Incensed again

DirtyDick

howee wrote: »

Well lets see 50% of my council tax goes towards council pensions, your over generous pension pot is subsidised by the mugs err tax payers including you but unlike you we in private sector land get no benefit.

You were the one moaning about carrying a medic bag at an older age and others squeal about not being able to work and the biggest laugh teach after 60. How do you think plumbers, carpet fitters brickies in fact anyone in a manual job goes on? Do you thin we were happy about working until 68? errr no but unlike the greedy PC brigade we get on with it. When the plumber or fitter can't do their job they will ever pack in and wait for their pension or get a pt job to keep them going no other choice so why should you and your public sector mates be treated any differently>?

Do you just copy and past articles from the Daily Mail?

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

Why not? do they get more because it is short term work with no benefits no pension contributions, longer hours, less breaks?

I don't work in that sector so I am curious as to why someone would not take up a 30% wage increase?

There are a number of reasons why I wouldn't do it. Hours and breaks are the same- we don't get paid breaks in the NHS and when I said 30% more, I meant per hour. Obviously there are no pension contributions, the work is short term and no sick pay (I've had one day off in 20 years so shouldn't really worry about that).
Other reasons for me are that from a nursing perspective I know that I would be providing reduced quality of care if I am parachuted into and out of different nursing environments as agency nurses often are.
I also feel an allegiance to the NHS, it spent many thousands of pounds training me and has enabled me to develop and keep my skills up to date. I think nursing agancies are parasites on the NHS, taking highly trained staff (paid for by the treasury) and then charging the NHS double the normal hourly rates, to use those same staff.
I was heartened recently when I read an email from our cheif exec, who decided that agency use was banned from our trust- to save cash. Unfortunately he went on to say he was also banning overtime! This means that currently shifts are covered by part time staff working "additional hours" which is paid at the normal rate. Unfortunately there aren't enough of them to cover all shifts, so we are having to close down beds, which means patients are waiting many hours on trollies (and sometimes beds) in A&E's corridors. This is now easily done since the government scrapped the need for us to meet the maximum "4 hour wait"- some primary care trusts are asking hospitals to keep to it, but they are not in a position to demand it as it cannot be met with decreased staffing.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why I wouldn't do it. Hours and breaks are the same- we don't get paid breaks in the NHS and when I said 30% more, I meant per hour. Obviously there are no pension contributions, the work is short term and no sick pay (I've had one day off in 20 years so shouldn't really worry about that).
Other reasons for me are that from a nursing perspective I know that I would be providing reduced quality of care if I am parachuted into and out of different nursing environments as agency nurses often are.
I also feel an allegiance to the NHS, it spent many thousands of pounds training me and has enabled me to develop and keep my skills up to date. I think nursing agancies are parasites on the NHS, taking highly trained staff (paid for by the treasury) and then charging the NHS double the normal hourly rates, to use those same staff.
I was heartened recently when I read an email from our cheif exec, who decided that agency use was banned from our trust- to save cash. Unfortunately he went on to say he was also banning overtime! This means that currently shifts are covered by part time staff working "additional hours" which is paid at the normal rate. Unfortunately there aren't enough of them to cover all shifts, so we are having to close down beds, which means patients are waiting many hours on trollies (and sometimes beds) in A&E's corridors. This is now easily done since the government scrapped the need for us to meet the maximum "4 hour wait"- some primary care trusts are asking hospitals to keep to it, but they are not in a position to demand it as it cannot be met with decreased staffing.

I am glad you acknowledge that the 30% more you could earn in the private sector comes at quite a heavy price in terms of job security, sick pay, pension!!! etc. But in acknowledging that you also defeat your argument where you state that you could earn more in the private sector.

EDIT: Oh and the biggest thing not mentioned is that 30% also includes holiday pay, as the part time shift workers you describe do not get paid holidays. So overall that 30% doesn't look as good anymore.

We all know that many public sector services are underfunded and I know everyone would like to see better hospitals, shorter waiting lists etc. More police on the streets, more teachers in the classrooms, the list goes on, but where is the money coming from to pay for all this? Maybe if the deficit in public service pensions could be used for actual services it would help a bit. The money for all these services must come from somewhere and no one really wants to pay more taxes.

jon.e.boy_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Welcome to the real world. Maybe if the unions hadnt been so greedy in the credit boom years and we had responsible politicians in place back then who didnt give into the unions demands, you wouldnt be in this position.

