Diane Abbott:

As a former trade union official, I know too well the struggle that some unions face in representing their members effectively. I worked as full-time Equality Officer in 1986 for ACTT (film technicians union) and I believe that post the industrial era, governments of whatever colour, have made it more difficult for trade unions to be the force for good they so often are. We often forget that trade unions do more than negotiate better pay deals - they are leaders in equality and diversity, experts in healthy and safe working environments and champions of international relations.

I support John McDonnell's Trade Union Freedom Bill and I have signed the Early Day Motion to demonstrate my support. I think we have to free up some of the legislation around industrial action which paints workers as criminals. I think we also have to simplify the technocratic rules and regulations around disputes.

But the most importantly, I want to make it unlawful to strike down an otherwise lawful ballot because of unintentional technical breaches of the regulations which would not have altered the outcome of the ballot. I would also change the law to stop employers taking vexatious injunctions.

The right to strike is a fundamental right and in Britain we have stifled this right for too long. As Labour leader, I would make sure this right is reinstated.

Ed Balls:

Being a union member seems tough right now: public service jobs, pay and pensions under attack; ideological cuts that risk a double-dip recession; lawyers thwarting democratic decisions on technicalities; and the Government plotting new restrictions.

But the biggest underlying threat facing unions is falling union membership - especially but not only in the private sector. That's why unions like Unite, the CWU, Unison and GMB have stepped up organising efforts.

Unions are predominantly a force for good and I want to enable unions to organise to represent their members properly. The ILO proclaims a right to organise in free, democratic societies. I want to improve the Freedom to Organise in modern Britain.

Labour empowered workers to vote for recognition. But the right of access to staff only applies where a formal ballot process is underway. Catch 22 is how to get to this stage. It is currently too easy for employers to be obstructive.

Laws can't do the job for unions but laws can ensure fair and reasonable access to workers who are interested in joining.

And once established, trade union reps need training and proper facilities to represent members effectively - we must resist the impending Government attack on facilities.

Finally I want to maximise participation. Union members should be allowed to vote in ballots in non-postal forms such as secure and secret internet and workplace balloting. Experience shows this means more people will take part.

The Freedom to Organise can help union members to help themselves.

Andy Burnham:

I have been concerned by the role of the courts in recent industrial actions, where decisions have been made on relatively minor issues which have effectively quashed legally constituted strikes. We should look again at the legislation to reassure workers who have been properly balloted and who have voted in favour of industrial action that their decision cannot be quashed on minor technicalities, brought about by unforeseen consequences of the legislation.

 David Miliband:

Unions should have the freedom to recruit new members. Preventing trade union reps from entering workplaces to speak to people about the benefits of joining a union also risks creating a confrontational relationship with employers, which is not the basis for good social partnership.

We made many positive changes to industrial relations in government, including the right to recognition and the Union Modernisation Fund. The challenge of maintaining and growing union membership is one shared by our sister movements in virtually all developed nations, despite very different employment legislation. But the insecurities associated with globalisation and desire of employees to be treated with respect and have a voice at work makes the need for trade unions as important today as at anytime in our history.

The opportunity for unions is to demonstrate their appeal to workers and to today’s economy – where being a decent employer and a profitable enterprise go hand in hand, and the best workplaces are those characterised by autonomy, engagement and innovation. That means standing up to those companies who think the route to success lies in squeezing every ounce of effort out of their workforce in return for low pay and poor conditions – as a substitute for management vision and investment.

In short, we need good trade unions now more than ever. Perversely, the Tories seem to want to re-fight old battles over strike laws. Industrial disputes are at a far lower level than during the 1980s – and the last thing Britain needs is a throwback to the confrontational prescriptions of that decade.

Ed Miliband:

We've not yet received Ed's reply, but we'll publish it as soon as we have.

Why ASLEF are recommending our members vote for Diane Abbott

ASLEF’s Executive Committee is recommending that its members give Diane Abbott their first preference vote in the leadership ballot. They met all five candidates before concluding that Diane is the only candidate committed to a publicly run, publicly owned railway who clearly understands the need for change in trade union laws.

The Executive was also impressed by her desire to put ‘life, enthusiasm and democracy’ back into the Party. She knows what needs to be changed because she’s worked in the Party at every level, and is untainted by ‘parachutes or patronage’. Finally she wants to end a culture where ‘people felt they couldn’t speak out, even in favour of popular policies which Labour should be supporting – like less privatisation, no Trident, putting rail back in public hands and more investment in public housing.’

ASLEF feels Diane represents an opportunity for genuine change at a time we desperately need it.

Simon Weller is ASLEF's  Acting General Secretary. ASLEF is Britain's trade union for train drivers. Its 18,500+ members are employed in the train operating companies, the freight companies, London Underground and some Light Rapid Transport.

Diane Abbott:

I think it was major error that the Labour government did not sign up to the Agency Workers Directive sooner.

It would have left another marvellous legacy for Labour had we begun implementing the directive in 2004.

But we did manage to get the directive through Parliament ahead of the last election, thanks to Unions who have lobbied for the support of the directive for a long time. It is down to them that we have finally been able to get it passed into law.

I voted in favour of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, which will secure equal pay, holiday and terms for working time between vulnerable agency workers and their permanent staff counterparts after 12 weeks in the job. This will be implemented in the UK at the latest by December 2011.

However, now we are in opposition, we need to ensure the directive goes ahead as we intended.

The Tories vigorously opposed the directive from the start so we must ensure that they implement the directive as we intended. The worrying response from Ed Davey to a question from Lisa Nandy should make us raise our political antennae and be aware that this coalition could be willing to water down the proposals.

Agency workers are particularly at risk during recession and this directive is needed protect their interests. Currently they lack almost all of the rights guaranteed for normal workers from the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is just wrong.

These new regulations will see improvements for millions of workers across the UK.

For the Coalition to go back on the directive would be nothing short of a scandal.

I for one will do my best to make sure this does not happen.

Ed Balls:

While Labour put the minimum wage and other advances into law, we were far too slow to legislate for equal treatment for agency staff. The TUC's Vulnerable Workers project exposed heart-rending cases. And it was not enough to implement the posted workers directive when the floor was simply the minimum wage rather than the proper rate for the job.

Why did it happen? Because there was a school of thought in some parts of government that this would appease business. The election showed that this was futile, especially when business leaders signed a letter backing the Tories against the national insurance rise.

I support immigration and migration, which has made an immense contribution to our economy and the diversity and richness of our society. I’ve said this in front of a baying crowd of BNP supporters in my constituency and will do so again. But I don’t believe in free migration, I believe in fair migration – fair to migrant workers and to working people.

The scale and pace of migration from Eastern Europe in the second half of the last decade did have an affect on our communities, on housing, and on the wages and terms and conditions of many workers. Not acting quickly on implementing the agency and posted workers directives exacerbated that. So we should have a proper set of guarantees to stop exploitation of migrant workers and prevent unfair under-cutting.

I also support a Living Wage and was the first and only Cabinet Minister to implement it within my Department for all staff and contracted staff. But the law can’t do it all. In future unions must have the chance to organise and attract all types of worker to eradicate injustices.

