Public Sector Strike(s)

chewmylegoff

Mallotum_X wrote: »

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.

me neither, but the ideological point that a private sector healthcare provider cannot survive without a state run healthcare apparatus to buy its products or services is factually incorrect.

julieq

andybenw wrote: »

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.

As usual, you're making strong and valid points. There's a populist line about "we should support our heroic soldiers whatever it costs" I'd like to steer clear of, but I do think there are very strong reasons for looking at the armed forces as special cases, and you make them well.

That doesn't extend to a blank cheque, but we do need an effective and professional defence force, and that does require a very strong overall package. However bad my day might be, I'm unlikely to be risking my life or even putting up with some of the privations of the forces. So I think most people would broadly support a good deal for the armed forces.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

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

I'm an office worker, middle management, my job is very cushy..... Couldn't give a flying **** about society, I work to get paid and support my family, I was not the person who claimed they chose to work in a certain sector to " create wealth" what a ridiculous argument to make..... Accrued rights should be protected whether that be in the private or public sector. It's fairly obvious.

tonycottee

FTBFun wrote: »

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

From what I could see that post was more of a dig aimed at julieq for making out that her choice of employment was some kind of selfless act. No comment was actually made to say that all people that went into public sector jobs did so for the good of the nation.
I'm also unsure why you quoted my post?

Mallotum_X

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:

Also
She chose not to push papers around a desk and have random meetings TO CREATE WEALTH

She chose not to spend excessive amounts of time on pointless burocracy TO CREATE WEALTH

She chose not to duplicate services TO CREATE WEALTH

Make sure you include examples of everything.

Notihng wrong with the examples you gave, we generally need most of those - not sure about all the going to war crap, but we dont need a bloated over managed public sector.

Not everyone in the public sector is valued and needed. Lots are but a significant number are not, but the argument always comes back to compare nurses with bankers.

It doesnt compare senior council execs against a private nursing home nurse for example.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

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

It's actually a provision that reduces costs, as no manager is going to agree to let staff use flexi at busy periods.... Flexi is used to meet business needs....

Engage your brain before you type.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

Thats one answer. Slightly lazy one.

The other is to look at America. The Pharma company I worked for made more in relative head per population from the UK, as more of their drugs got used.

For example, if someone needs 2 inhalers here, preventer and reliever. They will take both. They may not use both, but they will take them. It costs so little, and in many cases, nothing to have both.

In the US, it will cost that patient. They won't take the preventer unless abosultely neccesary.

The drugs are just examples to get the point across, not an actual case.

People are quite happy in this country to go to their GP and get a prescription and then pop the antibiotics in the cupboard as they are feeling better. That's a last resort in many other countries. You certainly don't take to waste.

Without the NHS in this country, pharma companies simply wouldn't be as profitable as they are, leading to job losses.

thegirlintheattic

julieq wrote: »

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?

Public sector workers do fund their own pension, we also get a contribution from the government, the same as many private sector workers do from their employers.

You don't pay our pensions, you pay for a service, our employer then pays us a pension from their income. Same as someone buys something from your company, they are not paying your pension they are paying for a service. By your logic I could argue that you getting money from the NHS means that tax payers are paying for your pension too.

Private sector workers' reactions would likely be the same if they had been paying into something and the rules were suddenly dramatically changed, leading to you getting less, paying more and working longer than you had originally planned for. All this on top of pay freezes, caps and cuts. The difference is that successive governments have brain washed the private sector into accepting these types of changes without a fight and made you think that a race to the bottom is the way to go.

julieq

chewmylegoff wrote: »

me neither, but the ideological point that a private sector healthcare provider cannot survive without a state run healthcare apparatus to buy its products or services is factually incorrect.

Pharma companies make their money from healthcare full stop, and that includes self dispensing, private sector and public sector - I don't have the numbers but instinctively I'd say that the private sector is the biggest consumer, because it's the best funded in the biggest market (US). The reason that pharma research tends not to be a public sector activity (beyond university research programmes) is that it's more efficient and ultimately costs less to do it in the private sector under commercial disciplines.

Now that's interesting, because already in the public sector you are using the private sector to reduce costs. There's really no reason why you can't extend that rationale into other areas, beyond some emotional fear that profit is bad. There is already profit built into the system. Profit is the engine that drives efficiency improvement, and in healthcare that equates directly to improvement of outcome.

And no, I don't work for a pharmaceutical company.

Peelerfart

And on the plus side,I've just been to our,normally quiet, local post office collection office and you cannot move for people collecting stuff.

Still it gives 'em somethin to do instead of getting cold on picket lines.