Public Sector Strike(s)

grizzly1911

dshart wrote: »

I think the figures quoted for public sector workers in a pension was around 70% compared to around 30% in the private sector. But the point still remains that the public sector pension is available to just about every public sector worker even though some choose not to take it.

Which idea is wrong though?

The problem is that no one can really afford any form of pension contribution on the minimum wage.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If the government didn't provide the public sector I doubt tax would reduce much. The bulk of the payments don't go to services but things like benefits and state pensions.

if there was no public sector then by definition there would be no tax, as there would be no government apparatus to levy tax as there is no public sector.

dshart

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Which idea is wrong though?

The problem is that no one can really afford any form of pension contribution on the minimum wage.

I was referring to comments people made comparing the public sector pension as a perk and comparing it to perks such as car allowances and share options in some private companies. I was not looking at the affordability but the fact that the option is there for all unlike the perks they mention in the private sector.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

I don't understand why people are banging on about flexi time..... most don't even have a basic understanding of how it works.....

Flexi-time:

I could ask a member of staff to work over their allotted shift for zero extra money to meet the needs of the business, what they get in return is the extra hours/time worked for an early finish during quiet periods.... Surely this is beneficial to the taxpayer. It creates adequately staffed call centres and job centres which would otherwise be paying staff at a higher O/T rate.

Graham_Devon

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I don't understand why people are banging on about flexi time..... most don't even have a basic understanding of how it works.....

Flexi-time:

I could ask a member of staff to work over their allotted shift for zero extra money to meet the needs of the business, what they get in return is the extra hours/time worked for an early finish during quiet periods.... Surely this is beneficial to the taxpayer. It creates adequately staffed call centres and job centres which would otherwise be paying staff at a higher O/T rate.

I think people take it that employees can work the hours that suit them, as it suits them.

pd52

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I don't understand why people are banging on about flexi time..... most don't even have a basic understanding of how it works.....

Flexi-time:

I could ask a member of staff to work over their allotted shift for zero extra money to meet the needs of the business, what they get in return is the extra hours/time worked for an early finish during quiet periods.... Surely this is beneficial to the taxpayer. It creates adequately staffed call centres and job centres which would otherwise be paying staff at a higher O/T rate.

exactly, we have to put on a board what time were coming in, going home and having lunch for the next 3 weeks, and if its not suitable for the team we have to change to 'meet business needs' (which seems to be 99% of the time) its not ' ill think ill pop in at 10.30 and go home at 1' sort of thing

dori2o

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think people take it that employees can work the hours that suit them, as it suits them.

I've explained it many times on these boards, but as usual, the vast majority of the morons on here have been brainwashed by the media and the Governments propoganda.

Here is how it works in HMRC for those, like me, on the New Terms contracts.

Everyone has a working pattern, there are about 8 to choose from, set by HMRC, which include working at least one night til closing time (8pm in contact centres) and normally include rotered Saturdays, one out of every 4. When you first start work at HMRC you begin with a '0' balance on your 'flexi sheet'.

You have the ability to accrue a credit, by working extra hours when business need allows, staying 30 mins late, coming in 30 mins early when the business demand is less, with the maximum accrued credit allowed being +22hrs 12 minutes.

You can also build up a deficit upto a maximum of -22hrs 12 minutes.

You can use this 'flexi time' time to take time off. HOWEVER, this must be applied for and approved, in the same way annual leave is applied for, and approved.

If there is no availability to be off, then you cannot be off on leave/flexi.

You cannot just come and go as and when you please.

If you leave HMRC you have to run down any credit balance you have accrued, and any deficit has to be run down, OR the value of the hours in deficit are deducted from your final salary.

So despite what the media, the government, and some of themorons on here would have you believe, 'Flexi time' is hardly a 'perk'.

pd52

dori2o wrote: »

I've explained it many times on these boards, but as usual, the vast majority of the morons on here have been brainwashed by the media and the Governments propoganda.

Here is how it works in HMRC for those, like me, on the New Terms contracts.

When you start work you begin with a '0' balance on your 'flexi sheet'.

You have the ability to accrue a credit, by working extra hours, staying late, coming in early, with the maximum credit allowed being 22hrs 12 minutes.

You can also build up a deficit upto a maximum of 22hrs 12 minutes.

You can use this 'flexi time' time to take time off. HOWEVER, this must be applied for and approved, in the same way annual leave is applied for, and approved.

If there is no availability to be off, then you cannot be off on leave/flexi.

You cannot just come and go as and when you please.

If you leave HMRC you have to run down any credit balance you have accrued, and any deficit has to be run down, OR the value of the hours in deficit are deducted from your final salary.

So despite what the media, the government, and some of themorons on here would have you believe, 'Flexi time' is hardly a 'perk'.

i always keep my flexi at zero, cant think of anything worse than the dept having 7 hours of my time if i get run over by a bus on the way to wrk

lumpkins

taker920 wrote: »

I'm a local government worker and will not be striking tomorrow. As a union member I will cross the picket line which will consist of some of my staff which is something in an ideal world i'd rather not do. I voted no in the strike ballot and don't feel I should be bound by the yes vote of only 22% of the union members who could be bothered to vote.

