Preparedness for when

thriftwizard

My eldest brother has recently retired from a similar situation, whereby he spent two weeks of every year preparing presentations & balance sheets etc. to spend two days "competing" for his own job; i.e. presenting a case for why he should be "chosen" to do it for another year. The ridiculous fact was that there were only 3 people in the entire world qualified to do it, and the other two were in far higher-paid positions (and civilised warmer climates!); in fact he was offered one of their jobs when the incumbent retired, but felt he had to stay in the UK for his wife's treatment. So two weeks work, ultimately funded by public money, spent preparing to jump through a completely, ridiculously unnecessary hoop, multiplied by however-many professors are doing the same thing every year... and presumably the "board" who receive & rubber-stamp all these presentations are also publicly-funded.

And my sons have accrued vast debts round their young necks to help pay for this nonsense...

DawnW

ArthriticOldThing wrote: »

GQ, a friend of mine has had to go through that 'apply for your own job' business this month - and has just been told today that she was unsuccessful - so no longer has a job.
She is also a singleton with a mortgage.
Barstewards indeed!!!!!:mad::mad::mad:

Hmm this can sometimes backfire though. I once had a job at a FE college that I quite liked, but was very stressful and (at that time), possibly because I am female teaching in a field that was male dominated, I was paid less than others who were less well qualified on the same grade. We were advised that we would need to apply for our jobs, and circumstances at that time led me to carry out an experiment as to what would happen if I didn't.....

Well, I didn't apply for my job, and it seemed that nobody else wanted it either. But the 5 courses I was running, and the 20+ hours per week of teaching still needed doing, so to their relief, I just kept on doing it - at least for the few months it took to find another, much better paid job :rotfl:

Pity though, I liked that job, and felt that it was useful. I was inexpensive to employ and good at it. As I am not particularly money oriented, and felt that I earned enough to live on, I was quite content with the status quo, until they did that :mad:

Karmacat

GreyQueen wrote: »

Amazing, innit? All those trees being wasted. I am majorly 'off' the Broken Biscuit Corporation. Seems to be overful of money-wasters. Plus they made someone I know redundant, which never endears me to an organisation. I operate a very personal set of embargoes.

Me too, I hate the way they throw around licence payers money on head office salaries and "golden goodbyes", its a travesty. Because of my CFS type symptoms, I still need to sit still for good long periods, and I like visual stuff as opposed to radio, so I rely on CS dvds.

Doveling

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They're in Aldi again.

Price £1-49.

You're not going to give up until we've all bought at least two,are you :rotfl:

What will happen to people's cash if TPTB decide to do something on a day when house purchase money or redundancy money has just hit the bank? That could seriously mess things up for some people or would there be something in place to ensure house sales could still go through. Or am I being muddled again?

Frugalsod

Doveling wrote: »

What will happen to people's cash if TPTB decide to do something on a day when house purchase money or redundancy money has just hit the bank? That could seriously mess things up for some people or would there be something in place to ensure house sales could still go through. Or am I being muddled again?

No house sales will get caught up in a bail in. There might be problems trying to complete if 40% of your money has been bailed in and you have to get an additional loan to cover the sum lost to a bail in. In the end the only way top avoid a bail in is keeping cash in the mattress, which is why the government will put for an end to cash. If you could you could open a bank account overseas but then you would still have the risk of that nations banks being bailed in.

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Errrrmm....I aint sure on rating TV licence as a necessity - as its always perfectly possible to manage without a tv (or, in this day and age, as we know - many people watch things on Iplayer)

so "single mums" and "TV licences" is putting two voluntarily chosen items in one sentence and I can understand why if TPTB are exerting heavy penalties for not paying for a luxury item (albeit one the vast majority of us have) and peoples personal circumstances are not the State's business in that sense.

A lot of single mums didn't choose to be single mums. Your child(ren) not having TV is seen as deprivation, so its not necessarily the luxury that you imply, catch up requires broadband, which requires a telephone landline (theoretically you could do it via mobile, but that's dearer again).

The state decides that TV licences are a requirement for watching broadcast TV, and have made it a criminal matter not to have one (and treat those who genuinely don't need one as if they are criminals) the state also sets guidelines on what constitutes deprivation and empowers social workers to take children into care in those circumstances. The state also sanctions benefits, in some cases where there is evidence that the state's apparatus failed and lied to cover its misdeeds.

GreyQueen wrote: »

Gratifyingly, this company sometimes has to hire its ex IT employees back as contractors. For about £500/ day. We laff when that happens.

Capitalism, don'tcha love it?

This is how I became a freelance.
One friend of mine went through the apply for your job thing, to be told they'd outsourced his job to India. Three weeks later they were begging him to return, offering his annual salary per month for a minimum of three months. He turned them down and they went bust, he now employs the rest of the team they'd outsourced and services the same clients.

Doveling wrote: »

What will happen to people's cash if TPTB decide to do something on a day when house purchase money or redundancy money has just hit the bank? That could seriously mess things up for some people or would there be something in place to ensure house sales could still go through. Or am I being muddled again?

Sales would go through, since TPTB wouldn't try to do this while the banks were open. However if you were at the top of the chain, your proceeds would be liable. (Though the government did extend its guarantee to cover additional amounts under this circumstance, there is always the possibility that TPTB could exempt a haircut from the protection scheme.)
The big worry would be deposits paid as these sit in bank accounts for some time (thinking events like weddings or holidays) or even if the timing was bad, the full amount being paid a week or two before the event and the haircut happening in the interval.

Frugalsod

nuatha wrote: »

Sales would go through, since TPTB wouldn't try to do this while the banks were open. However if you were at the top of the chain, your proceeds would be liable. (Though the government did extend its guarantee to cover additional amounts under this circumstance, there is always the possibility that TPTB could exempt a haircut from the protection scheme.)
The big worry would be deposits paid as these sit in bank accounts for some time (thinking events like weddings or holidays) or even if the timing was bad, the full amount being paid a week or two before the event and the haircut happening in the interval.

I cannot see whole classes of transactions being exempt otherwise it brings in class action lawsuits from everyone else, who would be hit even harder because of such exemptions.

As all transactions could be completed on a single day the problem will be will the end of the chain be caught holding the money or the beginning causing the whole chain to collapse?

Technically I would have thought that these would have counted as the recipients problem, as they have already been paid for the service. They could be sued for damages and the return of the full deposit if they failed to complete the service for which had been contracted.

I suspect that they might actually allow all transactions to complete because they will be getting a huge rack off of duty and VAT from all the transactions.

Though to be honest when things are serious dire who would be trying to buy or sell a house?

nuatha

Frugalsod wrote: »

I cannot see whole classes of transactions being exempt otherwise it brings in class action lawsuits from everyone else, who would be hit even harder because of such exemptions.

Nor can I.
I was under the impression that an additional protection had been brought in by the coalition to safeguard additional savings as a result of a house sale for a period of 90 days. Having just checked the FSCS website I can't see any reference to this.

Taking a class action against a government is rarely successful.

As all transactions could be completed on a single day the problem will be will the end of the chain be caught holding the money or the beginning causing the whole chain to collapse?

Hence my comment "However if you were at the top of the chain, your proceeds would be liable."

Technically I would have thought that these would have counted as the recipients problem, as they have already been paid for the service. They could be sued for damages and the return of the full deposit if they failed to complete the service for which had been contracted.

It is the recipients problem, but if they can't then pay their sub-contractors and other bills, then they could easily be bankrupt, certainly they may well have problems meeting the full scale of their obligations. Suing a bankrupt firm is an expensive exercise in futility.

I suspect that they might actually allow all transactions to complete because they will be getting a huge rack off of duty and VAT from all the transactions.

Though to be honest when things are serious dire who would be trying to buy or sell a house?

Assuming you know sufficiently in advance that the situation has become that dire. Greece has been dragging on long past expectations, I suspect that another country may well move more speedily to ensure money hasn't already left the banking system.

[Deleted User]

On a very mundane level and also just in case, I invested in £25 worth of 'futures' in L*dl this morning and my dry stocks are now looking a whole lot healthier. It might not happen but then again it just might.....

moneyistooshorttomention

Doveling wrote: »

You're not going to give up until we've all bought at least two,are you :rotfl:

What will happen to people's cash if TPTB decide to do something on a day when house purchase money or redundancy money has just hit the bank? That could seriously mess things up for some people or would there be something in place to ensure house sales could still go through. Or am I being muddled again?

That was the thought that was scaring me back in 2013 - ie when I sold one house and bought another. I had it down - in writing - to my firm of solicitors that they MUST NOT do anything other than absolutely simultaneous Completion on house I sold and house I bought and thus transferred the responsibility for owt going wrong of a bail-in type nature onto their shoulders.

If they had Completed on my old house at 12 noon and Completed on my new one at 1pm and the whole system went belly-up at 12.30 - then I had put the onus onto them to "carry the can".

Yep.....its all supposed to be Completed at absolutely literally the same time to within seconds (yeh...yeh...of course it is...hmmmm) and I had told them ( in writing) that that is what it would be. I didn't actually care that much, of myself, if there was an hour in between the two different bits of Completion - but I had provided myself with written proof that it was Down to Them. I am the sort of person that would have been off to the media tout suite if there had been a problem due to them.

*****************

I do think people are going to need to protect themselves more now. When I paid out recent Big Cheque for latest work on my house - I knew, of a certainty, that I had the money to cover it in my bank account. So I had that cheque stub with a date on it proving at what date I had paid that money to that firm. I had told the firm to get that cheque through the System fast - just in case the System failed en route. Enough time had passed for that firm to get the money represented by that cheque out of my bank account and into theirs.

Therefore - I was going to treat that money as being in THEIR bank account, even if they hadn't yet put that cheque in. So - if that money hadn't all been there to back the cheque by the time they put the cheque through - it would have been their fault for not putting it in the bank fast enough. I've checked my most recent bank statement - and they did put that cheque through "at speed of light" - so we're clear. The Government hasn't had the chance to grab any of my money-to-back-up-that-cheque en route between me and the firm and we're both in the clear and that job is safely paid for.