We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

globalds

If only we were all together in this

MPs will pocket an extra £1,000 a year after a sneaky pay rise was awarded at a time when millions of workers face pay freezes or job cuts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255517/MPs-pay-rise-millions-workers-face-salary-freezes-job-cuts.html

marklv

shane42 wrote: »

public sector workers need a reality check, instead of whinging and moaning, if you dont like it.get out

A reality check? Why should people accept pay cuts as a matter of course? Would you if you worked in the public sector? Me thinks not. Cutting pay and initiating redundancy programmes isn't going to make much difference when it comes to tackling government debt. It's just good headlines for the Daily Mail readers.

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8603554.stm



This is what annoys me sometimes about unions, in the current climate are pay freezes really that bad and changes to pensions considering what people in the private sector have gone through?
Why not accept a freeze, let the capital expenditure carry on so kids get a good education and that they don't miss days due to strikes?
If they want more money at the moment it means money for the children's education and to buy every day things gets less!
If they vote to go ahead with this I will find it hard to believe it is for the love of the job and not the money TBH.

Utter nonsense. What goes on in the private sector is only a matter for that sector, in all fairness. People who choose to work in the private sector do so because there is more possibility to rise to high positions and earn big money, either as a specialist, a senior manager or in sales. The risk of redundancy is the price for this opportunity. The public sector does not work like this - people who go here prefer steady, long term careers with lower pay but more security and a decent pension. The price they pay is that promotion is usually a 'dead man's shoes' affair, due to strictly controlled headcounts, and there is no tangible reward for extra work and effort. You are mixing apples with oranges.

The government is only imposing these idiotic 1% pay caps in the public sector because it makes the government look 'macho' in the eyes of the national press, overwhelmingly pro-Tory. It's a gimmick to attract the people who read these newspapers, nothing more. The monetary impact of these pay caps is insignificant when compared to the overall national debt. The concept of 'sharing the pain' is petty, nasty and vindictive, and a kick in the teeth to all the public sector workers who have had to endure difficult and demanding occupations for modest pay.

I fully agree with the unions and I will definitely be voting for a strike myself if current plans don't change.

marklv

MrsE wrote: »

I left the union last month.

I think it is wrong to protest against pay freezes when jobs are being cut & services will be slashed.

And who are you to say this? If you are on £100k a year then a pay freeze or even cut has minimal impact, but for, say, an administrator on £17k a year then it most certainly does have an impact. I would support pay freezes (or even cuts) only for the most well paid employees in the public sector, e.g. judges, headteachers or senior doctors, and all the various senior managers/directors.

Kohoutek

People who choose to work in the private sector do so because there is more possibility to rise to high positions and earn big money, either as a specialist, a senior manager or in sales. The risk of redundancy is the price for this opportunity

Lol, you could be a poster child for the out-of-touch public sector worker.

Please think about how stupid that statement sounds. Do shop assistants fit your bizarre characterisation of all people who work in the private sector? Do hairdressers, gardeners, mechanics, receptionists and waiters? Does anyone fit that absurd stereotype except your idea of what 'big business' and 'the City' is like?

A very large number of people that work in the private sector earn low wages, and will never rise to high positions and earn big money. Just think of the cashier that last served you when you bought something at a shop - will they all rise to senior positions in Tesco?

The risk of redundancy is the price for this opportunity [in the private sector]...The price [public sector workers] pay is that promotion is usually a 'dead man's shoes' affair, due to strictly controlled headcounts, and there is no tangible reward for extra work and effort. You are mixing apples with oranges.

You should read something about how capitalism works, and you would realise the ludicrous nature of your statement. In capitalism, the small class of people at the top of a company or organisation take the majority of the profits, and when things go wrong, the people at the bottom take the losses, by being made redundant.

What was the great opportunity the majority of Woolworths staff were chasing before they were made redundant? Most of the people that worked for that company earned very little money and just like your ideas about the public sector were looking to find a stable job with job security.

The monetary impact of these pay caps is insignificant when compared to the overall national debt.

That's why it's only one of several measures. Where else should it come from then? There are three options - raise taxes, cut spending or take on more debt. The government is already doing all three in difference measures.

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

Lol, you could be a poster child for the out-of-touch public sector worker.

