More public sector strikes (UK) but do they work?
There has been another round of public sector strikes here in the UK with Firefighters, local government workers and teachers (depending on which Union they belong to) amongst the 500,000 - 1,000,000 workers ( depending on who you ask) who decided not to attend work today. Their grievances run from not having a wage increase to having to little of an increase, having to pay a little more towards their pensions and having to work a little longer to receive them, with one or two stating it was their aim to bring about the downfall of the government, this though was not the official stated aim.
I can see why some of these workers have been forced to complain but I can not see what this series of one day strikes has achieve.
There seems to be a general consensus with the public that although they have a right to strike they can not see what effect or objective these strikes are having except losing public sympathy.
Should the public sector workers then plan a longer strike action? Say for a week or two, this would definitely have a major impact but would it curry any favour with the public?
I doubt if anything would actually change the general idea that public sector workers have it good, although not strictly true they may be messing it up for themselves.
So do public sector worker strikes have any affect? And what are the effects of short one day strikes by public sector workers?If nothing else they bring the actions of this sh!tbag government to peoples attention.
I think people already knew the actions John, they showed that when they voted UKIP in the European elections.
I watched a few interviews last night John and come to the conclusion that although many were sincere they really didn't know what they were talking about. And I will say that government representative also seemed to have no idea what they were talking about either.
Newsnight was interesting though ( did you see it ) the person they chose to represent the teachers only response to any question was to shout at the government interviewee saying he knew nothing. An old union tactic that went out with the miners. Mind you the government knob didn't seem to know what Groce was trying to do to the education system.
Maybe they were the only two people they could get that late on a night.But by voting UKIP they were voting for more of the same but heavier.
The strikers have a lot of public sympathy and more support than the government has.Not what the polls say!
UKIP offers a breath of fresh air, maybe they are much of the same but they are definitely not all of the same. It is still the only party who would take us out of Europe if they gained power, I know they won't win but they will do better than the politically elite supporters think they will do.Got me there! I've never seen a poll that says they aren't just as bad as the rest and worse than some.
I was on about support for the strikes and the strikers.
Not as much public support as they and their union masters claim.
Maybe if they went on strike for lower taxes or lower council tax and reduction in government waste then they may have a bit more sympathy from the public.
Maybe if their own vote was a little mor convincing the public would take more notice!
My question was related to fact that the public sector strikes don't seen to be working, it hasn't really influenced government policy at all it's just upset the public who they really need on their side.Six million trade union members
177,000 Conservative party members.
37,000 UKIP party members.
Trade union members are the public but as you say, this government is so deaf that they are not influenced by anything or anyone that objects to their goal of total annihilation of anybody who does not conform.
There is no evidence that more of the public were upset by the strike than supported it.Is that how many union members were on strike then John?
Only 6 million? That's down a huge amount since 1990 isn't it.
Of course the government is not listening because they know that can't give in to the unions or they would lose to many votes.
So it shows how ignorant the union leaders are, they will continue with this round of strikes even though they know that they are not working.So the Unions should just roll over and give in?
Membership of the Conservative party has tumbled since 1990, unless you argue that losing more than half their membership isn't much.
I'm sure you're very proud that so many of your fellow workers have been disenfranchised.
The government has already lost too many votes (if that's at all possible) They won't form another government without leaping into bed with somebody else, the libdems aren't going to bee able to prop them up this time, there probably won't be any libdems in parliament after the next election. UKIP would love to rejoin their masters but I doubt they will get enough seats to be of any use. That leaves us back with two parties.Of course the unions shouldn't just roll over, however I have noticed that just lately they only take on the government and not other employers!
I couldn't rally care a toss how many members the Conservatives lose or even how many members the union has. My concern is that the unions are doing exactly the same as the political parties and representing their own political ideology rather than their membership.
Disenfranchised? I think the public sector workers have disenfranchised themselves. With all their demands but no concessions.
Ah the cry of the true labour supporter, UKIP are just Tories in disguise.
Well I could say the same about the Greens john, just disenfranchised Labour supporters.
I think the rise of UKIP says something about the state of politics in the UK , the last time any party had such a meteoric rise was when the Labour Party really started to take hold.