Andy Burnham:

My dad was a telecomms engineer and, during the later part of his working life, he was an agency worker. That experience showed me first hand how precarious that sort of contract work can be. I have also seen the sometimes knife-edge existence that some of the families in my constituency face because of short-term contracts and the inability to access the sort of banking services the rest of us take for granted. That is why I have spoken up for agency workers during this leadership campaign.

Quite simply, the coalition's hesitation over the Directive in response to the 'the different points of view expressed by the business community' is an insult to temporary and agency workers, as well as anyone who wants Britain to be an economic and employment exemplar in the future.

I saw the Directive as a vital part of efforts to upgrade our laws for the current and future workforce, and I have already called for all job vacancies to be openly advertised, for instance. I regret that the Directive did not come into force without exemptions during Labour's last term, and we should learn from that and reform our policy-making processes accordingly. That is why I want to strengthen the trade union link, so that those mistakes are never made again and that we can truly be a Labour movement.

 David Miliband:

I strongly support the Agency Workers Directive, to ensure people receive the employment rights they are due and to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable workers. This is a basic issue of fairness at work. It required negotiation between government and the social partners both here in Britain and at a European level. In retrospect, it took too long to achieve, but it was an agreement that would never have been achieved under a Tory government; hostile to both employment rights and to European cooperation.

It’s now vital that we get implementation of the Directive right. Workers should not be denied a fair wage, holiday entitlement and access to parental leave just because they are not permanently contracted with their employer. That’s why I support the TUC’s efforts to ensure the regulations prevent unscrupulous employers and agencies from avoiding the new rights – such as by shifting agency workers between jobs within the same workplace or using bogus self-employment to avoid equal treatment. Where they believe these rights are being denied, employees and trade unions should have recourse to proper dispute resolution mechanisms, including an employment tribunal if necessary.

Ed Miliband:

Fairness and dignity in work is at the heart of my vision for a more equal and stronger Britain. I'm proud of what Labour achieved in Government. But we have to realise we did too little to improve working conditions for those who work the hardest. Too many are stuck in low wage, long hours jobs. We didn't do enough to create routes to better work and a better life. And we need to do more to tackle the gap between rich and poor. That's why I am campaigning for a living wage and a high pay commission for both the public and private sector.

There are more than a million agency workers in the UK and the Agency Workers Directive is vital to ensuring their employment rights are protected and also that agency workers can't be used to undercut permanent staff.

It's a fundamental Labour belief that work should pay and those who work hard should be properly rewarded. That's why it was so important for us to implement the directive quickly. It took far too long to us to do so. I have spoken before about how some of our mistakes in Government might have been avoided if we had listened more to party and union members, and the Agency Workers Directive is a good example of this.

Now I fear the Coalition are rowing back from this commitment and I've written David Cameron in the last couple of weeks to challenge him on his plans. I will fight to protect these regulations and take-on those who are trying to undermine them.

Diane Abbott:

Labour has a fantastic record of supporting people at work and I am proud to have been able to vote for some of the most progressive and radical policies of the century – The Minimum Wage Act and legislation to end discrimination in the workplace form a very proud part of our history. But Legislation isn’t the panacea and we have so much more to do to equalise pay between men and women and make sure that elements of our workforce, such as temporary and agency workers are not put at risk of exploitation.

On the issue of the Gender Pay Gap which is something that we, as a society, should be ashamed of, something radical must be put in place. When women accountants are earning up to two thirds less than their male counterparts, for example, we have to make companies and business more transparent to expose and tackle inequalities in pay between the sexes.

I’m pleased that the UK Government finally signed up to the Temporary and Agency Workers directive, albeit after some needed lobbying from Trade Unions, but I wait to see how the current Government puts the Directive into practice. My worry is that this Government led by a coalition who have shown their willingness to cosy up to sections of the business community to the detriment of the most vulnerable, will bow to pressure from some groups and water down the Directive. We must resist this vehemently.

Ed Balls:

For me, equality sits at the heart of our socialist principles. It is 100 years since the women chainmakers’ strike for a minimum wage, 42 years since the famous Ford women’s dispute and 40 years since the landmark Equal Pay Act they inspired. Though Labour has acted to narrow the pay gap, there is still a 17% pay gap for full time workers and 40% for part timers.

It's not enough to study the pay gap; we must take decisive action to narrow it. To begin with, we must defend Labour’s Equality Act from Tory back-sliding and extend the requirement to promote equality to the private sector, starting with those on government contracts and publishing every large company’s pay gap.

We cannot succeed by individual case law alone. I want to promote union-negotiated collective settlements, pay audits, equality reps and representative legal actions.

The National Minimum Wage improved women’s pay. It should rise above £7 an hour. I support the Living Wage and was the only Cabinet minister to implement the Living Wage for all my staff and contractors.

Finally tax credits and child benefit are essential in tackling family poverty and we must defend them against Tory- Lib Dem attacks.

The Tory-Lib Dem government threatens to widen inequality by reneging on equality law, undermining enforcement, slashing tax credits and benefits and cutting public sector jobs which pay women more. This could set us back decades and Labour’s new leader must put equality at the heart of our concerns.

Andy Burnham:

First off, we don’t let the boulder roll back down the hill on the advances we have made. Whether it’s on low pay, discrimination or the gender pay gap, we will not stand by and see hard won gains under Labour wither on the vine under the Tory/ Liberal coalition.

That is our main task as an Opposition over coming months. We will not allow the Conservatives to get away with dismantling progressive measures for their ideological ends under the cloak of “we can’t afford it”. We will put pressure on those shame-faced Lib Dems MPs to ensure they support us as we protect what we have built during our 13 years in office. The coalition says that it is committed greater gender equality. An easy thing to claim. We will hold them to it.

In terms of low pay, we must fight to ensure the value of the Minimum Wage does not diminish. The Tories hate the fact that the National Minimum Wage has been such a success. They will roll-out the old Tory arguments about the country not being able to afford regular increases, but it’s good for the economy, especially during such a fragile recovery, to have the low paid with more money in their pockets.

 David Miliband:

In Government, Labour made real progress on tackling discrimination at work. Our Equalities legislation made provision for extra protection for employees and we were absolutely right to introduce gender pay audits.

However there is still a long way to go and the gender pay gap is still too wide. 40 years after equal pay legislation came into force, women working full-time earn on average 17% less per hour than men. For ethnic minority women, the gap is even higher at 20%. Over the course of a working life women earn £330,000 less than men.

To tackle this we need to make sure we improve the enforcement of employment rights. Proper inspection and follow up of breaches of employment laws will help tackle discrimination at work.

We also need to look at ways of ensuring employees are properly involved and informed about important decisions in the places they work. Workers need the power to tackle discrimination and improve fairness in the workplace. That’s why we need to reform corporate governance by requiring an employee representative on the remuneration committees of firms – and promoting the rights to information and consultation.

Finally, despite the minimum wage, it is wrong that there are still over 5 million low paid workers in our country today. That’s why we should campaign to ensure that anyone working in the public sector is paid a living wage – showing a lead to the private sector.

Ed Miliband:

Fairness is part of Labour’s DNA, but at times we have lost sight of what it takes to achieve a more equal society, one where people can get on whatever background they come from, one where we are not divided as we currently are by gross differences of class, wealth and power.

