# Public sector strikes



## scottbrown (Jul 10, 2014)

Unions are dinosaurs, with a small minority backing determined to cause upset to the hard working public? 

Discuss.........


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 10, 2014)

Apparently only 1 in five balloted voted for action but as they did it by postal vote many forms never returned so perhaps not an accurate portaryal. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the cause, especially with no or minimal pay increases against spiralling living costs but not sure this is the right way to get a result, if indeed there's even one to be had. It will of course impact and inconvenience the public and I'm never sure that's a good way to get their sympathy


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

Unions fight for and protect hard won workers rights. 

Worth remembering when you take your paid holidays or are dismissed unfairly, discriminated against etc. The Torys would have us working eight days a week, 28 hours a day and paying them for the privilege, the unions will try and make sure that doesn't happen.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Unions fight for and protect hard won workers rights. 

Worth remembering when you take your paid holidays or are dismissed unfairly, discriminated against etc. The Torys would have us working eight days a week, 28 hours a day and paying them for the privilege, the unions will try and make sure that doesn't happen.
		
Click to expand...

I think your comments are very exaggerated.   I agree Trade Unions did a great job in their early days and do in fact still do in many workplaces.

I have little sympathy for these current strikes, Public sector workers need to take their part in cutting the national debt and cant expect to be protected from the poor state of the countries finances.   They will still receive very good pensions, ones that private sector workers cannot hope to receive, they have been subject to pay freezes over recent years but so have most people .

There is already a massive black hole in the funds to pay these pensions and who do they think will pay to fill it, especially if it gets bigger?   The answer is the general public who tend to earn less, job for job.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Jul 10, 2014)

Everyone should be obligated to be part of a union, every union should have representation on boards in companies large enough to operate a board,every union member should be obligated to vote on any strike action and union officials should do the job either voluntarily or after retirement.

Workers rights are essential, but the gravy train of being a union leader has to stop.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2014)

funny how the one day strikes cause the public awful pain, misery and inconvenience when the same public is able to take time off - and take kids out of school - to watch the TDF on Monday from Cambridge to London.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I think your comments are very exaggerated.   I agree Trade Unions did a great job in their early days and do in fact still do in many workplaces.

I have little sympathy for these current strikes, Public sector workers need to take their part in cutting the national debt and cant expect to be protected from the poor state of the countries finances.   They will still receive very good pensions, ones that private sector workers cannot hope to receive, they have been subject to pay freezes over recent years but so have most people .

There is already a massive black hole in the funds to pay these pensions and who do they think will pay to fill it, especially if it gets bigger?   The answer is the general public who tend to earn less, job for job.
		
Click to expand...

Exaggerated? So they didn't win the rights and protections mentioned? Ok then. 

Perhaps if the public sector pension fund hadn't been raided by successive governments to pay for other things (that benefited private sector workers too) there might not be a 'massive black hole' in the fund. But that's not really anything to do with the union in this instance I don't think.

People think they get a raw deal from public services, I'm willing to bet if it was all privatised (no government aid/bailouts/excessive tax breaks etc) the service would be worse as it would be driven by profit. Look at the energy companies, happy with that service/cost? Banks? Happy with that? 

Public services being stretched while wealthy bankers get massive pay rises (after nearly bankrupting the country) is not the way to go surely. If the cuts have stopped here (with those that caused the problem) then we must be out of the woods surely. 
Create a fairer (not necessarily equal in a financial sense) society with well funded public services (yes, there will be areas where they can improve) and there's a chance we will have a better society, imo. Unions fight for that. 

Smashing workers rights is all the Torys care about. Do you think they actually give a toss if your bins aren't emptied on time, buses/trains are late? Do they (infraction)! They'd be happy if we had to wheel our own bins to the tip if it saved a quid, as long as they get their arses on some corporate board as a paid advisor they are happy. It would be foolish,imo,to think otherwise.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2014)

The attitude and demeanour of those in charge [particularly Gove] invites confrontation...


----------



## Imurg (Jul 10, 2014)

Well I'm at home all day with The Boy as his school is mostly closed.
Not unhappy - just regripped my putter, cleared out my bag, cleaned the clubs, going to do a few bits around the house and then watch the Ladies golf this afternoon.
Sounds alright to me!!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2014)

Not a single teacher has turned up for work in Scotland.

Worth remembering the two year 'holiday' most LA's took from the pensions during the 'loadsamoney' years.
Perhaps they should pay it back now, with interest.


----------



## john0 (Jul 10, 2014)

All teachers on strike should pay a fine to the parents!  If parents take kids out of school during term time they get fined, so should also work the other way round!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

john0 said:



			All teachers on strike should pay a fine to the parents!  If parents take kids out of school during term time they get fined, so should also work the other way round!
		
Click to expand...

Slight exaggeration saying parents will get fined as they won't automatically, it is up to the heads/governors discretion whether to fine or not. 

 But this topic does cause a hell of a lot of anger among parents and does give the impression of '_one rule for one_'. In reality it is a lot more complicated, but the perception when teachers are striking a week before a very long holiday and when parents are being fined for taking kids out of school is not good.


----------



## shewy (Jul 10, 2014)

My missus is a teacher althought not on strike today, I agree with them. The cost of living has gone up and wages are struggling to keep up, the government make claims of cuts yet give themself massive pay rises, huge pensions second homes and lets not start with expenses, if they want to save money lets start there.


----------



## AuburnWarrior (Jul 10, 2014)

I just wonder where the unions think the extra money for pay rises will come from.  This country is practically bankrupt (due to Labour and their dreadful spending for fourteen years) so if all the public service workers get a rise, where's the money coming from?

My Wife works for a private company and hasn't had a pay rise for four years.  She works long hours, often weekends and it shows no sign of getting better.  If only she had a union...

Maybe we should stop paying aid to countries that don't need it, stop giving people on benefits SKY subscriptions, iPhones and paying for their cigarettes and stop doing boob jobs, gastric bands and sex changes on the NHS.  All the money saved could then be given to the people who actually deserve it - the workers!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2014)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Everyone should be obligated to be part of a union, every union should have representation on boards in companies large enough to operate a board,every union member should be obligated to vote on any strike action and union officials should do the job either voluntarily or after retirement.

Workers rights are essential, but the gravy train of being a union leader has to stop.
		
Click to expand...

sounds a bit like the German workers council model


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

shewy said:



			My missus is a teacher althought not on strike today, I agree with them. The cost of living has gone up and wages are struggling to keep up, the government make claims of cuts yet give themself massive pay rises, huge pensions second homes and lets not start with expenses, if they want to save money lets start there.
		
Click to expand...

I think comparing the plight of the average worker with that of government ministers, and even bankers (as the unions constantly trot out that comparison)  is a bit false.  They represent such a minuscule proportion of the workforce the comparison is not really valid in my opinion.  

Yes they may well get grossly overpaid and the expense scandal was just that, a scandal. But if people want sympathy for their situation or even a fair comparison, then in my opinion compare their lot to the average private sector worker. As it's a bit like the average private sector worker comparing their pay with some school super heads who get paid a fair whack, or council leaders who are paid in the hundreds of thousands.  Not saying they may not deserve it, but it is not a fair comparison.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

AuburnWarrior said:



			I just wonder where the unions think the extra money for pay rises will come from.  This country is practically bankrupt (due to Labour and their dreadful spending for fourteen years) so if all the public service workers get a rise, where's the money coming from?

My Wife works for a private company and hasn't had a pay rise for four years.  She works long hours, often weekends and it shows no sign of getting better.  If only she had a union...
Maybe we should stop paying aid to countries that don't need it, stop giving people on benefits SKY subscriptions, iPhones and paying for their cigarettes and stop doing boob jobs, gastric bands and sex changes on the NHS.  All the money saved could then be given to the people who actually deserve it - the workers!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine sex change operations and boob jobs are a massive drain on the public purse.   And I can't usually even get in my local news agents for all the people getting free cigarettes from the government.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Perhaps if the public sector pension fund hadn't been raided by successive governments to pay for other things (that benefited private sector workers too) there might not be a 'massive black hole' in the fund. But that's not really anything to do with the union in this instance I don't think.
		
Click to expand...

What is this 'Public Sector Pension Fund' you speak of?

As far as I know, there is no such thing!

But I agree about the obscene raiding of Pensions by successive governments. Gordon Broon (as Chancellor) was the most obscene imo, but subsequent Tory governments haven't reversed the measures they rightly objected to at the time!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

Is it true that the same minister that are telling them to go back to work and help out with the debt have given themselves a 11% pay rise ?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is it true that the same minister that are telling them to go back to work and help out with the debt have given themselves a 11% pay rise ?
		
Click to expand...


No it is not true.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is it true that the same minister that are telling them to go back to work and help out with the debt have given themselves a 11% pay rise ?
		
