Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

WhiteHorse

worldwheeler wrote: »

The peasants will fight each other [....] It's a game, the table is rigged, the dice are loaded and the house will always win ....

Actually this is true.

Mere tinkering with a system that is inherently corrupt will never produce a positive result.

Old_Slaphead

Moby wrote: »

Why do you think we are seeing so many low paid, poorly qualified people working in social care and mental health. They are taken on by private company's to do very difficult jobs for disgusting rates of pay..... while the shareholders take the profits from the contracts issued on taxpayers behalf by the Govmt. The bottom line is nothing is free in this world and in the end someone has to pay for cost cutting and profit...sadly its usually the vulnerable and the poor.

Maybe the NHS/CS/LA are doing a particularly poor job in managing the private provision for these services.

Big business seems to run rings around the public sector every single time.....why do you think that is (and it happened in Labour's 'reign' too, so it's not just the Torys looking after their own)?

Why do you have to assume that all private sector enterprise is based on the private care homes example - perhaps we should be looking at the John Lewis Partnership model as the way to go. Not all private sector companies are avaricious and many provide a decent service at a reasonable cost by applying common sense business practices and efficiencies

CLAPTON

as I recall, much/most care provision used to be provided by local councils
however, they found that local council run care homes cost too much
so they started buying provision in the private sector becaue it was cheaper
now most council run places are closed
councils then reduced the price they were willing to pay even though it was much cheaper than they themselves could provide

the only care hoime I know is a charity; an excellent home run by very caring people; the trustees take no income not even expenses so all the money goes on staff and running costs
even though the staff are paid only just above the minimum wage, the amount of money councils will pay is too low; so they will only take self funded people

maybe just maybe, one should just consider that some of the problems are that councils / government pay too little even for charities to break even.

it is noticable that none of the endless investigations into care homes recommend that the state become the major provider

worldwheeler

howee wrote: »

What a load of left wing, told you so, up the revolution, Russia has it right TOSH!

There is no left or right. There IS in power and in opposition. Every five years or so the public get to choose the colour theme of the party. At change over the scripts are swapped between the actors(politicians) and the party game continues... in power do what the owners want, and in opposition say what the public want to hear, simples!

howee wrote: »

There is NO race to the bottom, what has happened is the private sector has recognised final salary pensions were unaffordable and they have dealt with this. Leaving the gigantic elephant in the waiting room the public sector.
There is a massive waste of money in the PS check back on this thread where a worker was complaining of having staff cut from 14 to 5 yet she says the are barley coping, meaning 7-8 would be fine 50% less staff!!!!!!!
This anti capital tosh is just about acceptable when we are growing but in harsh times we need to trim and the big fat cow is the public sector, many who loose their jobs will do so through retirement and the posts won't be replaced maybe the PS worker will have to work just that little bit harder in future and maybe we may also see an improvement in efficiency's and standards.

The trimming will be a sale of any service that is profitable, at fire sale prices, probably with clauses in the contract that tie the taxpayer to paying for maintenance and running costs, and will be to friends of the ministers down the gentlemen's club in pall mall.{that will never happen, oh really... THE RAILWAYS and PFI} These new private services will whittle the jobs down and call it productivity or asset stripped for quick time corporate profits. A service that does not make a profit and serves only the benefit of the public will be shut down with the loss of all jobs. Any service that does not make a profit but is to the benefit of corporations will be kept going.

howee wrote: »

In times like this I think everyone in both sectors should be thankful to have a job.

This instils the desired race to the bottom mentallity. Accept worse conditions; accept lower pay; accept longer hours; accept higher taxes for less services; Because if you don't there are plenty of people that have been pushed underwater who will take your place merely for a breath of air.

Fact: the BoE is a private corporation
Fact: the BoE pays no tax on its profits
Fact: the BoE charges the taxpayer merely to use it's pieces of paper as a means of exchange.
Fact: when you go to a bank for a mortgage- you turn up with a deposit and a promise to pay; the bank comes with... nothing! When you agree to pay the fee the bank makes you sign the promise and creates the money out of thin air. This money has to be paid back PLUS interest by your labour. But it has to be paid back from the principle sum. This is mathematically impossible therefore across the system bankruptcy is built in. It is merely a case of playing musical chairs for the borrowers to see who ends up without a chair and on their backside. The banks control the number of chairs and the volume and length of the music. And they can do ALL of this with bits of paper or numbers on computer screen they made up out of thin air.


