Unions protest over public sector pay proposals

Dorset Echo: ‘APRIL FOOLS’: Unison protesting against public sector pay proposals ‘APRIL FOOLS’: Unison protesting against public sector pay proposals

UNION members took to the steps of County Hall in Dorchester in a protest over public sector pay proposals.

Representatives of Unison and Unite unions greeted workers as they arrived at the building yesterday morning with a giant placard featuring Prime Minister David Cameron in a jester’s outfit.

The protest centred around the proposed one per cent pay rise for the public sector, which they claim is a cut in real terms, and the placard carried the strap line ‘don’t take us for April fools’.

Stella Crew from Unison said the protestors were getting a positive response from council staff.

She said: “We are getting a good response from people because the one per cent pay offer we have been given is so meagre.

“In effect it’s an 18 per cent cut in real terms since 2010.”

Stella said that over two thirds of local government workers earn less than the government’s ‘low pay threshold’ of £21,000 a year, while half a million were earning less than the living wage.

She said: “We are all working very hard, over and above our job descriptions but an overworked, stressed-out workforce struggling to make ends meet cannot provide quality services.”

The campaigners claimed that the biggest percentage of people on benefits were people in work in low paid jobs and raising pay to acceptable levels would not only reduce the benefits bill, it would also increase tax and national insurance income.

The unions are calling for a £1 an hour rise for all council and school support workers. Stella said the demand was ‘reasonable’ and would see the local economy benefit.

She said: “Outside of urban areas most of the money spent goes back into the local economy.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:32am Wed 2 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

Another day another Union propaganda story. This paper has become so tilted and bias it only has a few core social/political themes it can revolve around.

The thought of reporting a non-propaganda viewpoint on anything must terrify them.
Another day another Union propaganda story. This paper has become so tilted and bias it only has a few core social/political themes it can revolve around. The thought of reporting a non-propaganda viewpoint on anything must terrify them. Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 4

11:01am Wed 2 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

....................
....................
........
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. .................... .................... ........ woodsedge
  • Score: -5

12:05pm Wed 2 Apr 14

westie22 says...

Whilst these council workers have had their pay held for 3/4 years and are now being given just 1% rise they are still well paid with the exception on the lowest scales. They should find out what it is like the real world especially in this area. Less holidays, no sick pay, poor pension schemes and lower rates of pay.
Whilst these council workers have had their pay held for 3/4 years and are now being given just 1% rise they are still well paid with the exception on the lowest scales. They should find out what it is like the real world especially in this area. Less holidays, no sick pay, poor pension schemes and lower rates of pay. westie22
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Captain Truth says...

Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens.
Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens. Captain Truth
  • Score: 4

1:21pm Wed 2 Apr 14

trymybest says...

Family working tax credits, child credit on top of child family allowance, that's money for your child three times over plus housing benifit, and a wage just below the "low pay threshold" of £21,000 why would a council worker push their luck and ask for a £1 an hour pay rise and lose all the benifit of having a job, Stella.
Family working tax credits, child credit on top of child family allowance, that's money for your child three times over plus housing benifit, and a wage just below the "low pay threshold" of £21,000 why would a council worker push their luck and ask for a £1 an hour pay rise and lose all the benifit of having a job, Stella. trymybest
  • Score: 6

5:42pm Wed 2 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

Captain Truth wrote:
Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens.
I'm sure its true that council workers have seen their work loads increased, however, you have a distorted view of the private sector if you think that increased work means more money. That simply doesn't happen in most companies. In fact, private sector workers are more likely to be exploited than their public sector comrades.
[quote][p][bold]Captain Truth[/bold] wrote: Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens.[/p][/quote]I'm sure its true that council workers have seen their work loads increased, however, you have a distorted view of the private sector if you think that increased work means more money. That simply doesn't happen in most companies. In fact, private sector workers are more likely to be exploited than their public sector comrades. JamesYoung
  • Score: 14