Click to expand...

Wasnt that raise ordered by an independent review? With many refusing it?
im not defending the actions of members of parliaments, but many with their educational background could work in the private sector on far more than they currently earn.

re the strikes, I have a few teachers in the family and have regular heated debates on this subject. Whilst I don't suggest they have a cushy working week with many working extra. I don't know of any that work more hours in the year than the average. 40 hour a week worker. They are paid well above national average with much better benefits than most.

the idea of fining them would be wrong also, as schools now (at least the ones of know of) don't control the funds. Heads actually face penalties agaisnt funding for poor attendance so have to use the fine system to try and keep kids in school. 

Although I'm not sure why it's always teachers that are blamed as many other unions are off today. Uk customs are currently sat outside my window at work laughing and joking at all the lorries parked up with nowhere to go.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			No it is not true.
		
Click to expand...


Which bit ? The amount of the rise or them getting it ?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which bit ? The amount of the rise or them getting it ?
		
Click to expand...

The figure of 11% was recommended by IPSA (an independent body) as a rise for ALL MP's. It has not yet been implemented.

 This report was criticised by all three party leaders and my understanding is that Ministers are currently subject to a "pay freeze".


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			The figure of 11% was recommended by IPSA (an independent body) as a rise for ALL MP's. It has not yet been implemented.

 This report was criticised by all three party leaders and my understanding is that Ministers are currently subject to a "pay freeze".
		
Click to expand...

Ok cheers - just heard a striker on the radio using them to justify the strikes.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is it true that the same minister that are telling them to go back to work and help out with the debt have given themselves a 11% pay rise ?
		
Click to expand...




MetalMickie said:



			No it is not true.
		
Click to expand...


I'd like to know though when 'they' intend to start making their benefactors, in business, start doing their bit to "help out with the debt"... Seemingly 'they' are good at talking the talk but fail when it comes to walking the walking... At least I haven't heard that total lie "we are all in this together" lately...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			Wasnt that raise ordered by an independent review? With many refusing it?
im not defending the actions of members of parliaments, but many with their educational background could work in the private sector on far more than they currently earn.

re the strikes, I have a few teachers in the family and have regular heated debates on this subject. Whilst I don't suggest they have a cushy working week with many working extra. I don't know of any that work more hours in the year than the average. 40 hour a week worker. They are paid well above national average with much better benefits than most.

the idea of fining them would be wrong also, as schools now (at least the ones of know of) don't control the funds. Heads actually face penalties agaisnt funding for poor attendance so have to use the fine system to try and keep kids in school. 

Although I'm not sure why it's always teachers that are blamed as many other unions are off today. Uk customs are currently sat outside my window at work laughing and joking at all the lorries parked up with nowhere to go.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if teachers are being blamed, but some of it may be the perception that they have an easy life (wrong in my opinion as a lot work extremely hard) and also get long holidays (but hard to argue against that).  Plus the public on average will have much more contact with teachers than they do say UK Customs, so they notice the effects more when they go on strike.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Not sure if teachers are being blamed, but some of it may be the perception that they have an easy life (wrong in my opinion as a lot work extremely hard) and also get long holidays (but hard to argue against that).  Plus the public on average will have much more contact with teachers than they do say UK Customs, so they notice the effects more w
hen they go on strike.
		
Click to expand...

fair point. 

I agree that they're given grief about hours etc, at whilst I don't think teaching is as easy as some like to think. I'm not sure they have it as hard as they make out on occasion.

either way, I believe unions now aren't used for what they were originally intended.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

Papas1982 said:





Hacker Khan said:



			Not sure if teachers are being blamed, but some of it may be the perception that they have an easy life (wrong in my opinion as a lot work extremely hard) and also get long holidays (but hard to argue against that).  Plus the public on average will have much more contact with teachers than they do say UK Customs, so they notice the effects more w
hen they go on strike.[/QUOTE

fair point. 

I agree that they're given grief about hours etc, at whilst I don't think teaching is as easy as some like to think. I'm not sure they have it as hard as they make out on occasion.

either way, I believe unions now aren't used for what they were originally intended.
		
Click to expand...

I think being a *good *teacher is a bloody hard job, a lot harder a job than most people do.  But being a poor teacher is not that difficult.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2014)

I haven't noticed recently that going on strike ever actually precipitated a wage increase - if it did then maybe that wage increase was clearly affordable.  And I have little sympathy with those complaining about how it disrupts their life - when they'll have known the date for some time.  An awful lot of folks seem to find it not that difficult to take a day off for sickness, holiday, watching the TDF etc etc and to take their kids out of school for the day.  So let's not get too het up about how disruptive such one-day strikes are.  Tomorrow and tomorrow after will arrive, and life will go on for most folks as if nothing had happened.


----------



## AuburnWarrior (Jul 10, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I haven't noticed recently that going on strike ever actually precipitated a wage increase - if it did then maybe that wage increase was clearly affordable.
		
Click to expand...

The strikes of late have been pension related.  Everyone knows that pensions today are pretty much worthless thanks to Gordon Brown.  We'll all be working until we drop thanks to that clown.

Unfortunately, with so many sectors striking, public sympathy and support starts to wane. We're starting to resemble the French - and that's never good.


----------



## Jack_bfc (Jul 10, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			sounds a bit like the German workers council model
		
Click to expand...

Bring back Maggie.

Smash the unions....


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jul 10, 2014)

We get a fine for taking our Kids out of school to go on holiday,but it's ok when they want to strike. 
Wonder if schools are willing to pay for child care during the strikes.


----------



## Jack_bfc (Jul 10, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Not sure if teachers are being blamed, but some of it may be the perception that they have an easy life (wrong in my opinion as a lot work extremely hard) and also get long holidays (but hard to argue against that).  Plus the public on average will have much more contact with teachers than they do say UK Customs, so they notice the effects more when they go on strike.
		
Click to expand...

My daughters teacher stood at the door of the class and announced, 'I hope the weather is nice on Thursday as I have the day off'.

So, we as parents, got 2 days notice to organize childcare for one of 2 children as the more responsible teacher of my eldest isn't striking......


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I haven't noticed recently that going on strike ever actually precipitated a wage increase - if it did then maybe that wage increase was clearly affordable.  And I have little sympathy with those complaining about how it disrupts their life - when they'll have known the date for some time.  An awful lot of folks seem to find it not that difficult to take a day off for sickness, holiday, watching the TDF etc etc and to take their kids out of school for the day.  So let's not get too het up about how disruptive such one-day strikes are.  Tomorrow and tomorrow after will arrive, and life will go on for most folks as if nothing had happened.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see why people having access to time off for holiday should mean it should be used to accommodate others on strike. 

If people want to take days of for tdf. That's their choice as it's their holiday.  They don't need it dictated to them when to the it. At my work we have to request holiday 2months in advance to guarantee it due to small staff numbers. And if one shift member off rest can't have it. We have approx 40% parents so how do we all get it off?


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

AuburnWarrior said:



			I just wonder where the unions think the extra money for pay rises will come from.  This country is practically bankrupt (due to Labour and their dreadful spending for fourteen years) so if all the public service workers get a rise, where's the money coming from?
		
Click to expand...

The same place that mp's got there 11% pay rise from


----------



## Ethan (Jul 10, 2014)

Unions have a lot to do with improving living conditions for ordinary workers, and the economy benefits gently because working class and lower middle class people spend their money which recirculates many times in the economy. They don't stick it all in trusts in Luxembourg for little Jocasta and Gideon's future.

The Govt trot out this line about 'all being in it together'. What a load of nonsense. Cameron, his Chipping Sodbury set, and the bankers aren't in it at all. Welfare seekers and ordinary public sector workers are bearing the brunt of the austerity and will continue to do so. 

Gove was a union activist for the NUJ some years ago. I guess he has now revised his position. His type do well as MPs and Ministers, with a decent salary. well padded expanses and a few directorships, but they work heard to feather a nice nest for later when they can really cash in on their connections and network. It has been joked that being an MP is really an intern position for your real career after. Hypocrites and crooks, one and all, if you ask me. The real disappointment now is that they are now so much the same it really makes no difference which lot (of the main 3) you vote in. Six of one ...


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

As a public sector worker with a two day old child i can say that i absolutely hate striking and simply can't afford it.   what you lot need to know as tax payers is that unions fight hard to keep what you folk take for granted.  I speak for the fire brigade union in saying that without their efforts your family would be at a much greater risk if they weren't here. The fire station in your town would be a transit van with two staff and a back pack of water if the government got there way (and i ent kidding) they're called tactical response vehicles "TRV'S"


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			The same place that mp's got there 11% pay rise from
		
Click to expand...

