Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The NHS employers have discussed the cover with the union reps and agreed what is considered to be a safe service - cover will follow the principle of "public holiday cover determined by professional and skilled staff."


So cancelling planned operations is OK? Failing to transport patients is OK? Treating NHS patients are a cost most taxpayers (ie those of us that do not work in the public sector) are prepared to bear. Treating puic sector staff to an early retirement and free pension is not. Even after the Coaltion proposals are adopted public sector staff will still have far more generous T&Cs than the private sector. I spent 20 years in the public sector - I'm content, not wildly happy, to accept the changes to my pension - CPI for RPI etc for the overall greater good.

Oh get out of it.

The public sector pay taxes too.

I have worked in the NHS for the ast 26 years & wasn't lured away in the late 80's to the late 90's when all around me were deserting to work for private agencies with the short term promise of twice the salary and yes it was almost twice during those years, I tried to take a more long term view and yes that was the prospect of a promised pension and then for that to suddenly be threatened are we not allowed to be angry.

The last time nurses went on strike was in 1988 and yes I was out that day too although as a student but a salaried student.

Lives will not be compromised by the proposed strike on Wednesday as there will be a bank holiday service.

"Even allowing the recent ish economic collapse, this hostility to public sector workers is odd"


This is not hostility to public sector workers. It is hostility to those public sector workers taking strike action to oppose a proposed pension provision that remains generous at a time of economic collapse. The clue is in the title of the thread.

I can't help thinking that a strike is a bit like biting off the hand that feeds you. Prior to redundancy, the company I spent a good few years working for changed their pension scheme from being a finaly salary one to a defined contribution one. The aim was to reduce its massive pension deficit. I wasn't in a Union and just had to accept it.I could understand the reasons why though.


Watching a recording of Question Time last night, the guy who runs Sainsburies was asked what his salary was. It was over ?900k p.a. I don't think that guy could work any harder than I do but of course he has a more important job than me. However, I do wonder why he needs to be paid that much and that there are many others out there who get as much if not more. Is this capitalism gone wrong? Could he not live on say ?450k p.a. That's not a bad salary. There obviously is money out there but it's in the hands of the very few.


This post doesn't have an answer.

So cancelling planned operations is OK? Failing to transport patients is OK? Treating NHS patients are a cost most taxpayers (ie those of us that do not work in the public sector) are prepared to bear. Treating puic sector staff to an early retirement and free pension is not.


Yes, I do think that's OK because public safety will not be compromised. Also, they are not being "treated" and their pensions are not "free". Their pensions are agreed as part of their contracts/terms and conditions and they already pay into their funds throughout their careers.


The unions have already agreed to change this for new starters, but I do not think it's right that people who are already in the scheme, some for many decades, will have their pensions cut.

"Their pensions are agreed as part of their contracts/terms and conditions"


A few people have said this, but I'm not sure it's true.


In private sector contracts, the agreement will be to 'take part in the pension scheme', but not specify what the nature of that scheme is.


I suspect that public sector is the same, otherwise we'd be seeing legal action, not strike action.


So the strike is about a change in expectations, not contracts.

Oh get out of it.

The public sector pay taxes too.



Can we put this one to bed once and for all? Public sector workers may pay tax but this is simply the recycling of government funds - it is not an income into the public purse. Public sector workers are paid from the public purse and any taxes they pay go back to the public purse, but do not add to it.


Whereas private sector workers are paid by their employers, or generate income by working for themselves. The taxes they pay fund the public purse.

To suggest that you are typical o public sector workers MM, is just wrong.





Absolutely right SJ.


The Armed Forces are not a typical part of the public sector and have a far better case to make for a decent pension, but don't whine and don't strike.


They have instead a 24/7 commitment that takes routinely takes them away from home for months on end, its staff may get weekends off - but this is not an entitlement - only the 6 weeks leave a year is (tho' often foregone). For many these days violent death or injury is a real possibility. Members of this service do enjoy a pension based on 1/60 but few ever get to serve for more than 30 years - so maximum pension is seldom even 50% of final salary.


And, of course, this atypical part of the public sector will again be expected to turn to and support critical public services while the more pampered element are indulging in a strike on Wednesday.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> d_c, Otta and Straferjack from page 1 of this

> thread reminding me of the type of posts that

> lured me into this forum in the first place.

>

> Very, very well said and best of luck to ontheedge

> and all others on strike next week.


I am glad what you are saying reminds you the same type of post on the first place

but non of you have stop since and have not listen our request and this time I been serious.

Once more put your jokes to one side as I have had the support of my husband to do this

you are not authorize to gather information from some else without their concern and distress them

in that manner.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't help thinking that a strike is a bit like

> biting off the hand that feeds you. Prior to

> redundancy, the company I spent a good few years

> working for changed their pension scheme from

> being a finaly salary one to a defined

> contribution one. The aim was to reduce its

> massive pension deficit. I wasn't in a Union and

> just had to accept it.I could understand the

> reasons why though.

>

> Watching a recording of Question Time last night,

> the guy who runs Sainsburies was asked what his

> salary was. It was over ?900k p.a. I don't think

> that guy could work any harder than I do but of

> course he has a more important job than me.

> However, I do wonder why he needs to be paid that

> much and that there are many others out there who

> get as much if not more. Is this capitalism gone

> wrong? Could he not live on say ?450k p.a. That's

> not a bad salary. There obviously is money out

> there but it's in the hands of the very few.

>

> This post doesn't have an answer.


I don't have a problem with Justin King, Chief Executive of Sainsbury's,being paid ?900,000 a year as the figure is not as excessive as that belonging to senior staff at our UK banks which are supported with public money. For example, the top 50 Barclays staff takes home ?400m in bonuses. Anyway, I suspect one day Justin King will carve a career in politics just like Archie Norman.


Moving on, I think it's time the dispute over pensions is ended as there have been so much misinformation thrown by the government and press that the public doesn't have the full facts at hand to know what's right from wrong. Even Sir GOD was alarmed by the myths and have wrote an article in the Guardian last year.

I'll be striking on Wednesday. I'm with the NUT and although I am new to teaching when I first decided to plan for leaving my job to re-train, a major factor was the pension. I was in a better paid job with much shorter hours (even if you do include holidays, although I realise that's not true for a lot of private sector jobs). I don't want to be in the classroom until I'm 68 - would you want your child taught by a knackered 67 year old?

I wil lbe striking on Weds - as a Public Sector worker, this is the first time I have been on strike in my working life

(42 years) I intended to retire at 66 so the new retirement age does not worry me. Just had my pension forecast - if I retire at 65 - will get just under ?13,000 lump sum for a 20 year service.


I am a front line worker and work frequently from 10 am - 7./7.30 pm most evenings. Since earlier this year we have lost 4.5 posts in our team and the work load has increased 25%. In order to catch up with our paperwork, it is nothing unusual to find people in the office at weekends just to keep on top of things. We do not get paid overtimem. As we deal with very vulnerable people, often palliative, others disabled, others being abused, it is also emotionally draining. We frequently have to visit homes which are covered in faeces, blood and vomit, sometimes infested by vermin and fleas. We have been threated with violence and verbally abused, but are not allowed to seek redress from our employers. I and my colleagues have good salaries, but under the new proposals will need to pay another ?1000 plus per year and get a lower pension. We accept that we need to pay more and are willing to do so, but when you are advised that the pension you may eventually get in 10/15/20 years time, is significantly lower, than what is quoted for today........ -


This is why I am striking.

"I don't want to be in the classroom until I'm 68"


Well that's kind of the issue in a nutshell sophiesofa - you just don't fancy it do you?


You'd far prefer that every other b*stard out there works themselves to the bone so you can have a nice early freebie ;-)


Stike if you must, but don't expect any sympathy from private sector workers when you're striking because you just don't fancy working, and you'd prefer they paid you for it.


Pugwash - you just don't get it do you?


"I and my colleagues have good salaries, but under the new proposals will need to pay another ?1000 plus per year and get a lower pension."


The point is that the money has to come from somewhere - what you're saying is that YOU don't want to pay it, so you'd prefer a private sector worker pays it for you. You are quite simply taking ?1000 out of their pocket and putting it in yours whilst saying 'I have a really hard life, me'.


You can get as self-righteous as you like about how put upon you are. The reality is you're using that as justification for taking money from someone else.

Again, a teacher complains a bit and Huguenot gets all righteous on their ass


A multi millionaire threatens to leave the country and not a peep


But yes the money has to come from somewhere



But an army of 68 year old teachers sounds ideal doesn't it. And for a bonus it stops young teachers getting a job



And all because some people are jealous.

I'm not getting righteous - I'm sure that teachers don't want to work until they're 68, but to be brutal neither does some poor fecker working in a car indicator light factory.


And I don't think the fecker in a car indicator light factory should have to work until they're 68 just because a teacher doesn't fancy it.


I'm not supporting the banker Sean, I'm supporting the guy in the factory.


As usual you're trying to turn this into a 'banker' issue.

And if the guy in the car factory is getting screwed


It's nowt to do with public sector.


And yes I'm aware his salary wouldn't pay for a pension fund and well done to him for turning ford around, but the workforce should see some of the success too. But workforce are all too aware that it's one rule at the bottom and another at the top

The guy in the factory isn't screwed because he gave up on the union, he's screwed because when retirement at 60 was envisioned, most people died before they were 70.


Now the average current age is over 80 years, a large number live into their 90s, and by the time our generation pops its clogs it would be surprising to see most people live into their 90s.


Despite your insistence that it is, this is not an issue about the bottom or the top, and the teachers vs. the bankers.


Unwittingly your link demonstrates the foolishness of trying to make this a bottom vs. top issue. Ford employs around 300,000 globally, so if you took alll the money away from the (65 year old) CEO, each worker would get an extra $1.60 per week.


Guess what? It won't solve the pension problem!!!


I should also add that the CEO in question is credited with bringing Ford back from bankruptcy in the last 5 years, to make it the No.4 motor manfacturer in the world. He took Ford from $1 per share in 2008 to $15 today - and in the process made $35 billion for its shareholders - who include the companies workers. His reward is small in contrast.


If you ask those 300,000 people whether they think the $1.60 per week is worth it to actually have a job, I think they'd say it was.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...