5:52pm Wed 2 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

My view: the problem is that it isn't the government that pays this extra £1 an hour - all tax wealth is generated in the private sector, either through taxation, borrowing (debt) or QE (debt). Assuming DCC's 10,000 workers work an average of 30 hours a week, that £1 an hour is £15.6m per year. There are around 250,000 people of working age in Dorset. Probably 40-50% work for the public sector in one form or another, but let's say there are 100,000 Dorset workers working in the private sector. You could argue that we are asking those 100,000 private sector workers to cough up another £150 a year in tax to pay for this measure. I don't think public sector workers really understand this when they make these demands and talk about the race to the bottom.
All of this said, i absolutely agree that every low paid worker, public and private, should earn the Living Wage. I've argued many times that the National Minimum Wage is a form of subsidy to large businesses. And to take the point made by trymybest, most of the workers who would benefit from the Living Wage earn an income level that is supported by housing benefit and tax credits anyway, so it is a zero sum game. Pay the worker £1 an hour more, and presumably save £1 an hour on the benefit bill. So there is no real negative impact from doing this at a macro level. However, there would be a HUGE benefit in doing so: it would set a precedent for the private sector. And every private sector worker who earns £1 an hour more from his employer reduces the benefit bill by £1 an hour too.
In summary, with the exception of people on low earnings, who need the Living Wage to be enshrined in law, every public sector pay rise comes from private sector pockets and that has a negative impact in all sorts of ways. What we actually need is a radical overhaul of the whole system, which would require the kind of leadership that none of the political parties offer today.
Some of the measures required would indeed include the Living Wage. To pay for that, an introduction of a general tax on sales for all companies that operate offshore, plus measures to bring down house prices and rentals (which in turn reduce the need for housing benefit) and a crack down on the banks.
However, all of this would also require an austerity that we haven't yet seen in this country, as focus moved away from debt (financial services) as a way of creating wealth, back to manufacture and agriculture.
My view: the problem is that it isn't the government that pays this extra £1 an hour - all tax wealth is generated in the private sector, either through taxation, borrowing (debt) or QE (debt). Assuming DCC's 10,000 workers work an average of 30 hours a week, that £1 an hour is £15.6m per year. There are around 250,000 people of working age in Dorset. Probably 40-50% work for the public sector in one form or another, but let's say there are 100,000 Dorset workers working in the private sector. You could argue that we are asking those 100,000 private sector workers to cough up another £150 a year in tax to pay for this measure. I don't think public sector workers really understand this when they make these demands and talk about the race to the bottom. All of this said, i absolutely agree that every low paid worker, public and private, should earn the Living Wage. I've argued many times that the National Minimum Wage is a form of subsidy to large businesses. And to take the point made by trymybest, most of the workers who would benefit from the Living Wage earn an income level that is supported by housing benefit and tax credits anyway, so it is a zero sum game. Pay the worker £1 an hour more, and presumably save £1 an hour on the benefit bill. So there is no real negative impact from doing this at a macro level. However, there would be a HUGE benefit in doing so: it would set a precedent for the private sector. And every private sector worker who earns £1 an hour more from his employer reduces the benefit bill by £1 an hour too. In summary, with the exception of people on low earnings, who need the Living Wage to be enshrined in law, every public sector pay rise comes from private sector pockets and that has a negative impact in all sorts of ways. What we actually need is a radical overhaul of the whole system, which would require the kind of leadership that none of the political parties offer today. Some of the measures required would indeed include the Living Wage. To pay for that, an introduction of a general tax on sales for all companies that operate offshore, plus measures to bring down house prices and rentals (which in turn reduce the need for housing benefit) and a crack down on the banks. However, all of this would also require an austerity that we haven't yet seen in this country, as focus moved away from debt (financial services) as a way of creating wealth, back to manufacture and agriculture. JamesYoung
  • Score: 6

6:40pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Dorset Boy says...

Back in 2002 I took on extra work load and responsibility. My reward - a £5000 pay cut under the job equality system.
Back in 2002 I took on extra work load and responsibility. My reward - a £5000 pay cut under the job equality system. Dorset Boy
  • Score: 8

7:22pm Wed 2 Apr 14

westie22 says...

