The ArgusUnion bosses vow to 'shut the city down' (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Union bosses vow to 'shut the city down'

The Argus: Union bosses vow to 'shut the city down' Union bosses vow to 'shut the city down'

UNION bosses have vowed to “shut the city down” next month as their members became the latest to vote in favour of strike action.

GMB members voted three-to-one to join fellow public sector worker unions in a mass national strike on July 10 that is expected to affect the majority of council services.

Refuse workers, street sweepers and care staff are all expected to down tools for the day while midwives are also being consulted on strike plans.

Teachers, teaching assistants, school support staff, social workers, bailiffs, enforcement officers, museum and library staff, customer service staff are also set to work out.

Brighton and Hove union leaders said they are organising a march on July 10 involving in excess of 13,000 members which would shut both the city and council down.

GMB branch secretary Mark Turner said he hoped Brighton and Hove would host the biggest protest outside London.

The GMB results, announced yesterday from a turnout of 25%, follow on from the announcement earlier this week that members of the National Union of Teachers and Unison had voted in favour of strike action.

It is expected the day of public sector action will be the biggest in 30 years and could be the beginning of more lengthy strikes later in the year.

Mr Turner said the Government had brought the situation upon itself.

He said: “I have seen our usual opponents already criticising what the unions are doing but I don’t care a jot, we are doing this for our members.

“They are seeing an increase in the cost of living but pay is not going up.

“The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.”

Conservative councillors have urged union officials to call off the strike after figures revealed one in 12 Unison members nationally voted in favour of it.

Conservative Group Leader Geoffrey Theobald said: “This is hardly a resounding mandate for the union bosses to cause further disruption and inconvenience to the city’s residents.

“I have the utmost admiration for those care workers, school support staff and others who do incredibly demanding jobs but the harsh reality is that the public purse simply cannot afford larger pay rises.”

A council spokesman said earlier this week: “We are working hard to identify the extent of potential disruption to services.

“Parents should stay in contact with individual schools on how each one might be affected.

“There will be more detailed information on the council’s website nearer the time.”

Comments (144)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:22am Sat 28 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

"Staff are set to work out" ..... how one incorrect word can change a sentence to mean the opposite.......
"Staff are set to work out" ..... how one incorrect word can change a sentence to mean the opposite....... Quiterie
  • Score: 30

8:05am Sat 28 Jun 14

HovePunter says...

Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated. HovePunter
  • Score: 21

8:28am Sat 28 Jun 14

Be_Real says...

What a grand and well thought out plan to get the general public behind you. Start off by removing their services, force them to make alternative arrangements for child care and then make threats about shutting down the city. All this on a very low union turnout. How can this be a good thing, when in the case if GMB, 75% didn't even bother to vote but the union still think they have the right to throttle local businesses by taking over the town. At the end of the day those individuals affected by governmental changes will actually lose public support by the jumped up gits who are supposedly there to represent their best interests. Let's see if the low union turnout eventually equates to lower union membership?
What a grand and well thought out plan to get the general public behind you. Start off by removing their services, force them to make alternative arrangements for child care and then make threats about shutting down the city. All this on a very low union turnout. How can this be a good thing, when in the case if GMB, 75% didn't even bother to vote but the union still think they have the right to throttle local businesses by taking over the town. At the end of the day those individuals affected by governmental changes will actually lose public support by the jumped up gits who are supposedly there to represent their best interests. Let's see if the low union turnout eventually equates to lower union membership? Be_Real
  • Score: 41

8:32am Sat 28 Jun 14

B rian Tawses left foot says...

These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.
These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required. B rian Tawses left foot
  • Score: 20

9:09am Sat 28 Jun 14

qm says...

Is this the same Mark Turner who ate all the pies while his 'members' starved?
Is this the same Mark Turner who ate all the pies while his 'members' starved? qm
  • Score: 29

9:11am Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

So only 25% bothered to turn up to vote for this strike action and what percentage of them voted to strike even if it was the full 25% it shows that at least 75% didn't want to take strike action.
So only 25% bothered to turn up to vote for this strike action and what percentage of them voted to strike even if it was the full 25% it shows that at least 75% didn't want to take strike action. rolivan
  • Score: 35

9:19am Sat 28 Jun 14

Morpheus says...

We should remember that these same union bosses control the Labour Party. This is a sign of worse to come if Labour gets in at the next election.
We should remember that these same union bosses control the Labour Party. This is a sign of worse to come if Labour gets in at the next election. Morpheus
  • Score: -2

9:36am Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry. HJarrs
  • Score: -40

9:43am Sat 28 Jun 14

NathanAdler says...

The VAST majority of lower paid council workers are immigrants who have fled some P-poor EU former commie zone where they still get paid in potatoes and cabbages.

Whilst I appreciate everyone wants the best on offer and a better pay rise of course will be nicer, lots of these people came to England knowing the score.

As for teachers, don't get me started!!!
The VAST majority of lower paid council workers are immigrants who have fled some P-poor EU former commie zone where they still get paid in potatoes and cabbages. Whilst I appreciate everyone wants the best on offer and a better pay rise of course will be nicer, lots of these people came to England knowing the score. As for teachers, don't get me started!!! NathanAdler
  • Score: -1

9:45am Sat 28 Jun 14

Be_Real says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
But at 25 % turnout for the GMB, more angry at the union! This is fundamentally more worrying, as if their members are dissatisfied with the overall representation of their interests, then the unions will be in a bad place. If unions are out of touch with membership, that membership reduces. If membership as a percentage of employees is low, then they will not be taken seriously!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]But at 25 % turnout for the GMB, more angry at the union! This is fundamentally more worrying, as if their members are dissatisfied with the overall representation of their interests, then the unions will be in a bad place. If unions are out of touch with membership, that membership reduces. If membership as a percentage of employees is low, then they will not be taken seriously! Be_Real
  • Score: 17

9:55am Sat 28 Jun 14

Alison Smith says...

Will Mr Turner be joining in with strike action, therefore doing his Union job & not actually being on strike. What a dilemma!
Will Mr Turner be joining in with strike action, therefore doing his Union job & not actually being on strike. What a dilemma! Alison Smith
  • Score: 4

10:01am Sat 28 Jun 14

B rian Tawses left foot says...

HJarrs says...

Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.

Tosh.
HJarrs says... Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry. Tosh. B rian Tawses left foot
  • Score: -15

10:09am Sat 28 Jun 14

Gaz the great says...

close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT!
close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT! Gaz the great
  • Score: 45

10:19am Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
You mean at the most 25% are angry
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]You mean at the most 25% are angry rolivan
  • Score: -1

10:30am Sat 28 Jun 14

calderon_is_epic says...

Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder. calderon_is_epic
  • Score: 43

10:31am Sat 28 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.
Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids.

I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again.

Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag.

You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers!

F. Sakes.
My big yacht.
Caymen Islands.
[quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.[/p][/quote]Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids. I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again. Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag. You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers! F. Sakes. My big yacht. Caymen Islands. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 21

10:41am Sat 28 Jun 14

Jetsamandflotsam says...

What about the traffic wardens?
What about the traffic wardens? Jetsamandflotsam
  • Score: 10

10:42am Sat 28 Jun 14

mimseycal says...

Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it.
Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it. mimseycal
  • Score: -21

10:44am Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.
[quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays. rolivan
  • Score: 8

10:51am Sat 28 Jun 14

Andy R says...

How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?
How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald? Andy R
  • Score: 5

10:58am Sat 28 Jun 14

Gee Jay says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
Well, less than 25% of them are angry. Let's get the facts straight.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]Well, less than 25% of them are angry. Let's get the facts straight. Gee Jay
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sat 28 Jun 14

Be_Real says...

Andy R wrote:
How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?
and how many GMB members voted, let alone voted for strike action?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?[/p][/quote]and how many GMB members voted, let alone voted for strike action? Be_Real
  • Score: 4

11:01am Sat 28 Jun 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

Meanwhile, some of us will be working for a living on that day.
Meanwhile, some of us will be working for a living on that day. Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 14

11:03am Sat 28 Jun 14

Picky Parker says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent.

Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it.

I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction.

Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days.

Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so.

Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent. Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it. I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction. Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days. Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so. Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level. Picky Parker
  • Score: 29

11:04am Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Andy R wrote:
How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?
More to the point why didn't 75% of members turn up to vote if they are so disenchanted ?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?[/p][/quote]More to the point why didn't 75% of members turn up to vote if they are so disenchanted ? rolivan
  • Score: 6

11:17am Sat 28 Jun 14

Be_Real says...

mimseycal wrote:
Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it.
Social contract is not one sided and it is not all about the public sector. With demands comes responsibility. We are constantly told that the good are leaving in their droves and so, does this mean we are already left with the less able? If you are good or better, the I agree you deserve better terms. If you just coast along or worse, incompetent, then stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you do.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it.[/p][/quote]Social contract is not one sided and it is not all about the public sector. With demands comes responsibility. We are constantly told that the good are leaving in their droves and so, does this mean we are already left with the less able? If you are good or better, the I agree you deserve better terms. If you just coast along or worse, incompetent, then stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you do. Be_Real
  • Score: 5

11:18am Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

rolivan wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.
That should be 170 of course, predictive text.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.[/p][/quote]That should be 170 of course, predictive text. rolivan
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sat 28 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Gaz the great wrote:
close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT!
Errrrrr - the majority of the bus lanes in this city were installed by the Tories and Labour but don't let the faacts get in the way of talking cr@p!!
[quote][p][bold]Gaz the great[/bold] wrote: close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT![/p][/quote]Errrrrr - the majority of the bus lanes in this city were installed by the Tories and Labour but don't let the faacts get in the way of talking cr@p!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -9

11:56am Sat 28 Jun 14

Be_Real says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Gaz the great wrote:
close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT!
Errrrrr - the majority of the bus lanes in this city were installed by the Tories and Labour but don't let the faacts get in the way of talking cr@p!!
Not sure you are entirely correct there. I seem to remember we had a parting gift from East Sussex County Council before we became a City Council. The dat these became live, we immediately had traffic jams at times they had not been seen before their introduction. With the Greens bringing in additional lanes, they clearly had not learned from past mistakes., something of a trend in my opinion!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gaz the great[/bold] wrote: close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT![/p][/quote]Errrrrr - the majority of the bus lanes in this city were installed by the Tories and Labour but don't let the faacts get in the way of talking cr@p!![/p][/quote]Not sure you are entirely correct there. I seem to remember we had a parting gift from East Sussex County Council before we became a City Council. The dat these became live, we immediately had traffic jams at times they had not been seen before their introduction. With the Greens bringing in additional lanes, they clearly had not learned from past mistakes., something of a trend in my opinion! Be_Real
  • Score: 17

12:15pm Sat 28 Jun 14

ghost bus driver says...

