Public Sector Strike(s)

Andy_L

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Perhaps it is managed correctly where you are, my daughter works for Civil service, they have flexi in their office. People come in at 7 and leave at 12 if they wish. They have done their 5 hrs. Her particular dept do have to be in the office between 10am and 4pm but dont have to schedule any times. They just turn up and work. At the end of the 4 week cycle they must not be any more than 14hours over or under their contracted hours. They are all on 35hr week contracts.

They have to make up time the following month or take any over worked hours as days off (pre arranged).... collate that with people who have negotiated working from home one day a week and I am not surprised that they are paying people double time on a Saturday to catch up the work load (overtime which is due to be stopped at the end of the year)

To me this kind of flexi is a massive perk. and seemingly a big cost to the tax payer - how many other offices round the country operate in the same way?

Being able to go in as and when, not worrying about running late one morning or needing to leave early. Accumulating a couple of extra days off each month if you wish.. you wouldn't run a private sector business in the same way surely?

Other than, possibly, having to have the lights on longer how is flexi-time a "massive cost"?

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So without the public sector, you would be up the creek?

Interesting!

How much does your company cream from the NHS? Pharmaceutical by chance? If so, just how much wealth is drug protection making you?

If there was no money to be made from selling pharmaceuticals, who do you think would come up with the billions required to develop new drugs?

abaxas

noodle_doodle wrote: »

Of course, if pensions are seen as an unreliable way to plan for your old age, with the gubment willy-nilly changing the terms depending on the boss-eyed ideology of whoevers oozed into power at any given time, then people will turn to more physical investments, such as say houses, keeping the prices high. Well, that's the young'uns off the housing ladder for the forseeable future, and why we won't see a housing price crash either....

That would depend on if people needed to sell. No-one is going to want to service a BTL in the 80s. Sorry but you cant afford your sheltered retirement costs this month as your tenant has defaulted on his rent.

Not going to happen, when people get old they dont want these sort of things clogging up what is left of their lives.

andybenw

julieq wrote: »

OK, the products my company makes are used by the NHS to save lives. Tick that one.
They're used by suppliers to the armed forces to create lower cost body armour. Think that one is covered too.

Not entirely sure how the public service protects the innocent, except in that it protects otherwise sensitive but workshy office slackers from having to be exposed to the workplace bullying of performance assessment and non collective pay review. Anyway I can't help there much.

I make no claim about the morality or not of my work. But it does generate wealth and it does create jobs. And it pays for the public sector.

On the other hand, all we get from elements of the public sector and the unions is nonsense about angelic nurses, soldiers in harms way, firemen, dedicated teachers and so on. Somehow you never talk about the people turning up on flexitime with extended friday pub lunches to shuffle planning applications around or any of the slightly less worthy jobs. So if anyone is trying to bypass the argument by spuriously claiming the moral high ground, it's not me.

The issue is simply this: why should you not fund your own pension? Why, when I get a worse deal than you should I be asked to subsidise it? If the situation was reversed, what would your reaction be exactly?

Speaking as a member of the armed forces. Our pension is used as a major retention tool. Most forces personnel know they will face leaving at age 40 probably to a low paid job as at this age it will be difficult to proceed on a new path.

In order to stop everyone leaving after ten years to give themselves a shot at another career the pension is used. Pension trapped is what we call it.

So, although the pension is way better than the private sector it is also being used for the betterment of the forces themselves, allowing us to retain experienced personnel who it has cost a fortune to train.

If you get your way we will slash pensions. Personnel will leave. And then we will have to spend a fortune on retraining negating some of the cost as well as losing our experienced personnel cutting the ability of our armed forces to perform at a high standard.

FTBFun

tonycottee wrote: »

Who made that suggestion?

Post 216. Not the first time I've seen this argument.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

If there was no money to be made from selling pharmaceuticals, who do you think would come up with the billions required to develop new drugs?

Exactly. We all NEED each other.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So without the public sector, you would be up the creek?

no, because people would still require the provision of healthcare whether or not it was provided by the state.

Credit-Crunched

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

HAHAHA Poor Julie:T

She chose not to look after a dying person TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to protect the innocent TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to educate and guide our children TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to go to war and risk death TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to risk her life fighting fires TO CREATE WEALTH

The list goes on, Don't make out that the work you do is somehow morally greater than a pubic sector worker. :beer:

If you all went into the public sector to better society then why are you striking around remuneration and financials.

Surely the knowledge of knowing that you are (insert any of the above) should be sufficient for your needs and the pension should be an added bonus.

OR ARE YOU IN IT FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND NOT THE EMOTIONAL REWARDS??

Please think before you type!

Julieq is being honest with herself, maybe you should

Mallotum_X

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, because people would still require the provision of healthcare whether or not it was provided by the state.

This is where the argument can get silly. Not everyone would be able to afford private healthcare. I for one would not want to live in a country where people are left to die if they are broke. Without the work of much of ths public sector the country would be a lot lot scarier and dangerous. The cost of private security, grills on houses etc would damage the quality of life for us all.

We do need a public sector, we just need a simpler, more efficient and cheaper public sector.

Credit-Crunched

Andy_L wrote: »

Other than, possibly, having to have the lights on longer how is flexi-time a "massive cost"?

Read the paragraph above and it answers it :eek:

Paying double time on Sat to make up for the shortfall on work done during the week