They havent received any pay rises yet. 
Im not sure about everyone else here, but I don't know of anyone getting more than a 2% pay rise. If I'd received ZERO I certainly wouldnt of considered striking for effectively less than Â£15 a week. I believe there are issues with pensions also, albeit they have better ones than most people. I just think unions are now not set up to protect the work force, but more to guarantee optimum working conditions.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			As a public sector worker with a two day old child i can say that i absolutely hate striking and simply can't afford it.   what you lot need to know as tax payers is that unions fight hard to keep what you folk take for granted.  I speak for the fire brigade union in saying that without their efforts your family would be at a much greater risk if you tjey weren't here. The fire station in your town would be a transit van with two staff and a back pack of water if the government got there way (and i ent kidding) they're called tactical response vehicles "TRV'S"
		
Click to expand...

That maybe the case with the firebrigade. But whilst teachers provide an invaluable function society, they still do so with better benefits than most! One of the major issues were target based earnings. My sis in law has recently relocated back to Kent, and to get an extra 3k a year she now has to hit targets or get sacked, prior to the changes. She was given the extra 3k as an extra pay rise for staying on at the school. So effectively 3k extra for no extra responsibilities. There are obviously cases both ways, but I belive in the past the public sector has had too many 3 perks and now they're being reigned in.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			I belive in the past the public sector has had too many  perks and now they're being reigned in.
		
Click to expand...

Thats fine, we're all in this together. But when a mp claims Â£35 a day for breakfast i get a tad annoyed


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2014)

My only intended contribution to this - as an ex civil servant turned IT Contractor whose ex was a very good (inspirational) anti-union Teacher.

The good teachers are not paid well enough, but that's because the system doesn't weed out the unsuccessful (if not downright bad) ones well/fast enough.

NHS Nurses are the most down-trodden, abused, over-worked, underpaid section of the workforce!

MPs should have accepted the 11% pay rise - and the associated constraints/restrictions - recommended by the independent body. It was just such a fear of reaction - by Maggie - that led to the expenses scandal. They are underpaid and should be linked to a group of 'equivalent' positions elsewhere in industry. Expenses should be reasonable but anyone who abuses the system should be 'sacked' as happens elsewhere! Self regulation does not work with the sort of folk that become politicians!

And Maggie was as much to blame for the demise of 'British Industry' - at least in the Midlands and North as anyone! 

Just like many seem to be saying about what the FA needs to do....the German 'unity and purpose' model seems much more successful than the British 'cheap and confrontational' one! 

I believe Unions do have a place and they have done, and are doing, hugely beneficial things for their members - even though I don' agree with some of them. But they are naturally very resistant to change! And modern working needs a reasonable flexible workforce. Both Unions and Companies need to recognise that working together produces better results for everybody!


----------



## 6inchcup (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Unions fight for and protect hard won workers rights. 

Worth remembering when you take your paid holidays or are dismissed unfairly, discriminated against etc. The Torys would have us working eight days a week, 28 hours a day and paying them for the privilege, the unions will try and make sure that doesn't happen.
		
Click to expand...

i can see the maths lesson didnt go to well under LIEBORE in your neck of the woods then.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

6inchcup said:



			i can see the maths lesson didnt go to well under LIEBORE in your neck of the woods then.
		
Click to expand...

It was actually a take on the the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch. I can count very well thank you, all the way up to 12 if I use all my fingers......webbed feet means I can't use my toes.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Exaggerated? So they didn't win the rights and protections mentioned? Ok then. 

Click to expand...

Maybe I was wrong but "The Torys would have us working eight days a week, 28 hours a day and paying them for the privilege"  just seemed a bit of an exaggeration.   Maybe not


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

At least this time the firemen are striking for a reason more worthy in regards the age of retirement - no fireman should have to work past the age of 60


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2014)

On R5L this morning when discussing potential new laws on strike ballots - Francis Maude was asked what he had sacrificed over the last few years as we are all in it together.  He cited the freeze (or reduction) in his MPs salary.  Don't think that was exactly what the interviewer was thinking about.  I suspect that in his day-to-day life over the last 5 yrs, Francis Maude has not experienced one iota of reduction in his standard of living.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			At least this time the firemen are striking for a reason more worthy in regards the age of retirement - no fireman should have to work past the age of 60
		
Click to expand...

Although working past 60 isn't ideal our problem is if we can't work past 60 for physical reasons we want them to give us a desk job. They said no " if you cant ride a fire engine then your sacked"


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Although working past 60 isn't ideal our problem is if we can't work past 60 for physical reasons we want them to give us a desk job. They said no " if you cant ride a fire engine then your sacked"
		
Click to expand...


Yep it's poor.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Thats fine, we're all in this together. But when a mp claims Â£35 a day for breakfast i get a tad annoyed
		
Click to expand...

I agree with that fully. I belive at one point they looked into a 'school meals' style function at parliament and decided expenses were cheaper!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			At least this time the firemen are striking for a reason more worthy in regards the age of retirement - no fireman should have to work past the age of 60
		
Click to expand...

They will be OK then as they don't have to!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Although working past 60 isn't ideal our problem is if we can't work past 60 for physical reasons we want them to give us a desk job. They said no " if you cant ride a fire engine then your sacked"
		
Click to expand...

And who exactly is suggesting you work past 60?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Unions have a lot to do with improving living conditions for ordinary workers, and the economy benefits gently because working class and lower middle class people spend their money which recirculates many times in the economy. They don't stick it all in trusts in Luxembourg for little Jocasta and Gideon's future.

The Govt trot out this line about 'all being in it together'. What a load of nonsense. Cameron, his Chipping Sodbury set, and the bankers aren't in it at all. Welfare seekers and ordinary public sector workers are bearing the brunt of the austerity and will continue to do so. 

Gove was a union activist for the NUJ some years ago. I guess he has now revised his position. His type do well as MPs and Ministers, with a decent salary. well padded expanses and a few directorships, but they work heard to feather a nice nest for later when they can really cash in on their connections and network. It has been joked that being an MP is really an intern position for your real career after. Hypocrites and crooks, one and all, if you ask me. The real disappointment now is that they are now so much the same it really makes no difference which lot (of the main 3) you vote in. Six of one ...
		
Click to expand...

Some green grapes there Ethan, surely MP's should be well paid otherwise it would be a job only for the rich.

Oh!  and its Chipping Norton not Chipping Sodbury


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			And who exactly is suggesting you work past 60?
		
Click to expand...

Branden lewis


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe I was wrong but "The Torys would have us working eight days a week, 28 hours a day and paying them for the privilege"  just seemed a bit of an exaggeration.   Maybe not 

Click to expand...


I thought it was obvious that part was jocular, apparently not. Apologies if I missed your acknowledgement of such when I responded.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Branden lewis
		
Click to expand...

And where does he say you should work past the age of 60?

Did he not say:

If you are a firefighter not currently protected from the changes, you will retire at 60. This is the same retirement age agreed back in 2006 for members of the New Firefightersâ€™ Pension Scheme 2006, and is the same as for the police and the armed forces.

However, you could still choose to retire from age 55. The Governmentâ€™s recent offer means that there will be a smaller reduction to your pension if you retire at 55. This offer is currently being considered by the FBUâ€™s Executive Council, and is subject to members agreeing it.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Some green grapes there Ethan, surely MP's should be well paid otherwise it would be a job only for the rich.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. They should receive a decent wage, but a lot of the extras should be done away with. I'm thinking about subsidies to buy 2nd homes which they can sell on and keep all the profit, things like that should be stopped.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

Most firemen I know have a part time job they work on their days off. Seems like a decent gig tbh. That's not a dig at firemen btw.

I wouldn't support any change that made them work past 60, just as I don't support the raise in retirement age generally (labouring on a building site at 67 anyone?), but equally I would be testing their fitness/ability to do the job on a regular basis. If they didn't pass muster they'd be out on their ear. Same with the police. They have the assurance of a secure job and half decent pension, part of the deal should be they retain a high level of fitness.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Most firemen I know have a part time job they work on their days off. Seems like a decent gig tbh. That's not a dig at firemen btw.

I wouldn't support any change that made them work past 60, just as I don't support the raise in retirement age generally (labouring on a building site at 67 anyone?), but equally I would be testing their fitness/ability to do the job on a regular basis. If they didn't pass muster they'd be out on their ear. Same with the police. They have the assurance of a secure job and half decent pension, part of the deal should be they retain a high level of fitness.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you think they have another job? Â£1580 a month after pension payment ent alot of money. Who wants to work on a day off!


----------



## scottbrown (Jul 10, 2014)

The one thing I do agree with is that MPs are under paid for the level they operate at. An mp earns ( basic) summit like 60k, cabinet circa 80k. I bet anyone here who works for a business that employs more than 100 people, the CEO /md / etc all earn more than that. 
Yet how many CEOs are making decisions each day that can cost trillions of pounds pa? 