Please think about how stupid that statement sounds. Do shop assistants fit your bizarre characterisation of all people who work in the private sector? Do hairdressers, gardeners, mechanics, receptionists and waiters? Does anyone fit that absurd stereotype except your idea of what 'big business' and 'the City' is like?

A very large number of people that work in the private sector earn low wages, and will never rise to high positions and earn big money. Just think of the cashier that last served you when you bought something at a shop - will they all rise to senior positions in Tesco?

I agree that there are very low paid private sector workers, but there are also public sector workers on barely above minimum wage. What exactly is your point? The minimum wage has not been frozen or capped, has it? So the lowest paid workers in the private sector will still get pay rises. I'm referring to the average worker, not the lowest common denominator.

Kohoutek wrote: »

You should read something about how capitalism works, and you would realise the ludicrous nature of your statement. In capitalism, the small class of people at the top of a company or organisation take the majority of the profits, and when things go wrong, the people at the bottom take the losses, by being made redundant.

What was the great opportunity the majority of Woolworths staff were chasing before they were made redundant? Most of the people that worked for that company earned very little money and just like your ideas about the public sector were looking to find a stable job with job security.

I'm well aware of how capitalism works, so don't lecture me please. The public sector is not a business organisation and it does not have shareholders, so your statement is meaningless. As for the Woolworths workers the fact remains that they took their jobs in full knowledge that if the company failed, their jobs would go. Of course they hoped for a secure job, doesn't everyone? However, people who work for a private sector company have to be aware that redundancy is always a possibility. The public sector cannot 'fail' because it is not a profit making business, quite obviously! The employer is the government, and short of armed revolution, a military coup or invasion by a foreign power you should expect your job to be very secure, with inflation linked pay rises.

Kohoutek wrote: »

That's why it's only one of several measures. Where else should it come from then? There are three options - raise taxes, cut spending or take on more debt. The government is already doing all three in difference measures.

One good way to eliminate public sector waste is to get rid of all these management consultants - this is where the real waste is, not the salaries of permanent staff. I have personally worked in projects where a huge number of outside consultants have been employed for many months at rates ranging from £600 a day to £2,500 a day. Do the maths.

Another area to cut is all these massive IT projects, with all the work outsourced to big IT consultancies who have huge appetites but bad teeth - meaning that they will say and do anything to win the contracts but then are unable to deliver due to bad project planning and lack of resources. The NHS and DII programmes are prime examples. If the government had decided to grow an internal IT profession in the public sector instead of outsourcing everything this problem would never have happened - of course they would have had to have paid competitive salaries and therein lies the issue.

stueyhants

22225 wrote: »

60 hours + per week you understand. Not per term. That really would be good.

Serious question, how many hours do teachers do on an annual basis considering half terms and summer holidays etc ? Is it significantly more than say an 'average' worker doing a 40 hour week ?

Spartacus_Mills

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I'm all for pay freezes...

... and as soon as you can assure me that all those [STRIKE]useless, waste-of-space, leering, red-braces moron-prats[/STRIKE] fine city gents have agreed to come on board the concept, I'll be the first to accept that you can apply it to people who are on vastly lower remuneration.

Genuinely, we have some total to$$ers posting on these threads...

Yes, Alan Cross for one.

The public purse is going to be squeezed as the money is not there. We cannot keep on printing it and people have to face a dose of reality. Whether you like it or not, and I certainly do not, the banks had to be bailed out. That is done. However the bank bailout is only part of the deficit and budgets need to be cut.

Yours is the sort of attitude that saw the winter of discontent and 11 years of Thatcherism.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

A reality check? Why should people accept pay cuts as a matter of course? Would you if you worked in the public sector? Me thinks not.

Actually in the private sector pay cuts and redundancies have been the order of the day now for the last 18 months. People suffered as businesses accepted the economic realities of the world around them. I am sure some companies took the opportunity to cut costs but many had a harsh time and responded accordingly.

So pay cuts have been accepted by people as a matter of course. Especially if the choice is stark enough to be that or your job going.

The public sector is going to have to endure the same.

Wookster

I watched a Newsnight some weeks ago. Jeremy (or Sue?) was interviewing Mark Serkwotka (SP?) who was absolutely insistent that there would be absolutely no cuts to the public services whatsoever and that there would be strikes if any cuts were imposed.

He felt that the public service shouldn't suffer because of a mess they didn't create.

Whatever planet he's on he needs to come down to Earth!!