ?well over 80,000? that a report on the BNP website on 14 February claimed the appeal had raised. Why tell the truth when it is so easy to lie to the party?s gullible members? How strange then than the BNP?s audited accounts for the year to 31 December 2007, released by the Electoral Commission at the end of July, show the total raised from ?fundraising activities? during the whole year was 23,433, less even than the 38,970 raised in 2006. Why would the party not want to highlight the success of the ?Building to Grow? appeal, run for Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, by the Belfast-based Midas Consultancy, to which the party paid 6,900 during March and April this year? Midas, owned by the hardline anti-abortion activist James Dowson, also produced the begging letters for the BNP?s recent ?truth truck? appeal and arranged the party?s officer training sessions in Spain in spring. It would be tempting to conclude that the appeal money swiftly found its way out of the BNP coffers and into Griffin?s back pocket, but that would be wrong. The bank account balance of 30,417.58 on the printout for 31 December matches the 30,418 shown on the balance sheet at that date, so all the income must appear in the accounts somewhere. Has the ?Building to Grow? income simply been hidden in donations, a figure that nevertheless fell from nearly 290,000 in 2006 to under 200,000 in 2007? Of this sum 36,000 came from four supporters whose donations were declared individually to the Electoral Commission. Including the ?Building to Grow? income in ?donations? would mask a huge drop in ordinary donations. The BNP?s 2007 accounts revealed some other interesting features. Most notable is the opinion of Silver & Co, the party?s regular auditors, that the financial statements do not give a true and fair view of the state of the party?s affairs at 31 December 2007 and of the year?s results. An adverse auditors? report is normally devastating for a company, making it almost impossible to obtain credit. A normal political party would find that donors lose confidence that their money will be used properly and income dries up. The BNP no doubt hopes that its donors will not notice or be too stupid to understand. Griffin tries to skate over the embarrassment by blaming Kenny Smith, who was one of the leaders of last winter?s BNP rebels. ?Accurate accounting for this year is problematic owing to the point-blank refusal of the former head of Administration to account for large amounts of expenditure?, he writes in his introduction to the accounts. But mindful of the potential financial implications of a libel claim, he hastens to add that much of the money was undoubtedly properly spent. Smith was also blamed in the 2006 accounts, both for their lateness and for a qualification to the auditors? report on the grounds that no vouchers had been produced to show how 14,000 transferred during the year to Smith?s ?B N Publications? account had been spent. In fact B N Publications was a separate business run by Smith outside the party so arguably did not need to explain how it spent the fees it received for its services. The reason why the 2007 accounts were ?not a true and fair view? may be the size of the amount involved, especially compared to the party?s gross income, which was considerably lower in 2007 than the previous year. But there nay be another explanation, contained in a further attempt to cast aspersions on Smith as well as explain the party?s reduced income despite a claimed 56% growth in membership. Griffin writes: ?Income was down on the previous year, but given that we never received crucial accounting records from British National Lottery or Excalibur [both then run by Smith], we have estimated that we could have lost nearly 70,000 in unaccounted income?. Is Griffin saying that Smith extracted 70,000 from the party in addition to failing to account for 32,271 of fees paid to him? How? Even the newly revamped and expanded Excalibur is not expected to make more than 20,000 a year profit from a 40,000 turnover. The accounts certainly do show a large reduction in income. Alongside the drop in donations, income from commercial activities fell by over 70,000 to 175,000. And nearly half of this income consists of sales of the BNP?s monthly publications Voice of Freedom and Identity to the party?s own local units. The regional accounts, which bring together the income and expenditure of all the party units, suggest they only recoup a fraction of this from sales to the public. However the truth is unclear. While some of the local units? income is properly categorised as ?donations?, ?commercial activities? etc, more than half ? over 147,000 ? was not, and appears in the regional accounts as a ?petty cash difference?. This failure fully to record income sources suggests that the BNP rebels had a point when they accused Dave Hannam, the regional treasurer, of incompetence. Stating where income comes from is one of the most basic of bookkeeping tasks, though the accounts blame the ?volunteers? who keep the local groups? petty cash books. Returning to the main accounts, membership income is up, though not by the same proportion as the growth in membership numbers. Presumably some people are joining on the cheap. But the increase is not enough to set off the fall in donations and commercial income. Total income in 2007 was 611,000 compared to 726,000 the previous year. Although the BNP managed to save on some costs, it ended 2007 with a deficit of over 50,000 compared to a 19,000 surplus in 2006, increasing its insolvency. No wonder the party needed Dowson to extricate it from bankruptcy. The ?Building to Grow? appeal was supposedly intended to expand the party?s capabilities. For example the BNP claimed the new funds enabled it to open its new premises in Deeside with ?a vast array of new equipment with a value of well in excess of 35,000?. In fact it seems that only about 18,000 was spent on buying new equipment, from a company called Twofold Ltd. The rest seems to be leased. Leasing is often commercially sensible but not when you give your members the impression that their donations have been invested in acquiring the equipment the party needs to progress. The rest of the ?Building to Grow? money is being spent on paying the salaries of the party?s officers and meeting its debts, such as the more than 20,000 it still owed to HM Revenue and Customs for value added tax and income tax and national insurance deducted from employees? salaries. As well as not paying over the PAYE deductions, the BNP continued to get away with paying half of its staffing bill in the form of ?professional fees? to avoid national insurance and income tax. Staff paid gross included Simon Darby the party?s deputy leader, Munns, Hannam, Arthur Kemp who runs the party?s educational and training department, and a number of the BNP rebels who complained about the policy. The BNP ended 2007 insolvent to the tune of 86,000. It survived because the party was able to borrow nearly 42,000 from its local units. In 2006 it ran up a debt of nearly 22,000 to the local units, but the full amount was repaid in January 2007 as the party was keen to announce. Such prompt repayment was not repeated after 31 December 2007. The auditors? report on the regional accounts highlighted the debt, pointing out that the party had ?insufficient funds, which places doubt on the ability of the Party to repay this money?. Hannam?s treasurer?s report states: ?It is the aim of central office to repay this internal loan with monthly standing orders?, but the party seems in no hurry to get on with it. One person who is doing well out of the BNP is Mark Collett, the BNP?s former director of publicity who is still responsible for its graphic design. One of the main targets of the BNP rebels, he remains widely unpopular in the party. Between May 2007 and April 2008 his Vanguard Promotions business received nearly 50,000 from the party, most of it after ?Building to Grow? started bearing fruit. If the success of ?Building to Grow? was repeated in the Truth Truck appeal, the BNP may now have reversed its financial woes. The election of Richard Barnbrook to the London Assembly in May will also have helped. His 50,000 salary is far higher than any BNP officer receives so he has generously agreed to donate 5,000 a year to party funds. In addition he has been able to employ three assistants at London taxpayers? expense, one of whom is Darby, saving the BNP the expense of paying him. It is such financial gains multiplied several fold that await the BNP if it succeeds in getting candidates elected to the European Parliament next year.
