270,000 Civil Service Workers To Strike For 2 Days

Old_Slaphead

dori2o wrote: »

Whether or not you deem the payout scandalous is not the issue at all. I couldn't care what we get, but once I have signed a contract,that contract should not be allowed to be changed without my agreement.

Well the answer is simple - no more annual pay rises, ever (because they're not contractual but you're happy to accept that part of the deal).

When I started a personal pension plan - Mr Brown was happy to change all the taxation rules to my detriment without recourse.

Maybe in future all redundancy should be treated as taxable income - that would solve a lot of the problem.

Pennywise

dori2o wrote: »

Whether or not you deem the payout scandalous is not the issue at all. I couldn't care what we get, but once I have signed a contract,that contract should not be allowed to be changed without my agreement.

Hows about this, you work for an employer, your contract of employment, signed by you and only amendable if both parties agree, is then changed without your agreement.

For example, your employment contract states you will work 35 hours for £24000 a year. Then your employer says, sorry but your salary will now be £22000 a year and you have to work 40 hours a week and imposes this without agreeing it with you.

Would you be happy?

It's the same principle. When I signed my contract I was agreeing to the terms of that contract,the company by asking me to sign that contract was agreeing to abide by that contract. To then decide they want to change certain terms and conditions without my agreement is not right.

Would they like it if I changed the terms and conditions without their agreement. Should I change the contract so that I only work 32 hours? Do you think they would allow me to do this?

As for those commenting on how 'lazy' all us civil servants are, maybe that can be said about those in higher ranking positions, many of whom simply cannot justify their jobs. However, those like me on the front line work hard from the minute we walk in to the minute we go home, for a very poor return when compared to the private sector. The average annual salary in the UK (excluding London areas) is £24000, I currently take home more than £7k less than this.

So before you go tarring everybody with the same brush, just take a moment to think.

Re contractual rights, you can't really expect there to be no changes over the average person's working life can you? The entire economic landscape has changed and so must contracts. In the private sector, employees have been working for reduced pay and reduced hours just to help keep their employers afloat and hoping to keep their jobs for the long term. Why on earth should the public sector be immune?

Re your £24k annual wage comparison, you aren't comparing like for like. If your "take home" is £7k less than this, then I'd suggest you're earning the annual wage - the £24k is GROSS, before deductions such as tax, NIC, pensions, union subs and any other deductions. What is your "GROSS" - I would imagine it's very close to the national average.

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Well the answer is simple - no more annual pay rises, ever (because they're not contractual but you're happy to accept that part of the deal).

When I started a personal pension plan - Mr Brown was happy to change all the taxation rules to my detriment without recourse.

Absolutely agree, if the contracts can't be changed, then let them be frozen at today's levels to help make them affordable. I too, have been disadvantaged by the pension rule changes - retrospective legislation.

It is about time that we looked at being "fair" to everyone, not just the chosen few. The rest of the workers will be unfairly penalised if we have to continue to pay higher taxes etc so that the public sector can continue to enjoy unrealistic employment packages - how can that be fair? When Equitable Life went down, it was because of it having to be "fair" to a very small number of policyholders, but the result was that everyone else, the vast majority, lost out - again, that's not fair to anybody but the chosen few. State pension rules are forever changing meaning that I have to work harder and will get less - that can't be "fair" because when I started work 30 years ago, the state pension age was 65/60 - then over the years, we were promised SERPS which was then changed to S2P, promises were made as to pensions expected and inflationary rises etc., which have been broken. I fail to see why everyone outside the public sector seems to have to adapt to changing market conditions, yet those within it are somehow protected (to be financed by those outside). How about compromise to be fair to everyone.

lemonjelly

Kohoutek wrote: »

In the new system the government is proposing, public sector worker earning £30,000 or less are entitled to a maximum of £60,000 in redundancy pay or two years pay.

If you are made redundant on £30,000 in the private sector are only entitled to statutory redundancy pay (using the example of age 45, 20 years services), you are entitled to £8,360.

What was the old system? This is still incredibly generous, subsidised by the taxpayer of course.

Nonsense idea.

Many many private sector employees have contractual rights within their contracts which grant them entitlements to payments well above the statutory minimums in respect of sick pay, paternity/maternity pay & leave, redundancy pay, notice pay & periods etc. Particularly when you get to management levels.

Private companies are also the ones who are likely to include restrictive covenants in contracts of employment - restricting an employees options with respect to future employment and/or career progression.

lemonjelly

kennyboy66 wrote: »

that is what the working tax credit system attempts to do. Plenty of things wrong about it, but the intention was at least to support families in work. The biggest losers under Labour have been the low paid, single or married couples. Raising the personal allowance mainly helps the well off - unless it is clawed back at a certain level, as does reducing the first tax bracket.

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I should have said low paid single people & low paid childless couples.

Like it or not, lowish - middle paid couples with children have done very well with the tax credit system.

Pensioners have also done well under Labour (compared to previous Tory govt.)

Bit of a challenge for the Tories to persuade those pretty large groups to vote for them

Tax credits are a ridiculous system which is riddled with fraud. They had to remove online applications as organised crime was milking that system.

For example, you'd be shocked at how many taxi drivers, with numerous children are working for minimum wage for 16 hours per week claiming tax credits (whereas in reality they are doing 60+ hour weeks, for well above, plus tips etc).

The tax credits system is full of fraud, incorrect payments and maladministration. It has been a success at diddly squat.

In principle it makes sense, but it simply hasn't worked.

Pete111

lemonjelly wrote: »

Nonsense idea.

Many many private sector employees have contractual rights within their contracts which grant them entitlements to payments well above the statutory minimums in respect of sick pay, paternity/maternity pay & leave, redundancy pay, notice pay & periods etc. Particularly when you get to management levels.

Private companies are also the ones who are likely to include restrictive covenants in contracts of employment - restricting an employees options with respect to future employment and/or career progression.

Occasionally yes but these clauses are are usually utterly unenforcable if we are being honest....

Also what you usually find when private sector companies change the rules re various benefits, redundancy pay etc (which they do from time to time) is that the level of hissy fit thrown by the workforce is usually far less than our colleagues in the public sector.

Most people in the private sector will accept changes, pay freezes etc as they understand its tough out there and the company needs to adapt to avoid mass redundancies or even going under. Most public sector workers don't seem to have twigged this yet by the looks of it and it will not stand them in good stead when the Govt finally runs out of credit and has no choice but to close entire Departments instead...

dori2o

Pennywise wrote: »

Re your £24k annual wage comparison, you aren't comparing like for like. If your "take home" is £7k less than this, then I'd suggest you're earning the annual wage - the £24k is GROSS, before deductions such as tax, NIC, pensions, union subs and any other deductions. What is your "GROSS" - I would imagine it's very close to the national average.

Re my income, no my GROSS salary is nowhere near the national average, as I said my GROSS salary is over £7k less than the national average. As it is for the majority of front line civil servants

Pete111 wrote: »

Occasionally yes but these clauses are are usually utterly unenforcable if we are being honest....

Also what you usually find when private sector companies change the rules re various benefits, redundancy pay etc (which they do from time to time) is that the level of hissy fit thrown by the workforce is usually far less than our colleagues in the public sector.

Most people in the private sector will accept changes, pay freezes etc as they understand its tough out there and the company needs to adapt to avoid mass redundancies or even going under. Most public sector workers don't seem to have twigged this yet by the looks of it and it will not stand them in good stead when the Govt finally runs out of credit and has no choice but to close entire Departments instead...

Could it not also be that unlike years ago, fewer private sector employees have union representation within the workplace to help fight these contract changes?

kennyboy66_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Tax credits are a ridiculous system which is riddled with fraud. They had to remove online applications as organised crime was milking that system.

For example, you'd be shocked at how many taxi drivers, with numerous children are working for minimum wage for 16 hours per week claiming tax credits (whereas in reality they are doing 60+ hour weeks, for well above, plus tips etc).

The tax credits system is full of fraud, incorrect payments and maladministration. It has been a success at diddly squat.

In principle it makes sense, but it simply hasn't worked.

I'd agree, it was a "worthy" idea but is too complicated and drags too many people into the tax credit net in the pursuit of spurious 'fairness'.

It needs radical overhaul or scrapping - the problem now is the number of people who would 'lose' in the event of it being scrapped.

Pete111

dori2o wrote: »

Re my income, no my GROSS salary is nowhere near the national average, as I said my GROSS salary is over £7k less than the national average. As it is for the majority of front line civil servants



Could it not also be that unlike years ago, fewer private sector employees have union representation within the workplace to help fight these contract changes?

To be honest the private sector companies I have worked in have had policies that detail such benefits/payments rather than clauses in contracts.

Such policies can be changed far more easily - being unionised or not would ultimately have little effect.

I'm not saying unions are useless in the private sector but in my opinion, the dramatic increase in employment legislation favouring the employee over the last decade has negated many traditional benefits of them

lemonjelly

Pete111 wrote: »

Occasionally yes but these clauses are are usually utterly unenforcable if we are being honest....

If they are worded legally, fairly and appropriately, then they are enforceable in my experiance.

Also what you usually find when private sector companies change the rules re various benefits, redundancy pay etc (which they do from time to time) is that the level of hissy fit thrown by the workforce is usually far less than our colleagues in the public sector.

Most people in the private sector will accept changes, pay freezes etc as they understand its tough out there and the company needs to adapt to avoid mass redundancies or even going under. Most public sector workers don't seem to have twigged this yet by the looks of it and it will not stand them in good stead when the Govt finally runs out of credit and has no choice but to close entire Departments instead...

In response to the 2nd 2 paras, well that is their own fault.

An employee makes numerous decisions based upon the terms of the contract offered by the employer. These will include where to live, house to buy, school for kids to go to, lifestyle etc. That contract is legally binding. If private sector employees are so naeive that they're happy to assign away numerous rights and principles held within their contracts, then more fool them. The employer does not have the employees best interests at heart. The employee is no more than a statistic, a functional cog, an expense. No more. If the employer wishes to change the employees contract, it is only for the benefit of the employer.

Generali

Contracts can only be enforced against a solvent employer so it is in the interests of a rational employee to do what (s)he can to keep the employer solvent unless the employee would be better off jumping ship.

Given that the UK Government is currently borrowing 1/4 of what she spends and tax revenues seem to be getting worse rather than better, perhaps Government employees should consider the solvency of their employer rather than taking it as read.

The last time the unions tried this sort of thing, it resulted in Mrs Thatcher. Clearly, and unsurprisingly, they haven't learned the lessons of the 1975-1985 period.