£200 Per Hour

This is the sort of thing which brings Unite into disrepute, courtesy of the Daily Mail:

Harman's MP husband forced to apologise after failing to declare £60,000 in payments from Unite union

By Jason Groves


Shamed: Jack Dromey (pictured with wife Harriet Harman) breached Commons rules for failing to declare payments totaling almost £60,000
Shamed: Jack Dromey (pictured with wife Harriet Harman) breached Commons rules for failing to declare payments totaling almost £60,000
A senior Labour MP was forced to apologise to the Commons yesterday after secretly accepting almost £60,000 in payments from the trade union Unite. A parliamentary sleaze inquiry found Jack Dromey, who is married to deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, committed a serious breach of Commons rules by failing to declare a financial relationship with the union – Labour’s biggest donor – for more than a year.

Mr Dromey, 63, is Ed Miliband’s shadow housing minister and served for years as Labour’s treasurer, as well as holding a string of senior positions during a 32-year career in the trade union movement. But Mr Dromey was let off with a slap on the wrist after a committee of MPs ruled he was a ‘new and inexperienced MP’.

After his election in May 2010, Mr Dromey said he was resigning as Unite’s deputy general secretary and had ‘declined my salary in the meantime’. In fact, he continued to work for the union part time, charging up to £200 an hour for several months.

Mr Dromey was paid more than £28,000 in wages until he finally stopped working for the union in October 2010. The following month he was also given a £30,000 pay-off. He also had the use of a union-funded car, which he bought at a discount
on leaving. But despite strict rules on the declaration of outside income, none of these payments was made public until October the following year.
Embarrassment: Mrs Harman, Labour's deputy leader, will have caused party leader Miliband, right, unnecessary distress
Embarrassment: Mrs Harman, Labour's deputy leader, will have caused party leader Miliband, right, unnecessary distress
Mr Dromey also breached rules by failing to mention his relationship with Unite in two Commons debates in which the union had an interest.

The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee said yesterday it would accept Mr Dromey’s written apology but suggested it would have demanded a tougher penalty had he not been ‘a new and inexperienced MP at the time’.

The ruling raised eyebrows yesterday at Westminster, where Mr Dromey is widely viewed as a seasoned operator.

He told a sleaze inquiry into the affair that he had genuinely intended not to accept any more payments from Unite after being elected – and even went so far as to send back a salary cheque. 


But he said the union had then asked him to carry out some work on a sensitive ‘internal matter’.


He claimed he never got round to registering the payments because he was ‘extremely busy’. But he admitted he had ‘no explanation’ for why he had failed to check his entry in the register of MPs’ interests for almost a year.
Yesterday Mr Dromey made a brief apology in the Commons. He said the failure to register the payments had been ‘unintentional’.

He added: ‘Notwithstanding that the commissioner and the committee noted that the breaches were unintentional, I want to apologise unreservedly to the House and I will in future fully abide by the rules of the House.’ 


Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about Mr Dromey’s failure to register union payments, said: ‘It is right that Jack Dromey’s serious  misconduct has been investigated and condemned.

‘Ed Miliband can talk all he likes about taking on the unions, but unless he publicly reprimands his shadow minister’s misconduct, people will see him for what he is – weak and in the pockets of his union paymasters.’

Daily Mail

Also available in the Guardian

36 comments:

  1. Unite members will be asking who the hell authorised payments to Dromey . Hummm McCluskey appears to be keeping quite on this issue

    ReplyDelete
  2. unite run on mafia guidelines

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Union Organisers in Unite ( about 80 of them ), have to share their pool cars . At a ratio of three cars to four Organisers we’re expected to achieve unachievable targets in a large geographical area. Our bosses , have on many occasions, reminded us that the union is unable to fund the cost of an "extra" car ( which are a necessity for our job) yet they still allow their mates such unacceptable payments/ pay offs .

    ReplyDelete
  4. unite make you a offer you cannot refuse,,or they will send luca bratza round for a chat

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Unite EC was apparently told that Jack Dromey would not get a pay off. This is presumably the way that McLuskey and Woodley had used to get around that - in other words he did not go on VR/VS.

    Also I understand Dromey was carrying out an investigation into a complaint against employees supporting another GS candidate, if he had left it would have meant stopping that investigation which was being used to intimidate opponents during the election. It was convenient for Mr Dromey to stay on after he became an MP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. JP,that makes sense.Thanks for letting us know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And are they still sacking the learning organisers?

    ReplyDelete
  8. unite the union,,,run by corrupt leaders...join gmb

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the GMB were sensible, they would extend an open invitation to former Amicus officers to join them, it then wouldn't surprise me at all if unite members would follow them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Readers may be interested to learn of some recent developments in the NEYH region, as published in the Northern Echo, The Journal and the Evening Chronicle. I won't go into great detail here but just a brief overview of what has happened to a pension fund and the impact on 450 members of the Hugh Mackay Retirement Pension scheme - many of whom are Unite members. Quite simply, the millions of pounds in the pension fund has been spent by the trustees of the scheme - one of the trustees just happens to be a salaried regional officer of Unite. The Pensions Regulator has published a report which you can, if you so wish, access in the public domain at www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/press/pn12-03/aspx the case reference is TM8515. The Pension Protection Fund will compensate members 'up to' 90% of expected benefits so members have asked Unite to support them in seeking to recover the balance through a civil action. The reply from NEYH regional office was....... not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Noted...without saying too much here, which one was the regional officer, initials will do, and what section did he come from?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some reports in the local press refer to the person in question as 'a Unite member'; whilst this may be only partially true, the inaccuracy tarnishes the genuine membership which would be unfair. I am assured that a full exposure of the facts will be in the public domain very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I anticipate a chronic outbreak of irritable bowel syndrome at central office during the next few days!

    ReplyDelete
  14. unite the corrupt union,not serving members

    ReplyDelete
  15. there is no part of unite the union that is for the workers they are only for themselves from top to bottom including the ec just want pa ying to back stab members i heard northen members were threatened with a law suit for asking for a union meeting good hey

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just as we are sensationalising the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic, the guilty iceberg is still bobbing about on the stormy waters of what we call trade unionism. There has just been a round of interviews for learning organiser jobs - the organisres who have performed well and served the members needs have not been re-appointed while those taking their places are 'career trade unionists' (and I use the term trade unionist advisedly. These are people who are attracted to the high salaries (£35k and upwards)and have little interest in anything other than their career progression - certainly no interest in the union learning reps who do the bulk of the work (unpaid mostly) but ready to grab the plaudits for the achievements of others. This is only the tip of the iceberg as the conniving and conspiracy within the project teams runs to a much greater depth - they are even trying to shaft each other now!

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's a pity that this posting is tucked away in this section it really needs to be in a more visable and prominant place to watch it run.

    Rumour has it that there is a very strong case for ET.

    Do we want dirty washing in the public domain? Ask yourself the question Unite

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any suggestions as to where this thread could be placed to make it more accessible to the growing number of very sincere but totally marginalised people who are both victims of gross injustice and supporters of their case?

      You are right about the probability of litigation.

      Delete
    2. Maybe a front page or link from the derecognistion of the GMB or maybe a new page just for this article.

      What I hear the whole issue needs addressing as a matter of urgency.

      If the media get hold of this they wil lhave a field day.

      I am so sorry that commited people are being treated in such a shoddy manner . You would expect everything and everybody to be treated better than the best employer

      but it appears unite are acting worse than the worse employer

      Delete
    3. I have been informed that the GMB have attempted to resolve the issues around end of contract!! and Unite have not entered into meaningful consultation. They have gone ahead in a blinkered manner to have a clearout and bring in ''Their little Ducks''

      There also appears to be discussion around is it redundancy or is Some Other Substantial Reason.

      In my view Unite are on very dodgy ground with this as I have been made aware that many have been with several ULF projects in excess of 10 years

      I am no legal expert but I found it easy to find information about abuse of Fix Term Contracts and something around a 4 year rule that gives perminancy on continued contracts ( 4years )

      so when is redundancy not redundancy and when does it become Some Other Substantial Reason?

      Tribunal case to sort

      Delete
  18. I hear that the decision that has been made by unite is a political one . As Unite critise employeres for making redundancies they dont want it in the public arena that they are doing the same.