Be_Real wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it.
Social contract is not one sided and it is not all about the public sector. With demands comes responsibility. We are constantly told that the good are leaving in their droves and so, does this mean we are already left with the less able? If you are good or better, the I agree you deserve better terms. If you just coast along or worse, incompetent, then stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you do.
Shouldn't that read:

"stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you try to do."

After all, incompetence means you can't do the job you're in. Reflects most of middle management quite accurately.
[quote][p][bold]Be_Real[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Well, I for one will be out there supporting the strikers. This government has rewritten the social contract that exists between the electorate and the elected ... with no ifs ands or buts about it.[/p][/quote]Social contract is not one sided and it is not all about the public sector. With demands comes responsibility. We are constantly told that the good are leaving in their droves and so, does this mean we are already left with the less able? If you are good or better, the I agree you deserve better terms. If you just coast along or worse, incompetent, then stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you do.[/p][/quote]Shouldn't that read: "stop bleating as you are probably already overpaid for the job you try to do." After all, incompetence means you can't do the job you're in. Reflects most of middle management quite accurately. ghost bus driver
  • Score: -2

12:59pm Sat 28 Jun 14

just-a-person says...

Got to love Mark Turner, always ready to do battle.
Got to love Mark Turner, always ready to do battle. just-a-person
  • Score: 7

1:00pm Sat 28 Jun 14

B rian Tawses left foot says...

Fercri Sakes says...


B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.
Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids.

I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again.

Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag.

You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers!

F. Sakes.
My big yacht.
Caymen Islands.

Shouldn't you be out selling the 'Socialist Worker' - an oxymoron if ever I encountered one.
Fercri Sakes says... B rian Tawses left foot wrote: These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required. Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids. I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again. Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag. You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers! F. Sakes. My big yacht. Caymen Islands. Shouldn't you be out selling the 'Socialist Worker' - an oxymoron if ever I encountered one. B rian Tawses left foot
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Sat 28 Jun 14

just-a-person says...

calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree. just-a-person
  • Score: 9

1:13pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

rolivan wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.
As teacher do not teach lessons 8 hours a day, they also have the "free" periods in the 195 school year days to mark and prepare lessons too.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.[/p][/quote]As teacher do not teach lessons 8 hours a day, they also have the "free" periods in the 195 school year days to mark and prepare lessons too. fredaj
  • Score: 3

1:28pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.”

There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years.

I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs.

So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.
Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.” There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years. I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs. So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position. fredaj
  • Score: 17

1:31pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of grey haired men like the threat of impending 'bin-chaos'
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of grey haired men like the threat of impending 'bin-chaos' Gribbet
  • Score: 8

1:32pm Sat 28 Jun 14

NickBtn says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
I don't think that people can be described as angry if the vast majority don't even vote. Disillusioned yes, but also probably resigned to change.

There was only a 25% turnout. We're not told the split between yes and no votes but even if 80% voted yes that means that only 1 in 5 of those eligible to vote supported the union call. That's not good for the union or for their message. How many really will take action?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]I don't think that people can be described as angry if the vast majority don't even vote. Disillusioned yes, but also probably resigned to change. There was only a 25% turnout. We're not told the split between yes and no votes but even if 80% voted yes that means that only 1 in 5 of those eligible to vote supported the union call. That's not good for the union or for their message. How many really will take action? NickBtn
  • Score: 4

1:45pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
[quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance. fredaj
  • Score: 2

1:54pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that
Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that Nikski
  • Score: -1

2:01pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.
I thought you live in France now? How do the conditions for teachers in France compare?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.[/p][/quote]I thought you live in France now? How do the conditions for teachers in France compare? HJarrs
  • Score: -4

2:02pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Be_Real wrote:
Andy R wrote:
How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?
and how many GMB members voted, let alone voted for strike action?
How many were motivated to vote against?
[quote][p][bold]Be_Real[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: How many people voted for Geoffrey Theobald?[/p][/quote]and how many GMB members voted, let alone voted for strike action?[/p][/quote]How many were motivated to vote against? HJarrs
  • Score: -3

2:08pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
Here we go, you couldn't do the job, but your job is soooo much harder and how proud you are to be paid so little.

You should get off your knees and ask for more money or move on rather than moaning about others.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]Here we go, you couldn't do the job, but your job is soooo much harder and how proud you are to be paid so little. You should get off your knees and ask for more money or move on rather than moaning about others. HJarrs
  • Score: 3

2:15pm Sat 28 Jun 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Jetsamandflotsam wrote:
What about the traffic wardens?
Having worked there, I'd be surprised if they'd be interested in this; just something else in the background that's hardly worth bothering with.
[quote][p][bold]Jetsamandflotsam[/bold] wrote: What about the traffic wardens?[/p][/quote]Having worked there, I'd be surprised if they'd be interested in this; just something else in the background that's hardly worth bothering with. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
Here we go, you couldn't do the job, but your job is soooo much harder and how proud you are to be paid so little.

You should get off your knees and ask for more money or move on rather than moaning about others.
Where did I "moan about others"?

I just said teaching is an uninteresting, easy, if well paid job but that I personally value an interesting job with less pay, over it. I do after, have to do it every day, so I might as well go for something I enjoy.

I said I am pleased there are people who are prepared to teach.

So nope, no moaning.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]Here we go, you couldn't do the job, but your job is soooo much harder and how proud you are to be paid so little. You should get off your knees and ask for more money or move on rather than moaning about others.[/p][/quote]Where did I "moan about others"? I just said teaching is an uninteresting, easy, if well paid job but that I personally value an interesting job with less pay, over it. I do after, have to do it every day, so I might as well go for something I enjoy. I said I am pleased there are people who are prepared to teach. So nope, no moaning. fredaj
  • Score: -2

3:01pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Nikski wrote:
Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that
I'll try again (smartphone not so smart, or perhaps smartphone user...)
Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: "the harsh reality is that the public purse simply cannot afford any larger pay rises"
Unless you are an MP of course in which case the public purse can afford to pay you an extra 11%......and 11% of an MP's salary is a an awful lot more than 1% of a street cleaner or nurse's. No whiff of a double standard there Geoffrey?
Hey we're all in it together!
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that[/p][/quote]I'll try again (smartphone not so smart, or perhaps smartphone user...) Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: "the harsh reality is that the public purse simply cannot afford any larger pay rises" Unless you are an MP of course in which case the public purse can afford to pay you an extra 11%......and 11% of an MP's salary is a an awful lot more than 1% of a street cleaner or nurse's. No whiff of a double standard there Geoffrey? Hey we're all in it together! Nikski
  • Score: 6

3:01pm Sat 28 Jun 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.
I thought you live in France now? How do the conditions for teachers in France compare?
My Daughter broke up from School last Tuesday and goes back in September . So from that point of view I think the Teachers do well as it is a private School they tend not to go out on strike , athough the Teachers are paid by the Government and because of this it costs about £80 a week in fees . By the way You know I live in France at the Moment and never hide that fact .We pay our taxes in England and my wife works There . We also have lots of friends and Family in the City so are still involved and My Daughter and I visit frequently . Are you trying to get some mileage out of me not being a resident at the moment because you can goad me all you want but I will tell you this I have probably forgotten more about The City than you will ever know . What was so bad about the Town you left to make you move to Brighton by the Way?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]The School year is approximately 195 days so teachers have 117 which they can then spend on Marking, preparation and last but not least Holidays.[/p][/quote]I thought you live in France now? How do the conditions for teachers in France compare?[/p][/quote]My Daughter broke up from School last Tuesday and goes back in September . So from that point of view I think the Teachers do well as it is a private School they tend not to go out on strike , athough the Teachers are paid by the Government and because of this it costs about £80 a week in fees . By the way You know I live in France at the Moment and never hide that fact .We pay our taxes in England and my wife works There . We also have lots of friends and Family in the City so are still involved and My Daughter and I visit frequently . Are you trying to get some mileage out of me not being a resident at the moment because you can goad me all you want but I will tell you this I have probably forgotten more about The City than you will ever know . What was so bad about the Town you left to make you move to Brighton by the Way? rolivan
  • Score: 1

3:16pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Number Six says...

I'm old. I forget things. Like when was the last time a strike actually worked? as in, when did strikers actually get what they wanted?
I'm old. I forget things. Like when was the last time a strike actually worked? as in, when did strikers actually get what they wanted? Number Six
  • Score: 4

3:19pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%. Nikski
  • Score: 3

3:54pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

3:57pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Alison Smith says...

The Queen works 364 days per year at the age of 88. The Monarchy brings more tourism £s into the UK than it costs to maintain it. MPs work seven day weeks & do not just sit at home during Parliament recess. Their Constituency work is another potential 364 days per year.
No doubt you & your wife work hard at your jobs, but so do others.
The Queen works 364 days per year at the age of 88. The Monarchy brings more tourism £s into the UK than it costs to maintain it. MPs work seven day weeks & do not just sit at home during Parliament recess. Their Constituency work is another potential 364 days per year. No doubt you & your wife work hard at your jobs, but so do others. Alison Smith
  • Score: -3

4:05pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
Gosh, not that clap trap again!