However, my view of the public sector and where I do have some sympathy. Things like pensions where part of the reason a lot of people joined the public sector compared to private. So to change for all is always going to be a tough one. Maybe a fairer way would be to implement the change for new starters, however this obviously creates a 2 tier system. 

As for the political steer, like Cameron or not. He is doing something. Brown and Blair buried their heads and continued to borrow rather than upset the public ( and the unions who pretty much fund the Labour Party)


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			And where does he say you should work past the age of 60?

Did he not say:

If you are a firefighter not currently protected from the changes, you will retire at 60. This is the same retirement age agreed back in 2006 for members of the New Firefightersâ€™ Pension Scheme 2006, and is the same as for the police and the armed forces.

However, you could still choose to retire from age 55. The Governmentâ€™s recent offer means that there will be a smaller reduction to your pension if you retire at 55. This offer is currently being considered by the FBUâ€™s Executive Council, and is subject to members agreeing it.
		
Click to expand...

You live in wales or Scotland by any chance?

To get my full pension i have to serve 35 years. That would take me to 65. Before i had the option to down tools operationally and get a job elsewhere within the organisation.  That option is no longer available.

Oh and retire at 55 and loose a small amount of my pension? Its almost half.  BTW i have since left my pension and investing my money in my propertys instead


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Why do you think they have another job? Â£1580 a month after pension payment ent alot of money. Who wants to work on a day off!
		
Click to expand...


I don't think, I know they do. The way their shifts work in means they can work elsewhere.  Â£1580 is a lot of money for some people btw, but personally I agree about not wanting to graft on days off myself, it's just ones I know do.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			I don't think, I know they do. The way their shifts work in means they can work elsewhere.  Â£1580 is a lot of money for some people btw, but personally I agree about not wanting to graft on days off myself, it's just ones I know do.
		
Click to expand...


Â£1580 is a joke for a high risk job. And before you say "why do it then" because i do it because its a good cause


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Why do you think they have another job? Â£1580 a month after pension payment ent alot of money. Who wants to work on a day off!
		
Click to expand...


It's a lot more money than a lot of military people and they are unable to fund with other jobs

And when qualified they get 30 grand a year basic then loads of overtime on top


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Â£1580 is a joke for a high risk job. And before you say "why do it then" because i do it because its a good cause
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying firemen do or don't deserve a better wage, just that it's a lot for some. 

Anyway, it's not all high risk (I accept it can be) charging into fires, there's a fair bit of down time as well.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's a lot more money than a lot of military people and they are unable to fund with other jobs

And when qualified they get 30 grand a year basic then loads of overtime on top
		
Click to expand...

Phil, i think it is beyond disgraceful what service men get but like me i dont know any military guys that are in it for the money.  Just angers me when you have a job where people dodge bullets and get a pittance and some fat mp who was probably bullied at school earns 10x their wage and has the cheek to say "we can't afford to pay them more. Anyway I'm off to eat my breakfast and claim Â£35 for it"

And as for overtime, i wish.  Earned Â£900 in overtime last financial year.
Also not 30k its 28.9 with Â£320 a month pension


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Anyway, it's not all high risk (I accept it can be) charging into fires, there's a fair bit of down time as well.
		
Click to expand...

How dare you, I'm like a coiled spring


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			How dare you, I'm like a coiled spring

Click to expand...

As long as your more switched on than Pugh,Pugh,Barney McGrew,Cuthbert,Dibble and Grubb you'll be fine.  


Hope I got those names correct.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Phil, i think it is beyond disgraceful what service men get but like me i dont know any military guys that are in it for the money.  Just angers me when you have a job where people dodge bullets and get a pittance and some fat mp who was probably bullied at school earns 10x their wage and has the cheek to say "we can't afford to pay them more. Anyway I'm off to eat my breakfast and claim Â£35 for it"

And as for overtime, i wish.  Earned Â£900 in overtime last financial year.
Also not 30k its 28.9 with Â£320 a month pension
		
Click to expand...


Even at 29K and the ability to get overtime and also bolster that with a part time job a fireman is in a hell of a lot better position than most military people and also other workers - it really did annoy me when the fireman went on strike and they were covered by people on less money without the ability to strike and without the ability to get overtime and haven't had a pay rise in nearly 5 years. 

So whilst I agree on the age I will never ever agree on fireman constantly striking over pay


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			As long as your more switched on than Pugh,Pugh,Barney McGrew,Cuthbert,Dibble and Grubb you'll be fine.  


Hope I got those names correct. 

Click to expand...

I'm lost.  As a guess are these fireman sam characters?


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So whilst I agree on the age I will never ever agree on fireman constantly striking over pay
		
Click to expand...

Your preaching to the converted phil. I have seen active service my self. Even as a low life "tanky"

Strike from our part are purely pension related.  Might be stuff coming up about swapping fire engines for these stupid vans


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			I'm lost.  As a guess are these fireman sam characters?
		
Click to expand...

Nah, Trumpton. I'm showing my age a bit.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jul 10, 2014)

Surely you know what salary you'll be on when joining the armed forces & fire brigade 
And the rest of the country is on it's arse so try not to feel too hard done by.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Surely you know what salary you'll be on when joining the armed forces & fire brigade 
And the rest of the country is on it's arse so try not to feel too hard done by.
		
Click to expand...

People dont become military, fire, paramedics, nurse's etc for the money.  But when the government take, take, take from you and say "oh well, I'm off to buy a Â£2000 duck house with your money dont take it personally"  i do


----------



## c1973 (Jul 10, 2014)

Going back on track, I'm quite surprised that the Unions haven't been agitating for national general strikes across the board against the austerity measures. It's not just public sector workers who are in Unions and many private sector workers must be feeling the pinch also. I'm not saying I'd agree with it or not, but I'm surprised nonetheless. 

Do you think there could be pressure from Labour heavyweights to keep them in check as they would have trouble supporting this but couldn't condone it either? Or do the Unions realise, for the moment at least, there isn't enough public support for it?


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Going back on track, I'm quite surprised that the Unions haven't been agitating for national general strikes across the board against the austerity measures. It's not just public sector workers who are in Unions and many private sector workers must be feeling the pinch also. I'm not saying I'd agree with it or not, but I'm surprised nonetheless. 

Do you think there could be pressure from Labour heavyweights to keep them in check as they would have trouble supporting this but couldn't condone it either? Or do the Unions realise, for the moment at least, there isn't enough public support for it?
		
Click to expand...

One thing i think its safe to say....david cameron and his clowns ent going to win another term


----------



## williamalex1 (Jul 10, 2014)

As a ex local authority employee who naively went on strike in 1973 and got 5 shillings a week of a rise after 17 weeks !!!

. I don't think we ever recovered the loss at 5 shillings a week.  

Strikes are not the answer, the local authority don't lose any money but the workers do.

Work to rule and get paid your wages IMHO.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			One thing i think its safe to say....david cameron and his clowns ent going to win another term
		
Click to expand...

To be honest I think they will.  As we are having an economic recovery, and to quote Clinton, it's the economy stupid.  And I'm not sure that Milliband/Labour is trusted by enough people to run the economy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			To be honest I think they will.  As we are having an economic recovery, and to quote Clinton, it's the economy stupid.  And I'm not sure that Milliband/Labour is trusted by enough people to run the economy.
		
Click to expand...


That's the problem I have with voting right now - there is not one person or party I would want to vote for , don't trusting of them.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			As a ex local authority employee who naively went on strike in 1973 and got 5 shillings a week of a rise after 17 weeks !!!

. I don't think we ever recovered the loss at 5 shillings a week.  

Strikes are not the answer, the local authority don't lose any money but the workers do.

Work to rule and get paid your wages IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

Im inclined to agree. I hate striking and really hurts my banl balance especially when i can't see it achieving anything.  apart from an extra days golf  sod that picket line stuff, I've got 18 to play


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That's the problem I have with voting right now - there is not one person or party I would want to vote for , don't trusting of them.
		
Click to expand...

Same


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			People dont become military, fire, paramedics, nurse's etc for the money.  But when the government take, take, take from you and say "oh well, I'm off to buy a Â£2000 duck house with your money dont take it personally"  i do
		
Click to expand...

You are doing a job like the rest of us. If you're not happy find another job. Working in the building trade the recession hit me pretty bad,sadly I didn't have the luxury of striking to get what I wanted,so I had to help myself.
The Government are screwing us all.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			You are doing a job like the rest of us. If you're not happy find another job. Working in the building trade the recession hit me pretty bad,sadly I didn't have the luxury of striking to get what I wanted,so I had to help myself.
The Government are screwing us all.
		
Click to expand...