Captain Truth wrote:
Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens.
All it means is that they are probably doing duties more in line with their salary compared to the private sector. They are still doing the same number of hours. Don't come back and say you are doing more hours than you are paid for either because you get flexi time or lieu time. Many thousands of people in the real word have had to work more efficiently for the same pay.
[quote][p][bold]Captain Truth[/bold] wrote: Council workers, as a result of cuts, have had their work loads significantly increased over the last few years, yet pay has stayed the same. In the private sector, if you take on additional work and responsibility, you are rewarded for it. Why should the Council be different? Everyone loves to have a go at council workers, but the fact is, public perception of the council worker is so incorrect. These people are taking on more and more work with every cut, and not being rewarded for it. Sooner or later they'll have no motivation to carry out their jobs, and services will fail. Lets hope the heroes of the public sector are equipt to deal with that when it happens.[/p][/quote]All it means is that they are probably doing duties more in line with their salary compared to the private sector. They are still doing the same number of hours. Don't come back and say you are doing more hours than you are paid for either because you get flexi time or lieu time. Many thousands of people in the real word have had to work more efficiently for the same pay. westie22
  • Score: 5

7:33pm Wed 2 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place! woodsedge
  • Score: -4

9:26pm Wed 2 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place.
I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector.
I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes. JamesYoung
  • Score: 6

10:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place.
I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector.
I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.
What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.[/p][/quote]What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine. woodsedge
  • Score: -4

11:22pm Wed 2 Apr 14

westie22 says...

woodsedge wrote:
Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
It's not a case of squabbling it is a fact that apart from the lower paid jobs, who deserve a living wage, that DCC staff enjoy much higher salaries then those in the private sector when a responsibility comparison is made. I enjoyed a high wage at DCC, before being made redundant , for a job where the responsibilities did not warrant it. Had I have been earning this wage in the private sector I would probably have needed to be in a position where I managed many staff and responsible for a large budget. Despite there job evaluation exercise the problem still exists. Of course none of this is the fault of the people holding such positions but the Officers who set the scale rates.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]It's not a case of squabbling it is a fact that apart from the lower paid jobs, who deserve a living wage, that DCC staff enjoy much higher salaries then those in the private sector when a responsibility comparison is made. I enjoyed a high wage at DCC, before being made redundant , for a job where the responsibilities did not warrant it. Had I have been earning this wage in the private sector I would probably have needed to be in a position where I managed many staff and responsible for a large budget. Despite there job evaluation exercise the problem still exists. Of course none of this is the fault of the people holding such positions but the Officers who set the scale rates. westie22
  • Score: 6

11:35pm Wed 2 Apr 14

high68 says...

I work at County Hall and quite frankly a 1% pay rise in this current financial climate is pretty fair. With cuts of £18m this financial year and people around me being made redundant (including westie22) on a weekly basis with more to come through 'forward together', those of us left around the building are generally acceptable of 1%. But as usual the unison office have no clue what the thoughts are of the staff.

I would love to have bigger pay rise than 1% but most of us are realists and we will be glad to simply have a job in 12 months !!
I work at County Hall and quite frankly a 1% pay rise in this current financial climate is pretty fair. With cuts of £18m this financial year and people around me being made redundant (including westie22) on a weekly basis with more to come through 'forward together', those of us left around the building are generally acceptable of 1%. But as usual the unison office have no clue what the thoughts are of the staff. I would love to have bigger pay rise than 1% but most of us are realists and we will be glad to simply have a job in 12 months !! high68
  • Score: 6

9:17am Thu 3 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

high68 wrote:
I work at County Hall and quite frankly a 1% pay rise in this current financial climate is pretty fair. With cuts of £18m this financial year and people around me being made redundant (including westie22) on a weekly basis with more to come through 'forward together', those of us left around the building are generally acceptable of 1%. But as usual the unison office have no clue what the thoughts are of the staff.

I would love to have bigger pay rise than 1% but most of us are realists and we will be glad to simply have a job in 12 months !!
I understand your point and in my day job I deal with redundancies nearly every day of the week. The impact on the individual, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector, is unpleasant and very stressful. The point I make is that it suits the politicians for the focus to be constantly on the public sector is bad, expensive and unecessary whilst the privatisation agenda is constantly put forward. The attention should be focused on recovery of unclaimed tax, tax loop holes, bankers bonuses, the under pricing of Royal Mail etc etc. and the income invested in public services not constant slash and burn.
[quote][p][bold]high68[/bold] wrote: I work at County Hall and quite frankly a 1% pay rise in this current financial climate is pretty fair. With cuts of £18m this financial year and people around me being made redundant (including westie22) on a weekly basis with more to come through 'forward together', those of us left around the building are generally acceptable of 1%. But as usual the unison office have no clue what the thoughts are of the staff. I would love to have bigger pay rise than 1% but most of us are realists and we will be glad to simply have a job in 12 months !![/p][/quote]I understand your point and in my day job I deal with redundancies nearly every day of the week. The impact on the individual, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector, is unpleasant and very stressful. The point I make is that it suits the politicians for the focus to be constantly on the public sector is bad, expensive and unecessary whilst the privatisation agenda is constantly put forward. The attention should be focused on recovery of unclaimed tax, tax loop holes, bankers bonuses, the under pricing of Royal Mail etc etc. and the income invested in public services not constant slash and burn. woodsedge
  • Score: -3

10:20am Thu 3 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.
What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.
I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it.
Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.[/p][/quote]What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it. Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

9:32am Fri 4 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.
What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.
I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it.
Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points.
My wife also works in the public sector and has done for many years. And yes there is an incremental pay system for employees starting in a salary banding system, so that they can eventually and over several years, they can progress to the top pay rate for that job. That is the contract of employment that is offered and those are the terms. That has nothing to do with annual pay increases and I can assure you that DCC workers have received below inflation pay awards for at least 7 years, meaning that in real terms each year they receive a pay cut! I do not understand how there is a lack of awareness of the plight of the public sector or tax payers as a whole. Are public workers not tax payers? Do they not pay tax? Is a loaf of bread or a utility bill cheaper for a public sector worker? This is the point I am trying to make regarding this argument that suits the politicians of private v public. We live in a society that is biased towards 'the haves' and one that can afford good public services, instead of accepting this we have the weekly ritual of public sector workers being crucified by readers of the Echo. Another example today of the Royal Mail sell undersold by 750 million pounds that could have paid for 550 nurses for 5 years. Shareholders made 1300 million pounds profit in 6 months and 13 employees to be made redundant.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.[/p][/quote]What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it. Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points.[/p][/quote]My wife also works in the public sector and has done for many years. And yes there is an incremental pay system for employees starting in a salary banding system, so that they can eventually and over several years, they can progress to the top pay rate for that job. That is the contract of employment that is offered and those are the terms. That has nothing to do with annual pay increases and I can assure you that DCC workers have received below inflation pay awards for at least 7 years, meaning that in real terms each year they receive a pay cut! I do not understand how there is a lack of awareness of the plight of the public sector or tax payers as a whole. Are public workers not tax payers? Do they not pay tax? Is a loaf of bread or a utility bill cheaper for a public sector worker? This is the point I am trying to make regarding this argument that suits the politicians of private v public. We live in a society that is biased towards 'the haves' and one that can afford good public services, instead of accepting this we have the weekly ritual of public sector workers being crucified by readers of the Echo. Another example today of the Royal Mail sell undersold by 750 million pounds that could have paid for 550 nurses for 5 years. Shareholders made 1300 million pounds profit in 6 months and 13 employees to be made redundant. woodsedge
  • Score: -5

