270,000 Civil Service Workers To Strike For 2 Days

lemonjelly

ILW wrote: »

And if benefits were cut then companies would have to pay higher wages to recruit staff.

Meaning we'd all have more money to pay taxes with (which would be lower owing to no benefits/significantly less benefits being paid) & also to buy stuff with, thus helping the economy.

Thanks for proving my arguement.

ILW

lemonjelly wrote: »

Meaning we'd all have more money to pay taxes with (which would be lower owing to no benefits/significantly less benefits being paid) & also to buy stuff with, thus helping the economy.

Thanks for proving my arguement.

Seems pretty obvious to me, dont think Gordon Brown thinks that way though.

drc

I spoke to a very nice lady last week regarding a PAYE query and she said that not only are they striking but almost the whole of the UK has been sent the wrong tax code due to a computer blunder. She said HMRC is in utter chaos.

phatbear

The_White_Horse wrote: »

hahahahaa thats funny

Sorry am i missing something whats funny?

Doctor_Gloom

doire wrote: »

I bet 90% of them do nothing all day anyway

This is most convenient. All the ones who went on strike today should be sacked. They've identified themselves as the workshy. The civil service should be cut in half and this would be a good start.

Pete111

Two years pay is extremely generous by private sector standards

I'm letting one employee go here currently via redundancy. They have been with us for well over 20 years and our company enhanced package means they will get just shy of 1 years pay.

Sounds harsh I guess but for comparison, many private companies pay only statutory redundancy - If I apply that formula to the scenario above that the redundancy payment to the employee would be approx 3 months pay.

So in a nutshell, even after the changes the public sector redundancy pay packages will remain ridiculous compared with the private sector

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

The private sector is profit motivated. Nothing else comes above profit. The main cost experienced by any organisation is staff wages. Therefore private industry will have its main focus getting costs (wages) to the lowest possible level, & charging the highest possible price for their goods/services.

If we paid a decent wage, the benefit trap wouldn't exist, as wages would & should be more than sufficient for people to live on.

I know many good employers who are trying to keep their business afloat to keep people in employment. Wages is not the main cost in many organisations. SME owners deserve a fair return for their capital, time and risk.....many do not exploit their workforce as you seem to be suggesting.

Higher wages equals higher prices in shops which leads to bigger wage claims - and so it goes on. How many manufacturing jobs have been lost because you prefer to pay cheaper prices from importers? We could easily increase all employees wages by say 20% but we'd be out of business in weeks.

Somebody has to be bottom of the pile - usually it is those with boring repetitive jobs who don't show any initiative and haven't bothered to try and get educated. Everybody on the bottom rung isn't hard done to!

If you increased wages at the bottom end everyone would want to keep their differentials. The lowest paid will still be the lowest paid no matter what. They may earn a bit more but prices would go up to compensate.

You can't have it both ways - saying on one hand that private sector employers screw their employees and on the other that wages in private sector are much better than in the public sector (if the latter was the case why do public servants get so upset at the thought of outsourcing!!)

abaxas

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I know many good employers who are trying to keep their business afloat to keep people in employment. Wages is not the main cost in many organisations. SME owners deserve a fair return for their capital, time and risk.....many do not exploit their workforce as you seem to be suggesting.

Higher wages equals higher prices in shops which leads to bigger wage claims - and so it goes on. How many manufacturing jobs have been lost because you prefer to pay cheaper prices from importers? We could easily increase all employees wages by say 20% but we'd be out of business in weeks.

Somebody has to be bottom of the pile - usually it is those with boring repetitive jobs who don't show any initiative and haven't bothered to try and get educated. Everybody on the bottom rung isn't hard done to!

If you increased wages at the bottom end everyone would want to keep their differentials. The lowest paid will still be the lowest paid no matter what.

I agree,

The issue is not paying the bottome end correctly, it's the top end. Make the pay scales less logrimic and more linear.

Andy_L

The_White_Horse wrote: »

hahahahaa thats funny

What, "funny because its true" ?

ILW

What these people dont seem to get (or refuse to look at) is, where does the money come from to pay them these deals?