The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax.

They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses.

Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers.

And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]Gosh, not that clap trap again! The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax. They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses. Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers. And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession. fredaj
  • Score: 21

4:12pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Tallywhacker says...

HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
These "moanerati" you are always blethering on about, are they everyone who complains about something or just those who don't agree with your opinions? As soon as someone starts the insult program I simply assume they have no more valid points so have lost any discussion going on.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]These "moanerati" you are always blethering on about, are they everyone who complains about something or just those who don't agree with your opinions? As soon as someone starts the insult program I simply assume they have no more valid points so have lost any discussion going on. Tallywhacker
  • Score: 9

5:24pm Sat 28 Jun 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Sorry to all concerned. Desperately sad to see people in denial about the duplicity and corruption at national and local levels.
There won't even be the money to pay the revised pensions they are all bleating about.
The private sector is massively dependent on public sector corruption. This has led to what has really been happening.

When the politician fwits were flogging off state assets people didn't realise it was actually themselves that were been sold cheaply into effective slavery.
Farage and the other parties either know this or are even more stupid than they appear.
The life you live, your pension and the money you earn will be decided by those that keep the lights on and the cheap food coming -that's Europe and China. The UK was carved up and sold cheaply a while ago...and the vast majority of people are just captive consumers that were effectively handed over at the same time. The UK is borrowing more money than ever. The private sector makes whiskey, weapons and sells elaborate financial 'deals' in the city...the world has wised-up. Even the exceptional opportunity with selling education to foreign students has been essentially messed up because bean-counters thought cheap-but-thick lecturers was a good long-term plan.
The strikes on the 10th will just be a chance to see a diluted version of mobs waiting for food parcels in about 2023.
Sorry to all concerned. Desperately sad to see people in denial about the duplicity and corruption at national and local levels. There won't even be the money to pay the revised pensions they are all bleating about. The private sector is massively dependent on public sector corruption. This has led to what has really been happening. When the politician fwits were flogging off state assets people didn't realise it was actually themselves that were been sold cheaply into effective slavery. Farage and the other parties either know this or are even more stupid than they appear. The life you live, your pension and the money you earn will be decided by those that keep the lights on and the cheap food coming -that's Europe and China. The UK was carved up and sold cheaply a while ago...and the vast majority of people are just captive consumers that were effectively handed over at the same time. The UK is borrowing more money than ever. The private sector makes whiskey, weapons and sells elaborate financial 'deals' in the city...the world has wised-up. Even the exceptional opportunity with selling education to foreign students has been essentially messed up because bean-counters thought cheap-but-thick lecturers was a good long-term plan. The strikes on the 10th will just be a chance to see a diluted version of mobs waiting for food parcels in about 2023. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 3

6:01pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
Gosh, not that clap trap again!

The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax.

They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses.

Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers.

And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.
Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt.

We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%).

What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]Gosh, not that clap trap again! The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax. They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses. Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers. And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.[/p][/quote]Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt. We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%). What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state. HJarrs
  • Score: 3

6:13pm Sat 28 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
[quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers? DCCCCCC
  • Score: 6

6:19pm Sat 28 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
Your living in cuckoo land. My husband was in the building trade, trained to teach and is now going back to the building trade because it's a lot easier without all the pressures that teaching brings. Just because a kids school day is 8.30 - 3 and just because kids get 13 weeks holiday a year, there is the misconception amongst the general public that teachers do.
[quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]Your living in cuckoo land. My husband was in the building trade, trained to teach and is now going back to the building trade because it's a lot easier without all the pressures that teaching brings. Just because a kids school day is 8.30 - 3 and just because kids get 13 weeks holiday a year, there is the misconception amongst the general public that teachers do. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 4

6:23pm Sat 28 Jun 14

L bailey says...

Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country. L bailey
  • Score: -4

6:47pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
I don't question the amount of money that is generated by monarchy related tourism, but I do question why the tax payer has to stump up £40 million for her, It's not as if she's short of a bob or two eh?!
[quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]I don't question the amount of money that is generated by monarchy related tourism, but I do question why the tax payer has to stump up £40 million for her, It's not as if she's short of a bob or two eh?! Nikski
  • Score: 1

6:53pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
[quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ? Fight_Back
  • Score: -3

6:55pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Hove marauder says...

I can save my money on Christmas tips for the binmen - they will not get one from me any longer. I can go to the library another day. I will get to the work because we have an excellent bus service in Brighton. The children will be happy to get an unexpected day off, and understand because I have explained to them, that teachers will again be putting their own interests before theirs. I will laugh from my office as they walk past with the usual tired combination of whistles and 1970s chants, their smiles and delusion, happy that I will be paid for the day and that they will not. Mark Turner, indeed the pie muncher to which a poster alluded to earlier in this thread, is lucky to have a job, In private industry, he would be nowhere and a nobody.
I can save my money on Christmas tips for the binmen - they will not get one from me any longer. I can go to the library another day. I will get to the work because we have an excellent bus service in Brighton. The children will be happy to get an unexpected day off, and understand because I have explained to them, that teachers will again be putting their own interests before theirs. I will laugh from my office as they walk past with the usual tired combination of whistles and 1970s chants, their smiles and delusion, happy that I will be paid for the day and that they will not. Mark Turner, indeed the pie muncher to which a poster alluded to earlier in this thread, is lucky to have a job, In private industry, he would be nowhere and a nobody. Hove marauder
  • Score: 2

7:04pm Sat 28 Jun 14

MikeyA says...

Gaz the great wrote:
close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT!
Agreed! Will anyone notice any difference
[quote][p][bold]Gaz the great[/bold] wrote: close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT![/p][/quote]Agreed! Will anyone notice any difference MikeyA
  • Score: 1

7:35pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Falmer Wizard says...

Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time? Falmer Wizard
  • Score: 1

7:55pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
You're talking nonsense buddy, so you've 'known' a number of people
[quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]You're talking nonsense buddy, so you've 'known' a number of people Nikski
  • Score: -4

7:57pm Sat 28 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
What rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]What rubbish. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

8:04pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
So you've 'known' a number of people over the years who have had to work in the public sector have you? We'll to reiterate an earlier post both my wife and I work for a local authority and what you say is simply not true!
[quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]So you've 'known' a number of people over the years who have had to work in the public sector have you? We'll to reiterate an earlier post both my wife and I work for a local authority and what you say is simply not true! Nikski
  • Score: 2

8:27pm Sat 28 Jun 14

just-a-person says...

Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
They are not a baby sitting service as well. I wonder how many parents are moaning that don't actually work and just upset because they've got to look after them instead of watching daytime tv. There will be teachers with the same predicament. What do you do in the school holidays or when your child is sick ?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]They are not a baby sitting service as well. I wonder how many parents are moaning that don't actually work and just upset because they've got to look after them instead of watching daytime tv. There will be teachers with the same predicament. What do you do in the school holidays or when your child is sick ? just-a-person
  • Score: 5

8:30pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
[quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on! Nikski
  • Score: 2

9:02pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years? Quiterie
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Nikski wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that
I'll try again (smartphone not so smart, or perhaps smartphone user...)
Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: "the harsh reality is that the public purse simply cannot afford any larger pay rises"
Unless you are an MP of course in which case the public purse can afford to pay you an extra 11%......and 11% of an MP's salary is a an awful lot more than 1% of a street cleaner or nurse's. No whiff of a double standard there Geoffrey?
Hey we're all in it together!
What on earth are you talking about? Theobald isn't an MP. And even if he was the 11% increase wasn't set by MPs or the Government. For all you know Theobald may well disagree with the increase. What's it got to do with him? Nothing of course.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: the harsh reality is that[/p][/quote]I'll try again (smartphone not so smart, or perhaps smartphone user...) Geoffrey Theobald, ever the voice of reason, said: "the harsh reality is that the public purse simply cannot afford any larger pay rises" Unless you are an MP of course in which case the public purse can afford to pay you an extra 11%......and 11% of an MP's salary is a an awful lot more than 1% of a street cleaner or nurse's. No whiff of a double standard there Geoffrey? Hey we're all in it together![/p][/quote]What on earth are you talking about? Theobald isn't an MP. And even if he was the 11% increase wasn't set by MPs or the Government. For all you know Theobald may well disagree with the increase. What's it got to do with him? Nothing of course. Quiterie
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament. Nikski
  • Score: 2

9:27pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Is the Queen's pay rise Theobald's fault too?
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Is the Queen's pay rise Theobald's fault too? Quiterie
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
So why did you mention Theobald not once, but twice in your post about MPs pay? I'm no fan of his, but he's on record as supporting frozen Councillor allowances. I suspect he's probably in favour of freezing MPs pay as well.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]So why did you mention Theobald not once, but twice in your post about MPs pay? I'm no fan of his, but he's on record as supporting frozen Councillor allowances. I suspect he's probably in favour of freezing MPs pay as well. Quiterie
  • Score: 4

9:44pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale. fredaj
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else. fredaj
  • Score: 2

9:58pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours? fredaj
  • Score: -1

10:04pm Sat 28 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
Gosh, not that clap trap again!

The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax.

They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses.

Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers.

And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.
Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt.

We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%).

What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.
There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]Gosh, not that clap trap again! The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax. They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses. Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers. And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.[/p][/quote]Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt. We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%). What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.[/p][/quote]There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on. fredaj
  • Score: 1

10:17pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%? Nikski
  • Score: 1

12:07am Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do...... fredaj
  • Score: -1

12:26am Sun 29 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.[/p][/quote]I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 5

1:17am Sun 29 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
Gosh, not that clap trap again!

The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax.

They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses.

Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers.

And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.
Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt.

We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%).