I don't agree with the pension changes but I don't feel a strike is the correct approach at a time when my two nephews have lost their jobs and cannot find work, something being replicated across the Country.

I've been a public sector worker long enough to know you either get more now and less later, or the opposite.

In the 80s, my Dad was the manager of an adult learning centre. He crossed the picket line because back then, a managers job meant that HE was responsible for his service users during and beyond the hours they attended. He would have had sole responsibility (including banking and wages) for any backlog which could have taken months to sort in his own time. He held the position and required qualifications for that post and there were no supporting staff to ease his workload. As far as he was concerned, he had a duty to his service users and their families/carers. He also had 3 children to support and a mortgage to pay for. As I understand, this could have been a massive risk for us all. An industrial tribunal was heard against him but no further action was taken. Many years later, in 1994 (and following national news coverage), many staff, including my father were what can really only be described as "constructively dismissed", He was offered the chance to re-apply for his position (taking in to consideration that he would have to completely re-train to fit in with new legislation) and as the local Authority began to make amends with the public and push their weight amongst new reforms concerning the way vulnerable adults are cared for he gave up. Where were his union when he needed them? The past had shown they were not concerned for the welfare of the service users and most likely, they themselves were in favour of more positions=shared and fewer responsibilies in the workplace=The decline of managers as we knew them. In todays form filling society,there are no longer any "carers" jobs. It appears to be all about money and perks. Fortunately my dad didn't live to see the state of our wonderful country and the way we are being pitted against each other. For a man who had served in the RAF, been a teacher, a joiner (a real one btw) a father, and a man who turned his hand to many, many worthy things, he must have felt humiliated to take on a job at minimum wage standing in shopping centres, trying to sign people up who would be prepared to fill out surveys in their homes. Most would agree to then be "unavailable" when he used his own non claimable fuel to travel but he needed the wage till retirement. He died at 57 yrs old, a week before Christmas that same year so what can I say? Sorry to rant. I understand the argument for and against but really? He did so much for the people who he cared for in that centre and raised lots of money for charity along the way. What perks did he get from the public sector in return for his attempts to do the right thing all round? I say that for healthcare staff to abandon their duty of care to patients in favour of money is hypocritical of their arguments and I certainly am not ignoring the other issues. My Husband used to work for Royal Mail and I know that we can look forward to his POP pension which is literally worth pennies compared to what he payed in over many years and it will be much appreciated when it takes us 2p over the thresh hold that allows us the free stuff like pills, winter fuel payments and glasses when we reach that age.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

lumpkins wrote: »

In the 80s, my Dad was the manager of an adult learning centre. He crossed the picket line because back then, a managers job meant that HE was responsible for his service users during and beyond the hours they attended. He would have had sole responsibility (including banking and wages) for any backlog which could have taken months to sort in his own time. He held the position and required qualifications for that post and there were no supporting staff to ease his workload. As far as he was concerned, he had a duty to his service users and their families/carers. He also had 3 children to support and a mortgage to pay for. As I understand, this could have been a massive risk for us all. An industrial tribunal was heard against him but no further action was taken. Many years later, in 1994 (and following national news coverage), many staff, including my father were what can really only be described as "constructively dismissed", He was offered the chance to re-apply for his position (taking in to consideration that he would have to completely re-train to fit in with new legislation) and as the local Authority began to make amends with the public and push their weight amongst new reforms concerning the way vulnerable adults are cared for he gave up. Where were his union when he needed them? The past had shown they were not concerned for the welfare of the service users and most likely, they themselves were in favour of more positions=shared and fewer responsibilies in the workplace=The decline of managers as we knew them. In todays form filling society,there are no longer any "carers" jobs. It appears to be all about money and perks. Fortunately my dad didn't live to see the state of our wonderful country and the way we are being pitted against each other. For a man who had served in the RAF, been a teacher, a joiner (a real one btw) a father, and a man who turned his hand to many, many worthy things, he must have felt humiliated to take on a job at minimum wage standing in shopping centres, trying to sign people up who would be prepared to fill out surveys in their homes. Most would agree to then be "unavailable" when he used his own non claimable fuel to travel but he needed the wage till retirement. He died at 57 yrs old, a week before Christmas that same year so what can I say? Sorry to rant. I understand the argument for and against but really? He did so much for the people who he cared for in that centre and raised lots of money for charity along the way. What perks did he get from the public sector in return for his attempts to do the right thing all round? I say that for healthcare staff to abandon their duty of care to patients in favour of money is hypocritical of their arguments and I certainly am not ignoring the other issues. My Husband used to work for Royal Mail and I know that we can look forward to his POP pension which is literally worth pennies compared to what he payed in over many years and it will be much appreciated when it takes us 2p over the thresh hold that allows us the free stuff like pills, winter fuel payments and glasses when we reach that age.

I'm sorry but does your post actually have a point.......:o