I doubt if Labour won they would have a big enough majority to govern effectively. And with their commitment to giving all the powers to Europe what will be left for them to govern? As people wake up the the federalist threat from Europe the two big parties who love the EU will continue to lose support.As the members of the union involved in the latest strikes are employed by the government, if not the government then who should they strike against?
But you mentioned how many members the unions had lost since 1990, I mentioned how many the conservative party had lost!
No, the unions have passed no anti union laws, they are not talking about imposing conditions on themselves that no other body would stomach.
But UKIP are just Tories in disguise, albeit a very thin disguise.
I remember that other extreme right wing party, the BNP, doing rather well in mid term elections in the past and predicting great things on the strength of it. Where are they now? Most of them are members of UKIP.
I'd agree about the Greens being a home for disenfranchised Labour voters.
What is this about Labour wanting to give up all powers to Brussels? Not like the Tories then who want to give up all powers to the Corporations?
Wrong ! They are not the only party who pledge 'Out of Europe.'
Who else offers out and not just a referendum then?
Short strikes get a lot of media attention, mostly favorable to the workers, and signal a willingness to strike more. Even one day causes chaos with parents needing to make arrangements, people missing work and millions of dollars being spend one way or another. This causes people to pressure the government to give the workers what they want.
I've been in short strikes and they often work to shift the management off their asses and make them make some concessions.
It certainly showed that Labor no longer lives up to their name.
It's strange but the Labour party having been set up by the unions to represent their inters in parliament are now told that they should not accept money from the unions!
Sadly, I think the general public are blinkered enough to believe that public sector workers have it easy and strike action is unnecessary.
Perhaps when the general public are transported to the future and realise that all this privatisation boll*cks means that they can't get a Dr's appointment, have to watch their house burn down because there aren't enough fire fighters in the area to actually fight fires, wait for ten hours in an er room and then discover that their children are being taught by cheap, unqualified staff they'll get a flavour of the discontent that the public sector are experiencing.
As for UKIP supporters, I actually can't believe that such stupidity exists. These nut job libertarians actually believe that the free market, profit and no restrictions are the answer to all our woes. They're even worse than this coalition.
Here's a taster of what public sector workers are experiencing and just how introducing the 'free market' into specialist areas will affect YOU, and the people you care about.
http://probationmatters.blogspot.co.uk/ … mment-formFirstly Hollie T Manchester council make its own decisions about manning levels and has overspent time after time.
It's a bit like Birmingham city council who have released 67 members of staff to do full time union business then it replaces them with high cost agency staff costing around £1.7 million a year.
The council is also in £2.6 billion pounds worth of debt which they can't blame anyone else for.
Poor council management can't be blamed on the government,
The unions have decided to take on the government and we all know why, they want Labour back in because they control them and every demand is given into.
Now I am not saying that all public sector workers get huge amounts of money but mast of them do fairly well some to extremely well and some need a top up, but there are many more private sector workers a lot worse of than the public sector workers and many won't get the sort of pensions offered to the public sector.
My main concern is the third tier of government we all have to pay for and how this government has been taking away our governance and identity. I have seen what Labour the liberals and the Tories have to offer over the EU question and I can quite honestly say the only one who represents British interests is UKIP, the quicker we get out the quicker some of the problems can be sorted.
On another point, for the last 15 years our children have been taught by so called professionals on very decent pay and conditions however literacy and numeracy has fallen and attitude to work ethics from school leavers has become an entitlement attitude. Maybe these professionals are not as good as they thought they were. Oh and my daughter in law is a teacher so I have had all the lectures anyone could giver about it. She's done very well though, 4th year in the job and on £37k a year and a good pension to boot.
What some public sector workers don't understand is that they are replaceable and the Tory government will not hesitate in privatising some of the services they offer. How long I wonder will it be before they replace Birmingham city refuse collection with one of the many large private companies waiting to step in.Why this intent on dragging everybody down to the lowest level rather than raising everybody up to the highest?
Because John in reality giving in to the public sector workers has done nothing to raise the living standards of anyone except the public sector workers.
So how will pulling them down benefit anybody?
BTW are you aware of how many public sector workers are actually on the minimum wage?How can it be pulling them down? How many have had their wages dropped then in the last 4 years?