FACT: The SYSTEM is open to unhindered corruption and benefits the controllers(the financial wizards are little men sitting behind the curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons). The public are mere pieces on the board in the game of beggar thy neighbour. Therefore the SYSTEM has to be changed or the serfdom continues at whatever level the banks wish.

All the time the MSM propaganda machine will pump the public with the scare stories the owners wish them to believe.

cvd

So you think the tobin tax would be a success do you lol.

David Harding who runs the most successful hedge fund in the UK (Winton Capital Management, $26bn ) is in favour of the Tobin Tax.
Of course, all those in the City who are not very good are against the tax - for the obvious reason they are not very good at their jobs.

The UK has one of the most corrupt governments amongst all the Western democracies. Where else can one buy a position in the legislature in the way it is possible to buy a position in the House of Lords (PMs of both the major parties have effectively sold seats in the Lords in recent years.)

There is absolutely no hope there will be any improvement as long as there are people around who think the solution is to replace one set of dishonest incompetents by another set of dishonest incompetents because of some immature tribal loyalty.

WhiteHorse

worldwheeler wrote: »

There is no left or right.

Sharp, very sharp.

'Left' and 'Right' are labels for the actors on the stage and the boobs in the audience. In reality, there is only power.

Those who have real power care nothing for such labels and will adopt and discard them as it suits.

Zelazny

cvd wrote: »

David Harding who runs the most successful hedge fund in the UK (Winton Capital Management, $26bn ) is in favour of the Tobin Tax.
Of course, all those in the City who are not very good are against the tax - for the obvious reason they are not very good at their jobs.

The EC's impact assessment of the Tobin Tax showed that it would cause GDP shrinkage that would cut tax revenues by significantly more than it raised. In other words, the government would lose money by implementing it.

DCodd

howee wrote: »

Bob I agree with you privatisation is not always the answer but in times like this we really do need to make cost savings across the public sector and if these savings cannot be made I don't see why privatising parts is not a bad idea.

I also believe the unions hold the public sector back and make it more difficult to reform as they see any form of change or savings as a threat to them.

Personaly. I don't believe that we can make a true assessment as to whether the private sector can make cost savings within the public sector. It is a hugely complicated issue that has very long term implications. Granted, you may see short term savings (5-10 years) and may well see an equal or higher level of service provision but where the savings are concerned in the long term, you have to factor in numerous, very real issues.

The private sector will come in costing less than the public sector initially, whether that remains the case over the coming years is a debatable point as is the effect of the transfer of wealth from the lower paid worker to the wealthy employer. This point alone requires many decades of research to identify the real cost to the taxpayer of privatisation i.e. a lower paid workforce usualy needs supporting from the state, not only now but with future retirement support due to a lack of proper pension provision. There is also the issue of foreign companies winning the bids, creating a migration of state funds into European companies with the reduced tax revenues that equates to, i.e. foreign company pays dividends to foreign based investor thus reducing tax liability in the UK. And so on and so on.

NAR

NAR wrote: »

The Government were seeking additional contributions from next April for all those who earn £15k or more. I have heard this is to be significantly increased, to £25k or £30k, during current negotiations and if true could be enough to quell the industrial action.

Latest proposal announced today is NHS staff earning £25.5k or less will not pay any additional contributions during 2012-13 and those earning over that will pay extra. This would mean 500,000 will not pay additional contributions next year.

Unions were not happy with this announcement, as they are supposed to be in negotiations over ther proposals. :mad:

DCodd

NAR wrote: »

Latest proposal announced today is NHS staff earning £25.5k or less will not pay any additional contributions during 2012-13 and those earning over that will pay extra. This would mean 500,000 will not pay additional contributions next year.

Unions were not happy with this announcement, as they are supposed to be in negotiations over ther proposals. :mad:

It seems they are "not happy" about the announcement.

Unison criticised the timing of the announcement as "unhelpful" when pensions negotiations are continuing.

Quite rightly too. If I was negotiating my remuneration package with my boss and he announced the proposals to the rest of my collegues before we had finished the meeting, then I would be rightfully peeved too.