Did you actually read my post.  I do my job for the love of it not the money.  When the government come after my money i take it personally. And thanks to the unions we are in a position to do something about it. your family have them to thank for keeping them safe tonight because believe me the emergency services would be drastically different if they had your attitude.  
Have you stood over a person having a heart attack to be told the paramedics are 20 minutes away? No you havent because the unions fought to stop that happening.

Also Can you explain what the luxury of striking is because i cant think of one


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			At least this time the firemen are striking for a reason more worthy in regards the age of retirement - no fireman should have to work past the age of 60
		
Click to expand...

Not all firemen fight fires, whilst I agree that those on the front would find it too physically demanding there are a number who like to call themselves firemen whilst the closest they have come to a fire is when they burn their sausages on the BBQ.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			One thing i think its safe to say....david cameron and his clowns ent going to win another term
		
Click to expand...

You maybe right as we normally only get a Tory Government after Liebour have emptied the till.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Not all firemen fight fires, whilst I agree that those on the front would find it too physically demanding there are a number who like to call themselves firemen whilst the closest they have come to a fire is when they burn their sausages on the BBQ.
		
Click to expand...

We call them senior management (i am sooooo sacked if my bosses see this)


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Did you actually read my post.  I do my job for the love of it not the money.  When the government come after my money i take it personally. And thanks to the unions we are in a position to do something about it. your family have them to thank for keeping them safe tonight because believe me the emergency services would be drastically different if they had your attitude.  
Have you stood over a person having a heart attack to be told the paramedics are 20 minutes away? No you havent because the unions fought to stop that happening.

Also Can you explain what the luxury of striking is because i cant think of one
		
Click to expand...

Must be nice getting a decent salary for a job you love. The Government screw us all.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			You maybe right as we normally only get a Tory Government after Liebour have emptied the till.
		
Click to expand...


And a Labour government just after the Tories have sucked the country dry to fatten up their mates wallets


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			We call them senior management (i am sooooo sacked if my bosses see this)
		
Click to expand...


It's the same in the military - lots of pen pushers


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			People dont become military, fire, paramedics, nurse's etc for the money.
		
Click to expand...

I can only talk about the military and along with playing with some really great toys and obviously be able to shoot people, we do join for the money, it's only later that we realise that the money is rubbish, however the toys are still good.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Must be nice getting a decent salary for a job you love. The Government screw us all.
		
Click to expand...

 it is nice and i busted my balls to get that job
Yes they do shaft us all mate but perhaps the grief they get from unions stops them shafting us all as much.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			We call them senior management (i am sooooo sacked if my bosses see this)
		
Click to expand...

There not all senior managers. There's some right fat knobbers who would have a heart attack if someone gave them a hose.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's the same in the military - lots of pen pushers
		
Click to expand...

And the bloody RAF Regt.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			I can only talk about the military and along with playing with some really great toys and obviously be able to shoot people, we do join for the money, it's only later that we realise that the money is rubbish, however the toys are still good.
		
Click to expand...

I have to say Â£1100 a month for blowing stuff up in a challenger 2 was great. I do miss the toys. Its ironic because the army was my worst paying job but i dont think ive had more money in my wallet since i left.  Them where the days


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			There not all senior managers. There's some right fat knobbers who would have a heart attack if someone gave them a hose.
		
Click to expand...

Keep an eye out as compulsory fitness test arriving very soon. And rightly so


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Phil, i think it is beyond disgraceful what service men get but like me i dont know any military guys that are in it for the money.  Just angers me when you have a job where people dodge bullets and get a pittance and some fat mp who was probably bullied at school earns 10x their wage and has the cheek to say "we can't afford to pay them more. Anyway I'm off to eat my breakfast and claim Â£35 for it"

And as for overtime, i wish.  Earned Â£900 in overtime last financial year.
Also not 30k its 28.9 with Â£320 a month pension
		
Click to expand...

But for the pension you will receive Â£320 pm is cheap and would be unobtainable in the private sector.

Eleven years ago I had to advise a company who had taken on a group of civilian employees from the MoD. The deal required this company to match the pension benefits of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

Within four years the costs of this had crippled the Company resulting in a major restructuring and redundancies including many employees who had never had the benefit of this Pension Scheme.

My point is that there  are also many in the private sector who are having to endure pay freezes and will not have the benefits at retirement to, at least, look forward to.

No matter who was responsible for it we are all suffering from the effects of the recession.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Keep an eye out as compulsory fitness test arriving very soon. And rightly so
		
Click to expand...

And hopefully it will come into being in the invisible police force.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Keep an eye out as compulsory fitness test arriving very soon. And rightly so
		
Click to expand...


Should have started in the 90's when ours started


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			But for the pension you will receive Â£320 pm is cheap and would be unobtainable in the private sector.

Eleven years ago I had to advise a company who had taken on a group of civilian employees from the MoD. The deal required this company to match the pension benefits of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

Within four years the costs of this had crippled the Company resulting in a major restructuring and redundancies including many employees who had never had the benefit of this Pension Scheme.

My point is that there  are also many in the private sector who are having to endure pay freezes and will not have the benefits at retirement to, at least, look forward to.

No matter who was responsible for it we are all suffering from the effects of the recession.
		
Click to expand...

All i want is what i agreed ti when i signed on the dotted line and not a penny more


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Should have started in the 90's when ours started
		
Click to expand...

In any job where your physical state is required for helping others should have been tested from the start and measures put in place to maintain (cft, bft ect)  this should have happened waaaaay before now!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			All i want is what i agreed ti when i signed on the dotted line and not a penny more
		
Click to expand...

Far more people in the private sector have seen their pension benefits amended or schemes have even been wound up. It is all down to costs which, until recently, public sector employers have overlooked, relying upon the Treasury (tax-payer) to bail them out.

As I said the vast majority of us, both public and private sectors, are in this together.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			As I said the vast majority of us, both public and private sectors, are in this together.
		
Click to expand...

But are we in this together?  If david cameron said mps pension contributions are going up by 5% too then i would happy take my extra 120 a month in contributions to number 10 myself but thats not the case and makes this pill a very bitter one to swallow


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			But are we in this together?  If david cameron said mps pension contributions are going up by 5% too then i would happy take my extra 120 a month in contributions to number 10 myself but thats not the case and makes this pill a very bitter one to swallow
		
Click to expand...

Well there are only 650 MP's so they are hardly representative. But then they are public sector employees so who knows?

With politicians of all persuasions it has always been "do as I say, not as I do!".


----------



## williamalex1 (Jul 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's the same in the military - lots of pen pushers
		
Click to expand...

Also in the NHS far too many pen pushers .


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			it is nice and i busted my balls to get that job
Yes they do shaft us all mate but perhaps the grief they get from unions stops them shafting us all as much.
		
Click to expand...

You are not shafted, you guys get a good basic salary when trained and can earn much more through promotion, just like we all have to.   The difference with you is you get a pension that most can only dream of but they have to subsidise it for you.

I believe you do a good job that people respect you for but you are not exactly rocket scientists and are asking for too much.  It's no good people banging on about politicians and bankers getting more, if they think its that easy then no one is stopping them from doing it themselves.

I repeat my point that no one is asking you to work beyond 60, currently Firefighters tend to retire at 55, this is much to early, if you have not done the full qualifying years then you wont get the full pension, thats the same for everyone.   Most other people will have to work to 67 before they get a pension.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			But are we in this together?  If david cameron said mps pension contributions are going up by 5% too then i would happy take my extra 120 a month in contributions to number 10 myself but thats not the case and makes this pill a very bitter one to swallow
		
Click to expand...

 Percentage rises only  make the differential  worse, give everyone the same increase Â£20,Â£30,Â£40 a week or whatever but the amount should be the same  .


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			currently Firefighters tend to retire at 55, this is much to early, if you have not done the full qualifying years then you wont get the full pension, thats the same for everyone.   Most other people will have to work to 67 before they get a pension.
		
Click to expand...

IMO, having tried to do the job (bloody striking firemen), running around fighting fires with all that gear on even for a 50 year old must be tough going. It's time for the ambulance and fire service to become one as per the sceptic model. That way, there would be ample jobs less physically demanding as people age.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			You are not shafted, you guys get a good basic salary when trained and can earn much more through promotion, just like we all have to.   The difference with you is you get a pension that most can only dream of but they have to subsidise it for you.

I believe you do a good job that people respect you for but you are not exactly rocket scientists and are asking for too much.  It's no good people banging on about politicians and bankers getting more, if they think its that easy then no one is stopping them from doing it themselves.

I repeat my point that no one is asking you to work beyond 60, currently Firefighters tend to retire at 55, this is much to early, if you have not done the full qualifying years then you wont get the full pension, thats the same for everyone.   Most other people will have to work to 67 before they get a pension.
		
Click to expand...