And don't forget who pays their wages and pensions John. The more they get paid the more taxpayer has to pay.
I doubt it's a large percentage although I will concede that some are.
As you know some of my family work for BCC and they don't do badly at all even though they work in the traditionally lower paid jobs.The pay of the average public sector worker has dropped £3,698.
Why focus on the few exceptions to the rule and focus on the care workers,the hospital ancillary workers, the town hall clerks, all getting by on reducing minimum wages.So the government has taken £3,698 out of their basic pay then John!
Sister is a social services care worker for BCC her basic pay is £9.98 an hour which is £3.67 above the NMW she also gets a full pension. (She also has just received a large sum of money in their equal pay claim but says she is still not on what the binmen are getting).
A nephew who works as a housing officer for BCC has just gone up a pay
grade to £24,000 also with a full pension and an extra days holiday (and he went on strike for some reason?)
Now as you know I work at a college but most of the guys on security are agency staff, they get £6.50 an hour and have received one rise for about 5 years whilst the college staff have recorded various amounts with one gaining a rise of £16 k a year without promotion.
I think the catering staff and cleaners are in the se position as the security.
I have not seen the wage rises for public sector staff make any difference towards bringing up the non public sector pay, it's a myth perpetrated by public sector staff.You've not seen the wages rise for public sector staff at all.
But you said they have lost money.
If they hadn't had it John they haven't lost anything.<sigh> they have lost money. Their wages have been frozen while inflation hasn't.
But John they didn't have the money in the first place so it can't be counted as lost. Another myth spread by the union.
Many people haven't received a pay rise but they haven't gone on strike demanding that the taxpayer raise their pay.
General public are fed up with it.But they did have the money to begin with. Pay freezes and inflation mean that the money they receive will not buy what it used to buy.
Another myth spread by the establishment.
Many people haven't had their wages frozen and have received a pay rise. Why focus on the negative?
Why drag everybody down to the lowest level?
People are fed up with it, but it's not what you think. They are getting fed up with this government that wants to have permanent austerity for the rest whilst they and their mates have more and more money. The Labour party is seven points ahead of the Conservatives in opinion polls, that's enough to bring this crucifixion to an end.Of course they had the money in the first place because they were paid more then the normal workers, with people asking why these workers got very good pensions from the taxpayer that they could or wouldn't get themselves.
I don't know where you get your information from John but all the reports seem to suggest that you are wrong, the public sector have at least had large rises prior to 2008 and have received at least 1% where industry has reduced wages by 4% since 2008.
I don't want to see anyone brought down to a level I would like to see everyone brought up to the leve which the public sector workers get, that won't be achieved if we keep giving in to the politically motivated public sector unions.
I think what you meant is that the unions are 7 points ahead in the polls, which Will mean tax rises for the private sector to pay for the huge wages rises demanded by the public sector.
It won't matter how many points they are ahead if Scotland gets its yes vote because that will be 49 labour MP's perminantly gone from Westminster, latest polls show the yes vote only 6 points behind. The Scottish Labour Party are rubbing its hands at the prospect of making Scotland a socialist heaven.What's this with "normal workers?" In what way are public sector workers not normal? They all have two heads or what?
You're falling for the classic divide and rule tactics-ignore the real enemy and focus on their make-believe enemy instead. After all, like the unemployed, it wasn't the public sector workers that got us into this mess, we just expect them to buy us out of it leaving the real culprits free to go about their business.
No, I didn't mean that the unions were seven points ahead, I meant the Labour Party is seven points ahead.Of course they haven't got two heads but paying the public sector does nothing to bring the wages of the private sector up to their level it actually costs the private sector in taxes.
No I am not falling for the classic divide and conquer. It's about fairness and at this moment in time it's not fare that public sector workers should get anything more until their is no cost to anyone. Maybe cutting the public sector by about 10 % will afford a better pay deal for those left, all 5 million of them.
Yes as you said the unions ( who control Labour) are 7 points ahead in the polls.
It won't really matter if labour win anyway because it looks like the yes vote will win in Scotland and that would take 49 labour MP's out of Westminster .But you are falling for the divide and rule thing! You are claiming that public sector employees are somehow advantaged over private sector, you demand that public sector employees are deprived of their jobs and that the remainder should be paid even less! That is classic divide and rule.
I'm puzzled by your constant reference to the Labour party as the Unions. It is true that the Labour party was founded by the Unions to represent their interests in parliament, it's been many years since the Unions have had much real influence over the party they founded.
Having got that out of the way then what you are claiming is that the Unions have more support than the Conservative party! Seems about right to me, but I don't know how you reach that conclusion from a poll about political parties.Can't really see where you are coming from here John, the public sector workers have decided opinion for years with their demands and claims and their total disdain for the public that pays for them. We are tired of the old arguments about them being the lowest paid and most disadvataged workforce, we are tired hearing about how overworked they are, we are tired hearing how qualified they are and we are tired if hearing how deserved they are. If anyone has advocated the classic divide then it's the unions by their constant insistance that their members are more important than anyone else.
It's not hard to see how much power the unions yeald over the Labour Party, they even decide who the leader will be, now that's real power. And people wonder why Blair or Brown didn't fight the public sector workers.
The unions are unpopular john, they have lost millions of members and continue to do so, the government is unpopular because of its policies, people can't see that voting Labour in will just be more of the same.You are tired of the truth!
It's not that Union members are more important than everybody else but do you expect them to work for those who despise them?
The leader of the Labour party is not elected by the unions, one third of the college is made up of union members, not unions. The union is allowed to make recommendations to it's members.
And yet you insist that the unions are more popular than the government! Some disconnect there I think.Not blinded John just thankful Labour aren't in and running up the debt anymore. Hopefully they won't get in next time so we don't have the public sector streaking ahead in the pay stakes at the cost of those who pay for them.
So you are saying that the unions have no control over who is elected party leader. I wonder if the Milliband brothers would agree with you.
No John you said the Labour Party is more popular than the government at the moment I just pointed out that the Labour Party are the unions.
Now it won't be long before we know just what the electorate think. I don't think Labour will get tha majority. They need to form an effective government so it will have to be another coalition or a hung parliament, neither helps the normal man in the street.As the conservatives are running up the debt much more than labour ever did I wonder why you feel it all right for the Conservatives to increase the debt but not for labour?
As I said, union members have one third of the votes for the leader of the labour party.
As long as the majority of voters in the UK think that the Murdoch media is balanced and unbiased we can look forward to even more austerity and many more deaths.Of course they are still running up the debt, do you think 14 years of mismanagement could be turned around in 5 years? And especially by a coalition!
One third. Enough to make a difference then.
Are you saying that all the media is biased except for the left wing looney media then john? I suppose the socialist workers tells it like it is without any political slant.So after nearly a full term and stringent cuts this government cannot achieve something like not increasing borrowing!
Why do they need to borrow more as a result of labour overspending?
You forget that the Labour party was set up by the Unions to represent them in parliament. If they were true to their roots they would have 100% union members electing their leader.
No, I'm saying that Murdoch is extremely right wing.That's right John it takes a long time to put these things right. Do you think Labour knew and understood the consequences of borrowing so much money to bail the banks out? The consequences and financial implications of a war? And the financial implications of a unsustainable funding growth in public sector spending?
Do you think all the commitments Labour made then stop when they get voted out of power?
Yes I believe we are still paying for the stupidity of the Labour governments fiscal policies.
They were set up by the unions and other socialist groups John, I do know the history of the party, right up until it become capitalistic like the others.
Of course he is John, hernia in opposition to all the left wing nonsense going around and as such will always be called right wing.But you haven't explained why the government was forced to borrow even more money to cover the cost of the bank bailout!
And yes, by and large all the commitments that labour made ended when they left power.
If you are aware of the history of the Labour party why then are you surprised that they have union support?
Why left wing nonsense? That implies that there is no right wing nonsense but those of us who aren't blinded by the right know that there is more than enough right wing nonsense.Well the interest charges have certainly been left over, the commitment to trident, the increases to public sector workers, the PFI's. To name but a few and as you will see that all of those commitments were made by the Labour government.
Not surprised John, just stating a fact, the unions have huge amounts of power over the Labour Party even now, so a vote for labour is a vote for the unions running the country again and people got fed up with that last term.
Of course their is right win nonsense, I never said their wasn't bit I am not blinded by either, I like to tell it as it is!But why do they need to borrow larger amounts of money to pay interest charges? Your interest payments on your mortgage do not automatically rise every year, some years they drop.
How are the public sector workers costing more when many have been "let go" and those remaining have not had a pay rise.
You can't justify the increase in public borrowing, but don't be alarmed, the government can't either.Not alarmed john just know we are better off by not having Labour in charge. However I know the selfish public sector workers would love labour in charge as they would get the big rises and best conditions taxpayers money can buy without any struggle at all.
So you rather be ConDemed to a life of austerity. You don't care about the tens of thousands who have lost their lives to this lot. You don't care about the poverty and misery. You don't care about the increased debt that this government has run up. You are happy about all the public sector workers who've lost their jobs.
You're just happy to have a government that doesn't care either!
Firstly Silverspeeder I made reference to the Probation Service and what govt. cuts and privatisation are doing to (an award winning service which is a highly esteemed model throughout the world) and how its staff are affected.
Secondly, I find it almost impossible to reason with an individual who believes that a cheaper model and cheap, untrained staff will keep communities safe. I mean, really, have you any idea how many murderers, rapists and child sex offenders are being managed in the community? And you want to pay these people peanuts- the starting salary of a PO is £28,000 rising to £35 K or there abouts. And you think the few years of training (always ongoing) long hours, high stress and mammoth responsibility is worth less? Are you kidding me?
Furthermore, these nutty right wing prats that you appear to admire so much, who also thought the job was without worth decided to make so many redundancies that the service was left in crisis. Now, they're having to rehire X POs as contractors and pay way, way more than they were originally earning. Some saving.
As it happens the govt. couldn't find these cheap untrained staff to effectively supervise anyone, so, they started advertising for POs who qualified in Australia and New Zealand- problem is they receive six weeks training in those countries as opposed to two years training here and are in no way able to manage high risk cases to the standard which we expect. Oh, and they offered them a starting salary of 50K- Where are the savings?
As for Manchester city council- do you have any idea of the social problems we have in this city? The Govt. cut funding to this city and the council have had to make cuts accordingly. Your idea of the public vs private sector and their respective merits is so convoluted that it's laughable. Do you honestly, honestly not realise that you're now paying more for services and lining some multi national's pockets? Wake up!Reason doesn't come into it. Some people are so indoctrinated with hatred of the left (and by extension of themselves) that they would put themselves through any amount of purgatory to avoid anything that even smacked of the left wing.
Just sounds like stupidity to me- doesn't even have to be about the right and left but about what works (evidence based) but we know what this govt. thinks about evidenced backed policy ( p*sses on the profits for their mates)
Whatever Hollie, it just seems to me that some people are their own worst enemies.
It's all turkeys voting for Christmas.
No John I hate the fact that I have to work hard to give someone else a good life and then because they think they are not getting enough they want more and put me down for it.
Socialism is a simple ideology really, take money form my pocket to make someone else comfortable.Oh how deluded you are! Who are you actually giving a good life to? That'll be your masters, not the unemployed who are unemployed to keep your wages down and stop you having a good life.
Your idea of socialism couldn't be further from the mark. That isn't socialism, it's capitalism.You know exactly what I was on about and it wasn't the unemployed.
Socialism brings everybody down to the same level it doesn't try to bring anyone up.
I still think Orwell's work was quite implicit about what happens when we are all equal, maybe he understood human nature it's quite obvious that socialists don't.Unlike capitalism which only raises a few up and pulls the rest down?
Socialism raises everybody up, some, those at the top, less than others but it does not condemn anybody to a life of poverty and then blame the poverty stricken for their plight.
Orwell wasn't writing about socialism, he was writing about Stalinist Russia.
Thanks nice Hollie T, what you have just said is exactly what I would expect from someone like you, this attitude of you are better than anyone else and can't be replace under any citcumstamces and should be getting much much more than you actually do because you work for the government and we should all be thank for that.
Secondly are you really telling me that there has been no mismanagement at Manchester council? And are you telly telling me that all council workers should be seen as untouchable an should get all the best salaries and pensions while those who pay for them to do so should have no say on it at all.
This is what happens when their is no restraint within the public sector, it becomes far to expensive and people lose their jobs.
Oh an £28 k sounds quite good to me but I understand it's not quite enough for you.
Never mind it's the usual we are better than anyone else argument from the privaliged few who work for the government.Employees of Manchester City Council (those still with jobs) are to get a pay rise of 1% this year! Oh those greedy pampered so and so's!
The people of Manchester do have a say in salaries and pensions, they elect the councillors who decide those pay rises and pensions. If people disagree they can vote them out of office."The people of Manchester do have a say in salaries and pensions, they elect the councillors who decide those pay rises and pensions. If people disagree they can vote them out of office."
True. Or vote them into office - sure wish I could have bri...uh...voted for - voted for! - the people that would set my salary when I was working. Can you say "conflict of interest" any louder? Perhaps anyone drawing an income from the public purse should lose their voting privileges?Although MCC has a policy of employing people who live in the city I doubt there are enough to influence any influence on the outcome of any election. I really don't think disenfranchising folk would serve any purpose beyond causing dissent.
It probably would cause dissension. If I were able to vote my friends into setting MY salary, I'd be pretty ticked at losing it too.
But seriously, I'm not so sure they can't affect a vote. I know in the US, voter turnout is very low, and the smaller the election (local, county, state, national) the lower the turnout in percentages of those that could vote. I'd think it quite likely a county vote could be affected even in the US by people working for a county and would expect you guys to have a higher percentage drawing wages from government than the US.OK, so we stop those relying on local government for their income from voting, better stop all those living in social housing as well. And what about those who depend on MCC for refuse collection, better stop them from voting. Anybody who depends on the council for services better no vote either.
That leaves, let's see, nobody entitled to vote for councillors!
If council employees were evenly distributed across wards that would mean 204 council employees per councillor, It takes between 1400 and 2500 votes to elect a councillor to MCC. Therefore even if those council employees were evenly distributed and all voted the same way they would have no real affect on the vote.Probably true for those feeding at the public trough. Not so much for those "purchasing" or using public services available to all - refuse collection, road use, water availability or other utilities.
Can't speak for Britain, but 10% of voters is a huge swing block here and almost certain to get their way. Too many times it is decided by less than a 1% majority.So who are these people feeding at the public trough?
The probation officers, the carers, the police, the refuse collectors, the guys who repair the roads and cut the grass. The men who extinguish your house when it catches fire. The guys who keep our pavements clean.the folk who see our children safely across the road before and after school.
Who are all these leeches that are so despised?How about those that take without giving? You mentioned those living in public housing (presumably at public expense), I intended to add all those that take from the public coffers without returning equal value.
It seems to be a major problem, at least in this country. As soon as people figure out they can vote themselves bread and circuses the system (referring to democracy) is doomed to failure (re: Robert Heinlein) - something we see happening in our time. Perhaps if we remove that capability it will survive?But who are the ones that take without giving? They aren't confined to the public sector.
Those who live in public housing are forced to do so by the system that makes housing unaffordable to many.Not sure what you mean by the public sector - how does a private sector get money/goods for free from the public sector?
Taking charity is a choice - no one forces it.You've really lost me now! Charity, private sector taking from the public sector! You'd better explain, I'm too thick for that.
In reply, many of such people are poor because of poor lifestyle choices. No one told them to be poor when there is opportunity. In industrialized countries, especially in America, Canada, England, and Australia, there is little excuse to be poor. Most people are poor in these countries because they refuse to make the effort to better themselves socioeconomically. They do not want to do the extra things necessary for them to become successful.
Let's us talk, Mr. Holden. It is SO nice to speak to you again. How are you today? Hope you are well. Okay, now I am going to preach, preach, PREACH. If many poor people adopt more positive behavioral mechanisms, they would no longer be poor. For instance, many poor people aren't highly educated. Studies show that the average poor person possess a high school education or less.
People with secondary education are more likely to be poor than those who have tertiary education or more. A high school education will not get one very far and hasn't since the late 1970s. Jobs with livable wages require at the minimum a Bachelor's Degree; many professional jobs require at least a Master's or other specialized degrees. Now in order to be at least middle class and better, one has to have an advanced level of education, preferrably a speciality.
Now, many poor people marry and have children before they are prepared socioeconomically. They do not plan but act. Now that is unwise and they wonder why they are mired in poverty. Before one marry and have children, one have the prerequisite education in addition to being established careerwise. When one is established educationally and careerwise, there is a greater likelihood that he/she won't be impoverished but at least middle class or better. When he/she has children, the children will be born into a stable, middle class environment or better.
Then there is the issue of family planning. The average poor person have MORE children than they can afford. If one has 1-2 children, such children are less likely to be impoverished. They will have better quality of socioeconomic life. Yes, poor people are poor because of their life choices. One reaps what one sows; if one makes a negative life choice, then negativity results whereas if one makes a positive life choice, then positivity results. It is QUITE SIMPLE!I'm not inclined to join you in your totally off topic witch hunt.
Thanks nice Hollie T, what you have just said is exactly what I would expect from someone like you, this attitude of you are better than anyone else and can't be replace under any citcumstamces and should be getting much much more than you actually do because you work for the government and we should all be thank for that.
Someone like me, that's an interesting comment! What I'm telling you is that you're paying a damn sight more for your public services and this govt. is happily trying to recruit unskilled cheap staff to keep you safe (joke) whilst lining their mate's pockets. I'm also telling you that I bothered to get off my ars& get an education and work hard to get on. If I'd have been in it for the money I'd have floated to to the private sector. The alternative, of course, would have been to moan about a sector I clearly know nothing about and believe that I would deserve the salary and prospects of my public sector peers when I'd done sod all to actually get myself there.
That's by the by anyway. I couldn't give a damn whether you want to thank me or otherwise- and not once have any of the public sector asked for much much more than they actually receive (do you actually do any research at all?) They're asking to retain their pensions, which they have paid into for years (and they're not gold plated either before you start with that nonsense) not have to do the work of three people and receive annual increments in-line with inflation. Oh, the cheek! The other nonsense you've spouted exists in your imagination only.
Secondly are you really telling me that there has been no mismanagement at Manchester council? And are you telly telling me that all council workers should be seen as untouchable an should get all the best salaries and pensions while those who pay for them to do so should have no say on it at all.
There's always mismanagement somewhere- think the private companies that are under investigation by the serious fraud office for charging the tax payer to tag offenders who were dead or still in custody. Just an example which I suspect you'll not want to discuss any further.
Oh an £28 k sounds quite good to me but I understand it's not quite enough for you.
Actually that's more than enough for me, but Chris Grayling has decided that I'm worth far, far more because there's a national shortage of people with my skills and experience (the coalition stopped recruiting and training new POs) Blame them.
And by the way, if I'd have opted to join the private sector after graduation I'd have been earning far more than 28K. If this sum sounds massive to you then might I suggest that you take a 50k student loan, work and study full time and then let employers decide your worth.
And I notice how you've very conveniently dodged the issue when it comes to the public sector, the govts. mismanagement of such and how your public services have become more expensive under this govt. (and the staff aren't the ones who are raking it in) Think!
Related Discussions
- 151
Do you think it is right for public sector workers to strike?
by marymootoo 12 years ago
The public sector unions have threatend mass stike action over pensions, do you think that this is the right thing to do? Is it fair that in the present climate for a group of people to inflict the threat of misery for personal gain?
- 55
what frustates you most about political situation in ur country?
by pisean282311 14 years ago
for me it is hollow talks , corruption and dividing people..
- 37
Are UNIONS THE ANSWER to the problems we face in our country today?
by JON EWALL 12 years ago
Are UNIONS THE ANSWER to the problems we face in our country today?Public sector unions altho related are different than private sector unions.
- 27
Congress got a raise
by Onusonus 11 years ago
Just thought you'd like to know.
- 16
US Must Cut Public Sector or Fall Like Rome
by Raymond D Choiniere 14 years ago
Hey Hubbers,Have another article worth reading.http://www.cnbc.com/id/37994720
- 25
workers in government
by JON EWALL 13 years ago
Just recently a report came out regarding employment.The report stated that the average pay in the private market was $40.00/hr. and the average pay in the public sector was $70/hr.In the public sector the fringe benefits also are higher.Could it be that in the public sector 50% of the workers are...