What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.
There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on.
Caused by a collapse of tax revenues and bail out if the banks due to their criminal business methods. Next.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]Gosh, not that clap trap again! The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax. They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses. Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers. And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.[/p][/quote]Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt. We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%). What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.[/p][/quote]There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on.[/p][/quote]Caused by a collapse of tax revenues and bail out if the banks due to their criminal business methods. Next. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

4:12am Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th! Nikski
  • Score: 3

4:45am Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state.

Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked.

A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return.

I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed.

So as I said, do not patronise me.

And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th![/p][/quote]Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state. Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked. A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return. I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed. So as I said, do not patronise me. And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere. fredaj
  • Score: 3

4:48am Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax.

People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.
Gosh, not that clap trap again!

The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax.

They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses.

Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers.

And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.
Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt.

We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%).

What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.
There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on.
Caused by a collapse of tax revenues and bail out if the banks due to their criminal business methods. Next.
Eh?

This all happened BEFORE the crash.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]How dare you bring the monarchy into it! Next you will be pointing out the dodgy tax affairs of the Crown, which is exempt from tax and pays no inheritance tax. People work hard in public and private sectors, but the moanerati are always selective about picking out the public sector and ignoring the vast remuneration in the private sector of those that helped cause the major financial problems we face.[/p][/quote]Gosh, not that clap trap again! The very very very very very vast majority of people working in the private sector in the UK do so for small and medium sized privately owned companies that make enough money to pay their wages and their bills and their tax. They do not work for multi-nationals nor for banks. The bosses are ordinary people, living ordinary lives; no off shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, no multi-millions pound bonuses. Visit any local industrial estate and you will see these businesses in their tens and in their hundreds. Small factories, services, jobbing shops and wholesalers. And not a single one of them had anything to do with the financial crash or the recent recession.[/p][/quote]Quite agree. The vast majority of us in the public and private sectors have little to do with the financial crash, other than a bit of overconsumption and debt. We should be very angry at the small number that have and continue to game the system particularly in the financial sector and the tiny minority in the private sector that royally reward themselves (ftse100 directors awarded themselves 14% pay rises last year, their employees 1%). What is clear is that there was no public sector funding crisis until the collapse of the banks and the financial crash is being used as a smokescreen to obscure an ideological attack on public services and the state.[/p][/quote]There was a "public funding crisis" to use your sound bite because of the amount of money that was being borrowed - we just hadn't woken up to exactly what had been going on.[/p][/quote]Caused by a collapse of tax revenues and bail out if the banks due to their criminal business methods. Next.[/p][/quote]Eh? This all happened BEFORE the crash. fredaj
  • Score: 0

4:51am Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.
I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic.

That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.[/p][/quote]I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.[/p][/quote]I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic. That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers. fredaj
  • Score: 1

5:00am Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership. fredaj
  • Score: -2

7:25am Sun 29 Jun 14

twonk says...

This would be the Union fat cats that get paid many times their worth out of member's pockets?
This would be the Union fat cats that get paid many times their worth out of member's pockets? twonk
  • Score: -1

7:38am Sun 29 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

just-a-person wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
They are not a baby sitting service as well. I wonder how many parents are moaning that don't actually work and just upset because they've got to look after them instead of watching daytime tv. There will be teachers with the same predicament. What do you do in the school holidays or when your child is sick ?
There are many working parents who arrange holidays and child care for the whole school year because the holiday dates are published well in advance. Strikes then present an issue of either having to taken unplanned and often unpaid leave or find alternative arrangements.

I agree teachers aren't a babysitting service - they are professionals who should turn up to work on the dates that they should. If they want to strike then strike in the school holidays as allegedly they work through most of them anyway.
[quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]They are not a baby sitting service as well. I wonder how many parents are moaning that don't actually work and just upset because they've got to look after them instead of watching daytime tv. There will be teachers with the same predicament. What do you do in the school holidays or when your child is sick ?[/p][/quote]There are many working parents who arrange holidays and child care for the whole school year because the holiday dates are published well in advance. Strikes then present an issue of either having to taken unplanned and often unpaid leave or find alternative arrangements. I agree teachers aren't a babysitting service - they are professionals who should turn up to work on the dates that they should. If they want to strike then strike in the school holidays as allegedly they work through most of them anyway. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

7:45am Sun 29 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
Teachers do NOT fall into the group "lower paid public sector staff".
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]Teachers do NOT fall into the group "lower paid public sector staff". Fight_Back
  • Score: 1

7:47am Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?[/p][/quote]The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report. Quiterie
  • Score: 7

7:55am Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.
I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic.

That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.
There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.[/p][/quote]I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.[/p][/quote]I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic. That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.[/p][/quote]There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons. Quiterie
  • Score: 9

8:25am Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised? Quiterie
  • Score: 7

9:14am Sun 29 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
And the East Coast Franchise has been successfully run in the public sector after the previous private company handed back it's contract. Inconvenient, but true.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]And the East Coast Franchise has been successfully run in the public sector after the previous private company handed back it's contract. Inconvenient, but true. HJarrs
  • Score: 7

9:17am Sun 29 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.
What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?[/p][/quote]The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.[/p][/quote]What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

10:59am Sun 29 Jun 14

Bluebeef says...

HJarrs wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.
What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.
Please post a link to this report
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?[/p][/quote]The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.[/p][/quote]What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.[/p][/quote]Please post a link to this report Bluebeef
  • Score: 0

11:03am Sun 29 Jun 14

Bluebeef says...

The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders.

Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.
The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders. Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party. Bluebeef
  • Score: -1

12:03pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Bluebeef wrote:
The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders.

Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.
Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s.

I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this.
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders. Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.[/p][/quote]Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s. I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -3

12:17pm Sun 29 Jun 14

her professional says...

B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
HJarrs says...

Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.

Tosh.
Carefully stated argument there.
[quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: HJarrs says... Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry. Tosh.[/p][/quote]Carefully stated argument there. her professional
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Sun 29 Jun 14

her professional says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.
Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids.

I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again.

Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag.

You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers!

F. Sakes.
My big yacht.
Caymen Islands.
Spot on, brill post.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: These publicly subsidised 'worker's are living in the 1970s. The world has thankfully moved on. The council and any other employer should use all of the employment legislation at their disposal to defeat these strikes. Ultimately there is no reason why employers cannot issue an ultimatum - 'Either you abide by the terms of your contract or you will be dismissed'. There are over two million unemployed inn this country - including many highly skilled and qualified people. Also of course there is a huge pool of highly qualified people in the EU who would be very willing to work as required.[/p][/quote]Yes, these strikers are living in the 70's. We live in a post-fairness free-market society now where many of these sectors are being privatised so we should be making sure the shareholders get a great return on their investments and not wondering if a social worker can feed their kids. I say cut their wages in half and use the money to buy some yachts for the hard working CEOs. Teachers, doctors, the police and other public sector workers are unnecessary in this day and age. We need more bankers to get this country moving again. Public sector pay rises are simply handouts for the lazy. They're just going to squander the money on food and bills anyway. Bankers deserve to get yearly bonuses that equal 20 years pay of a nurse. To say otherwise is anti-business and makes you a loony left Marxist scumbag. You never see a shareholder on strike do you? Think about that, communist strikers! F. Sakes. My big yacht. Caymen Islands.[/p][/quote]Spot on, brill post. her professional
  • Score: 3

12:30pm Sun 29 Jun 14

her professional says...

L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
[quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS. her professional
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sun 29 Jun 14

rolivan says...

her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget rolivan
  • Score: 1

1:28pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Bluebeef wrote:
The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders.

Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.
Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s.

I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this.
It is an odd idea to me that the NHS is "save in the Labour Party's hands" as they always seem to have a problem coping with anything involving money.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders. Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.[/p][/quote]Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s. I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this.[/p][/quote]It is an odd idea to me that the NHS is "save in the Labour Party's hands" as they always seem to have a problem coping with anything involving money. fredaj
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Bluebeef wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.
What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.
Please post a link to this report
No problem at all.....

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/285941
/DFE-RR316.pdf

Or Google "BBC News - What hours do teachers really work?" if you want a nice summary.
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?[/p][/quote]The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.[/p][/quote]What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.[/p][/quote]Please post a link to this report[/p][/quote]No problem at all..... https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/285941 /DFE-RR316.pdf Or Google "BBC News - What hours do teachers really work?" if you want a nice summary. Quiterie
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state. fredaj
  • Score: -2

1:56pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
Bluebeef wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
DCCCCCC wrote:
HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?
Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs.

You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?
Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours.

Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?
The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.
What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.
Please post a link to this report
No problem at all.....

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/285941

/DFE-RR316.pdf

Or Google "BBC News - What hours do teachers really work?" if you want a nice summary.
The survey is based on the diaries of 1000 teachers and states that, on average, they spend 19 hours a week teaching, 10 hours a week planning, 10 hours a week marking, 8 hours a week "non-teaching".

So that's 4 hours a day teaching, 2 hours a day planning lessons and 2 hours a day marking and 2 hours a day disciplining/praisin
g/dealing with parents.

Every day.........

Plus for the ones who claim to work 70 hours a week, another 4 hours a day doing something else too.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DCCCCCC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]It isn't just teachers, why single out teachers?[/p][/quote]Because it's the teachers striking that means parents have to take unpaid leave or pay extra child care costs. You still haven't explained how your husband used to rack up 70 hours a week working as a teacher ?[/p][/quote]Interestingly, they never do explain these claims that teachers routinely work such long hours. Just how do they fill these hundred and hundreds of non-classroom hours?[/p][/quote]The Dept of Education produces an annual report outlining exactly what hours teachers work and how they spend their time. 60 hours a week is very typical for an average teacher. Obviously some will work more than this average, some will work less. The 70 hours you mention is very realistic in this context. If you want to know what teachers do in this time take a look at this report.[/p][/quote]What sort of quality of life and quality of teaching do we expect when teachers frequently work such long hours. This is not the case in other countries, something is very wrong with this country.[/p][/quote]Please post a link to this report[/p][/quote]No problem at all..... https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/285941 /DFE-RR316.pdf Or Google "BBC News - What hours do teachers really work?" if you want a nice summary.[/p][/quote]The survey is based on the diaries of 1000 teachers and states that, on average, they spend 19 hours a week teaching, 10 hours a week planning, 10 hours a week marking, 8 hours a week "non-teaching". So that's 4 hours a day teaching, 2 hours a day planning lessons and 2 hours a day marking and 2 hours a day disciplining/praisin g/dealing with parents. Every day......... Plus for the ones who claim to work 70 hours a week, another 4 hours a day doing something else too. fredaj
  • Score: 1

2:00pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.
I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic.