Do people not read posts? When have i said i dont get paid enough and when have i said i want to retire at 55? I have said that i physically cant ride a fire engine when im 60. But to get my full term in i now have to as there will be no sideway moves. So bottom line is I'll do a compulsory fitness test when I'm 60 and according to the governments own findings i am almost certain to fail. Then i get sack and my pension will be destroyed.  Funnily enough that saves the government 80k per sacked fire fighter.

And with all respect you dont know what your talking about regarding money for promotion. The pay increase from fire fighter to crew manager is nominal. To get into the big bucks you need station manger and up. So thats 280 fireman in my brigade after 7 jobs


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			It's time for the ambulance and fire service to become one as per the sceptic model. That way, there would be ample jobs less physically demanding as people age.
		
Click to expand...

This is already on the cards.  Its like you've been a fly on the wall


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I repeat my point that no one is asking you to work beyond 60, currently Firefighters tend to retire at 55, this is way too early .
		
Click to expand...

Really, have you ever wore full fire kit and breathing apparatus in 700 degree heat whilst performing arduous tasks.   This takes us out "most people retire at 67" group.

Your also looking at it the wrong way. How would you feel about 5 60 year old fireman turning up to your house whilst your wife and kids are stuck inside?


----------



## rosecott (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			So bottom line is I'll do a compulsory fitness test when I'm 60 and according to the governments own findings i am almost certain to fail. Then i get sack and my pension will be destroyed.
		
Click to expand...

The sack?

Sounds to me like early retirement with immediate pension - or have I got it wrong?


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

rosecott said:



			The sack?

Sounds to me like early retirement with immediate pension - or have I got it wrong?
		
Click to expand...

Early forced retirement is correct. Pretty much get half what you would have
 Imagine being 1 year from the finish line! Ouch!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

I would just like to make the point that Public Sector Pension funds have never been raided as they have never had any money in them, the pensions are paid from taxation. The current deficit in these funds is Â£550 Billion and rising, how can this continue?

There have been a number of references here to Gordon Brown and Politicians raiding these funds. How could they raid a fund that has a Â£550 Billion deficit?   It was private pensions that were affected by his stopping tax relief on pension fund dividends.

If public sector expect the people in the private sector to pay more tax to subsidise their pensions then they need to wake up.  How can you expect people with little or no pensions to prop them up.

We are broke, we have a national debt of Â£1.5 Trillion and growing rapidly.  Does anyone honestly believe the answer to this is to stop MP's having a wage increase and tax banker bonuses.   Also, does anyone honestly believe a new Labour government will fix these issues?


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

You didnt answer my question! You must be a mp


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			So bottom line is I'll do a compulsory fitness test when I'm 60 and according to the governments own findings i am almost certain to fail. Then i get sack and my pension will be destroyed.  Funnily enough that saves the government 80k per sacked fire fighter.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry hovis but I cannot see where your pension will be destroyed.

Currently your Scheme Normal Retirement Age is 55 and under the proposed changes it will be 60. This is still much earlier than most employees.

Also if you leave service early you will still retain Preserved Benefits based upon your period of Pensionable Service and your Pensionable Earnings at the date of leaving.


----------



## JCW (Jul 10, 2014)

The right to strike is a right won by workers when the rich called the shots , it is at times abused same as the rich abused the rights of workers , I was a member of ASLEF for 35 years , very powerful union that look after our conditions for years , but us the workers made it a strong , we moved on from our all out strike in 1982 from low pay to be some of the top earners . Its not easy being a teacher , have you any idea what the kids of today are like to teach , I always knew it was school holidays  during my train driving days as we had an increase in  train windows broken by kids throwing  stones during this period , not to mention rubbish place on tracks to derail trains , good luck to anyone who feel they are not being treated right , 2 sides to every story so good luck to them


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Sorry hovis but I cannot see where your pension will be destroyed.

Currently your Scheme Normal Retirement Age is 55 and under the proposed changes it will be 60. This is still much earlier than most employees.

Also if you leave service early you will still retain Preserved Benefits based upon your period of Pensionable Service and your Pensionable Earnings at the date of leaving.
		
Click to expand...

Most ff's are on the new pension scheme that is 60.  And for the 100th time we dont want a golden handshake and retire to spain. The strike is about job protection. When im not able to ride a fire engine i want the opportunity to complete my term in another position. This will no longer happen.  Imagine loosing a 80k lump sum if you failed a fitness test 6 month before your end date.  They'll boot me out and i can kiss goodbye to that


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			Really, have you ever wore full fire kit and breathing apparatus in 700 degree heat whilst performing arduous tasks.   This takes us out "most people retire at 67" group.

Your also looking at it the wrong way. How would you feel about 5 60 year old fireman turning up to your house whilst your wife and kids are stuck inside?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I have actually in the RN.

People run marathons at 60 you do people in their sixties a disservice but the point is that 60 is retirement age, you dont need to work beyond it. As  suggested previously the Brigade and Paramedics should be combined like in other countries.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes I have actually in the RN.

People run marathons at 60 you do people in their sixties a disservice but the point is that 60 is retirement age, you dont need to work beyond it. As  suggested previously the Brigade and Paramedics should be combined like in other countries.
		
Click to expand...

There is no way on gods earth a 60 year old man is going to endure those conditions. And running a marathon is child's play compared with making a rescue in a gas tight suit.
Thats also if we make 60. The Governments own professor found only 40% of male ff's would pass the proposed fitness tests at 53 and around 48  years old for a woman

So you happy with 60 year old fireman turning up at your house?  Good luck to you


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2014)

hovis said:



			There is no way on gods earth a 60 year old man is going to endure those conditions. And running a marathon is child's play compared with making a rescue in a gas tight suit.

So you happy with 60 year old fireman turning up at your house?  Good luck to you
		
Click to expand...

So its OK in your eyes if he's 55 then.  Why not push for retirement at 40?   Many Firefighters are not fit at 35 but they are not being put out of work.

60 is the full retirement age for the armed forces and Police.   Why do you guys think you are something special?   Stop making up silly examples of what might happen and be honest that this is all about Money and putting your feet up early.


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So its OK in your eyes if he's 55 then.  Why not push for retirement at 40?     Many Firefighters are not fit at 35 but they are not being put out of work.
		
Click to expand...

If a ff can't pass a fitness test at any age he shouldn't be sent to help your family.  But common sense has to come into it.  The fitness test is agest and the governments findings proved that.  It works on v02 max. Even a very fit 60 year old would be certain to fail.  
We want job related fitness tests


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Why do you guys think you are something special?   Stop making up silly examples of what might happen and be honest that this is all about Money and putting your feet up early.
		
Click to expand...

Silly examples? Are you stupid? We're fireman! Making rescues in gas tight suits and house fires of 700 degrees is what we do. No silly examples there!

And as for putting my feet up and money, well your just full of it. Im happy to work until
65. I just dont want to be sacked when i cant complete their impossible fitness test


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Brigade and Paramedics should be combined like in other countries.
		
Click to expand...

Daft suggestion imo.

Completely different sets of skills. Occasional intersection at callouts - but that's like treating Brickies and Sparkies as the same!


----------



## hovis (Jul 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Daft suggestion imo.

Completely different sets of skills. Occasional intersection at callouts - but that's like treating Brickies and Sparkies as the same!
		
Click to expand...

They're looking for us to drive ambulances and also mobilise us to heart attack victims as we're all defib trained. Plus they dont care as long as they get a form of response within 8 minutes so they can tick a box for their figures


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			They're looking for us to drive ambulances and also mobilise us to heart attack victims as we're all defib trained. Plus they dont care as long as they get a form of response within 8 minutes so they can tick a box for their figures
		
Click to expand...

The staff in many Golf half-way huts are defib trained - and can probably drive too! Would you want them as 1st responders?

You are right - it's a box-ticking exercise, not a quality driven one. And quality probably saves more lives than marginal response times!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Daft suggestion imo.

Completely different sets of skills. Occasional intersection at callouts - but that's like treating Brickies and Sparkies as the same!
		
Click to expand...

It's not daft, it works perfectly well in the USA. Firefighters and Paramedics work together in fire crews.   If they are called out to a RTA then they have the paramedics on board the pump.   Doing it this way creates a better service and opens up career opportunities and skills to the Firefighters.  I'm not talking about a Firefighter with a first aid kit.


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			It's not daft, it works perfectly well in the USA. Firefighters and Paramedics work together in fire crews.   If they are called out to a RTA then they have the paramedics on board the pump.   Doing it this way creates a better service and opens up career opportunities and skills to the Firefighters.  I'm not talking about a Firefighter with a first aid kit.
		
Click to expand...

Its a great idea to work as one.  However the training is minimum of 2 years and i cant see the government paying for the courses. I for one would love to be trained to such a level but ambulance/taxi driver i think is all I'm gonna get

Oh and they would have to then pay ff's a basic paramedics salary too. More chance on winning the lottery


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			Its a great idea to work as one.  However the training is minimum of 2 years and i cant see the government paying for the courses. I for one would love to be trained to such a level but ambulance/taxi driver i think is all I'm gonna get

Oh and they would have to then pay ff's a basic paramedics salary too. More chance on winning the lottery
		
Click to expand...