10:36am Sat 5 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place!
That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.
What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.
I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it.
Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points.
My wife also works in the public sector and has done for many years. And yes there is an incremental pay system for employees starting in a salary banding system, so that they can eventually and over several years, they can progress to the top pay rate for that job. That is the contract of employment that is offered and those are the terms. That has nothing to do with annual pay increases and I can assure you that DCC workers have received below inflation pay awards for at least 7 years, meaning that in real terms each year they receive a pay cut! I do not understand how there is a lack of awareness of the plight of the public sector or tax payers as a whole. Are public workers not tax payers? Do they not pay tax? Is a loaf of bread or a utility bill cheaper for a public sector worker? This is the point I am trying to make regarding this argument that suits the politicians of private v public. We live in a society that is biased towards 'the haves' and one that can afford good public services, instead of accepting this we have the weekly ritual of public sector workers being crucified by readers of the Echo. Another example today of the Royal Mail sell undersold by 750 million pounds that could have paid for 550 nurses for 5 years. Shareholders made 1300 million pounds profit in 6 months and 13 employees to be made redundant.
That's like saying everyone on benefits is a tax payer, well they are to an extent, VAT etc but it is small compared to the overall private sector funding of it. The public sector makes no money as such in itself but it is excellent and throwing it away and self-indulging its Apparatchiks.

We could still cut masses of public sector and public sector money wastage we don't need and lower taxation further for everyone. Public sector should be essentials only - minimal government, not a free for all on tax payers money to throw around.

https://www.taxpayer
salliance.com/home/2
013/06/bumper-book-g
overnment-waste-expo
ses-120-billion-wast
eful-spending-4500-h
ousehold-uk.html
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Here we go again, private and public sector WORKERS squabbling over who works the hardest and deflecting the attention away from those responsible, the politicians. You carry on arguing about an extra pound an hour whilst the Tories can under value the Royal Mail by 6 billion and line the pockets of the bankers, you know, the ones that put us in this mess in the first place![/p][/quote]That is fair comment, Woodsedge. However, i remain frustrated that one group of people think that they should be rewarded more than another group of people, just because they were privileged enough to get a job with a specific organisation and now somehow feel that there is some kind of lifetime contract in place. I agree with the need for a living wage, but for everybody else (public and private) we are going to have to accept sub-inflation pay rises, because the public sector pay bill is paid by the private sector. I do, however, entirely agree that it is the government at fault here! Not least because inflation is created by a surfeit of demand for a product, or a surfeit of cash. There is no demand for products (as can be seen from the fact that even demand for petrol is falling), so we can conclude that the inflation that is eating away at our salaries is created by the government injecting £375bn of printed money into the economy in a misguided attempt to prop up house prices to win votes.[/p][/quote]What you have to remember is that the public sector has either not had a pay rise or a below inflation pay rise for at least seven years. I accept that the public sector has pay banding for some employees, but you could argue that the private sector has a mixture of consolidated and performance related pay and bonus arrangements (I know this because I have negotiated rises in the private sector). I think we both agree that the so called recovery is built on credit and a housing bubble that will ultimately burst. Regardless of who gets in at the next GE the one thing that is certain is that we are in for more of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]I did enjoy a payrise of 2.75% this year. It is the first payrise I've received since 2004. Since 2005, every year has brought pay cuts in real terms. The problem is not unique to the public sector but, to my sure and certain knowledge (my wife works there) the majority of council workers receive an annual increment during their first 5-7 years in a particular grade. My issue is not whether or not these people deserve a rise, it is simply an apparent lack of awareness of the plight of the people who will be paying for it. Nevertheless I fear you are right in your other points.[/p][/quote]My wife also works in the public sector and has done for many years. And yes there is an incremental pay system for employees starting in a salary banding system, so that they can eventually and over several years, they can progress to the top pay rate for that job. That is the contract of employment that is offered and those are the terms. That has nothing to do with annual pay increases and I can assure you that DCC workers have received below inflation pay awards for at least 7 years, meaning that in real terms each year they receive a pay cut! I do not understand how there is a lack of awareness of the plight of the public sector or tax payers as a whole. Are public workers not tax payers? Do they not pay tax? Is a loaf of bread or a utility bill cheaper for a public sector worker? This is the point I am trying to make regarding this argument that suits the politicians of private v public. We live in a society that is biased towards 'the haves' and one that can afford good public services, instead of accepting this we have the weekly ritual of public sector workers being crucified by readers of the Echo. Another example today of the Royal Mail sell undersold by 750 million pounds that could have paid for 550 nurses for 5 years. Shareholders made 1300 million pounds profit in 6 months and 13 employees to be made redundant.[/p][/quote]That's like saying everyone on benefits is a tax payer, well they are to an extent, VAT etc but it is small compared to the overall private sector funding of it. The public sector makes no money as such in itself but it is excellent and throwing it away and self-indulging its Apparatchiks. We could still cut masses of public sector and public sector money wastage we don't need and lower taxation further for everyone. Public sector should be essentials only - minimal government, not a free for all on tax payers money to throw around. https://www.taxpayer salliance.com/home/2 013/06/bumper-book-g overnment-waste-expo ses-120-billion-wast eful-spending-4500-h ousehold-uk.html Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 6