That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.
There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons.
We have illiterate children because 16 year olds cannot be forced to attend school?

Crikey, you just keep on digging.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.[/p][/quote]I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.[/p][/quote]I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic. That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.[/p][/quote]There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons.[/p][/quote]We have illiterate children because 16 year olds cannot be forced to attend school? Crikey, you just keep on digging. fredaj
  • Score: 1

2:08pm Sun 29 Jun 14

John Steed says...

go out on strike, you have nothing left to loose, the people of the city have had enough of underperforming city staff paid for by the taxes of the inhabitants, do your jobs properly keep the city clean, tidy and rubbish free, keep unwanted campers off public property and show some respect in the city that employes you. you do not need unions on your side you need the PUBLIC & RESIDENTS, the voice of the public will acheive more than the voice of a picket line, and the voice of the public in this case is simple it is not intrested in your arguments,
go out on strike, you have nothing left to loose, the people of the city have had enough of underperforming city staff paid for by the taxes of the inhabitants, do your jobs properly keep the city clean, tidy and rubbish free, keep unwanted campers off public property and show some respect in the city that employes you. you do not need unions on your side you need the PUBLIC & RESIDENTS, the voice of the public will acheive more than the voice of a picket line, and the voice of the public in this case is simple it is not intrested in your arguments, John Steed
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Sun 29 Jun 14

her professional says...

rolivan wrote:
her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
Eh? Of course the NHS costs more than the monarchy, but 59p a head would be better spent to help fund the NHS than on the monarchy.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget[/p][/quote]Eh? Of course the NHS costs more than the monarchy, but 59p a head would be better spent to help fund the NHS than on the monarchy. her professional
  • Score: 1

2:14pm Sun 29 Jun 14

boo2005 says...

NathanAdler wrote:
The VAST majority of lower paid council workers are immigrants who have fled some P-poor EU former commie zone where they still get paid in potatoes and cabbages.

Whilst I appreciate everyone wants the best on offer and a better pay rise of course will be nicer, lots of these people came to England knowing the score.

As for teachers, don't get me started!!!
well, where I possibly agree with the first part of your statement, I'm not sure that I understand the last bit?........we are very lucky still to have people who want to be teachers, they are abused by our laws and thus by the horrible sprogs that they try to form, into decent beings, these days it seems, that can only be acheived within the public and private school systems!
within the state system it seems to have got completely out of hand and the ones at the lower end of the educational scale are turning 'ferel'........somet
hing has to be done about this and curse the damage done by esther rantzen and her ignorant 'Childline' nonense, it's come to a state where the bloody children rule at school and because they think that they're better than their elders, they come out of the other end of the 'educational pipe' knowing nothing....straight onto the 'dole queue' and breed, producing far too high a percentage of lowlife!.......only in Britain!!!
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: The VAST majority of lower paid council workers are immigrants who have fled some P-poor EU former commie zone where they still get paid in potatoes and cabbages. Whilst I appreciate everyone wants the best on offer and a better pay rise of course will be nicer, lots of these people came to England knowing the score. As for teachers, don't get me started!!![/p][/quote]well, where I possibly agree with the first part of your statement, I'm not sure that I understand the last bit?........we are very lucky still to have people who want to be teachers, they are abused by our laws and thus by the horrible sprogs that they try to form, into decent beings, these days it seems, that can only be acheived within the public and private school systems! within the state system it seems to have got completely out of hand and the ones at the lower end of the educational scale are turning 'ferel'........somet hing has to be done about this and curse the damage done by esther rantzen and her ignorant 'Childline' nonense, it's come to a state where the bloody children rule at school and because they think that they're better than their elders, they come out of the other end of the 'educational pipe' knowing nothing....straight onto the 'dole queue' and breed, producing far too high a percentage of lowlife!.......only in Britain!!! boo2005
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

fredaj wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Bluebeef wrote:
The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders.

Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.
Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s.

I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this.
It is an odd idea to me that the NHS is "save in the Labour Party's hands" as they always seem to have a problem coping with anything involving money.
Well I'm not a labour voter but the economy flourished during their time in power. We had the introduction of the minimum wage, increased investment in the NHS and education and everybody's standard of living went up.

If the Tories had been in charge the banks would have regulated even less so when the global credit crunch happened we would have been so much worse off. Do you not remember all the Conservatives moaning about Brown's red tape for investment banks?

I also remember the economy recovering after the crash but then collapsing again once the Tories took charge with their austerity politics. The Tories are great at handling money but it'll only end up in their mate's pockets, not ours. Which is why public sector works have been getting no pay rises for 5 years yet the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than ever.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: The unions who are preparing to strike with the support of 25% of their members are Ed Milliband's funders. Prepare to go back to the dark days of the 70s (and yes I am old enough) if we are foolish enough to elect him, his communist genes and his left moving Labour party.[/p][/quote]Ha, what is this nonsense you're peddling? Do you really believe that? I think you're the one stuck in the 70s. I am not a fan of Ed but we may still have an NHS in 5 years if he's voted in. The Tories will continue to sell it off like everything else they can get their hands on and only their pals will benefit from this.[/p][/quote]It is an odd idea to me that the NHS is "save in the Labour Party's hands" as they always seem to have a problem coping with anything involving money.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not a labour voter but the economy flourished during their time in power. We had the introduction of the minimum wage, increased investment in the NHS and education and everybody's standard of living went up. If the Tories had been in charge the banks would have regulated even less so when the global credit crunch happened we would have been so much worse off. Do you not remember all the Conservatives moaning about Brown's red tape for investment banks? I also remember the economy recovering after the crash but then collapsing again once the Tories took charge with their austerity politics. The Tories are great at handling money but it'll only end up in their mate's pockets, not ours. Which is why public sector works have been getting no pay rises for 5 years yet the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than ever. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
just-a-person wrote:
calderon_is_epic wrote:
Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves.

The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling.

As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions.

A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.
Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane.

Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why?

Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children.

I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday.

But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.
You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum.

And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves.

If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?
Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War.

If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach.

And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.
I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.
I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic.

That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.
There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons.
We have illiterate children because 16 year olds cannot be forced to attend school?

Crikey, you just keep on digging.
Alright mate. You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder about teachers. We get that. We also get that you have no idea what being a teacher actually involves - that much is devastatingly clear from the silly comments you've made.

You also claim your job is "a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibility” ...... so go then, put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you do, so that we can be the judge........
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just-a-person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]calderon_is_epic[/bold] wrote: Whilst I feel for the public sector workers and support their industrial action, the teachers need to take a seriously good look at themselves. The website for our child's school states school term absences will not be approved as every day is essential to a child's learning. Why then are you striking during term time? The total hypocrisy of the whole eduction system in the UK is appalling. As a parent I no longer have control over my child's up brining. When you discuss this with the school you are made to feel like the worst parent on earth because you want, for one year in ten, for your children to have a week away with their family, and at the same time you are notified that teachers are striking for more pay, pensions, and working conditions. A teacher once said to me "If it's that easy why don't you do it?" I would reply now "If you don't like it and it's so bad, why not leave and do something else?" Fact is a lot of teachers go straight from university to teaching and have never experienced life in the private sector where people work sixty hours a week, get paid for thirty five but are just thankful to get paid at the end of the month and have a job. It should not be a race to the bottom, but when you get paid thirteen weeks holiday a year, get an excellent pension, sick pay, and a good salary to boot, you should maybe look to get that huge chip off your shoulder.[/p][/quote]"If it's that easy why don't you do it?" ..... Totally agree.[/p][/quote]Who wants an "easy job"? It would drive me insane. Why anyone would want to be a teacher is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad some people do, but why? Yes it is secure and yes it is decently paid and I guess the satisfaction of preparing children well to give them the best chance in the future is its own reward, but is is very circular. Year in, year out, same lessons and material, just different children. I earn less than a teacher and do not have anything like the pension, my job is a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibly. I work genuinely long hours that I can prove and justify, and only get 25 days holiday. But would I swap it to teach? Not a chance.[/p][/quote]You clearly know nothing about teaching. It's not 'circular' at all. Especially with every new government that comes in constantly moving the goalposts, changing the curriculum, introducing free schools/academies that can set their own curriculum. And if you don't think trying to get the best out of 30 children all day, every day (especially when some of them are intent on being disruptive) is a lot of responsibility you clearly have no idea what teaching involves. If you think it's so easy and well paid with so many perks, why do so many teachers leave within their first few years?[/p][/quote]Occasional changes to the curriculum is hardly an argument against the circular nature of teaching the same subject year in, year out for 30 years. Algebra is always going to be algebra and Hitler is always going to have been the Chancellor of Germany during the 2nd World War. If teachers did get the best out of 30 children, I'd probably have a lot more time for them but the number of illiterate and innumerate children leaving school show us that is a tall order for many who do teach. And teachers leave for the same reasons I have stated - they prefer to do something else.[/p][/quote]I think the problem of illiterate children cannot just be blamed on teachers. Unfortunately, many parents don't read to their children these days, or teach them anything - preferring to plonk them in front of the tv, or let them play on the computer all night. Some children start school still wearing nappies because their parents didn't even bother to toilet train them. There is only so much that teachers can do.[/p][/quote]I am taking about 16 year olds. Children who have been in school for 11 or 12 years but cannot read properly or do simple arithmetic. That is not the fault of parents who did not potty train them as toddlers.[/p][/quote]There is a very high correlation between school attendance and illiterate and innumerate children. Schools have policies in place to increase attendance, particularly for free school meal children who are more likely to be illiterate or innumerate, but you can't force 16 year olds to attend school. You can't blame teachers when the children don't even turn up to lessons.[/p][/quote]We have illiterate children because 16 year olds cannot be forced to attend school? Crikey, you just keep on digging.[/p][/quote]Alright mate. You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder about teachers. We get that. We also get that you have no idea what being a teacher actually involves - that much is devastatingly clear from the silly comments you've made. You also claim your job is "a heck of a lot harder and has more day-to-day responsibility” ...... so go then, put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you do, so that we can be the judge........ Quiterie
  • Score: 3