I normally read a whole thread before replying but I couldn't tke any more... sorry.

I am in the real world! ...and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the union, the union legitimises peeved off workers taking industrial action thats all - actually the unions are pretty ineffectual (IMO). Sensible politicians... real world??

I understand wage inflation is about 3% in the UK ATM? Where's that from? What happened to private sector pensions? Plenty of profits flying about even now, but in the hay day when pensions were "performing well" boards were declaring "pensions holidays". The hedge fund mgrs are making millions and millions, the SH dividends have been high and stock even higher. Then when TSHTF there's no money left??!

Compare the CEOs and top earners salaries of public sector versus private - ridiculous, no comparison. Nah, gold plated pensions in public sector is a myth, yes better than private sector (mostly) but salary and pension is the entirety of the remuneration package. No cars, health care, christmas bonus, overtime, tax management, fuel, no cash in hand, no big parties on the boss, no first class travel, no business class flights world-wide, no staying at top hotels and lap dancing on expences crickey, we're lucky to get refreshments at mandatory meetings... and anyone on here who thinks that the public sector will have final salary pensions is as drunk as my mother.

Basically most of us *are* in this together, with worsening wages, pensions, and conditions - and our children will have it worse - OUR children. None of us like it and some people are trying to do something about it (strike, without pay, e.g.). Everyone's looking for someone to blame: benefit cheats, city twits, politicians, public sector, unions, inefficiency, etcetc. IMO, 1) there is a finite amount of money (QE series notwithstnding) and a relatively small number of people are holding on to truly staggering amounts of it, 2) personal, govt and [a lot of] business debt is unsustainable and 3) HMRC need to do better.

Loughton_Monkey

dshart wrote: »

......We all know that many public sector services are underfunded and I know everyone would like to see better hospitals, shorter waiting lists etc. More police on the streets, more teachers in the classrooms, the list goes on, but where is the money coming from to pay for all this? Maybe if the deficit in public service pensions could be used for actual services it would help a bit. The money for all these services must come from somewhere and no one really wants to pay more taxes.

Depends what you mean by "underfunded".

Sadly, in the Public Sector, this invariably means "not enough budget to continue paying for the archaic, 'handraulic', red-tape-ridden, way they do things and for the mega-salaries of the chiefs and middle management."

Even more sadly, this manifests itself at the lowest possible level - i.e. the poor dedicated nurses or the junior teachers etc. who are at the bottom of the food chain.

Having retired from year of senior work in Operational Efficiency (Private Sector FInancial Services) I am currently, and temporarily a 'victim' of our once-great NHS. And while I cannot say a single bad thing about any one single nurse, radiographer, doctor, receptionist....... it is patently clear that they work against the most awful inefficient processes, with the most horrendous duplication.

For example, any 'normal' health system (outside UK) would have a specific investigation (e.g. ECG) and subsequent 'Result' (i.e. 10 minutes with consultant to discuss and agree action) linked together in the same couple of hours. UK system is to wait 4 weeks for the ECG, then another 4 weeks to speak to Consultant about it, and 'god-knows' what bureacracy in the middle!

Anyway, the bottom line is that UK Public Services are generally an expensive disgrace even though most individual public service workers are not in anyway culpable for this. But having said this, they are public employees, and hence effectively employed by the tax payer.

Most tax payers not working in the public sector are pretty upset at the moment, understandably. Pay freezes, tiny money purchase pensions, and high taxes. It grates to learn of reasonably highly paid PS workers with (still) far superior pensions, downing tools to get more, and it must grate even further to all workers to see benefit-bums getting full inflation proofing without having to move a single muscle from their flat screen televisions and online bingo

dshart

jon.e.boy wrote: »

I normally read a whole thread before replying but I couldn't tke any more... sorry.

I am in the real world! ...and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the union, the union legitimises peeved off workers taking industrial action thats all - actually the unions are pretty ineffectual (IMO). Sensible politicians... real world??