Above all, if we are to really achieve a fairer society we need to do more to improve working conditions for those who work the hardest. Too many are still stuck in low wage, long hours jobs. And although we achieved a lot in Government, we didn't do enough to create the routes to better work and a better life. The party of the minimum wage somehow became the party of maximum flexibility to work. But we all know that flexibility for employers can lead to low wages and poor employment conditions. We didn't take enough steps to offer better protection.

The Labour Party I want to lead will fight to build a different kind of economy. An economy with greater fairness in work, a greater number of higher quality and better skilled jobs, and with greater time outside of work for people to lead more fulfilling lives.

That’s why I am campaigning for a living wage for everyone. No one who works should live in poverty. It’s a fundamental Labour belief that work should pay and those who work hard should be properly rewarded. That’s why it was so important for us to implement the agency workers directive, although it took far too long to do so. Now the Coalition are rowing back from this commitment, and I’ve written to David Cameron to make sure the regulations stay.

We must also fight to tackle discrimination in the workplace. There can be no justification for paying people differently according to gender and firms need to be open about what people are paid and about how they determine people’s pay scales.

Time outside of work matters as well, particularly to those working long hours in the hardest jobs. I want everyone to have the right to request flexible work and we need to focus more on the responsibilities of employers to invest in their workforce and develop their skills.

Whilst the UK Government is now signed up to the Directive, the way that they will put that into practice in this country will determine how effective that protection is. The CBI recently called for the government to “look to simplify the agency rules to ensure existing work opportunities are maintained and new openings can be created”.

That’s why it’s so worrying that Ed Davey, a Lib Dem Minister in the Business Innovation and Skills department, recently answered a question from Labour’s Lisa Nandy by saying: “The Government are aware of the different points of view expressed by the business community about certain aspects of the agency workers regulations and is currently considering the way forward.”

Any watering down of the protections due to come in would be worrying indeed – this is one issue we’ll be keeping an eye on as it progresses.

Diane Abbott:

Yes I would. I have long made it clear that I do not support privatising the Royal Mail. In my opinion if a service is important, it is too important to be privatised.

We need to be wary about privatising and breaking up an institution that is one of Britain's greatest public services.

Coalition ministers have this idea that Royal Mail can be the new John Lewis, where employees are 'partners', owning shares and receiving annual dividends based on its profits. But they forget that the history behind the two companies is very different.

During last year's post strike, Royal Mail recruited 30,000 temporary workers to counter the effect of the strike.

Also, if the employees are to ‘own’ the business and receive profits, surely they would also be forced to bear the burden should profits fall? Would employees want to take on this risk?

An injection of private cash is urgently needed the coalition says. But would a private company also be prepared to address the black hole in the pension scheme or would they force employees to pay up themselves? What would be the government’s position should we have a revolt on our hands?

I know the Hooper report said change was needed. But we need to be wary of handing over institutions to private companies without proper consideration.

Ed Balls:

Yes. Postal workers delivering letters for the same stamp price, from John O’Groats to Land’s End, 6 days a week, makes Britain proud.

The CWU has attracted huge support for its campaigns to retain the Post Office as a public service. It keeps friends and families in touch, and keeps the economy connected. So I fully back the manifesto pledge to invest in Royal Mail in the public sector.

Yes there is pressure on letters from emails, but the internet is also boosting delivery of packages. So the future need not be gloomy.

The big challenges facing Royal Mail are:

• Modernisation. Royal Mail and the CWU have made massive strides to agree tough modernisation plans, backed overwhelmingly by CWU members. This requires investment and we should explore innovative ways to achieve this.
• Transforming the Post Office into a ‘People’s Bank’, as we propose.
• Pensions. Like millions of public sector workers, postal staff are threatened by a Tory-Lib Dem government attack on their pensions. The Post Office is not going to do a moonlight flit, so a long-term sustainable solution to the deficit is the answer.
• The wider economy. Did you know that the Con-Dem government's unfair VAT rise will apply to postage stamps too? We have to get the economy right and prevent the double-dip recession the Tories are recklessly flirting with.
• Con-Dem plans to privatise Royal Mail. It is a good idea for postal staff to be more involved in Royal Mail. But a small stake held in trust for staff would not give employees any significant control, is certainly not a John Lewis model and would not disguise the overall sale to private owners which the Government plan.

I will fight against the Con-Dem plans, which endanger this vital and popular public service.

Andy Burnham:

We've not yet received Andy's answer, but we'll publish it as soon as we have.

 David Miliband:

I support our manifesto commitment to maintaining Royal Mail in the public sector, while bringing in both new investment and reform. This is the best way to protect the vital principles of a single price and universal provision that underpin a postal service operated in the public interest. Competition from other forms of communication – not least e-mail – is only going to continue, so we must encourage innovation and creativity from all quarters to safeguard the future of Royal Mail.

I am very concerned by suggestions that the Tory-Lib Dem government is considering privatisation. As Labour leader, I would oppose any Bill that gave the private sector a majority stake in Royal Mail, which would mean the controlling interest of the company was not democratically governed in the public interest.

I also think we should be finding ways to sustain and capitalise on the Post Office network, which is part of the fabric of our communities. We should be exploring ways to use the Post Office network to provide banking and other financial services to people – as well as to provide credit to families that keeps them out of the hands of exploitative loan sharks and enables them to borrow at a reasonable cost.

Ed Miliband:

Yes I would have a clear position against the Coalition's plans for privatisation. They are the wrong answer for the workforce and citizens.

CWU have worked hard with the Royal Mail to agree comprehensive modernisation plans and these are supported by CWU members. I believe that we need to show as a party, including in the case of Royal Mail, that we can modernise and improve public services without resorting to privatisation. So we need to back up the modernisation plans by finding innovative ways to enable the Royal Mail to work in the public interest as a publicly owned service with the investment it needs and the improved management at the top of the organisation. And we also need to examine the competition regime to ensure that we don't have a situation which unfairly disadvantages the Royal Mail.

Britain needs a strong modern Post Office, which provides a world-class postal service and also diversifies into new areas, like the Post Office Bank. As we made clear in the Manifesto, we need to invest and develop the Post Office as a public service, vital to our economy and vital to millions of people across the country who want to stay connected with their friends and family.

Diane Abbott:

A large number of my constituents work in the public sector The idea that they should have to contribute more to their pensions because of a deficit caused by bankers is ludicrous.

We should not be hitting as many people as we can with these cuts, which is what the coalition seems to be doing. Public sector workers traditionally earn lower wages than those in the private sector and often good quality pension schemes are their ‘bonuses’.

The coalition cuts are hitting ordinary people the hardest. When David Cameron says our way of life must change, he means our way of life not his. It is unfair that we should be taking money from the pockets of the poorest people to appease private sector workers in the City.

The actual cost of public sector pensions to taxpayers will not rise, as the coalition government is suggesting. Several trade unions have backed this and suggested the government needs to look long term rather than drastic cuts in the short term.

As leader of the Labour Party, I would stick by our promise to provide sustainable public sector pensions. In fact, I would reconsider the cuts altogether. Instead I would look at increasing tax for high earners as a way of evening out the playing field.

Labour lost out at the polls because people thought we had stopped listening to them. These cuts suggest the coalition might also be in danger of losing touch with the ordinary man and woman. This is a lesson they may have to learn the hard way, as Labour had to.

Ed Balls:

Britain’s public service workers will have been shocked at the sudden review of their pensions announced on Sunday, especially since Cameron and Clegg have repeatedly said they want to target public sector pensions for cuts.