2:34pm Sun 29 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true. HJarrs
  • Score: 2

3:02pm Sun 29 Jun 14

rolivan says...

her professional wrote:
rolivan wrote:
her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
Eh? Of course the NHS costs more than the monarchy, but 59p a head would be better spent to help fund the NHS than on the monarchy.
The problem there is that how much of the income that the Monarchy generates would be lost. £40m spent for a £2billion return seems rather good to me.
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget[/p][/quote]Eh? Of course the NHS costs more than the monarchy, but 59p a head would be better spent to help fund the NHS than on the monarchy.[/p][/quote]The problem there is that how much of the income that the Monarchy generates would be lost. £40m spent for a £2billion return seems rather good to me. rolivan
  • Score: 1

3:21pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Smartbloke says...

Gaz the great wrote:
close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT!
What a moronic comment, totally devoid of any intelligence or thought.

Clearly you have no idea what you're on about, so why go online and post it?. You must be very proud.
[quote][p][bold]Gaz the great[/bold] wrote: close the city down? Thought the Green party had already achieved that with the bus lanes! As for the GMB union, they really know how to gain the public's support-NOT![/p][/quote]What a moronic comment, totally devoid of any intelligence or thought. Clearly you have no idea what you're on about, so why go online and post it?. You must be very proud. Smartbloke
  • Score: -5

3:23pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Smartbloke says...

Picky Parker wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent.

Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it.

I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction.

Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days.

Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so.

Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.
You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite?

What a wilfully ignorant person you are.
[quote][p][bold]Picky Parker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent. Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it. I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction. Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days. Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so. Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.[/p][/quote]You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite? What a wilfully ignorant person you are. Smartbloke
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Picky Parker says...

Smartbloke wrote:
Picky Parker wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent.

Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it.

I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction.

Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days.

Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so.

Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.
You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite?

What a wilfully ignorant person you are.
How is an employee ( on more than one occasion ) not knowing the correct procedures a government issue ? So I'd expect a benefits advisor to know .... well .... what benefits someone was entitled to. I'd expect a council officer who is reviewing a claim to know what questions the website asked. Unless of course that is too much effort for them ? I'm expected to know what the rules are for claims as a claimant so it doesn't seem too much to ask that those dealing with my claims also know.

I'm sure if you use a service in the private sector you expect the employee to know the in's and out's of the service. There is no excuse for public sector employees to also know this.
[quote][p][bold]Smartbloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Picky Parker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent. Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it. I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction. Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days. Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so. Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.[/p][/quote]You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite? What a wilfully ignorant person you are.[/p][/quote]How is an employee ( on more than one occasion ) not knowing the correct procedures a government issue ? So I'd expect a benefits advisor to know .... well .... what benefits someone was entitled to. I'd expect a council officer who is reviewing a claim to know what questions the website asked. Unless of course that is too much effort for them ? I'm expected to know what the rules are for claims as a claimant so it doesn't seem too much to ask that those dealing with my claims also know. I'm sure if you use a service in the private sector you expect the employee to know the in's and out's of the service. There is no excuse for public sector employees to also know this. Picky Parker
  • Score: 2

5:53pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Picky Parker says...

Picky Parker wrote:
Smartbloke wrote:
Picky Parker wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions.

Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.
I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent.

Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it.

I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction.

Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days.

Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so.

Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.
You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite?

What a wilfully ignorant person you are.
How is an employee ( on more than one occasion ) not knowing the correct procedures a government issue ? So I'd expect a benefits advisor to know .... well .... what benefits someone was entitled to. I'd expect a council officer who is reviewing a claim to know what questions the website asked. Unless of course that is too much effort for them ? I'm expected to know what the rules are for claims as a claimant so it doesn't seem too much to ask that those dealing with my claims also know.

I'm sure if you use a service in the private sector you expect the employee to know the in's and out's of the service. There is no excuse for public sector employees to also know this.
I should add - it was the accusing tone and words the council employee used that was the worst part. OK, he might not have known all the procedures but to then effectively accuse me of trying to fiddle the system shows a complete lack of customer service and empathy.
[quote][p][bold]Picky Parker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smartbloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Picky Parker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Sadly, industrial action and direct action have had to be used as a last resort over decades to improve or just maintain working conditions. Public sector workers face cuts, privatisation and relative wage cuts, hardly the stuff to inspire performance and commitment. No wonder they are angry.[/p][/quote]I'd have a little more sympathy if public sector workers weren't so incompetent. Unfortunately I was made redundant earlier in the year. Went to the job centre and was told by a benefits advisor the only benefit I could get was contribution based JSA. OK, not good but if that's the rules so be it. I later find out with my own research I and my partner are entitled working tax credits and a council tax reduction. Apply for working tax credits and ring to find out what is happening - you're not allowed to speak to anyone until your application has hit the 8 week point. When I did finally get to speak to someone they said they'd lost the application and sorry you'll have to re-apply and sorry but it will still only be backdated 30 days. Apply for the council tax reduction online. It asks for the details of ALL dependent children even if they don't live with you all the time and where they normally live. Go to the council offices to provide the ID check information and I'm told I shouldn't have put any children that don't live with me most of the time and it's implied I'm being dis-honest by listing them despite THEIR website telling me to do so. Nope, no sympathy for them - the public sector is full of incompetent jobsworths who are already paid well above their ability level.[/p][/quote]You blame public sector workers for government incompetency and spite? What a wilfully ignorant person you are.[/p][/quote]How is an employee ( on more than one occasion ) not knowing the correct procedures a government issue ? So I'd expect a benefits advisor to know .... well .... what benefits someone was entitled to. I'd expect a council officer who is reviewing a claim to know what questions the website asked. Unless of course that is too much effort for them ? I'm expected to know what the rules are for claims as a claimant so it doesn't seem too much to ask that those dealing with my claims also know. I'm sure if you use a service in the private sector you expect the employee to know the in's and out's of the service. There is no excuse for public sector employees to also know this.[/p][/quote]I should add - it was the accusing tone and words the council employee used that was the worst part. OK, he might not have known all the procedures but to then effectively accuse me of trying to fiddle the system shows a complete lack of customer service and empathy. Picky Parker
  • Score: 3

6:04pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

rolivan wrote:
her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget[/p][/quote]What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........ Nikski
  • Score: 2

6:08pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state.

Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked.

A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return.

I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed.

So as I said, do not patronise me.

And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.
What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th![/p][/quote]Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state. Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked. A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return. I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed. So as I said, do not patronise me. And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.[/p][/quote]What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........ Nikski
  • Score: 2

6:24pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state.

Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked.

A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return.

I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed.

So as I said, do not patronise me.

And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.
Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly!
You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more.
As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically)
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th![/p][/quote]Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state. Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked. A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return. I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed. So as I said, do not patronise me. And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.[/p][/quote]Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly! You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more. As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically) Nikski
  • Score: 1

6:42pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state.

Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked.

A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return.

I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed.

So as I said, do not patronise me.

And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.
Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly!
You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more.
As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically)
Patronising AND sexist.

What next?
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th![/p][/quote]Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state. Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked. A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return. I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed. So as I said, do not patronise me. And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.[/p][/quote]Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly! You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more. As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically)[/p][/quote]Patronising AND sexist. What next? fredaj
  • Score: 1

6:47pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Nikski wrote:
rolivan wrote:
her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........
You seriously think we would get better service and value for money from the NHS if the Queen was sacked?

LOL!
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget[/p][/quote]What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........[/p][/quote]You seriously think we would get better service and value for money from the NHS if the Queen was sacked? LOL! fredaj
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
Oh dear....... you really are out of your depth now my friend.

Network Rail has been formally classified as a 'central government body in the public sector'. The Office for National Statistics insisted on this reclassification. It's current debt of around £30 billion is now in the public accounts. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that this debt is included in the Public Sector Net Debt.

If that is not "effectively renationalised" then I don't know what is!?!!?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]Oh dear....... you really are out of your depth now my friend. Network Rail has been formally classified as a 'central government body in the public sector'. The Office for National Statistics insisted on this reclassification. It's current debt of around £30 billion is now in the public accounts. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that this debt is included in the Public Sector Net Debt. If that is not "effectively renationalised" then I don't know what is!?!!? Quiterie
  • Score: 3

6:52pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee" fredaj
  • Score: -3

6:54pm Sun 29 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
Oh dear....... you really are out of your depth now my friend.

Network Rail has been formally classified as a 'central government body in the public sector'. The Office for National Statistics insisted on this reclassification. It's current debt of around £30 billion is now in the public accounts. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that this debt is included in the Public Sector Net Debt.

If that is not "effectively renationalised" then I don't know what is!?!!?
And you are just as wrong as HJarrs.

Next......
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]Oh dear....... you really are out of your depth now my friend. Network Rail has been formally classified as a 'central government body in the public sector'. The Office for National Statistics insisted on this reclassification. It's current debt of around £30 billion is now in the public accounts. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that this debt is included in the Public Sector Net Debt. If that is not "effectively renationalised" then I don't know what is!?!!?[/p][/quote]And you are just as wrong as HJarrs. Next...... fredaj
  • Score: -3

7:08pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
rolivan wrote:
her professional wrote:
L bailey wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio.
Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket.
Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us.
Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.
Yes but,
do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.
The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.
By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget
What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........
You seriously think we would get better service and value for money from the NHS if the Queen was sacked?

LOL!
What?? How do you manage to infer that I was saying that? Nowhere have I suggested such a thing....quite bizarre! Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: Oh and I almost forgot our poor hard-up Queen is going to get a 5% increase to her annual income, taking it to over £40 million. This is thanks to record profits from interest on The Crown Estate's £9.4 billion property portfolio. Dear Elizabeth R must be struggling; I imagine Buckingham Palace is having to shop in the 'reduced' section at their local supermarket. Another one who is clearly 'in it' with us. Wouldn't some of the anger and vitriol on here be better directed at those who are already awash with money like MP's and the Monarchy, rather than public sector workers who are doing their best to provide decent services in increasingly difficult circumstances? Both my wife and I work in the public sector and I can assure you we are not lazy or incompetent and we really care about what we do, like the vast majority of our colleagues. We certainly aren't in it for the money and in fact my wife has had a £100 per month cut in pay due to the recent pay 'rationalisation'. We aren't asking for 5% or 11% just a reasonable rise to help with the increased cost of living, so perhaps 2%.[/p][/quote]Yes but, do you bring in 2 billion a year income for the country.[/p][/quote]The tourists would still come an gawp at Buck Pal, Windsor etc etc queen or no queen - the whole lot could be run by the National Trust just as effectively. As someone said in one of the national dailies the other day, if 59p per person per year keeps the monarchy going, just think what it could do for the NHS.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning that is about £40m for the Monarchy as against £100billion for the NHS budget[/p][/quote]What is your point exactly? We need the NHS rather more than we need the queen surely! Tell you what: next time you or one of your family gets sick, try calling Buck Palace for help........[/p][/quote]You seriously think we would get better service and value for money from the NHS if the Queen was sacked? LOL![/p][/quote]What?? How do you manage to infer that I was saying that? Nowhere have I suggested such a thing....quite bizarre! Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance? Nikski
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Nikski says...

fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.
If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare.

Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board.

So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.
My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?
If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......
"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th!
Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state.

Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked.

A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return.

I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed.

So as I said, do not patronise me.

And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.
Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly!
You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more.
As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically)
Patronising AND sexist.

What next?
Patronising perhaps, sexist no. I genuinely thought you were male and would not have used that phrase had I known you were not, so apologise for that.
You are still talking nonsense though.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: I'm very well aware Theobald is not an MP thanks. The point is that there seems to be enough money in the public sector to pay MP's an 11% increase but not enough to give lower paid public sector staff more than 1%. I guess teachers, nurses & council workers are just not as essential as members of parliament.[/p][/quote]If that is your only argument then it is going to fail because there are only a few hundred MPs but millions of public sector workers so the cost of 1% for them vs 11% for MPs (and you also need to factor in the reduction of remuneration in other areas that goes with this 11%) cannot compare. Personally. I'd like to see less MPs and think it is a shame that the recent attempt at reform that would have helped us along this path was blocked by the LibDems and Lord Oakeshott because they could not get agreement on Lords reform, but the savings made would still only have been peanuts when compared to the cost of increasing public sector pay across the board. So to recap, the argument "the MPs get paid this so we can afford that..." always has to fail simply on the basis of scale.[/p][/quote]My argument was not "because MP's get paid this we can afford that....." and I wasn't suggesting all public sector staff got an 11% rise. I was pointing out the disparity between one public sector pay rise ie that of MP's and the 1% offered to most others. It's about fairness isn't it; why didn't MP's take just 1%?[/p][/quote]If life was fair I would have a pension on the same terms as public sector workers do......[/p][/quote]"If life was fair".....I thought someone would throw that one in at some point! Yes some aspects of life are unfair and may not be possible to change, but some things can be changed. Inequality and injustice can be challenged, which is why women have the vote, black people are no longer slaves, children don't go to workhouses & disabled people aren't locked away. Life may be unfair but that doesn't mean you have to accept it; you can do more than sit on your butt and complain how unfair it is. Don't believe what you read about public sector pensions, we have to pay a lot into them and if you think they are so generous why not go for a public sector job? And finally, yes I will be striking on July 10th![/p][/quote]Do not patronise me as I know EXACTLY how much a public pension vs a private pensions is worth and it is worth a heck of a lot more - and that is because it is subsidised and guaranteed by the state. Someone in the private sector will get a return of around £4,000 (not index linked) per £100,000 of savings while that amount is banded about by unions as the unreasonably paltry amount of pension that someone who has worked for a local council for a few years will receive index-linked. A teachers pension is, on average, worth the equivalent of over half a million pounds of private sector savings to get a similar return. I think most of us would be happy for public sector workers to simply be grateful for their pension arrangements rather than pretending they are hard done by and trying to blackmail the country in to giving them more. That is what has made people like me so hard nosed. So as I said, do not patronise me. And enjoy your day off - it will save the tax payer millions in wages and will get you nowhere.[/p][/quote]Calm down dear, I wasn't patronising you honestly! You seem rather sensitive though, I wonder why...... I have worked in both private and public sectors, more in the private than the public in fact, and the most striking difference for me has been that the public sector treats its employees better and values them more. As you obviously believe we are all on a fantastic gravy train, I repeat: why don't you come and join us, live the high life and look forward to your massive pension when you retire? I suspect the reason is that you are a banker (and no I don't mean that euphemistically)[/p][/quote]Patronising AND sexist. What next?[/p][/quote]Patronising perhaps, sexist no. I genuinely thought you were male and would not have used that phrase had I known you were not, so apologise for that. You are still talking nonsense though. Nikski
  • Score: -1

9:29pm Sun 29 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Way out of your depth.

As I say, Network rail is effectively nationalised, it is, as you say, now a government body and it's debts have been added to the public sector net debt, the state's debt.

Clue is in the word "effectively".
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Way out of your depth. As I say, Network rail is effectively nationalised, it is, as you say, now a government body and it's debts have been added to the public sector net debt, the state's debt. Clue is in the word "effectively". HJarrs
  • Score: 1

10:19pm Sun 29 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company.

Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly.

I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company. Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly. I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one..... Quiterie
  • Score: 1

6:49am Mon 30 Jun 14

ohhumanity says...

In this day and age were jobs are getting to harder to find and thousands of people, leaving a lot of people relying on the government, you'd think people would just be happy that they have a job. I have worked in the private sector my entire life- do you know how much I would love to have a pension, a union fighting for me and the ability to strike without fear of replacement? Or even just those extra weeks of holiday? I get 20 a year. 20 days holiday out of 365. I do more hours than some public sector staff, get paid less, but I do it because it's the only job i can get at the moment.

These people, who are angry because they're not being paid more, are now going to stop other people from getting to work, they are going to close down the lifelines for private sector workers (and other shoppers, parents, carers) who don't have the luxury of taking days off to moan.

If you're not happy with the pay that you have and the hours that you work, I would happily switch jobs with any one of these strikers.
In this day and age were jobs are getting to harder to find and thousands of people, leaving a lot of people relying on the government, you'd think people would just be happy that they have a job. I have worked in the private sector my entire life- do you know how much I would love to have a pension, a union fighting for me and the ability to strike without fear of replacement? Or even just those extra weeks of holiday? I get 20 a year. 20 days holiday out of 365. I do more hours than some public sector staff, get paid less, but I do it because it's the only job i can get at the moment. These people, who are angry because they're not being paid more, are now going to stop other people from getting to work, they are going to close down the lifelines for private sector workers (and other shoppers, parents, carers) who don't have the luxury of taking days off to moan. If you're not happy with the pay that you have and the hours that you work, I would happily switch jobs with any one of these strikers. ohhumanity
  • Score: 2

8:04am Mon 30 Jun 14

Kate234 says...

HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
Too selfish that's why.
[quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]Too selfish that's why. Kate234
  • Score: 1

8:20am Mon 30 Jun 14

We love Red Billy says...

Anyone remember a film called 'I'm alright Jack' ? Feels like we are entering a 70's timewarp. Will the union leaders be giving up a days wages in solidarity?
Anyone remember a film called 'I'm alright Jack' ? Feels like we are entering a 70's timewarp. Will the union leaders be giving up a days wages in solidarity? We love Red Billy
  • Score: 3

10:22am Mon 30 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

This has been a long time a coming just a shame it cant be for longer and national because it would show the bigger cracks within the coalition government that make bad chose’s agents those that do work hard but this is there way of telling people if you work for use we will cut your wage and yet they keep saying they will reword the hard working people of this country.
This has been a long time a coming just a shame it cant be for longer and national because it would show the bigger cracks within the coalition government that make bad chose’s agents those that do work hard but this is there way of telling people if you work for use we will cut your wage and yet they keep saying they will reword the hard working people of this country. wippasnapper
  • Score: 3

12:22pm Mon 30 Jun 14

TheDrive says...

People who go on strike and make life more difficult for the rest of us should be made social outcasts for their self-centred behavior. if you don't like your job, look for a different one that isn't just the cushiest option.
People who go on strike and make life more difficult for the rest of us should be made social outcasts for their self-centred behavior. if you don't like your job, look for a different one that isn't just the cushiest option. TheDrive
  • Score: -2

5:42pm Mon 30 Jun 14

just-a-person says...

TheDrive wrote:
People who go on strike and make life more difficult for the rest of us should be made social outcasts for their self-centred behavior. if you don't like your job, look for a different one that isn't just the cushiest option.
" self-centred behaviour", one could say your attitude is self-centred !!!
[quote][p][bold]TheDrive[/bold] wrote: People who go on strike and make life more difficult for the rest of us should be made social outcasts for their self-centred behavior. if you don't like your job, look for a different one that isn't just the cushiest option.[/p][/quote]" self-centred behaviour", one could say your attitude is self-centred !!! just-a-person
  • Score: 2

5:44pm Mon 30 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company.

Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly.

I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....
Network Rail is not state owned, it is privately owned.

How many more times are we going to go round and round this?
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company. Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly. I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....[/p][/quote]Network Rail is not state owned, it is privately owned. How many more times are we going to go round and round this? fredaj
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Mon 30 Jun 14

fredaj says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Way out of your depth.

As I say, Network rail is effectively nationalised, it is, as you say, now a government body and it's debts have been added to the public sector net debt, the state's debt.

Clue is in the word "effectively".
The clue is that Network Rail is not state owned and you can play about with words all you like but it will still be privately owned when you have finished.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Way out of your depth. As I say, Network rail is effectively nationalised, it is, as you say, now a government body and it's debts have been added to the public sector net debt, the state's debt. Clue is in the word "effectively".[/p][/quote]The clue is that Network Rail is not state owned and you can play about with words all you like but it will still be privately owned when you have finished. fredaj
  • Score: -1

5:58pm Mon 30 Jun 14

fredaj says...

Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company.

Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly.

I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....
I didn't notice a post where you asked me what I did and I have whizzed back through and still cannot spot it but I make no secret - I am an engineer.

So do I really have more day-to-day responsibility than a teacher? Yep, I'd say so - because if I do not do my job properly, people die.

Is it harder than teaching? Well, I have tipped by toe and it was a completely hateful experience but it wasn't that hard. Not if you are organised and know your stuff.

So hopefully, that has answered your question.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company. Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly. I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....[/p][/quote]I didn't notice a post where you asked me what I did and I have whizzed back through and still cannot spot it but I make no secret - I am an engineer. So do I really have more day-to-day responsibility than a teacher? Yep, I'd say so - because if I do not do my job properly, people die. Is it harder than teaching? Well, I have tipped by toe and it was a completely hateful experience but it wasn't that hard. Not if you are organised and know your stuff. So hopefully, that has answered your question. fredaj
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Mon 30 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

fredaj wrote:
Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.”

There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years.

I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs.

So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.
But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.” There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years. I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs. So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.[/p][/quote]But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

10:05pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

As usual Union bosses confirm the phrase "Public Service Worker" is an oxymoron !
As usual Union bosses confirm the phrase "Public Service Worker" is an oxymoron ! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Mon 30 Jun 14

fredaj says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.”

There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years.

I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs.

So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.
But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!!
I have since researched this and the figure Mr Turner is using is the average pay rise received by those who have received a pay rise in the last 3 months.

Is that good enough argument for why all public sector workers should therefore receive an across the board rise in excess of the 1% offered? I guess that for each of us to decide.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.” There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years. I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs. So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.[/p][/quote]But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!![/p][/quote]I have since researched this and the figure Mr Turner is using is the average pay rise received by those who have received a pay rise in the last 3 months. Is that good enough argument for why all public sector workers should therefore receive an across the board rise in excess of the 1% offered? I guess that for each of us to decide. fredaj
  • Score: -1

8:15am Tue 1 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company.

Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly.

I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....
I didn't notice a post where you asked me what I did and I have whizzed back through and still cannot spot it but I make no secret - I am an engineer.

So do I really have more day-to-day responsibility than a teacher? Yep, I'd say so - because if I do not do my job properly, people die.

Is it harder than teaching? Well, I have tipped by toe and it was a completely hateful experience but it wasn't that hard. Not if you are organised and know your stuff.

So hopefully, that has answered your question.
The starting salary for an engineer is very similar to the starting salary for a teacher, in fact typically a engineer will earn more. So if you earn less than a teacher you're very junior, so no one will 'die' if you make a mistake. It will be picked up by your manager or your manager's manager.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company. Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly. I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....[/p][/quote]I didn't notice a post where you asked me what I did and I have whizzed back through and still cannot spot it but I make no secret - I am an engineer. So do I really have more day-to-day responsibility than a teacher? Yep, I'd say so - because if I do not do my job properly, people die. Is it harder than teaching? Well, I have tipped by toe and it was a completely hateful experience but it wasn't that hard. Not if you are organised and know your stuff. So hopefully, that has answered your question.[/p][/quote]The starting salary for an engineer is very similar to the starting salary for a teacher, in fact typically a engineer will earn more. So if you earn less than a teacher you're very junior, so no one will 'die' if you make a mistake. It will be picked up by your manager or your manager's manager. Quiterie
  • Score: 1

8:27am Tue 1 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
fredaj wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote:
Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?
Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on!
You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today?

Trust me, that is quite deluded.

I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.
So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?
It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee.

Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans.

What it is not, is run by the state.
You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.
No, I am entirely correct.

Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government.

To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"
Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company.

Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly.

I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....
Network Rail is not state owned, it is privately owned.

How many more times are we going to go round and round this?
We won't go round and round any more. Not if you continue to insist it's privately owned. Even the government and dept for transport don't deny it's state owned. Seriously you're the only person who thinks it's privately owned - you're arguing black is white and white is black.

Having said that I've enjoyed our discussion and I've certainly learnt a few things........
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: Over the years i have known a number of people who have had to work for a period of time in local public services, they could not believe the amount of time they could be unavailable for duty,a set number of days sick, attending union seminars/ meetings,long holiday entitlements plus if they stepped out of line the union would ensure they did not receive any come back from a poor management team, so why spend time in qualifying for qualifications in the real world plus travelling time?[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was like that many years ago, and I am sure there are some 'bad apples' as there are within any organisation. We do not have a set number of sick leave days nor do we have long holiday entitlements. You can go to union meetings if you are a trade union representative (as is your right) and they are very few out of a very large workforce. The Unions fought for many rights which workers now take for granted, as indeed they should, and will continue to fight injustice and inequality today and everyday. I am heartily sick of people knocking the public sector at every opportunity; you would soon miss all the local services we provide if they were not there, and believe me they won't be there if the situation carries on. Of course the private sector does things so much better, just look at the railways and the energy companies....Open your eyes and see the damage this government is doing the social fabric of our country. Divide and rule is what's going on![/p][/quote]You think that when the railways were nationalised they worked better than they do today? Trust me, that is quite deluded. I am not sure how many years have now passed since privatisation, but Network Rail are still spending billions picking up the pieces from the years of shameful neglect during the period the tracks were in state ownership.[/p][/quote]So if privatisation is so wonderful why has Network Rail now effectively been renationalised?[/p][/quote]It has not been re-nationalised, effectively or otherwise. It is a commercial business limited by guarantee. Not the same thing at all and it basically means it is run on a "not for profit" basis the idea being that it is paid for by the train operators with additional funds coming from government grants or government backed loans. What it is not, is run by the state.[/p][/quote]You are entirely incorrect. Network rail has always been effectively government run, but as of earlier this year, it is effectively nationalised and it's vast debt is now included in government figures. Inconvenient but true.[/p][/quote]No, I am entirely correct. Network Rail is now called a "government body" for accounting purposes (something to do with the debt status) but it is not and never has been run by the government. To quote - "Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as a "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee"[/p][/quote]Who "runs" Network Rail is completely irrelevant as to whether is has been nationalised or not. The "ownership" of a company or body dictates whether it has been nationalised or not. Network rail is now a state-owned company. Those three statements are facts. If you disagree with any of those 3 facts you'll make yourself look very silly. I do note however that you've not taken up my challenge to tell us your job which is 'harder and has more responsibility' than a teacher, so at least you've admitted defeat on that one.....[/p][/quote]Network Rail is not state owned, it is privately owned. How many more times are we going to go round and round this?[/p][/quote]We won't go round and round any more. Not if you continue to insist it's privately owned. Even the government and dept for transport don't deny it's state owned. Seriously you're the only person who thinks it's privately owned - you're arguing black is white and white is black. Having said that I've enjoyed our discussion and I've certainly learnt a few things........ Quiterie
  • Score: 2

10:48am Thu 3 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

HovePunter wrote:
Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare.

Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.
They only work 179 days of the year, any strike should be taken as holiday leave, because thats what they turn it into, ( my neighbour is a teacher, or should I say a hard done by teacher).
[quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: Why don't the teachers go on strike during the summer holidays? They are still being paid, and it would mean working parents haven't got to spend extra money on childcare. Taking action to disrupt the lives of many means any sympathy I may have had with their cause is dissipated.[/p][/quote]They only work 179 days of the year, any strike should be taken as holiday leave, because thats what they turn it into, ( my neighbour is a teacher, or should I say a hard done by teacher). ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Man With No Name says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
fredaj wrote: Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.” There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years. I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs. So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.
But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!!
What about council workers incremental pay scale rises that they get until they hit the top of their scale, which is separate to inflationary increases? So regardless of cost of living rises, numerous council staff will get rises anyway...
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: Mark turner says “The average pay increase in the private sector is between 2.2% and 2.5% and yet public sector workers are being offered just 1%. We are looking to affect all services.” There is no way that those working in the private sector have been, on average, receiving that sort of yearly wage increase for the last few years. I am guessing he is manipulating statistics and in reality, those who have received an increase at all, have received a 2.25% to 2.5% raise. But whatever the source of those figures, the whole of the private sector have clearly not been receiving that sort of increase and some have even accepted wages cuts to keep their jobs. So Mr Turner, if your case is so clear cut, iron clad and fair, why the need to tell lies and treat the public as idiots? Surely, you just need to tell the truth, straightforwardly and honestly, and the public will simply support your position.[/p][/quote]But he didn't say that private sector workers had been receiving that sort of increase 'for the last few years' did he?!! So when you accuse Turner of telling lies and being an idiot it is you who, in fact, has been caught telling lies and being an idiot too - a total embarrassment for you!![/p][/quote]What about council workers incremental pay scale rises that they get until they hit the top of their scale, which is separate to inflationary increases? So regardless of cost of living rises, numerous council staff will get rises anyway... Man With No Name
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree