Talks under way as strike date beckons

This Is Wiltshire: NUT members, including those from Swindon, march through the centre of Bristol as part of the teachers’ strike in March NUT members, including those from Swindon, march through the centre of Bristol as part of the teachers’ strike in March

PREPARATIONS are being made ahead of Thursday’s day of strike action, when a variety of unions will be walking out over rows with the Government.

Firefighters, teachers, local government workers and civil servants will all be taking industrial action on the day.

Unite, Unison, GMB, NUT and the FBU are all in disagreement with the Government on a range of issues from working conditions to pay deals.

The council is in negotiations with the unions over which services will be protected from the action as they are seen as too important to close.

But services such as the Cheney Manor recycling centre and libraries may be forced to shut for the day.

Unions have rejected a pay offer from the Government and want to see something more in line with the rate of inflation. Hundreds of workers could walk out after rejecting a pay rise of between 1.25 per cent and 4.66 per cent.

Schools are also facing disruption as members of the NUT are walking out in a dispute over pay and working conditions. They are in a long-running dispute with Education Secretary Michael Gove over reforms to schools.

As members of unions do not need to give advance warning of their intentions, many schools do not know the level of disruption but some have already made the decision to close.

Isambard School wrote to parents last week saying: “Regulation dictates that schools are unable to ask teachers who are not striking to cover the classes of those teachers who are striking.

“In addition, supply teachers who are members of the NUT are not making themselves available for cover for teachers on strike. The decision has therefore been made to close the school to students on Thursday, July 10.

“While Isambard School understands the impact this will have on its parents/carers in terms of childcare in addition to the impact it will have on your child’s education, it equally recognises teachers’ right to take strike action.”

Firefighters in the FBU are also carrying out eight days of action starting next week, which will involve several hours in the morning and evening in a long-running row over pensions. Response times may be hit but Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has said it will answer all 999 calls.

Deputy chief fire officer John Aldridge said: “As on previous occasions, we will have reduced resources during these strike periods. We will respond to 999 calls, but it may take us a little longer than usual to arrive. On July 10, we will also have some corporate staff who are members of Unison out on strike, and we have plans in place to manage that impact as well.”

The action will also be taken by some driving test instructors. Anyone who does have a test booked is being advised to arrive for the test and if it is cancelled the student will be eligible for compensation.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:22am Tue 8 Jul 14

beach1e says...

strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers.
strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers. beach1e
  • Score: 15

7:01am Tue 8 Jul 14

icelolly says...

Public sector workers have had it too good for too long while those in the private sector have suffered with declining wages. They need to be brought down to size
Public sector workers have had it too good for too long while those in the private sector have suffered with declining wages. They need to be brought down to size icelolly
  • Score: 12

7:05am Tue 8 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

beach1e wrote:
strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers.
Spot on yes agree, having worked in the public sector, they are so inefficiently run they could shed around a third of the numbers if they got rid of the right ones and brought in the sort of efficiencies the private sector has had for years.

Add to that the fact they have some of the safest jobs around with the best pensions and working perks compared to those millions who have had no pay rises or lost their pensions and/or their jobs in the private sector. This is selfishness, arrogance and completely out of touch with the realities of business in the extreme. And not unexpected from the "sheltered" public sector.
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers.[/p][/quote]Spot on yes agree, having worked in the public sector, they are so inefficiently run they could shed around a third of the numbers if they got rid of the right ones and brought in the sort of efficiencies the private sector has had for years. Add to that the fact they have some of the safest jobs around with the best pensions and working perks compared to those millions who have had no pay rises or lost their pensions and/or their jobs in the private sector. This is selfishness, arrogance and completely out of touch with the realities of business in the extreme. And not unexpected from the "sheltered" public sector. house on the hill
  • Score: 10

8:47am Tue 8 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual.
There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.
The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -7

9:04am Tue 8 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual.
There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.
If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.[/p][/quote]If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere? Phantom Poster
  • Score: 15

9:08am Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

There really is no limit to the contempt I have for these people. They are all stirred up by grossly overpaid union leaders with a political agenda, and if they were to make a proper assessment of their working condition improvements versus the private sector over the last few years, they would realise they are not that hard done by. Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years, particularly where an element of pay is bonus related, but we have no choice but to just get on with it. So, if you are contemplating striking in Thursday, just pause, and use your own power of thought and conscience, and don't be swayed by the megalamaniacal and completely irrational union bosses, who are following a purely political agenda.
There really is no limit to the contempt I have for these people. They are all stirred up by grossly overpaid union leaders with a political agenda, and if they were to make a proper assessment of their working condition improvements versus the private sector over the last few years, they would realise they are not that hard done by. Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years, particularly where an element of pay is bonus related, but we have no choice but to just get on with it. So, if you are contemplating striking in Thursday, just pause, and use your own power of thought and conscience, and don't be swayed by the megalamaniacal and completely irrational union bosses, who are following a purely political agenda. redbythesea
  • Score: 11

9:13am Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:


Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees.

The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.


http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-26512
643

So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average).

Nice.
The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 10

9:18am Tue 8 Jul 14

Morsey says...

Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.

Okay, it may inconvenience somewhat, but history shows that most of the population would still be living under terrifically poor conditions of employment had workers not stood up for their rights. Each individual set of strikers has their own agenda and a little research would have you ask where you would stand on the issues affecting YOU.

This government keeps telling us how good things are now, so why are we not seeing this as a majority of the population ... no we won't because ordinary people are contributing towards the wealth of the minority who are still feeling no pain in this over-exuberant austerity being forced on them without end! Most of us are the losers in this, most likely, you are not ... hmm?
Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature. Okay, it may inconvenience somewhat, but history shows that most of the population would still be living under terrifically poor conditions of employment had workers not stood up for their rights. Each individual set of strikers has their own agenda and a little research would have you ask where you would stand on the issues affecting YOU. This government keeps telling us how good things are now, so why are we not seeing this as a majority of the population ... no we won't because ordinary people are contributing towards the wealth of the minority who are still feeling no pain in this over-exuberant austerity being forced on them without end! Most of us are the losers in this, most likely, you are not ... hmm? Morsey
  • Score: -3

9:24am Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

Morsey wrote:
Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.

Okay, it may inconvenience somewhat, but history shows that most of the population would still be living under terrifically poor conditions of employment had workers not stood up for their rights. Each individual set of strikers has their own agenda and a little research would have you ask where you would stand on the issues affecting YOU.

This government keeps telling us how good things are now, so why are we not seeing this as a majority of the population ... no we won't because ordinary people are contributing towards the wealth of the minority who are still feeling no pain in this over-exuberant austerity being forced on them without end! Most of us are the losers in this, most likely, you are not ... hmm?
Not opposed to striking if it is actually justified. This is not !
[quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature. Okay, it may inconvenience somewhat, but history shows that most of the population would still be living under terrifically poor conditions of employment had workers not stood up for their rights. Each individual set of strikers has their own agenda and a little research would have you ask where you would stand on the issues affecting YOU. This government keeps telling us how good things are now, so why are we not seeing this as a majority of the population ... no we won't because ordinary people are contributing towards the wealth of the minority who are still feeling no pain in this over-exuberant austerity being forced on them without end! Most of us are the losers in this, most likely, you are not ... hmm?[/p][/quote]Not opposed to striking if it is actually justified. This is not ! redbythesea
  • Score: 9

9:28am Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

I also suggest that any parents who have been fined for taking children on holiday during term time, apparently greatly jeopardising their futures, should sue the unions for the equivalent of one days worth of that fine for exactly the same reason.
I also suggest that any parents who have been fined for taking children on holiday during term time, apparently greatly jeopardising their futures, should sue the unions for the equivalent of one days worth of that fine for exactly the same reason. redbythesea
  • Score: 17

10:02am Tue 8 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

Morsey wrote:
Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.

Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party.
[quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.[/quote] Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party. Hmmmf
  • Score: 13

10:41am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

icelolly wrote:
Public sector workers have had it too good for too long while those in the private sector have suffered with declining wages. They need to be brought down to size
So basically - you have no idea what has been happening with public sector wages.

"Increases" for years have been capped at 1% in most cases, which is a cut in real terms.
[quote][p][bold]icelolly[/bold] wrote: Public sector workers have had it too good for too long while those in the private sector have suffered with declining wages. They need to be brought down to size[/p][/quote]So basically - you have no idea what has been happening with public sector wages. "Increases" for years have been capped at 1% in most cases, which is a cut in real terms. The Real Librarian
  • Score: -5

10:43am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.
If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?
If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job?

Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.[/p][/quote]If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?[/p][/quote]If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job? Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs? The Real Librarian
  • Score: -4

10:44am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

redbythesea wrote:
There really is no limit to the contempt I have for these people. They are all stirred up by grossly overpaid union leaders with a political agenda, and if they were to make a proper assessment of their working condition improvements versus the private sector over the last few years, they would realise they are not that hard done by. Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years, particularly where an element of pay is bonus related, but we have no choice but to just get on with it. So, if you are contemplating striking in Thursday, just pause, and use your own power of thought and conscience, and don't be swayed by the megalamaniacal and completely irrational union bosses, who are following a purely political agenda.
redbythesea says...

Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years,


and so have the public sector.
So what?
[quote][p][bold]redbythesea[/bold] wrote: There really is no limit to the contempt I have for these people. They are all stirred up by grossly overpaid union leaders with a political agenda, and if they were to make a proper assessment of their working condition improvements versus the private sector over the last few years, they would realise they are not that hard done by. Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years, particularly where an element of pay is bonus related, but we have no choice but to just get on with it. So, if you are contemplating striking in Thursday, just pause, and use your own power of thought and conscience, and don't be swayed by the megalamaniacal and completely irrational union bosses, who are following a purely political agenda.[/p][/quote]redbythesea says... Many private sector workers have taken real pay cuts over the last few years, and so have the public sector. So what? The Real Librarian
  • Score: -3

10:46am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote

The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector The Real Librarian
  • Score: 1

10:47am Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.
If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?
If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job?

Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs?
He's not the one going on strike because his pay and conditions are 'so terrible it's our last resort'.

What a load of hogwash. It's about the Marxist union leaders trying to paint the government in a bad light in the run up to the next general election. The government could give in to all of the current union demands and they'd then simply increase them and add more so that they can still drag their members out on strike until May 2015.

All so predictable and fully expected.

After all, why do you think the hapless Ed Miliband is leader of the Labour party, rather than his eminently more electable brother?
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.[/p][/quote]If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?[/p][/quote]If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job? Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs?[/p][/quote]He's not the one going on strike because his pay and conditions are 'so terrible it's our last resort'. What a load of hogwash. It's about the Marxist union leaders trying to paint the government in a bad light in the run up to the next general election. The government could give in to all of the current union demands and they'd then simply increase them and add more so that they can still drag their members out on strike until May 2015. All so predictable and fully expected. After all, why do you think the hapless Ed Miliband is leader of the Labour party, rather than his eminently more electable brother? Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 10

10:50am Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote

The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
And did you read why that's the case?

Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 13

10:51am Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time!
Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time! redbythesea
  • Score: 12

10:59am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Morsey wrote: Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.
Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party.
Trade Unions were made illegal in the 14th century. Odd that they would have done that if there weren't any.

There were many strikes, including a famous General Strike in 1820.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.[/quote] Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party.[/p][/quote]Trade Unions were made illegal in the 14th century. Odd that they would have done that if there weren't any. There were many strikes, including a famous General Strike in 1820. The Real Librarian
  • Score: -4

11:01am Tue 8 Jul 14

Morsey says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Morsey wrote:
Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.

Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party.
'Centuries' was a slip pf the pen, but I think you know what was intended ... a very long time!

Democracy, would best answer your final statement ... can't let you Tories do ALL the canvassing now!
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Withdrawing one's labour, or the threat to do so, is the only way progress has been made on pay and conditions for workers rights over many centuries. It is sad that over-zealous accounting forces people to take action of this nature.[/quote] Many centuries? On what planet? Trades Union weren't legalised until 1871; withdraw your labour before that and it's off to the work-house for you. And it's not 'over-zealous accounting' responsible for these strikes, it's greed and Union leaders trying to claw back power and influence in the Labour Party.[/p][/quote]'Centuries' was a slip pf the pen, but I think you know what was intended ... a very long time! Democracy, would best answer your final statement ... can't let you Tories do ALL the canvassing now! Morsey
  • Score: -6

11:12am Tue 8 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.
If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?
If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job?

Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs?
I have changed jobs because I have been dissatisfied with pay or conditions at previous employers. I would certainly never have considered going on strike.

I didn't happen to choose a job in the public sector + why should I? I'd rather work in a cutting edge, dynamic environment than plodding along in a boring job so I can get lots of holidays and a final salary pension + and so scared to lose it that I have no option but to go on strike.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The usual clueless sweeping statements made above as usual. There are many people who will be striking on poor money and working under extreme pressure. To put all in the same boat like the comments above do is short sighted and totally out of touch with reality.[/p][/quote]If pay and conditions are so bad then why don't they get another job? Is that concept really so alien to them? Are their skill sets so restricted that they are unemployable elsewhere?[/p][/quote]If their pay and conditions are so good, why don't you get a public sector job? Are your skills so poor that you can't get one of those jobs?[/p][/quote]I have changed jobs because I have been dissatisfied with pay or conditions at previous employers. I would certainly never have considered going on strike. I didn't happen to choose a job in the public sector + why should I? I'd rather work in a cutting edge, dynamic environment than plodding along in a boring job so I can get lots of holidays and a final salary pension + and so scared to lose it that I have no option but to go on strike. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 12

11:18am Tue 8 Jul 14

cfa says...

I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage.

Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all". cfa
  • Score: -8

11:27am Tue 8 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote

The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on.

Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher.

Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher.

If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well.

Hourly rate is a fairer comparison.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on. Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher. Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher. If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well. Hourly rate is a fairer comparison. MrAngry
  • Score: 11

11:43am Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

MrAngry wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote

The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on.

Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher.

Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher.

If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well.

Hourly rate is a fairer comparison.
Exactly. If you read the full information, which I provided a link to, you'll see exactly how it can be twisted to make it seem as though things are almost equal.

The simple fact is that average comparable public sector salaries have outstripped those in the private sector for a number of years, especially at the lower and average end of the salary spectrum:


Looking at those who are among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 13% more than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers.


Again, it seems increasing impossible for the public sector unions to 'justify' their strike action.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on. Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher. Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher. If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well. Hourly rate is a fairer comparison.[/p][/quote]Exactly. If you read the full information, which I provided a link to, you'll see exactly how it can be twisted to make it seem as though things are almost equal. The simple fact is that average comparable public sector salaries have outstripped those in the private sector for a number of years, especially at the lower and average end of the salary spectrum: [quote] Looking at those who are among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 13% more than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers. [/quote] Again, it seems increasing impossible for the public sector unions to 'justify' their strike action. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 8

12:10pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

cfa wrote:
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage.

Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery?
[quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".[/p][/quote]Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery? Davey Gravey
  • Score: -3

12:31pm Tue 8 Jul 14

cfa says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
cfa wrote:
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage.

Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery?
Dinner ladies and chimney sweeps are the worse Davey - They are the militant lefties who bully and goad their colleagues into industrial action.

However, you do make a valid point with regard to the unemployed, who may well be better off on benefits. So, here is a better idea. The vacancies should be given to prisoners - obviously only Category C - as they tend to come and go as they please anyway. It cost around £1500.00 per week to keep them in prison, so if we pay them say £3.50 an hour we would actually be saving money.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".[/p][/quote]Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery?[/p][/quote]Dinner ladies and chimney sweeps are the worse Davey - They are the militant lefties who bully and goad their colleagues into industrial action. However, you do make a valid point with regard to the unemployed, who may well be better off on benefits. So, here is a better idea. The vacancies should be given to prisoners - obviously only Category C - as they tend to come and go as they please anyway. It cost around £1500.00 per week to keep them in prison, so if we pay them say £3.50 an hour we would actually be saving money. cfa
  • Score: 1

1:25pm Tue 8 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
cfa wrote:
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage.

Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery?
The problem is that you seem to think this only applies to public sector workers. there are millions of private sector workers on a "pittance" too who realise firstly how lucky they are to have a job at all and secondly that their employers quite rightly would not view their actions in a favourable light.
And then of course we come to the usual double standards element. So if you were running a business and had set out what your pay and conditions were and your workers stuck 2 fingers up and went on strike because they didn't agree with you, how would you react? Would you give in to their blackmail which is in effect what a strike is or would you tell them to take it or leave it. I am pretty certain it would be the latter. But because this isn't your money apparently its ok to strike?

Its a free country and if you don't like your job or pay or working conditions then change it as millions do every year. And as others have said, many public sector workers are very well paid for the low risk of redundancy they have and low expectations of their useless managers to get things right every time, so stop moaning. The vast majority of public sector workers wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector with constant change and competition and surviving or not on the service they give. Sorry but too many of them don't know how **** lucky they are and this strike is just insulting!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".[/p][/quote]Jeez if you think about what you've typed for a minute you'd realize what utter drivel it is. Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. Unemployed people wouldn't take jobs on minimum wage as they are better off on benefits. Why should workers be bullied to just accept anything or face the sack? Maybe we should bring back slavery?[/p][/quote]The problem is that you seem to think this only applies to public sector workers. there are millions of private sector workers on a "pittance" too who realise firstly how lucky they are to have a job at all and secondly that their employers quite rightly would not view their actions in a favourable light. And then of course we come to the usual double standards element. So if you were running a business and had set out what your pay and conditions were and your workers stuck 2 fingers up and went on strike because they didn't agree with you, how would you react? Would you give in to their blackmail which is in effect what a strike is or would you tell them to take it or leave it. I am pretty certain it would be the latter. But because this isn't your money apparently its ok to strike? Its a free country and if you don't like your job or pay or working conditions then change it as millions do every year. And as others have said, many public sector workers are very well paid for the low risk of redundancy they have and low expectations of their useless managers to get things right every time, so stop moaning. The vast majority of public sector workers wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector with constant change and competition and surviving or not on the service they give. Sorry but too many of them don't know how **** lucky they are and this strike is just insulting! house on the hill
  • Score: 6

1:28pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.
So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise?
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.[/p][/quote]So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise? The Real Librarian
  • Score: -3

1:30pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

redbythesea wrote:
Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time!
http://discworld.wik
ia.com/wiki/Horace_W
orblehat


So no

BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one?
[quote][p][bold]redbythesea[/bold] wrote: Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time![/p][/quote]http://discworld.wik ia.com/wiki/Horace_W orblehat So no BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one? The Real Librarian
  • Score: -4

1:32pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

cfa wrote:
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
And this **** can vote. . . .
[quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".[/p][/quote]And this **** can vote. . . . The Real Librarian
  • Score: -2

1:34pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
MrAngry wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on. Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher. Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher. If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well. Hourly rate is a fairer comparison.
Exactly. If you read the full information, which I provided a link to, you'll see exactly how it can be twisted to make it seem as though things are almost equal. The simple fact is that average comparable public sector salaries have outstripped those in the private sector for a number of years, especially at the lower and average end of the salary spectrum:
Looking at those who are among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 13% more than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers.
Again, it seems increasing impossible for the public sector unions to 'justify' their strike action.
Again - if its so wonderful in the public sector, why aren't you working there?
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]I haven't read the ONS report so only have these two posts to go on. Sandor Clegane states that public sector HOURLY rates are higher. Real Librarian is saying that private sector WEEKLY rates are higher. If both statements are correct, then the public sector are better paid but are working a shorter week. This is how the unions twist their argument about low pay. There will be dinner ladies, cleaners etc on low pay because they work a 12 hour week. The short hours might suit them or they might also have another part time job as well. Hourly rate is a fairer comparison.[/p][/quote]Exactly. If you read the full information, which I provided a link to, you'll see exactly how it can be twisted to make it seem as though things are almost equal. The simple fact is that average comparable public sector salaries have outstripped those in the private sector for a number of years, especially at the lower and average end of the salary spectrum: [quote] Looking at those who are among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 13% more than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers. [/quote] Again, it seems increasing impossible for the public sector unions to 'justify' their strike action.[/p][/quote]Again - if its so wonderful in the public sector, why aren't you working there? The Real Librarian
  • Score: -2

1:42pm Tue 8 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.
So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise?
Because for some with any get up and go it isn't.

Working with managers who couldn't organise a bun fight in a bakery (but they are expert at organising endless meetings!), staff with such low expectations, horrendously out of date working practices, completely unneccessary red tape just for the sake of it, performance and comparison targets based on what other completely different towns achieve who are nothing like Swindon in reality and some staff years past their sell by date is totally soul destroying and in the end the ones who are any good move on because it drives them up the wall.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.[/p][/quote]So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise?[/p][/quote]Because for some with any get up and go it isn't. Working with managers who couldn't organise a bun fight in a bakery (but they are expert at organising endless meetings!), staff with such low expectations, horrendously out of date working practices, completely unneccessary red tape just for the sake of it, performance and comparison targets based on what other completely different towns achieve who are nothing like Swindon in reality and some staff years past their sell by date is totally soul destroying and in the end the ones who are any good move on because it drives them up the wall. house on the hill
  • Score: 5

1:55pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.
Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector
And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.
So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise?
That argument doesn't work.

I am not intending to go on strike. I am not attempting to get you to pay me more money. I have no reason at all to be discontent with my current employment.

However, having previously worked in the public sector, I am also well aware of the benefits and am openly astonished at the letter I receive, each year, telling me how much my lump sum payout and pension will be. It's quite ridiculous and if more of the general public knew what goes on there'd be complete uproar.

If I find thinks become a little too hard for me as I get older, you can rest assured I'll do everything possible to get back into the public sector and see things out at a more leisurely pace... and increase that lump sum payout even more.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The reality, for all of us who pay these people's wages: [quote] Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-26512 643 So, remember, they're inconveniencing you and striking because they want you to give them more of your money when, in fact, they already earn more than you (on average). Nice.[/p][/quote]Did you actually read your own quote The ONS said that when taking all factors into account, the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector[/p][/quote]And did you read why that's the case? Regardless, it's laughable to pretend that striking is your only option when, in fact, average pay is roughly the same (even when they've desperately tried to make it appear so) and yet perks, pensions, time off, sick leave etc. is - without question - much better in the public sector.[/p][/quote]So why aren't you working in the public sector then, if its such an earthly paradise?[/p][/quote]That argument doesn't work. I am not intending to go on strike. I am not attempting to get you to pay me more money. I have no reason at all to be discontent with my current employment. However, having previously worked in the public sector, I am also well aware of the benefits and am openly astonished at the letter I receive, each year, telling me how much my lump sum payout and pension will be. It's quite ridiculous and if more of the general public knew what goes on there'd be complete uproar. If I find thinks become a little too hard for me as I get older, you can rest assured I'll do everything possible to get back into the public sector and see things out at a more leisurely pace... and increase that lump sum payout even more. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 4

3:38pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Perfecthindsight says...

Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way.
You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut).
No takers?
Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way. You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut). No takers? Perfecthindsight
  • Score: -1

3:41pm Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
redbythesea wrote:
Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time!
http://discworld.wik

ia.com/wiki/Horace_W

orblehat


So no

BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one?
Because unlike the majority of Public Sector workers, having an easy life isn't my main priority :-)
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redbythesea[/bold] wrote: Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time![/p][/quote]http://discworld.wik ia.com/wiki/Horace_W orblehat So no BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one?[/p][/quote]Because unlike the majority of Public Sector workers, having an easy life isn't my main priority :-) redbythesea
  • Score: 7

3:42pm Tue 8 Jul 14

redbythesea says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
redbythesea wrote:
Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time!
http://discworld.wik

ia.com/wiki/Horace_W

orblehat


So no

BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one?
Because unlike the majority of public sector workers, having an easy life isn't my main priority............
.......
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redbythesea[/bold] wrote: Seems the Real Librarian, probably is just that! Amazed they are able to even function given the amazing stress and strain they must be under in that job. Just imagine having to keep those books in perfect alphabetical order ALL the time![/p][/quote]http://discworld.wik ia.com/wiki/Horace_W orblehat So no BTW if being a Librarian is so easy, why aren't you one?[/p][/quote]Because unlike the majority of public sector workers, having an easy life isn't my main priority............ ....... redbythesea
  • Score: 6

4:36pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage.

Which apparently they were perfectly content with until Len McCluskey and his mates decided to send a message to Miliband.
That'd be the Len McCluskey on £140k pa after awarding himself a 3.7% payrise from the contributions of his cash cow 'comrades'. Wonder what *his* pension will be.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Plenty of those who will strike are on a pittance wage. [/quote] Which apparently they were perfectly content with until Len McCluskey and his mates decided to send a message to Miliband. That'd be the Len McCluskey on £140k pa after awarding himself a 3.7% payrise from the contributions of his cash cow 'comrades'. Wonder what *his* pension will be. Hmmmf
  • Score: 4

5:39pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary.

Nice 'work' if you can get it.
Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary. Nice 'work' if you can get it. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 5

6:04pm Tue 8 Jul 14

SAM2WIN says...

beach1e wrote:
strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers.
Nice day out !!! .
It may well be but don't forget they will be losing a day's pay whilst on strike
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: strikes by public servants..nice day out for them....most people that pay their wages i.e hardworking tax payers see it as an inconvenience..but they carry on which goes to show most of the strikers could have their hours cut and it would make no difference. most public bodies are cost heavy, over staffed and inefficient.seems an ideal time to re assess employment levels and cut staffing numbers.[/p][/quote]Nice day out !!! . It may well be but don't forget they will be losing a day's pay whilst on strike SAM2WIN
  • Score: -2

8:04pm Tue 8 Jul 14

messyits says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary.

Nice 'work' if you can get it.
Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary. Nice 'work' if you can get it.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore. messyits
  • Score: -1

8:08pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

messyits wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary.

Nice 'work' if you can get it.
Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore.
What's to believe? It's a factual statement!
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary. Nice 'work' if you can get it.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore.[/p][/quote]What's to believe? It's a factual statement! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 3

9:00pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

messyits wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary.

Nice 'work' if you can get it.
Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore.
That's because he's a naughty boy with numerous log ins.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Len McCluskey's got nothing on Christine Blower, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She currently enjoys a salary package of £154,000 - paid for by NUT members and a rate that is around £12,000 per year more than the Prime Minister's salary. Nice 'work' if you can get it.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you no-one believes anything you say anymore.[/p][/quote]That's because he's a naughty boy with numerous log ins. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

9:07pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way.
You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut).
No takers?
Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way. You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut). No takers?[/p][/quote]Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -6

8:21am Wed 9 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way.
You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut).
No takers?
Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.
So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments.

Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages.

But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way. You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut). No takers?[/p][/quote]Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.[/p][/quote]So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments. Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages. But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 6

11:10am Wed 9 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners.

You don't see many miners on strike in recent years.

Maybe there is a message in this.
The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners. You don't see many miners on strike in recent years. Maybe there is a message in this. trolley dolley
  • Score: 5

11:17am Wed 9 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

trolley dolley wrote:
The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners.

You don't see many miners on strike in recent years.

Maybe there is a message in this.
That's because they lost their jobs. Many communities were ruined in the process. Now some of the most deprived areas in the country now. Wonderful eh.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners. You don't see many miners on strike in recent years. Maybe there is a message in this.[/p][/quote]That's because they lost their jobs. Many communities were ruined in the process. Now some of the most deprived areas in the country now. Wonderful eh. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -4

11:42am Wed 9 Jul 14

Perfecthindsight says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way.
You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut).
No takers?
Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.
So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments.

Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages.

But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer.
What Phantomposter is doing is making a case for why workers should be standing up to employers who exploit them! The pendulum of power has swung too far towards employers and workersare effectively powerless to improve their lot, leaving them with little else to use but their right to strike. The Government are busy looking to limit that right even more.
Wake up everyone. The 1 per cent who own much of the wealth and control so much are quite happy for us to moan at each other about pay rates etc, when in reality it diverts attention from them! 11 percent pay increase for MPs, how much more for company bosses? Why arent they chasing the Vodafones, Starbucks and the rest for their taxes rather than the poor for some ridiculous 'bedroom tax'. .? If you dont stand up occasionally and fight for decent wages and conditions, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way. You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut). No takers?[/p][/quote]Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.[/p][/quote]So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments. Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages. But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What Phantomposter is doing is making a case for why workers should be standing up to employers who exploit them! The pendulum of power has swung too far towards employers and workersare effectively powerless to improve their lot, leaving them with little else to use but their right to strike. The Government are busy looking to limit that right even more. Wake up everyone. The 1 per cent who own much of the wealth and control so much are quite happy for us to moan at each other about pay rates etc, when in reality it diverts attention from them! 11 percent pay increase for MPs, how much more for company bosses? Why arent they chasing the Vodafones, Starbucks and the rest for their taxes rather than the poor for some ridiculous 'bedroom tax'. .? If you dont stand up occasionally and fight for decent wages and conditions, you have no-one to blame but yourselves. Perfecthindsight
  • Score: -5

11:56am Wed 9 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way.
You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut).
No takers?
Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.
So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments.

Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages.

But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer.
What Phantomposter is doing is making a case for why workers should be standing up to employers who exploit them! The pendulum of power has swung too far towards employers and workersare effectively powerless to improve their lot, leaving them with little else to use but their right to strike. The Government are busy looking to limit that right even more.
Wake up everyone. The 1 per cent who own much of the wealth and control so much are quite happy for us to moan at each other about pay rates etc, when in reality it diverts attention from them! 11 percent pay increase for MPs, how much more for company bosses? Why arent they chasing the Vodafones, Starbucks and the rest for their taxes rather than the poor for some ridiculous 'bedroom tax'. .? If you dont stand up occasionally and fight for decent wages and conditions, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.
I stood up to them by withdrawing my labour - I got another job! Going on strike gives the employer the upper hand as you are showing that the conditions are not so bad thst you would consider (or be able to) find another job.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Plenty of public sector jobs available in social work if you fancy the 'gold plated pension' , higher wages (than the private sector , allegedly), job security , etc etc. Strange then that we have so many Agency workers (in common with many local authoritys) as there are no takers when these jobs are advertised in the normal way. You just need to do 3 years in higher education , followed by ridiculous caseloads , reducing resources but increasing demand and rising stress levels, long hours and frozen pay for the last 4 years (1 percent is in fact a cut). No takers?[/p][/quote]Nobody picked up on this as they simply cannot as it doesn't go along with their inaccurate biggoted viewpoints.[/p][/quote]So what's the big deal? Such conditions happen in the private sector I've been with a company- 4 years in higher education Ridiculous work levels, every few months another set of redundancies to add to the stress. Pay frozen for 5 years (really frozen -no 1% rise). No decent pension and minimum legal redundancy payments. Did anyone go on strike? No! What would be the point as you would lose customers and damage the company who is paying your wages. But of course the public sector can't lose their customers and have an unlimited cash cow in the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What Phantomposter is doing is making a case for why workers should be standing up to employers who exploit them! The pendulum of power has swung too far towards employers and workersare effectively powerless to improve their lot, leaving them with little else to use but their right to strike. The Government are busy looking to limit that right even more. Wake up everyone. The 1 per cent who own much of the wealth and control so much are quite happy for us to moan at each other about pay rates etc, when in reality it diverts attention from them! 11 percent pay increase for MPs, how much more for company bosses? Why arent they chasing the Vodafones, Starbucks and the rest for their taxes rather than the poor for some ridiculous 'bedroom tax'. .? If you dont stand up occasionally and fight for decent wages and conditions, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.[/p][/quote]I stood up to them by withdrawing my labour - I got another job! Going on strike gives the employer the upper hand as you are showing that the conditions are not so bad thst you would consider (or be able to) find another job. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 3

12:03pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

By the way, the reason I didn't leave the company was that they were not 'oppressing' their loyal workers. The company was in trouble and wasn't making enough money. So by simple arithmetic they had to have pay freezes and redundancies. Money doesn't come from nowhere - unless you have access to the taxpayers purse. So please stop all the communist style oppressed workers clap-trap.
By the way, the reason I didn't leave the company was that they were not 'oppressing' their loyal workers. The company was in trouble and wasn't making enough money. So by simple arithmetic they had to have pay freezes and redundancies. Money doesn't come from nowhere - unless you have access to the taxpayers purse. So please stop all the communist style oppressed workers clap-trap. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 3

12:06pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
By the way, the reason I didn't leave the company was that they were not 'oppressing' their loyal workers. The company was in trouble and wasn't making enough money. So by simple arithmetic they had to have pay freezes and redundancies. Money doesn't come from nowhere - unless you have access to the taxpayers purse. So please stop all the communist style oppressed workers clap-trap.
I meant 'leave earlier'
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: By the way, the reason I didn't leave the company was that they were not 'oppressing' their loyal workers. The company was in trouble and wasn't making enough money. So by simple arithmetic they had to have pay freezes and redundancies. Money doesn't come from nowhere - unless you have access to the taxpayers purse. So please stop all the communist style oppressed workers clap-trap.[/p][/quote]I meant 'leave earlier' Phantom Poster
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners.

You don't see many miners on strike in recent years.

Maybe there is a message in this.
That's because they lost their jobs. Many communities were ruined in the process. Now some of the most deprived areas in the country now. Wonderful eh.
They lost their jobs because British coal is globally uncompetitive. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should have subsidised the industry?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners. You don't see many miners on strike in recent years. Maybe there is a message in this.[/p][/quote]That's because they lost their jobs. Many communities were ruined in the process. Now some of the most deprived areas in the country now. Wonderful eh.[/p][/quote]They lost their jobs because British coal is globally uncompetitive. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should have subsidised the industry? Phantom Poster
  • Score: 3

2:02pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

To sum up the union's position:


We need more pay, better pension deals and better working conditions... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best education service to your children


Naturally, the left-wingers support this without question and cheer them on.

And yet when the big energy companies say:


We need to increase prices to secure higher investment... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best energy service to your homes


The left-wingers immediately denounce them as unfair, money-grabbing b*****s.

Such is the 'logic' in the weird world of the socialist.
To sum up the union's position: [quote] We need more pay, better pension deals and better working conditions... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best education service to your children [/quote] Naturally, the left-wingers support this without question and cheer them on. And yet when the big energy companies say: [quote] We need to increase prices to secure higher investment... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best energy service to your homes [/quote] The left-wingers immediately denounce them as unfair, money-grabbing b*****s. Such is the 'logic' in the weird world of the socialist. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 1

8:44pm Wed 9 Jul 14

PJC says...

cfa wrote:
I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage.

Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".
I'm surprised that you can even get a job with that level of intelligence!
[quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: I say we should sack any Public Sector employee who is paid above the minimum wage. Also, they should not be allowed to take any industrial action without public consent. They should also have their pension rights removed and any employer contributions should be paid back to the taxpayer by said employees. The vacancies created should then be offered to the unemployed at the minimum wage. Should any Public Sector worker refuse these new terms they will be forced to walk around with a banner saying "I'm an overpaid Public Sector employee. I should be thankful that I have any job at all".[/p][/quote]I'm surprised that you can even get a job with that level of intelligence! PJC
  • Score: -1

3:59pm Fri 11 Jul 14

maz63uk says...

This is all very interesting but all I want with a severely disabled hubby is my bins emptied. Is that too much to ask. The local animal population will have a field day if i start putting stuff in black bags. Sad to say I don't have the physical ability or the mental ability to cope with the stench of my bins to take them to the tip. I THOUGHT that was why I paid my council tax DESPITE having a severly disabled husband that cannot walk, talk or stand on his own.
I also paid the additional fee for my green bin........what the hell is going on.....I have been told to wait till my next bin day but that is two weeks away and both my bins are full with human waste and normal human rubbish. I need this emptied NOW. I really don't want to THINK about my black bags being ripped open by animals.......
This is all very interesting but all I want with a severely disabled hubby is my bins emptied. Is that too much to ask. The local animal population will have a field day if i start putting stuff in black bags. Sad to say I don't have the physical ability or the mental ability to cope with the stench of my bins to take them to the tip. I THOUGHT that was why I paid my council tax DESPITE having a severly disabled husband that cannot walk, talk or stand on his own. I also paid the additional fee for my green bin........what the hell is going on.....I have been told to wait till my next bin day but that is two weeks away and both my bins are full with human waste and normal human rubbish. I need this emptied NOW. I really don't want to THINK about my black bags being ripped open by animals....... maz63uk
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

trolley dolley wrote:
The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners.

You don't see many miners on strike in recent years.

Maybe there is a message in this.
How many miners do you see?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: The government should hold fast and do what they did with the miners. You don't see many miners on strike in recent years. Maybe there is a message in this.[/p][/quote]How many miners do you see? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
To sum up the union's position:


We need more pay, better pension deals and better working conditions... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best education service to your children


Naturally, the left-wingers support this without question and cheer them on.

And yet when the big energy companies say:


We need to increase prices to secure higher investment... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best energy service to your homes


The left-wingers immediately denounce them as unfair, money-grabbing b*****s.

Such is the 'logic' in the weird world of the socialist.
You are just adorable,,,,you remind me of someone else but they dont comment anymore.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: To sum up the union's position: [quote] We need more pay, better pension deals and better working conditions... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best education service to your children [/quote] Naturally, the left-wingers support this without question and cheer them on. And yet when the big energy companies say: [quote] We need to increase prices to secure higher investment... in order to ensure we can continue to deliver the best energy service to your homes [/quote] The left-wingers immediately denounce them as unfair, money-grabbing b*****s. Such is the 'logic' in the weird world of the socialist.[/p][/quote]You are just adorable,,,,you remind me of someone else but they dont comment anymore. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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