10:41am Sat 5 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights

Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200

Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads

Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani”

Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year

Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p
Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed

Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses
Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff


I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!!

So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF?
Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200 Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani” Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!! So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF? Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 10

3:02pm Sat 5 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day.

The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.
Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day. The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Sat 5 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Oh dear, Sigturd wants someone to argue with, any takers? anyone want to enter the dark and misunderstood world of Sigturd?
Oh dear, Sigturd wants someone to argue with, any takers? anyone want to enter the dark and misunderstood world of Sigturd? woodsedge
  • Score: -7

7:11pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
Oh dear, Sigturd wants someone to argue with, any takers? anyone want to enter the dark and misunderstood world of Sigturd?
Defaulted to the playground again I see. Now blow a raspberry and clap your hands together continuously, you represent the left after all.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Sigturd wants someone to argue with, any takers? anyone want to enter the dark and misunderstood world of Sigturd?[/p][/quote]Defaulted to the playground again I see. Now blow a raspberry and clap your hands together continuously, you represent the left after all. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 4

8:28pm Sat 5 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights

Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200

Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads

Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani”

Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year

Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p
Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed

Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses
Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff


I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!!

So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF?
I suspect most public sector workers would agree with you.
However, these are decisions made by management, not workers at the coal face.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200 Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani” Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!! So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF?[/p][/quote]I suspect most public sector workers would agree with you. However, these are decisions made by management, not workers at the coal face. JamesYoung
  • Score: 5

8:33pm Sat 5 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day.

The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.
I would agree, but with context.
It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked.
My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that.
However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money.
My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day. The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.[/p][/quote]I would agree, but with context. It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked. My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that. However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money. My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned. JamesYoung
  • Score: -3

9:37am Sun 6 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights

Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200

Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads

Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani”

Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year

Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p
Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed

Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses
Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff


I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!!

So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF?
I suspect most public sector workers would agree with you.
However, these are decisions made by management, not workers at the coal face.
" Coal face" not an expression I equate with the major share of public sector workers i'm afraid.. However it does not matter at what point in the "stupidarchy" this pilfering and waste goes on, the point is the public sector should not be expecting central government (the tax payer) for a single penny more and it needs to make clear who is too really blame.

They already have more than enough money to cover what they want, but their own public sector people are frittering it away. They need to go moan at them, go stand outside the chief exec's houses and stick their names on the banners, why won't they do that?

While at it maybe the Unions could dip into that big honey pot of 80-113 MILLION of tax payers money it usurps every year ?!!! Something else that needs to be stopped.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: Arts Council: Gave a £95,000 grant to artists in Brighton for “Skip”, a rubbish dumpster outlined with yellow lights Crawley Council: Spent £5,070 on 12,200 hot drinks from vending machines for council employees, when the equivalent number of tea bags would have cost just £200 Department for International Development: Spent £21.2 million on a road maintenance project in Bangladesh, later pulled due to “fiduciary irregularities” after it emerged that less than 10% had actually been spent on roads Durham Council: Funded a £12,000 clothing allowance to allow Councillors to wear “Geordie Armani” Hull Council: Spent £40,000 on a concert in honour of the councillor who is Lord Mayor this year Ministry of Defence: Paid £22 for light bulbs that are normally 65p Prison Service: Paid £720,000 to professional actors for role playing that is aimed at helping inmates become employed Scottish Government: Signed a £1.4 million 4-year contract for taxis for civil servants in Edinburgh – despite staff being told to use buses Stoke-on-Trent Council: Spent £330,000 to pay for redundancy packages and subsequently rehiring 25 members of staff I wan't to know why those behind this kind of insanity have not been arrested for embezzlement of tax payers money? Before the public sector ever whines about anything, they need to shut up until this sort of thing is eradicated. You might have more money in your wage packets if the idiots in the public sector didn't do things like this!! So why are the Unions not attacking the Public sector ITSELF?[/p][/quote]I suspect most public sector workers would agree with you. However, these are decisions made by management, not workers at the coal face.[/p][/quote]" Coal face" not an expression I equate with the major share of public sector workers i'm afraid.. However it does not matter at what point in the "stupidarchy" this pilfering and waste goes on, the point is the public sector should not be expecting central government (the tax payer) for a single penny more and it needs to make clear who is too really blame. They already have more than enough money to cover what they want, but their own public sector people are frittering it away. They need to go moan at them, go stand outside the chief exec's houses and stick their names on the banners, why won't they do that? While at it maybe the Unions could dip into that big honey pot of 80-113 MILLION of tax payers money it usurps every year ?!!! Something else that needs to be stopped. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 7

8:09pm Sun 6 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day.

The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.
I would agree, but with context.
It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked.
My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that.
However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money.
My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned.
HMG used to take 51% of my salary in direct taxation alone. Now my health is up the creek I no longer work, but having paid in tens of thousands of pounds in tax I believe that gives me a right to have some of it back. Your suggestion for my benefits level is what?
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day. The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.[/p][/quote]I would agree, but with context. It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked. My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that. However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money. My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned.[/p][/quote]HMG used to take 51% of my salary in direct taxation alone. Now my health is up the creek I no longer work, but having paid in tens of thousands of pounds in tax I believe that gives me a right to have some of it back. Your suggestion for my benefits level is what? breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

11:50am Mon 7 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

breamoreboy wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day.

The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.
I would agree, but with context.
It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked.
My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that.
However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money.
My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned.
HMG used to take 51% of my salary in direct taxation alone. Now my health is up the creek I no longer work, but having paid in tens of thousands of pounds in tax I believe that gives me a right to have some of it back. Your suggestion for my benefits level is what?
I should perhaps make clear that I was talking about unemployed people (those able to work but not working) rather than people who are not able to work.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Nobody in productive employment (public or private sector) should be paid less than a living wage. By 'living' I mean enough to run a car, go on holiday once a year, and feed and clothe a couple of children and put something away for a rainy day. The only people that should be paid less are the unemployed, who should receive enough to survive on, and if they want anything more than survival - today is a rainy day.[/p][/quote]I would agree, but with context. It is not right that somebody who has lost his job should suffer the same deprivations as somebody who had never worked. My suggestion would be that 75% of wages is paid for 3 months, 50% for next 3 months, 25% for next 3 months and then food vouchers after that. However, there is another interesting approach to the problem of unemployment. There is not, actually, a great deal of difference between the cost to the government of a family with nobody in work, and a family with one or two workers in low paid public sector jobs - the taxpayer pays for both, and both get comparable amounts of money. My answer is therefore to make all unemployed people employees of the public sector. Overnight, you'd add 2m to the public sector workforce, without the bill increasing by a significant amount. Some of those people will be people who have never worked, and some of them will be people who have been desperately trying to find a job after a long period of unemployment. This measure would lift all of them out of the unemployment trap and would give them hope and aspiration. I see it as an absolute win for everybody concerned.[/p][/quote]HMG used to take 51% of my salary in direct taxation alone. Now my health is up the creek I no longer work, but having paid in tens of thousands of pounds in tax I believe that gives me a right to have some of it back. Your suggestion for my benefits level is what?[/p][/quote]I should perhaps make clear that I was talking about unemployed people (those able to work but not working) rather than people who are not able to work. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree