George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

carolt

It was specifically bankers I referred to. Who are a funny mix of public and private.

But loads of private sector jobs have pay on results - sales, EAs, etc.

sammyjammy

Sapphire wrote: »

What part of the private sector? In my part people haven't had bonuses for several years (and if they ever received them in the past, they were small – nothing like the sort of thing paid to the public sector with taxpayers' money).

In DWP where I work bonuses have been dramatically reduced (from around an average of £300 to £150), they have also changed the system so that 99.5% of staff get the same Performance marking and therefore the same bonus whether you work hard or not.

I have a friend who works for MOD who just received a bonus of £1500 and a 7% payrise as part of a three year pay deal, we are the same pay grade.

Bonuses don't work in the public sector in the way they are supposed to, they are used to increase the amount of pay rise that is non consolidated and non-pensionable.

I know there are people on here who will never be happy with the public sector but I'll accept my pay freeze I just wish that they would share the pain across the board. If I've heard right it will only be frozen for those earning £18k or over, this is wrong on so many levels especially if benefits are going to be frozen.

Sapphire

carolt wrote: »

But loads of private sector jobs have pay on results - sales, EAs, etc.

And loads don't.

I think also when you refer to sales you are talking about sales commission, which is somewhat different from the sort of across-the-board increases to which the public sector seems to have been accustomed.

lilac_lady

I haven't had a rise in my company pension for the last 2 years and am not expecting one this year either. Benefits should be frozen if wages and pensions are frozen. I get a state pension and would expect it to be frozen too.

tartanterra

carolt wrote: »

Mercifully, not everyone is as self-interested as you.

The point I was making which you seem to have failed to understand entirely is that bonuses were introduced in the public sector - aping the private sector - because they were seen as best practice, as a way to encourage public sector workers to work harder, better and more efficiently, just as they are supposed to do in the public sector.

Er.....no. You didn't make that point.

What you actually stated was:

"Presumably that applies to all jobs, not just the public sector. I assume you agree with doing away with all bonuses for bankers etc too."

If you're going to tell me off like I'm some sort of errant schoolboy, then please, actually read what you have previously posted.

To borrow your previous phrase, (albeit somewhat modified):

"Mercifully, not everyone is as self righteous as you.":)

tartanterra

carolt wrote: »

It was specifically bankers I referred to.

Er....no you didn't.

You stated:

"Presumably that applies to all jobs"

ash28

lilac_lady wrote: »

I haven't had a rise in my company pension for the last 2 years and am not expecting one this year either. Benefits should be frozen if wages and pensions are frozen. I get a state pension and would expect it to be frozen too.

I have a private pension and didn't get rise this year, the rises in our scheme are based on the inflation figure reported each September and are implemented the following January, last September inflation was negative. I suppose theoretically I should have had a cut in pension to reflect that, however it was kept at 2009 levels

If inflation is positive this September I fully expect a rise in January 2011.

kennyboy66_2

A._Badger wrote: »

As Generali says, this is a knot that is almost impossible to untangle.

However (at risk of sounding like a Daily Mail leader writer) the fact is that 50 years of 'progressive' education, with its attendant moral and cultural relativism, has led us here and needs to be reconsidered. I would suggest it is at the root of this poverty of expectations you point to.

When having a baby at 15 is a 'valid lifestyle choice' and one is scolded for being 'judgemental' if you suggest it isn't, then we are in deep, deep trouble.

strange then that after 13 years of supposed Labour largesse to single mothers that the pregnancy rate and birth rate for under 18's has actually fallen.

Stranger still that most under 16 pregnancies lead to abortion rather than birth when giving birth would apparently lead to a penthouse flat, and government paid for car.

Still, won't stop people posturing about the !!!!less underclass, carrying on the British Hogarthian tradition, while wilfully ignoring policies that work - usually education, economic opportunity and sex education.

carolt

tartanterra wrote: »

Er....no you didn't.

You stated:

"Presumably that applies to all jobs"

Please re-read my first post in its entirety rather than selectively quoting. You criticised that post on the - entirely unsupported and as it turned out entirely wrong - assumption that I was a public sector worker hoping to feather my nest.

I'm not.

I work in the private sector and get no bonus at all. I have never had a job where I got any kind of bonus, public or private sector.

You then incorrectly drew the conclusion from my post that I was in favour of performance-related bonuses. I'm not.

Where we differ is that you would specifically like to bash all public-sector workers because a small proportion of the pay of some public-sector workers (as I said, no more a grand - so not a huge amount) is performance related - as though they all put up their hand and voted for this!

I have many friends who work in the public sector ad I can assure you that it was imposed on them from above, to ape the private sector, which was seen as some kind of ideal model for public sector work - even though, as many (including yourself) have pointed out, public sector work is very different and not primarily profit-driven, and therefore the bonus culture is even less appropriate there than it is in the public sector (where I think recent experience with the bankers has shown how deeply pointless it usually is there too, as it encourages focusing on short-term goals over long-term ones).

I really dislike public-sector bashing for the sake of it - public sector workers are just workers doing a job, like the rest of us, to the best of their ability in most cases.

Blaming them for a bonus system that they did not choose or create seems utterly petty and divisive. Much like your good self.

Nex time you make factually wrong assumptions about fellow posters' motives, you might like to apologise rather than trying to hide your error in a sea of pointless venom.

milliebear00001

It's very interesting to see how posters seem to find it easy to separate people into the 'deserving claimant' and the 'non-deserving'. The vitriol against these theoretical individuals, who really seem to be examples of the worst kinds of caricatures, is completely shocking. Suddenly, all teenage parents, people on IS/IB, people with more than two children, people who are long-term unemployed etc etc are 'scum' - an underclass who should be turfed onto the streets to fend for themselves.

Each one of those statistics has an individual story. Some will be taking the !!!! - some will have had their circumstances thrust upon them - this is the same in any walk of life. Many of the most disadvantaged will be children, who would suffer even more if the punitive measures suggested here for their parents were ever implemented.

I would suggest that nobody has the right to make the sorts of sweeping generalisations some posters have made here. There but for the grace of God...It must be extremly difficult to be judged a 'sponger' simply because you got ill, or got pregnant, or were left by your partner with three kids, or have free dinners when your mates all pay, or were made redundant at the age of 50...threads like this don't help any of those people to avoid the stigma of being a benefits claimant, but clearly feed a strong sense of self-righteousness in many of the posters.