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

marklv

shane42 wrote: »

yes i would take a pay cut, i have taken a pay cut infact, i would rather earn something then nothing..i am realistic

Taking pay cuts is not my idea of career progression, thank you!

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

?????
How can increasing wages not increase tax/ debt burden. We have to lower public sector debt not increase/maintain it.

What are you going to cut to lower public sector debt yet increase wages?

The highest public sector expense is PAYE?

The public sector expense is higher than the revenue streams coming in. It is debt accrued through public sector expense, it can not keep increasing without cuts.
Unless you are suggesting job cuts and wage increase? But that would then still cause strikes as per the article.

If you want to recruit good staff you to have to pay market wages - a simple economic fact. Pay freezes will lead to the best people leaving and the rest becoming very !!!!ed off and striking - this will lead to disruption of public services and far more costs to the government in the long run than if they had not imposed the pay freeze. The simple truth, which you continually ignore, is that taxes have to go up whether you like it or not. They will go up even if there is a public sector pay freeze. Of course, if the government hadn't dragged us into pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then the economy would be in better shape, but that's another discussion altogether.

shane42

its not my idea either, it is realistic though!
your the sort of person to see a colleage loose his job and home cos you are too greedy i guess

lostinrates

marklv wrote: »

Taking pay cuts is not my idea of career progression, thank you!

Its nobody's want: and yet it has become the necessity for some to keep jobs. I think a pay freeze is less bad than a cut, and a cut better than losing a job.

I also think its a bit odd to suggest the public sector is entirley separable from the private sector. I think followed through this is highly awful for public sector workers, who I think should have the same rights as everyone else to use private sector services, such as mortgages (well, in the pre crash days they were were private sector ) and private stock housing, and restaurants etc. Shame on those wanting to restrict the choices of the public sector.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where neither realm interacts. So far, in the play out in my mind the private sector are faring the best....

Really2

marklv wrote: »

If you want to recruit good staff you to have to pay market wages - a simple economic fact. Pay freezes will lead to the best people leaving and the rest becoming very !!!!ed off and striking - this will lead to disruption of public services and far more costs to the government in the long run than if they had not imposed the pay freeze. The simple truth, which you continually ignore, is that taxes have to go up whether you like it or not. They will go up even if there is a public sector pay freeze. Of course, if the government hadn't dragged us into pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then the economy would be in better shape, but that's another discussion altogether.

You never answered the question where will the cuts be made to increase wages? Or should we just raise taxes even higher?

You said you had outlined cuts, what are they?

marklv wrote: »

There certainly are savings that can be made in public sector and I have already outlined these, so why do you keep coming back to salaries?

JasonLVC

I cannot recall where the Tories/Labour have stated they were going to cut public sector pay.

I do recall them saying there'd be no pay rises (or very low rises), but that is not a pay cut, it is simply a salary not keeping pace with inflation.

So I've no idea why the Unions are kicking off about "not accepting pay cuts" when there aren't any pay cuts planned? The strike action is based on being given a pay freeze, not a pay cut.

I do recall them saying there'd be cuts in public sector spending, which I take to mean cuts in budgets for equipment, buildings, etc (ie, capital cuts rather than revenue cuts).

marklv

Pennywise wrote: »

So you think it's just the teachers who are paying for failings of others do you?

The reality of it is that EVERYONE has to pay for the failures. That means teachers as well as nurses, as well as Tesco workers, cleaners, tradesmen, professionals, etc. If one small group of workers get unfair treatment, it increases the burdens on everyone else.

And do you really think that the teachers didn't benefit from the boom years which fed on the back of the over-supply of cheap debt that fuelled it? Did teachers not benefit from house price inflation, did they not enjoy foreign holidays with an attractive exchange rate, did they not benefit from low interest rates, did they not jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon. Come on, get real, we ALL enjoyed the good times, so we ALL have to bear our fair shair of the consequences.

Again, you make no sense and I reject your arguments with contempt. Why should I pay for the failures of the government and some idiotic bankers? And what is nonsense about 'unfair treatment'? Life is unfair from the start - is it fair that someone a few streets away was born into a rich family and will inherit £5M while I won't? Is it fair that some geezer down the road has won the lottery jackpot while I never even get three correct numbers? Life is unfair - and there is nothing you can do to change that. Communism tried to make things fairer and the result was a mess. And it's wrong to say that public sector workers benefitted from the boom years, as in this area you get no bonuses or special perks as in the private sector. An above inflation pay rise is the best you can hope for. So don't lecture people about fairness.

marklv

JasonLVC wrote: »

I cannot recall where the Tories/Labour have stated they were going to cut public sector pay.

I do recall them saying there'd be no pay rises (or very low rises), but that is not a pay cut, it is simply a salary not keeping pace with inflation.

So I've no idea why the Unions are kicking off about "not accepting pay cuts" when there aren't any pay cuts planned? The strike action is based on being given a pay freeze, not a pay cut.

I do recall them saying there'd be cuts in public sector spending, which I take to mean cuts in budgets for equipment, buildings, etc (ie, capital cuts rather than revenue cuts).

A pay increase cap of 1% is a pay cut - as inflation is around 3.7% at present. This means a net loss of 2.7% - which means a pay cut! Did you do maths at school?

Really2

JasonLVC wrote: »

I
So I've no idea why the Unions are kicking off about "not accepting pay cuts" when there aren't any pay cuts planned? The strike action is based on being given a pay freeze, not a pay cut.

They are arguing that is a cut in real terms.

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

You never answered the question where will the cuts be made to increase wages? Or should we just raise taxes even higher?

You said you had outlined cuts, what are they?

Read my previous posts. I mentioned the ridiculous spending on £2,000 a day management consultants, IT projects that swallow up billions of pounds, etc. These are the areas where the real waste is and where billions can be saved in cuts.