It is wrong for the new government to pre-empt this review, and to restore some faith in its independence, the commission must at least have a proper trade union voice.

I am right behind Dave Prentis' call last week to stand up for public sector workers’ pensions. The picture of 10 million public servants retiring into shameless luxury is a media myth - the GMB calculates the average pension in local government is just £77 a week dropping to £50 for women. Moreover pensions are for the long term and should not be based on short-term share prices.

Yes we are all living longer. But Labour and the trade unions have already acted since 2005 to keep public sector pensions affordable for the future. The NHS, civil service and teachers’ schemes are still based on final salary but now have a ceiling on taxpayer contributions. And for years employers like the Post Office took ‘contribution holidays’.

Teachers, nurses, postal workers, police officers, local government staff and other workers who have dedicated their lives to public service deserve to retire in dignity. We all rely on their efforts.

So the Tory/ Liberal attacks on public sector pensions are hypocritical, unfair and unwarranted – at worst they are an excuse for cuts - and I will fight them tooth and nail.

 Andy Burnham:

Decent pensions for public sector workers are an important recognition of the vital work that public servants do. It is insulting for the Government to infer that all public sector pensions are ‘gold plated’. What they don’t say is that the vast majority of those working in the public sector provide vital services, for far lower wages than the few headline cases of those who earn more than the Prime Minister. What they also won’t tell you is that whilst telling us that schemes for the people who deliver our health services, teach our children and collect our rubbish are ‘unaffordable’, that they’ve significantly increased the pensions bill to provide for those who work in Downing Street.

Pensions are going to come under increasing pressure, and will start to cost a lot more over the next five years. However, my response wouldn’t be to deny access to high quality pension schemes, but to work with public sector unions to see how we can tackle the problem together. With a report this month from Age UK showing that the wealthiest in society benefit disproportionately from the tax relief given to private pension schemes, those schemes must also be considered within my review. It wouldn’t be honest to say that I don’t think anything needs to change. However, change should start at the top, with the highest earners in the public sector having to step up their contributions. Once changes to ensure that the highest earners are paying more have been implemented, then it may be necessary to see what else needs to change, in consultation with the unions. There may be a need to increase employee contributions across the board, payment periods may need to increase and there might have to be a review at the rate at which pensions are paid out – but I will campaign for decent, index linked, final salary schemes to remain in the public sector.

 David Miliband:

We should stand up for good public sector pensions and good privates sector pensions. My priority is tackling pensioner poverty and enhancing pension provision in our country, not engaging in a race to the bottom – and Labour’s manifesto is the right place to start.

According to the National Audit Office, most pensions paid to former NHS and civil service staff are worth less than £110 a week. A quarter of former health workers get less than £40 a week. By contrast, fewer than 0.2 per cent of teacher pensioners, 1.8 per cent of civil service pensioners and 2.5 per cent of NHS pensioners get pensions of more than £40,000 a year. When the Tories seek to undermine public sector pensions, we need to remind people that they would end up targeting many formerly low paid workers.

Second, cost. There has been a two per cent increase in the average pension in payment since the turn of the century. Ironically, one of the reasons the Office for Budget Responsibility recently projected an increase in the net cost of public sector pensions is because of the negative impact of the planned public sector pay freeze on employee pension contributions.

The most pressing problem with pension provision in this country is that nearly two-thirds of private sector workers have no employer backed pension scheme at all. It is estimated that 7 million workers are not saving enough for retirement, with 750,000 employers in the private sector still not operating an occupational pension scheme.

Labour’s pension reforms addressed this problem – and any government delay to our plans for workplace pensions, with compulsory employer contributions, would be a massive hit to the future of British pension provision, especially amongst the low paid. After all, the real ‘pensions apartheid’ is not between the public and private sector, but between low paid workers with no pension coverage and high paid workers who have taken the lion’s share of the generous tax breaks on pension contributions.

Following the announcement of a review, the government should commit to not making any changes to public sector pensions without consensus, including with the relevant trade unions. This was an essential part of Labour’s pension reforms, through both the Turner process and the measures already agreed which will increase contributions to public sector pensions by 1bn a year from 2012/13.

Ed Miliband:

We owe a debt of thanks to our public sector workforce who are there for us every day of the year, providing some of the most vital services on which families across the country rely. It’s not just pensions that the Tories and Liberals are planning to cut, its also public sector pay and the cuts they are demanding risk bringing vital public services to their knees. They will hit those who work in the public sector and those who rely on public services. It is vital that Labour commits itself to fight on the side of the public sector against the savage and unfair cuts being pushed through by the Tories and Liberals.

Of course I stand by the agreement we reached with the TUC earlier this year. It is a fair way forward, protecting the pensions which public sector workers have worked hard for and ensuring they are sustainable in the long-term and I will stand by it just as I stand by our public sector workers.

Diane Abbott:

Ensuring we have a living wage is extremely important. Working hard should mean being able to provide for your family and lead a decent standard of living – not living on the breadline.

 Implementing a living wage doesn't only benefit the employees. It improves staff loyalty and boosts morale, and therefore productivity. It also reduces training and recruitment costs, which is overall better value for money for employers.

I would support introducing legislation to ensure that government tenders are not able to be taken up by contractors who are not prepared to pay a living wage to their staff.

As a party, we must lead by example and those who are not willing to offer a decent wage for a decent day’s work, should not benefit from government contracts.

My father worked as a sheet metal worker. He was able to provide for my mother and buy the odd treat for me and my brother. This is what working should be about; providing for your family and been proud of what you earn.

Keeping people’s wages below the breadline has a knock-on effect on not only on the family unit, but the wider community in terms of anti-social behaviour and crime. This in turn places further burden on services like the police. Insisting on a living wage would alleviate this.

The gap between rich and poor in the UK is far too wide. As leader of the Labour Party, this is something I would want to tackle. My government has done much to address this over last 13 years and in particular, work to help reduce child poverty. We have made good progress but more needs to be done.

Implementing a living wage for all government contractors would be a step in the right direction to addressing this inequality.

Ed Balls:

It was a scandal that in 1997 jobs were still advertised for as little as £1 an hour. Labour’s rising National Minimum Wage and tax credits improved living standards for low-paid workers and narrowed the pay gap for women whilst avoiding job losses.

But low pay is still a problem - and we need to recognise that higher living costs in some parts of the country, particularly in London and the south, mean the minimum wage and tax credits are having a reduced impact there.

Ken Livingstone instituted the London Living Wage, responding to calls from unions and London Citizens to recognise the higher cost of living in London.

If campaigns for a living wage are to be successful then we have to set the example and show leadership ourselves, as Ken did when he was Mayor.

I did not just talk the talk - I was the one and only Cabinet minister to introduce the Living Wage within my own government department for all staff and contracted staff.

But a living wage cannot be implemented in isolation. Our plan must be to:

• Raise the National Minimum Wage every year at least in line with average earnings.
• Follow Ken Livingstone’s example by having the Low Pay Commission properly assess the level of a Living Wage.
• Reflect different family circumstances through child benefit and tax credits. We cannot base a living wage on a 1950s notion of the family.
• Beef up enforcement – I want to see local council and tax inspectors empowered to blow the whistle on employers who evade the legal minimum. There is a strong case for a unified Employment Inspectorate.
• Strengthen laws on agency and posted workers to combat undercutting.
• Ensure low paid workers have access to trade union organisation if they so wish.
• And ensure the public sector leads the way on fair pay, both directly and through procurement.

 Now we must reject the Tory counsel of despair and press the case for a living wage.

 Andy Burnham:

Under my leadership, introducing a living wage in the public and private sectors will be a priority. But first we’ve got to practice what we preach. We should work towards a requirement in government contracts that only those companies paying at the agreed level, region by region, should be entitled to bid. As resources allow, we should ensure that those employed in government departments also receive a living wage

It is important that it is set at the right level. I would establish a joint consultation of unions, business and a range of stakeholder groups to ensure that it is set at the appropriate level for each region and that it is workable.

We must also remember the importance of policing and enforcing the minimum wage. In Opposition it is essential not only to press the Coalition government to ensure that the minimum wage keeps its value in real terms but also that government ensures that checks and enforcement continues to stamp out bad business practice.

Finally, I will set up a scheme, where good employers who were paying at the level of a living wage would receive accreditation and gain the recognition of being a good employer with positive employment practice. Such a scheme would provide an incentive to encourage employers to pay a living wage and help embed a living wage within employment practice going forward.

 David Miliband:

A fair days pay for a fair days work has always been a core principle of the Labour movement. That’s why the minimum wage is one of Labour’s proudest legacies – and we were right at the general election to argue that it should rise at least in line with average earnings over the next few years.

But when nearly five million people earn less than 7.15 an hour, we know that the fight for fair pay is not yet won. That’s why I support calls for a living wage, to complement the National Minimum Wage. I think we should pursue this goal through the government becoming a living wage employer – and committing to only doing business with contractors who pay a living wage. This would set a bar and show the way for the private sector – where campaigns involving community groups and trade unions have already made a big difference.

I want Labour to return to its roots as a living, breathing movement for change precisely so it can play its part in these community actions. It’s also important to remember that successful living wage campaigns do not just strike a blow for social justice – they make good business sense too. Major companies, like Barclays, who have implemented the living wage, have seen real benefits in lower staff turnover and higher productivity.

Ed Miliband:

I've put the Living Wage campaign as the centre of my campaign for labour leadership because it sums up both the Labour party's values and its activism.

It speaks to our values because it touches our deep sense of justice, of fairness and of a belief in the dignity of work. And it speaks to our activism because this has never been a party to rest on its accomplishments or believe change only comes from those with the most power. To equip us for government once more the Labour party needs to become a vibrant movement for change - and taking on grassroots campaigns like this are crucial to that endeavour.

I've already thrown my support behind Labour councils and Labour groups who have led the way on the living wage - like Tower Hamlets, Lewisham, Glasgow, Preston, Oxford, Lambeth and Hackney - and I'll be working with others to do the same.

Businesses too have a chance to show they are responsible employers by adopting the living wage and Labour members can and should campaign to raise the wages of the lowest paid employees in shops and banks as well as councils.

When in government I pushed to make Whitehall a Living Wage employer – a commitment that appeared in our manifesto. When in government again we need to throw its entire weight behind the campaign, by supporting councils who adopt it, broadening the range of public sector workers who get it and by moving towards a procurement process that supports living wage employers bidding for external contracts.

The living wage campaign can become the hallmark of a Labour party engaged in local communities, campaigning for change. It can show that even in Opposition we can help some of the poorest people in society to do better.

Labour brought in the minimum wage, we now have an opportunity to lead the fight for a living wage. I hope we will seize it.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked our supporters to share their thoughts about where Labour should go next.

I've been really inspired by the number of people that took the time to reply to me, and by the clear passion there is for renewing and reenergising our movement.

I'm still reading through the last of the submissions, but already there are some strong recurring themes. Many people said something similar to Vino:

"I think Labour needs to focus on increasing trade union rights and promoting trade unionism, particularly in the private service sector. We also need to focus on defending public services - and arguing against privatisation and contracting out."

I want to make sure that trade union issues like these are firmly on the agenda during the leadership election. Now that the first part of nominations have closed, and we know who the five leadership candidates will be, we want to start asking them the questions that matter to you.

Find out what they really think. Ask the candidates a question:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/SubmitYourQuestion

Our members sent in clear ideas about where the party should be heading. But where do the leadership candidates stand on these issues? Which questions mark out the candidates that share your vision?

Each week, we're going to put a different question to the leadership candidates, and we want you to tell us what to ask. What do you want to know before you cast your vote?

One of the other themes that's come up in your responses is the need to be a campaigning movement. Jon said:

"The party needs to become a mass, campaigning movement - which isn't only about getting people elected to office, but fights for real change in our communities and workplaces."

Who are the candidates who have the answers to the hard questions?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/SubmitYourQuestion

Many of you said we start renewing the party by having an open debate. You've started that debate by sharing your vision for the future, now it's time to find out if the candidates also share it.

Helen

P.S. Last week, we asked the candidates to tell us how they see the role of trade unions in the 21st century? You can read the answers here.

Diane Abbott:

In one way the role of trade unions in the 21st century is the same as it was in the 19th century – to represent workers and to pursue their interests. Historically by bringing workers together, the trade union movement was able to empower them in relation to management. But it is also the case that the world has moved on since the setting up of our trade unions. The number of people actually organised in the unions has dropped. In the private sector, only fifteen percent of workers are in a union. There is a rising generation of young people who have no tradition of trade unionism in their family or in the community, who only realise the point of trade unionism when they are in a crisis at work.

So the challenge for trade unions in the 21st century is how do you reach out to those people who do not see the point of the trade union movement, and do not come from communities with a history of trade union activity?

First of all there is a lot that government can do to help and the next Labour leader must commit to doing away with a legal situation where courts can halt strikes on a technicality about the trade union’s ballot.

Also, for too long there have not been any role models in the trade union movement – we need more women and ethnic minority officers and more diversity at the top.

We must prove to potential members what we have to offer them and show that the British trade union movement wants a leadership that looks like Britain.

It is not a coincidence that with the decline in organised trade unionism there has been an increase in inequality. That is why the role of trade unions is as vital as ever.

Ed Balls:

Those who argue that the days of unions are numbered could not be more wrong. The old smokestack industries no longer employ millions. Blue-collar have given way to ‘new-collar’ jobs. Jobs for life have ended. But workers still need to act together to pursue their rights.

 As old demarcations dissolve, unions like Unite, Unison, GMB and Community have widened their scope. But ‘niche unions’ like the teaching and musicians’ unions show members still value individual service.

Today’s workers suffer new forms of insecurity and new pressures as we live longer and must balance family life and work, and global competition is intensifying by the day. Labour also need to respond quicker - we introduced the minimum wage but were too slow to legislate for equal treatment for agency staff.

The union link is as important as ever. We need each other. Unions know the fight for justice cannot end at the factory gate or office door. Labour needs the real time connection with the concerns of millions of working people.

Modern democratic unions must be responsive to the more sophisticated needs of their members, similarly a modern Labour Party must be more responsive to those members. New forms of communication and organising to match more fluid employment and politics are essential across the whole Labour movement. Today’s trade unions must have a political voice arguing for sustainable growth and a fairer society.

With a modern agenda of respect, fair pay and progression, 21st century unions are needed as much as ever before.

 Andy Burnham:

Trade unions, like the Labour Party, have a proud past and a bright future. They are at the heart of the Labour movement and, under my leadership, I want them to be at the heart of the Labour Party too.

The work that union members did during the General Election campaign was tireless, getting Labour candidates elected across the country. That unity, that sense of purpose, that fight for what is good and just inextricably links the Party and the union movement.

The progress made on union learning was one of the big achievements of the Labour Government and I’m really proud of the thousands of opportunities to get on at work that were provided through the union learning fund, by working with the TUC and with trade unions across the country. Under my leadership, I will work with the unions to promote and support projects like this to give people the opportunities that they otherwise may not have.

There were times in the recent past when the Party seemed to put the interests of big business before the interests of individuals. We should be pro-business, but we should never lose sight of ordinary people, those who feel that, despite doing everything right, the odds still feel stacked against them. I want to work with the unions reconnect Labour and put fairness back at the heart of Britain.

 David Miliband:

Unions can play a leading role in shaping the new economy in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and helping Labour reconnect with the voters we have lost.

New economy: Trade unions can be the champions of a more balanced, more equal and more sustainable economy. They stand up for a fair deal for employees, securing improved terms and conditions and being a trusted friend at work. By promoting good work in good workplaces, unions are central to shaping a new era of shared prosperity. Workplaces where employees have a voice and a stake in their firm – who feel trusted, involved, respected and fairly rewarded – are those that will prosper in the new economy. I want to work with unions to ensure we have an economy with fair rewards at the top and the bottom, including through a living wage.

Winning back voters: It was the TUC in their work on the ‘real middle Britain’ back in 2009, who identified those on incomes of £20,000-£30,000 as the group under real economic pressure in the recession. They felt squeezed by stagnant incomes and higher living costs, and insecure about their future prospects. These are precisely the voters Labour lost at the general election. We need to return to the ‘bread and butter’ issues that affect people’s daily lives – jobs, pensions, housing, transport and childcare. in particular, time and money are real pressures for many families. They need an effective partnership between Labour and the trade unions to stand up for them and make their lives better.

Ed Miliband:

Trade unions defend and promote the interests of working people and their role is as important now as it ever was. They are at the heart of the fight against injustices in our society, leading the campaign for some of Labour’s proudest achievements like the minimum wage, stronger parental leave rights and legislation on gangmasters.

It is clear to me not enough people who are employed in the private sector benefit from trade union membership. The future of modern trade unions must be in increasing membership from the current level of less than one in five. That will require union reps having the right to enter non-unionised workplaces to offer membership and organsiation. I would support such a move.

I have seen as energy secretary the way trade unions can organise with other campaigning groups to mobilize people for action on climate change. I have seen green reps make a change in their workplaces helping win the arguments for shifting to a low carbon economy and ensuring working people reap the benefits. This is the kind of effective campaigning - rooted in the working lives of their members, focussed on the challenges of the age, committed to values of social justice - that will make trade unions effective in this century.

As a symbol of the kind of party and kind of country I want to see, I have launched a campaign for the living wage, learning from the efforts of trade unions, which I want party members and others to sign up to.

We need to put our values of equality, social justice, dignity at work, at the heart of what we do. The Labour Party stands for this and so do trade unions. We need to fight for this common purpose and stand up for working people.

Over the summer, there’s going to be a crucial debate about the future of our Party, and we’re committed to making sure that the issues and concerns that affect trade union members are on the agenda. From ending poverty pay and improving job security, to celebrating and strengthening the link between the Party and the trade union movement, we’ll be making sure that union members have their say.

We have asked each of the candidates for the leadership to set out their stall to union members: you can read what they have to say here:

Diane Abbott 

 Ed Balls 

 Andy Burnham 

  David Miliband 

 Ed Miliband

And starting this week, every week of the campaign we’ll be putting union members’ questions to the candidates. This week, we’ve asked: ‘what do you see as the role of trade unions in the 21st Century’? Check back next week to see what they have to say. If you have a question you’d like to ask the candidates, email it to helen@unionstogether.org.uk and we’ll ask as many of your questions as we can.

The Labour Party was founded out of the trade union movement over a hundred years ago - together, we'll ensure that unions remain at the heart of the Party. 

Obviously, we were devastated that Labour lost its majority in Parliament, and that many Labour candidates who were strong supporters of working people lost out.

However, we also know that union campaigners made a real difference in this election. It was down to the hard work of union members supporting Labour candidates that we held on to many seats - and every single Labour MP will make a difference in holding this new coalition government to account.

We're ready to stand up for jobs, workers' rights and public services when the coalition puts them at risk.

Tell us what you want the Labour party to be like? How do we strengthen and renew the party? Tell us here:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/wherenext 

We know that the coalition Government has already cut over £6 billion in public spending - putting thousands of jobs at risk. They want to cut many families' tax credits and cancel child trust funds - making life harder for working families. And they've even cancelled funding for 40,000 jobs for young people.

With a coalition programme like that in place, it's crucial that we have a strong, united Labour party that can hold them to account and come back fighting at the next election. That's why the Labour leadership election is so important in debating the future of the party.

We want to hear your thoughts on where next for the party. Share your thoughts with us here:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/wherenext

The Labour leadership election is a crucial opportunity to rebuild and renew the party and make sure we're fighting fit for the work ahead. It's a chance for the party to have a healthy debate about the future - and we need to make sure that our voices are heard during it.

Where do you think the Labour party should go from here? How can we organise better? What policies do you want to see candidates for the leadership putting forward? What are the core values that bind us as a Labour party within the wider Labour movement? Share your vision with us, and we'll make sure that it's part of the debate about the future:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/wherenext

In these hard economic times, Labour needs to be stronger than ever.

Helen

I've been a rep for 10 years and a member for 24 years. USDAW has got a lot stronger over the last 10 years, we have got better at demanding improvements - some of these improvements have come too late for me, but my kids will benefit.

 
Last time the Conservatives were in power they attacked the unions, and their biggest weapon was to introduce ballots to stop industrial action. But the unions adapted, and survived.  Now the Conservatives want to go a step further and make unions ballot non-members as well.

As a union member it’s make your mind up time. The Labour government has gone through some rocky patches, but they have generally improved the condition of working people. For example, they've signed up to the social chapter, increased maternity leave and made it compulsory.

At the end of the day, Labour is still the only party that will support the deprived and working man. That’s the people you’ve got to look after – the underprivileged.

Join me in campaigning at the this election:

http://www2.labour.org.uk/volunteer

Jim

‘It’s a pleasure to be in the heart of Yorkshire amongst genuine people, this is exactly the spirit we need to retain if we are to win the general election. We only have 9 more days to shape the future of the lives of our members and their families and we need to give it one last push to ensure the return of a Labour government.’

Jamie Hanley, fighting to secure Pudsey for Labour was delighted to welcome Eddie Izzard to his campaign on Friday 23rd April. The seat which is apparently on the Tories' hit list has been red since it was won in 1997 by Paul Truswell. Having represented the Constituency as a strong MP since then, Paul is standing down for family reasons. He is hoping to be succeeded by Jamie Hanley who was brought up and lives in the Constituency. Jamie, a trade union solicitor for the past 15 years believes that it would be an honour to represent his local constituency in Parliament.

Although he is defending a majority, Jamie knows he is in for a close run fight. The main opposition was expected to come in the form of former Labour Party member Stuart Andrew, but it is recognised that the "Clegg effect" may also bring Lib Dem Jamie Matthews into the equation. The arrival of Eddie Izzard was a welcome boost to the very hard working and loyal campaign team. Eddie, Jamie and supporters walked from the office to Morrisons in Pudsey, before meeting surprised customers and staff in the store. Eddie delivered a strong message that it was still the same old Tories and said that he was trying to persuade young people to vote, perhaps for the 1st time.

Dimleby: If you were elected would consider outlawing industrial action in (the railway and airline) industries?

Cable: Well, you could certainly consider curbing them.

Dimbleby: Curbing them? You mean making them more difficult?

Cable: Yes. Indeed, and there are legislative implications, which has to be thought through.

Dimbleby: Is it the policy of the Liberal Democrats, if you were to have a position in government, to say we should toughen industrial relations law in order to make it more difficult for these unions, rail, air, whatever it might be, to take strike actions?

Cable: Well, if we’re talking about essential public services like the railway system then we should be looking at it, certainly.

What Cable means by "curbing" he leaves to our imaginations. This leads to uncomfortable questions for the Lib Dems about just how 'liberal' they are. If employees at private firms can be classified as essential workers, where does this policy stop?

Of course, this doesn't leave the Tories off the hook either. David Cameron was calling on Gordon Brown to intervene in the BA strikes before they even happened. Throughout the dispute, the Tories demanded that the government should take the side of the company over its employees. In this election, can we really risk giving power to parties that don't support (and in fact campaign against) the rights of working people?

Get involved and stop the Lib Dems and the Tories from getting their hands on the country.

The Tories opposed the introduction of the minimum wage, claiming it would be too expensive for businesses, and that jobs would be lost a result. How wrong they were.

Yesterday, when it launched its manifesto for a 4th term, Labour committed itself to doing even more for those earning the least. It announced that it would give the Low Pay Commission the responsibility to raise the minimum wage in line not just with inflation, but with average earnings as well. This would mean greater annual rises in the minimum wage, and a higher wage overall. More than that, they have also pledged that government departments, and those private sector firms contracted by the government, will be expected to pay a living wage of around £7.60 an hour – a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest paid workers.

Contrast this with the Tories, whose manifesto contains a tax cut for 3000 millionaires, while doing nothing for those hard working people earning the least. They might claim to support the minimum wage now, but they opposed its introduction, and senior Tories have even claimed they will let it “wither on the vine” by making sure it doesn’t keep pace with inflation.

When you put these manifestos side-by-side, it's clear which party is on the side of working people.

Help keep David Cameron and his pals from getting their hands on the country. Join one of our weekends of action taking place across Brtiain.

Read more about Labour's manifesto.

Of course, the Tories are trying to wriggle out of taking responsibility for what their cuts would mean for the families affected. They’re claiming they could cut the payroll bill without having make people redundant. So, how does one cut the public payroll without firing anybody? Well, they say you simply reduce the usage of contract and agency staff, and don't refill vacant posts (a process known as 'natural wastage') That way, no one actually gets sacked... Or, so they say.

But, they would say that wouldn’t they. The problem with their argument, however, is that many so-called 'natural wastage' savings have already been made. So, where else could the money come from? The only other way to make payroll cuts, especially at such a short timescale (only 12 months) is to cut jobs. That means 40,000 job losses in the public sector. And that's just the first year. We still know nothing of their plans for the public sector over the long-term. We do know what they did to the public sector last time though…

And, of course, these 40,000 are only the beginning. Slashing public spending doesn’t just threaten those who work directly for the public sector – it will threaten those who work in the private sector fulfilling government contracts. Slashing spending on government projects means less jobs in the private sector too.

Last time, the Tories told us unemployment was a “price worth paying”. Tell that to thousands of families who will be affected if tens of thousands of jobs are scrapped!

Join the campaign to make sure the Tories don't get their hands on the public payroll!

Approaching 60% of British children who fall below the poverty line live in households where at least one adult is in work. Children growing up in poor households are more likely to have poor health, to perform badly at school, to become teenage parents, and to come into early contact with the police. This costs us all in many ways. Shamefully, we also have the largest gender pay gap in the EU, and two thirds of low paid workers are women, meaning poverty in the UK has a female face.

Thousands of British people are known not to be receiving even the minimum wage of £5.80. And yet poverty experts report that a single adult, working full time, needs to earn at least £6.88 an hour to reach the most basic weekly standard of living; and much more in cities like London.

In 2010, this is a shameful state of affairs. Those who did the least to cause the current recession are suffering the most. We the undersigned, working for social justice and collectively representing millions of British people, call upon all prospective parliamentary candidates in the 2010 general election to pledge to act in support of those receiving poverty pay in their constituency by endorsing the five urgent asks:

Barbara Stocking CBE (Oxfam), Neil Jameson (London Citizens), Brendan Barber (TUC), Shan Nicholas (Child Poverty Action Group), Wes Streeting (NUS), Billy Hayes (CWU), Stephen Burke (Counsel and Care), Dave Prentis (UNISON), Sally Hunt (UCU), Dr Katherine Rake (The Fawcett Society), Derek Simpson/Tony Woodley (Unite the Union), Bob Crow (RMT), Peter Kenway (New Policy Institute), Paul Kenny (GMB), Fiona Weir (Gingerbread: One Parent Families), Don Flynn (Migrants Rights Network), Mark Serwotka (PCS), Eileen Devaney (UK Coalition against Poverty)

THE CANDIDATE’S PLEDGE: FAST FORWARD TO FAIRNESS:

1. Safeguard the poorest: I commit to support an annual increase of the National Minimum Wage in real terms; to encourage the independence of the Low Pay Commission and to support a meaningful increase in resources for NMW enforcement

2. Spend our money ethically: I commit to actively encourage and support my local authority in the introduction of “living wage clauses” in every single public procurement contract that it awards to private contractors.

3. Learn from the best: I pledge to follow the example of employers like London Olympics 2012, Barclays and KPMG and generate employer interest in and support initiatives to introduce living wage policies in the public, private and third sectors as soon as possible.

4. End discrimination: I commit to actively encourage the government to strengthen laws relating to pay discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and disability by requiring all organisations to publish pay audits showing pay rates for men and women, including ethnicity and disability, at all levels

5. Public Sector in the Vanguard: I commit to parliamentary activity to root out low pay in the public sector in which almost a quarter of all low-paid jobs reside.

Yet, the report emphasises caution in light of what it calls the "fragility of the recovery". There are many variables at play in shaping an economy, and market forces can be incredibly volatile. This, they said "underscore(s) the need for caution in the removal of policy support." Otherwise, we could very well fall into a so-called 'double-dip recession', risking even greater job losses and long-term economic damage.

The Tories, however, seem to have their collective heads in the sand on this issue. This is the same party arguing for "clear and courageous cuts", an "emergency budget" seemingly designed only to introduce swingeing cuts, and whose Chancellor promised to introduce an "age of austerity" if given the reigns.

How can the Tories argue for swingeing cuts, even though top economists say it will threaten Britain's recovery? Simple: it's ideological. They don't care if cutting will threaten jobs and the economy at large; at their core, their first concern is the size of the deficit, and nothing more.

Remember, when faced with the last recession the Tories claimed that unemployment was "a price worth paying". Their policies resulted in a recession with higher unemployment, higher crime, higher foreclosure rates, and a slower recovery than we've faced. That is despite the fact that this recession is categorically worse in economic terms.

Do you really want to give the Tories the chance to threaten the recovery and the job market?

Join the campaign to make sure they don’t have the chance.

Of course, as the Tories' chosen heir to the Home Office throne, Grayling should well know that, under regulations introduced by Labour (and, of course, opposed by the Tories) any business, even one run from home, cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, and they're also prohibited from discriminating on other grounds, such as race and religion.

Many on the blogosphere have accused Grayling of being a homophobe, but it’s not as simple as that. The truth is, Grayling rebelled against his party and voted for the very regulations that prohibit this kind of discrimination. Yet, when faced with a gaggle of right-wing true believers, he claimed to oppose the very tenets of the legislation he voted for.

The Tories say one thing and do another. Can you really trust them? The Home Secretary is a major office of state, with huge powers over our lives . Can we really afford to have someone who says one thing and does another in such a key position? The answer is a clear 'no!'. Equality isn’t negotiable.

Get involved!

Sign our petition-

David Cameron would pull Britain out of the Social Chapter, one of the most important pieces of equality legislation ever introduced in Britain. Click here to sign our petition letting him know that that's unacceptable.

Campaign Weekends-

Click here to find a campaign weekend in your area. Your help will contribute to stopping Cameron, Grayling, and their cronies from getting their hands on the country.

More information

A record of who voted which way on the "Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations", the legislation banning business from discriminating against LGBT people: The Public Whip

An article going in depth on the comments and the reaction: The Guardian

This morning, Gordon Brown called the election.

As GMB general secretary, my top priority is speaking up for the best interests of our members. And now it's the turn of working people like you to decide who is going to speak up for you in Parliament.

In the last 13 years of Labour government, the 600,000 workers I represent have experienced real change. I remember the bad old days under the Tories, when kids had to wear their coats into school because the government wouldn't pay for heating. But things have changed since then. I want to make sure my grandchildren continue to get the first class education they are receiving at their newly built local school.

Governing is difficult, and we know that over the last 13 years Labour hasn't always lived up to all our expectations. They haven't given union members everything we've asked for. But, when it comes down to it, Labour has changed Britain for the better.

And what about the Tories? Make no mistake, we know what they stand for: greed. Big cuts to public spending, soaring unemployment, scrapping rules that give mums and dads time off - and tax cuts for millionaires. The Tories would wreck Britain. No wonder they have 63 bankers standing as their candidates in this election. They don't speak for ordinary people.

Union members face a choice. The day after the election, we are either going to wake up with a Labour government, or a Tory government - it's as simple as that. Labour or Tory. Fairness or greed.

It's a choice we all have to make. If you don't cast your vote, you will still have to live with the consequences of the election - and that could be 5 long years of Tory rule. The consequences of that Tory rule will be dire for everyone except the wealthiest few, which is why we need to do everything we can to stop it happening. We need to make sure people are voting Labour, and where possible are getting active and helping campaign for Labour too.

That's why we are calling a weekend of action on 17th and 18th April. We are asking you to give up just an hour or two of your time, to help prevent 5 long years of the Tories. I'll be out campaigning that weekend, and I hope to see as many union activists as possible joining me - letting other people know the truth about the choice we all face on polling day. Click here to find out the nearest event to you:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/weekend-of-action

This election is a choice for all of us - do we want a government that cares for the majority, or one that just protects the narrow interests of a wealthy minority? To me, the choice this election remains clear, which is why I'll be casting my vote for Labour.

Paul Kenny

General Secretary, GMB

The group of around 30 campaigners delivered to over 3,500 households in the area, which is represented by three BNP Councillors. 

Now, my sleepless nights are spent worrying over the extra challenges mums could face if the Conservative Party takes control at the general election. What will happen if they strip away the protections our government affords working families and mums-to-be like me?

This Mother's Day, Unions Together is giving me something constructive to think about during those sleepless nights - slogans that tell the Tories we're not going to give them the chance to destroy families' rights. We're collecting loads of ideas and will plaster the best slogan on one of those mobile billboards and drive right up to Tory headquarters with it.

Tell us your ideas for a slogan we can use to protect the rights of mums and working families. Contribute your ideas now:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/yourslogan

As I prepare myself for motherhood, I know I face a host of life changes. But one change I will not accept is the Tories threatening my rights during pregnancy.

Right now our government protects the health and safety of workers who are pregnant, those who have recently given birth, and women who are breastfeeding. They make sure that if I need to go to an antenatal checkup during work time, I can't have my wages docked. Rights like these are guaranteed because of European law. Cameron has made it clear that he wants to pull Britain out of European social and employment guarantees like these.

Families are facing more burdens today than ever before. My baby will be born after the general election, and the worry of what a Tory government could mean for me and my new family is one burden too many. Let's send a message to Cameron that working families' rights matter, and let's make sure that voters know what the Tories really stand for.

Please take a few minutes and add your slogans to mine. I can't wait to see the ideas we come up with:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/yourslogan

I hope to soon be spending my sleepless nights worrying about baby names, not about what rights a Tory government might take away. That's why I'll be out campaigning, baby bump and all, to make sure the Tories don't get the chance.

Thanks for all your help,

Claire

Thousands of you signed our Christmas Card to David Cameron asking him to drop his callous threat to our right to fair holidays. And here’s what happened when we delivered Cameron’s special Christmas treat!

For some reason, Dave is yet to respond – so we’ll be escalating the campaign in the coming weeks and months. You can still add your name to our Christmas card here. It’s important that we act - because all of us deserve fair working rights – and Cameron presents the greatest to these for decades.

But for now – enjoy! And we’ll be in touch soon about where our campaign goes next.

Up in Newcastle we have long been fighting for justice for pleural plaque sufferers, in particular for my dad.

He was diagnosed with pleural plaques a few years ago and it actually broke our hearts, after we found out the repercussions. We were horrified when the House of Lords decided that pleural plaques sufferers were not eligible for compensation because of its "lack of symptoms"... it scars the lungs! How can they say that it has no symptoms!? We were also horrified to find out that if you have pleural plaques, they won't give you life insurance... so there must be something wrong there.

We read in the evening chronicle that they were heading a campaign for justice so we eagerly jumped on board.

We decided to send petitions around everywhere we could. Peoples' reactions were generally good - they were disgusted to find out that people like my dad who have worked all of their lives are being forgotten. The unionstogether video gave my family hope that other people are campaigning for the same thing as us.

I just hope that my dad will last until my wedding day so he can walk me down the aisle in three years time. It’s terrifying to think that someone so close to you is going to be taken away by something which they can’t be blamed for. I hope that we shall get a ruling soon, as it would benefit so many people like my dad who deserve to be compensated for what they have to endure.

If you can please sign any petitions online, and send an email to Alistair Darling and Peter Mandelson, that would be great. The evening chronicle has been campaigning for justice for a while now and its a breath of fresh air to know that it is a nationwide thing, rather than just a regional thing.

Thank you for giving my family hope, especially my dad.

Vicky x