I understand wage inflation is about 3% in the UK ATM? Where's that from? What happened to private sector pensions? Plenty of profits flying about even now, but in the hay day when pensions were "performing well" boards were declaring "pensions holidays". The hedge fund mgrs are making millions and millions, the SH dividends have been high and stock even higher. Then when TSHTF there's no money left??!

Compare the CEOs and top earners salaries of public sector versus private - ridiculous, no comparison. Nah, gold plated pensions in public sector is a myth, yes better than private sector (mostly) but salary and pension is the entirety of the remuneration package. No cars, health care, christmas bonus, overtime, tax management, fuel, no cash in hand, no big parties on the boss, no first class travel, no business class flights world-wide, no staying at top hotels and lap dancing on expences crickey, we're lucky to get refreshments at mandatory meetings... and anyone on here who thinks that the public sector will have final salary pensions is as drunk as my mother.

Basically most of us *are* in this together, with worsening wages, pensions, and conditions - and our children will have it worse - OUR children. None of us like it and some people are trying to do something about it (strike, without pay, e.g.). Everyone's looking for someone to blame: benefit cheats, city twits, politicians, public sector, unions, inefficiency, etcetc. IMO, 1) there is a finite amount of money (QE series notwithstnding) and a relatively small number of people are holding on to truly staggering amounts of it, 2) personal, govt and [a lot of] business debt is unsustainable and 3) HMRC need to do better.

Please show me the private sector company gives all the benefits that you state here. Yes there may be a few top executives creaming off the top but majority of private sector workers get none of this. Why is it always that when people talk about private sector workers they talk about top executives and managers? These make up a very small percentage of the private sector and I can readily agree that some of the perks they get are very excessive when compared to ordinary workers within the same company. The majority of the private sector workers are average workers the same as majority in the public sector, they are health care people, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, engineers etc.

You state that we are all in this together and acknowledge that our children will have it worse, but the actions you take are only to protect your own pensions and if successful it will be one of the many factors making the countries debt grow which will mean an even worse future for our children. You mention correctly a lot of the problems but you do not feel that the deficit in public sector pensions is one of them as you are willing to fight to maintain that deficit. Nearly all the people who are part of the problems as you mention could also justify why they are entitled to what they get but that still does not plug the huge hole in the countries finances which needs filling to provide our children with any sort of future.

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

I am glad you acknowledge that the 30% more you could earn in the private sector comes at quite a heavy price in terms of job security, sick pay, pension!!! etc. But in acknowledging that you also defeat your argument where you state that you could earn more in the private sector.

I could of course earn that 30% more and spend days off "living it up" spending all of that 30% rather than putting it into pension/savings as some do. That would mean that I would live on benefits if I ever retired.
To me it would be better to ban the use of agencies nationwide, pay the nurses the standard rate for the job, keep them in the pension scheme (paying a little more in) and ensure that they don't end up on benefits draining treasury finances when they retire.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

I could of course earn that 30% more and spend days off "living it up" spending all of that 30% rather than putting it into pension/savings as some do. That would mean that I would live on benefits if I ever retired.
To me it would be better to ban the use of agencies nationwide, pay the nurses the standard rate for the job, keep them in the pension scheme (paying a little more in) and ensure that they don't end up on benefits draining treasury finances when they retire.

I think you know that is really not true, if you did earn that extra 30% you would not be sure where the next wage packet was coming from, you would have to put more away in case you were sick and if you did not make any pension provision you would have a poor quality of life in retirement.

I do not disagree with what you are suggesting regarding changes in the NHS, I don't know the ins and outs of it, but again as long as their pensions are fully funded I dont have an argument from a pension point of view.

BobQ

howee wrote: »

. Maybe as their employer the Gov should send each PC worker literature on what the deal actually involves and why they have to (just like the rest of us) work for longer, (pay more in), and get less out.

Not sure how its communicated but is this what you have in mind?

http://issuu.com/hmtreasury/docs/pensions_publicservice_021111?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222

I know its been promulgated in a few organisations.

BobQ

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Your post is not directed, therefore valueless. Please refocus and try again.

Your comment is absurd.

My statement was about the content I quoted in the same message in which it was made.