    Bad PA. Also Unite have used this redundancy excercise to enable them to derecognise the GMB as most have now gone even the shop rep!!! so no members no Union

    ReplyDelete
  19. The media will have a field day with this; as will Unionlearn who broker the distribution of public funding - in the case of Unite £4.5 million of which 80% is taken up in the form of salaries. The GS stated in a report to the education sub committee that the national project had failed to meet all three of the project outcomes for the outgoing project. Regionally, outcomes were met in excess of the targets by some individuals and it is these individuals who have not been re-engaged for the 2012-2013 project??? The logic behind this escapes me. However, logic and Unite's internal politics are as compatible as oil and water. Considered opinion on the selection process for the 'little ducks' seems inclined toward the central office and Eastbourne bunga bunga parties.........and I kid you not!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 4 legs ex Tgwu good 2 legs ex Amicus bad the cull continues

    ReplyDelete
  21. The same situation arose in 2010 when Learning Organisers had to apply for our own jobs. The Amicus Learning Organisers were actually employees of Unite, albeit on fixed term contracts, and a part of the Amicus pension scheme. The TGWU Learning Organisers were technically self-employed at the time. Those of us from Amicus on more than four years' service had a legal right to be treated as permanent staff (some of us had 7 years’ service). The GMB buried their heads in the sand and refused to support us. The GMB officer cut off all contact after initially promising support. The jobs were divied out between Amicus and TGWU, with some Amicus being told they were not wanted, and some having to fight for the VR terms being offered to all Amicus officers and staff at the time. When the union initially refused to concede that we were entitled to the same VR terms, the GMB again refused support and cut off contact. We eventually won after threatening legal action and much publicity. Although much good work has been done by Learning Organisers for the membership, unfortunately many LOs use their position to kiss regional management backside and get themselves officers’ jobs. This Unite leadership and many of its regional cronies are a disgrace to trade unionism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I fpr one can not comment on the content of the above comments re GMB and divied up jobs.

    I believe some issues get mixed up and or are lost in the mist of time.

    The essance of the above has some foundation. For example VR terms on x2 occasions have had to be contested. I am not aware that EX Amicus where in GMB at the time. There is documentation and witness statements emaile and teh like that confirms ex Amicus where accepted as having access to the VR package and agreed with HR at the time and paid

    Re EX T&G collegues, this is a bit more technicle as I understand this they had the term self employed but when you delve further into it this was just for tax and NI in every other way they where employees of T&G as there appeared to be some kind of restrictive covennment.

    Pay slip , holiday etc had to be taken with T&G permission and as a so called SE person where not allowed to work for anyone else or persue other buiness interests.

    Under HMRC guidlines they where direct employees of T&G and is / being looked into

    without a doubt the treatment of ex T&G and Amicus employees has been and continuos to be a disgrace and is heading for ET

    This will generate its own publicity and as Unite is in teh fore-front of the media re Tanker drivers it will come out.

    If there was not a case I have been informed that a compromise is on teh table . Why offer a compromise if not to keep it out of the public domain and you are so sure of your ground.

    There appears to be an element of bad judgement on behalf of Unite if they think the resolve of experianced employees will go away without a fight. As said there is only one loser and that is Unite.

    With regards GMB and support . It is to early to make comment but the situation re Ex T&G and Amicus is being looked into and the signs are encouraging

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm a little confused about the last comment. Are you doubting that we were GMB represented, or that management tried to deny us VR terms? Regarding “some issues get mixed up and or are lost in the mist of time.” - I still have comprehensive written and email documentation from Unite HR/management and the from the GMB officer on this issue, spanning a period of months. Unite management fought tooth and nail to deny us VR, claiming that we were not entitled to it.

    Regarding the above comment, although some of the Amicus LOs were EESA, most of us were GMB. Many of us came from Unifi, where we were GMB represented, and continued our GMB membership within Unite. Many others, who came from the original Amicus project and the GPMU project, also joined the GMB when the projects were combined into the new Amicus project. My comments were not meant to be anti-TGWU. There are good people in both ex-TGWU and ex-Amicus. Surely the fight is against anti-trade union and anti-working class practises and mentality from the leadership, whether they be from Amicus or TGWU.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting to my knowledge there have been two occassiins when VR has been paid x1 at x1 month for every year +9 month and the latter being X1 month for every year + 3 month.

    Lets not get into a bun fight over about the leval of representation as we can pick fault when we are emotionally involved. with regrads dening VR I have no doubt that Unite did attempt to deny you what you where entitled too as ther same attitude pervades as of now. The question is did you get your VR

    I am interested to note that you have a comprehensive amount of documentation if this is the case perhaps you would like to share with GMB reps Gary Carter and or I think it is hand brooke or hambrook. I feel sure it may assist in giving Unite a bloody nose and resolve the contractual issues. one thing is have you and the others been compromised?

    It would not be hard to track the contact details down

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cut out the patronising comments about ‘bun fights’ and being ‘emotionally involved’. This is political and based on facts, backed up with documentary evidence. I really think you ought to look into this issue and especially the actual facts involved before making your comments. The fact that you suggest giving the current reps the documentary evidence demonstrates that you really don’t have any idea what happened. I know who the current reps are. You are basing your comments on hearsay and there is clearly a lack of facts at your disposal. If you don’t know the issues then maybe it is better to keep quiet.
    I am not going to mention names here, but the GMB rep at the time (you should know who this is) backed Unite management on this issue and refused to support the members involved, despite a plethora of requests. Again, there is a multitude of documentary evidence available backing this up. The branch convenor acted likewise, and took a hostile attitude towards us. The rep also shared email communication between GMB members on a strategy to win our VR, with Unite HR (again, there is evidence to back this up). This outrageous action, along with the GMB officer's backtracking and refusal to support us, when he had already told us we had a solid case, resulted in complaints to GMB regional office and also to the GMB General Secretary. The first was ignored. The second resulted in a hostile email back. The GMB members therefore had to resort to fighting on our own, and eventually winning our VR case, based on sound employment law arguments. We did so without any GMB help whatsoever. We were informed by more than one legal source that we also could have taken on the GMB and probably won, for failure to represent.
    By the time we had won our VR, most of us were too sickened by the deplorable actions of GMB lay and full-time officials, who had for a long time been too cosy with Amicus and Unite management, that we just wanted to put it all behind us.
    You, along with many on this site, seem to have a rose-tinted view of the GMB as being a combative union that can take on Unite management. I have been a shop steward with three different unions spanning over twenty-five years and I have never come across such deplorable behaviour by a union towards its members as I experienced within the GMB. There are strong parallels here with the Unite leadership.
    A genuine democratic rank and file movement needs to be built in Unite, to return to core trade union principles. This also needs to be done in the GMB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To true mate im a trrade unionist and this is the problem with these people there are so corrupt it is frighteneing noses in the trough and utterly devoid of what trade unionism really is unite
      and Gmb are sinking ships

      Delete
  26. Points taken.

    Before I read your thread I have had some of the thoughts you mention.

    re cosying up to Unite etc

    it looks like history repeating its self

    ReplyDelete
  27. ET London Central Will Unite ever learn?

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's no wonder they put there members on a so called sliding scale, every time your union fees go up, it's to pay for those who do nothing for there members. Bunch of sleaze bags, how can members TRUST thier leaders after they pull stunts like this ? Without members there would be no union, without staff there would be no company, why don't they see things as easy as this?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This all goes to show that i am glad i am no longer in unite or amicus or tgwu been in them all and are still a bunch of greedy self serving corrupt hypocrites ,join the RMT a proper union not a self appreciation society ,unite is a carbon copy of todays society it is full of wanabees dying to climb a greasy pole plastic trade unionist not fit for purpose

    ReplyDelete
  30. Unite offcials have conspired with British Airports Authority (BAA), at Heathrow Airport in blacklisting of non-white ethnic shop stewards.

    These reps discovered corrupt pratices, racism and bribery (monetary gains in return for signing policies at favourably terms to the employer).

    I have learn't that dismissed reps made repeated appeals to Len McCluskey for assistance but he refuses to acknowelgde them.

    Sacked reps belonged to branch 562, Heathrow Airport.

    If you need further information, please go their branch meeting that is held on 1st Tuesday of each month at 16:00: Unite the Union, Unite House, 99 New Road, Harlington, Middx UB3 5BQ
    Tel: 020 3004 3440

    ReplyDelete
  31. The post regards BAA is a scam. Twisting of facts.

    In real field, 2 specific BAEM Rep were sacked for their own corruption and they were solid soldier of Len McCluskey. They feed the branch money and even gave donation to Len on his last election.

    However another BAEM rep (Solid supporter of Jerry) were in Tribunal against BAA including those corrupted rep. Although beginning BAA refused to investigate,but finally they settle the matter outside court with 6 Digit figure after tax.

    I am wondering-- is this the same Anonymous, who previously put comment against our solid comradeS LIKE Golam, John Purdame.

    In addition, Branch 562 BAA nominated Jerry this year.

    ReplyDelete