It works perfectly well in other countries and can work here.  I happen to have a relative in the USA who is a FF Paramedic and he has progressed to the the assistant Fire Chief in his precinct.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			Silly examples? Are you stupid? We're fireman! Making rescues in gas tight suits and house fires of 700 degrees is what we do. No silly examples there!

And as for putting my feet up and money, well your just full of it. Im happy to work until
65. I just dont want to be sacked when i cant complete their impossible fitness test
		
Click to expand...

I dont suggest that your job is arduous at times and respect the job you do.  I am rather suggesting that this dispute is about unaffordable conditions of employment and the want to retire at a relatively young age.   The fears you bring are fairly unrealistic and quite probably will not be effected.


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			It works perfectly well in other countries and can work here.  I happen to have a relative in the USA who is a FF Paramedic and he has progressed to the the assistant Fire Chief in his precinct.
		
Click to expand...

Like i said, its a great idea. It would be welcomed.

The americans make me laugh "assistant chief!! " we call tjat a crew manager.  One rank above bottom. Sounds good though


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I dont suggest that your job is arduous at times and respect the job you do.  I am rather suggesting that this dispute is about unaffordable conditions of employment and the want to retire at a relatively young age.   The fears you bring are fairly unrealistic and quite probably will not be effected.
		
Click to expand...

For the 5th time. We dont want to retire at an early age
 65 is fine. We just want a desk in a corner where we can eat toffie rather than a climb up 3 flights of stairs in full kit whilst holding on to our zimmer frames.  The fears i am talking about that you say are unrealistic are founded by the governments own findings
 And they even sugar coated them


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			Like i said, its a great idea. It would be welcomed.

The americans make me laugh "assistant chief!! " we call tjat a crew manager.  One rank above bottom. Sounds good though
		
Click to expand...

No its not.  He is an Assistant Chief Officer, thats not someone who rides on the pump.   Look at this Job add for this position offering a salary of $141K

https://www.jobaps.com/ldn/sup/BulPreview.asp?R1=15&R2=F810&R3=004


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So its OK in your eyes if he's 55 then.  Why not push for retirement at 40?   Many Firefighters are not fit at 35 but they are not being put out of work.

60 is the full retirement age for the armed forces and Police.   Why do you guys think you are something special?   Stop making up silly examples of what might happen and be honest that this is all about Money and putting your feet up early.
		
Click to expand...

If you were on the old pension schemes you can still retire at the age of 55 in the military - it's only people joining after April 2015 ( I think that's the date ) that can work up until age 60 but only certain ranks and jobs will do that.


----------



## scottbrown (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			One thing i think its safe to say....david cameron and his clowns ent going to win another term
		
Click to expand...

I think you may then be surprised as most of the country sees no viable alternative. The Labour Party are currently a joke and the lib demos, we'll say no more. So what's that leave? BNP? uKIP? Can't see them in government.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			It works perfectly well in other countries and can work here.  I happen to have a relative in the USA who is a FF Paramedic and he has progressed to the the assistant Fire Chief in his precinct.
		
Click to expand...

Lots of things work 'perfectly well' in other countries that don't work well here - and vice-versa!

That's almost always because the entire system/culture is rather different - and will no doubt have its own issues - cost/logistics being an obvious one. The simple fact that the Hospital/2nd Support systems are totally different between US and UK means they will very likely have different requirements.

Have a read of this article. http://aace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Fighting-the-Fire-article.pdf

It also documents how the paramedics came to be in the US Fire service - it wasn't out of choice! But a pretty logical - and effective - way to implement the edict, given the structure that existed!

Co-ordination of specialists is the key in UK imo - not Combination. Though that doesn't mean there wouldn't be instances/cases where 'Joint' services would be an improvement - servicing 'remote' populations for example.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			60 is the full retirement age for the armed forces.
		
Click to expand...

Most members of the army go after 10-12 year mark (hence the need to keep recruiting even during massive cuts) a few stay untill the 22 year point which is when the majority will be made to retire.  There are a limited amount of OR jobs that allow you to stay untill 55-60.  Most posts that where available are now being filled with a civvie cheaper option.

Thats unless your in the jobs for the boys brigade (Col upward and are filling main building and a lot of other posts that actually dont need filling).


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If you were on the old pension schemes you can still retire at the age of 55 in the military - it's only people joining after April 2015 ( I think that's the date ) that can work up until age 60 but only certain ranks and jobs will do that.
		
Click to expand...

New pension scheme came into effect around 2004/2005.  Many were moved over to this with preserved rights for those that served  prior to this.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 11, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			New pension scheme came into effect around 2004/2005.  Many were moved over to this with preserved rights for those that served  prior to this.
		
Click to expand...

I'll reword it - currently there are two pension schemes in the military - the ones who joined up before 2005 ( the one I was on ) and then the one for people after 2005 - the changes with those schemes were all about when you get your lump sum and changes in monthly payments to people etc - everyone after 2005 automatically went on that scheme and people before had a choice to move across. Both schemes had the same retirement age.

Now in 2015 there is a new pension scheme which is based on average salary over the years ( as opposed to final ) and also increases the retirement age up from 55 to 60


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Lots of things work 'perfectly well' in other countries that don't work well here - and vice-versa!
		
Click to expand...

Trouble is people dont look at this in the round.  Most blood wagons - if your lucky - may have I fully trained paramedic on bpard with a blue light trained driver and someone who may be undergoing higher 1st responce/paramedic training.

A very easy transferable skill which could be a starting point.  The biggest block to this has been the unions so on that point Hovis I think firemen need a seriouse chat with their well paid reps.

I do however agree with you on the ability of a large number of people after they pass their 50s to be able to run around in full kit doing what is a very physically demanding job.  However, the physical test element is a must with firemen realising that it is their responsability to maintain a standard that allows them to do their work untill a reasonable age with out unions getting involved when members fail and are sacked.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Now in 2015 there is a new pension scheme which is based on average salary over the years ( as opposed to final ) and also increases the retirement age up from 55 to 60
		
Click to expand...

Fair point, however, very few of the 80,000 left in the army will have an option to get past their 22 year point.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 11, 2014)

Just wondering, with shift patterns, holidays etc, can I ask how many weeks in the year do regular firemen work, taking 5 days as a regular week so as not to be confused?


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			Silly examples? Are you stupid? We're fireman! Making rescues in gas tight suits and house fires of 700 degrees is what we do. No silly examples there!

And as for putting my feet up and money, well your just full of it. Im happy to work until
65. I just dont want to be sacked when i cant complete their impossible fitness test
		
Click to expand...

Im not in anyway saying that the job is easy. But I have heard the argument if nobody wanting a 60 yr old to rescue them which I agree with, but then it's contradicted by saying you're being forced to retire? What would you genuinely like to happen? Work as hard as you can but when not physically able just get paid off?


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			For the 5th time. We dont want to retire at an early age
 65 is fine. We just want a desk in a corner where we can eat toffie rather than a climb up 3 flights of stairs in full kit whilst holding on to our zimmer frames.  The fears i am talking about that you say are unrealistic are founded by the governments own findings
 And they even sugar coated them
		
Click to expand...

missed this one, looks like you've answered my question. Only probablem is that surely as a business they can't keep everyone on at a desk just because you've done your time? In any business, if an asset is no longer useful they're dismissed one way or another. Harsh but true


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

So after all this do you accept that your claim that FF will have to work beyond 60 was incorrect?


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So after all this do you accept that your claim that FF will have to work beyond 60 was incorrect?
		
Click to expand...

No,  a fire fighter will have to will have to work past 60 to get his term in. To get mine i would have to work until im 63. Which was fine as i could move sideways into another less physically demanding role.  But no more

However if you was lucky enough to land the job early and get your 35 years in by the age of 56. You still can't collect that pension until your 60.  the youngest ff a have seen recruited is 22. They really dont like to take on 18 year old boys so the above will rarely happen


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

Papas1982 said:



			missed this one, looks like you've answered my question. Only probablem is that surely as a business they can't keep everyone on at a desk just because you've done your time? In any business, if an asset is no longer useful they're dismissed one way or another. Harsh but true
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you there and this is where the proposed fitness test deem a fireman "unusable " prematurely.    There was also lots of sideway move available in area's such as risk reduction but the tree has been trimmed to death and these posts are saldy diminishing


----------



## patricks148 (Jul 11, 2014)

I have some sympathy with them as the currents Mrs 148 works is in the public sector. Sheâ€™s not had the two promotion increases in her salary so to all intense and purposes doing the job of an F grade and not being paid for it.

As for MPâ€™s didnâ€™t they give themselves a pay rise a couple of years ago of 6% not taking into account the 11% a report saying they should get another raise ( MPs on that panel by the way). TBH MPs take on these roles by choice to make a difference and not to earn a living.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			No,  a fire fighter will have to will have to work past 60 to get his term in. To get mine i would have to work until im 63. Which was fine as i could move sideways into another less physically demanding role.  But no more

However if you was lucky enough to land the job early and get your 35 years in by the age of 56. You still can't collect that pension until your 60.  the youngest ff a have seen recruited is 22. They really dont like to take on 18 year old boys so the above will rarely happen
		
Click to expand...

In those Final Salary schemes that remain in the private sector you would usually have to contribute for 40 years so someone like yourself who seems to have joined his current employer at age 28 would have to remain in service until 68.

For very many years there has been a disparity between the pension benefits of the public and private sectors in favour of the former.In the past it has been possible to justify this difference by the often lower salaries paid in the public sector but latest figures suggest that the "salary advantage" has swung the other way.

Of course certain occupations enjoyed an earlier retirement age due to the nature of the job but, in the current economic climate and with life expectancy having greatly increased since the original schemes were introduced, as a nation we cannot afford to continue to make these concessions.

The Government really should give the electorate the real costs of providing public sector pensions and then we can all make an informed judgement as we all, public and private, share those costs.


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			In those Final Salary schemes that remain in the private sector you would usually have to contribute for 40 years so someone like yourself who seems to have joined his current employer at age 28 would have to remain in service until 68.

For very many years there has been a disparity between the pension benefits of the public and private sectors in favour of the former.In the past it has been possible to justify this difference by the often lower salaries paid in the public sector but latest figures suggest that the "salary advantage" has swung the other way.

Of course certain occupations enjoyed an earlier retirement age due to the nature of the job but, in the current economic climate and with life expectancy having greatly increased since the original schemes were introduced, as a nation we cannot afford to continue to make these concessions.

The Government really should give the electorate the real costs of providing public sector pensions and then we can all make an informed judgement as we all, public and private, share those costs.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry my mistake i was getting old a new pension scheme mixed up ( tired with 2 day old baby) i have to serve 40 and i joined when 23. Old scheme is 35 year


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 11, 2014)

hovis said:



			Sorry my mistake i was getting old a new pension scheme mixed up ( tired with 2 day old baby) i have to serve 40 and i joined when 23. Old scheme is 35 year
		
Click to expand...

Congratulations on the new arrival! Bit of a coincidence as our son and daughter-in-law presented us with our second grandson on Monday. Their first one is only 19 months old too!


----------



## hovis (Jul 11, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Congratulations on the new arrival! Bit of a coincidence as our son and daughter-in-law presented us with our second grandson on Monday. Their first one is only 19 months old too!
		
Click to expand...

You must be a proud man


----------



## Andy808 (Jul 11, 2014)

Personally I have no sympathy at all with any of them. 
I now earn the same as I did 16 years ago but I did earn several thousand pounds a year more while working as a boat builder until Gormless Brown put me out of work. 
The firm that I worked for was riding out the recession with enough orders to keep the skeleton work force going for several months until the firm was hit with a very large and unexpected tax bill. This was the straw that broke the camels back and the firm went into administration with all of us being made redundant. A few days after I signed on Gormless Brown announced "no company would be put out of business because of a tax bill"
It's not a Labour / Conservative thing but the whole debacle was very poorly handled by New Labour. 
Gold reserves sold for rock bottom prices when a few months later the price had almost doubled, no control over the banking system and those in charge of it and worst of all the government creating new jobs to the tune of 55% during their 13 year tenure. Now I'm no accountant but the figures for all of that just don't add up. 45% of new private sector jobs cannot support the 55% of public sector jobs for the same period. 
Hopefully all parties will have learned from it and won't let the country get back into that state again but I doubt it.
We all took the cream when it was available and now it's time to pay it back not just by the private sector but by the public sector also.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			As for MPâ€™s didnâ€™t they give themselves a pay rise a couple of years ago of 6% not taking into account the *11% a report saying they should get another raise ( MPs on that panel by the way)*

Click to expand...

If you are talking about IPSA report, then I'd challenge you to identify the MPs on that panel - 1 ex-MP who lost her seat 8 years+ before being appointed, but that would be misleading at best! No MPs as members or on Board! It would hardly be 'Independent' as per its title otherwise!


----------



## delc (Jul 11, 2014)

Having worked in the Public Sector for part of my working life, I do have some sympathy for the strikers. Even in my day you often had to meet impossible targets while covering for unfilled vacancies. The pay wasn't particularly good, with the only real benefits being relatively job security and a half decent pension when you retired. Even these are under threat from the Tory Government, who expect us to become a nation of serfs!


----------



## GB72 (Jul 11, 2014)

I have a degree of sympathy in so far as I have sympathy for any person facing tougher times. That said, when the recession hit bug in 2008 I lost my job and had to take a 20% pay cut to find another one. Salaries in the area I work have never really recovered and so I still earn nearly 20% less than I did 6 years ago. Pay freezes are the norm in my sector and the below inflation pay rise this year is the first that most people have seen in a very long time. Times were/are hard all round and very few people have come out of this recession unscathed and, unfortunately, public and private sector alike all have to look at their current position with a certain degree of reality.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 11, 2014)

It's interesting that the predominant view here is one of 'I had to so they have to' when the debate moves onto pay. An understandable position you could argue. 

What seems to be lost in all this (only my opinion btw) is that it's (in the main) those at the lower end of the spectrum that are hardest hit. Take local authorities for example, ours are laying off low paid temps, bank staff, agency workers etc, but at the same time are creating new heads of service, area manager and supervisor positions. I don't know, but would hazard a guess that it's being replicated in areas of the private sector as well.

My point being, when are these workers at the lower end of said spectrum (public and private sector) going to wake up to the fact they are all being shafted here? Not one or the other, not one more than the other, but both. The people who caused this financial mess are already back on the gravy train, snouts in the trough and we (all of us) are to busy squabbling between ourselves to do anything about it. 

I don't always agree with strikes, but believe it's an important tool that workers shouldn't lose but also shouldn't abuse. But, perhaps a nationwide general strike should have been supported by all (public and private sector) workers in protest about, say;  

MPs expenses fraud and the guilty one's not being sacked and charged with fraud (all of them, not some), 
bankers not being criminally charged for fixing LIBOR rates amongst other things,
energy companies not having to reimburse customers for fixing rates (instead of paltry fines that go to government),
paedophile rings (allegedly) operating in the upper echelons of the ruling class being swept under the carpet,
contracts being awarded because MPs are either on the board or consultants

That's enough to get me pissed about the way this country is run just for starters. Yet here we are, arguing the toss between public and private sector pensions etc. Divide and conquer. 

It makes me sad that the public are so easily fooled.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			If you are talking about IPSA report, then I'd challenge you to identify the MPs on that panel - 1 ex-MP who lost her seat 8 years+ before being appointed, but that would be misleading at best! No MPs as members or on Board! It would hardly be 'Independent' as per its title otherwise!
		
Click to expand...

However, all appointments are made by the Speaker of the HOC.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 11, 2014)

Why should the difficulties, trials and tribulations of those working in the private sector make any different whatsoever to whether of not those in the public sector try and improve their lot or protect what they have.  We choose to work where we work.  Just because in the private sector employees may seem powerless against their employer - that does not in itself make an argument for everyone being powerless.  Maybe workers in the private sector should get ourselves organised.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Most of us work where we can get a job. If you live in an area where you can pick and choose I consider you very lucky.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 11, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Most of us work where we can get a job. If you live in an area where you can pick and choose I consider you very lucky.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - and that's why I had to leave Scotland to find mine


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

People that support Public sector employees keeping their current pension schemes(Even though there is a Â£550 Billion Deficit in their funding) and them having inflation proofed wages should think about how this will be funded.  It's no good saying MPs should not have a wage increase or bankers bonuses need a special tax, massive amounts of money would need raising.  This could be achieved by raising tax, cutting more from the armed services, cutting the NHS budget, cutting back on welfare, these are the things that would need to be done to keep Public sector people in the manner they have become accustomed.

Another consideration is that the current journey we have set out on whereby we have decided on a policy to create a very large increase in the population which will have to be funded, these additional people will need to use  public services so the bill will get even bigger.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2014)

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that those in the old scheme will keep their same pensions.   Also it is a matter of what can be afforded, as I said there is this massive black hole of Â£550 billion in the pension fund which in its self points to a scheme that is impossible to keep unless the tax payer is prepared to cough up more.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 11, 2014)

What really surprised me was how poor/patchy was the support for the strike.

In our village neither of the schools was effected and our bins were emptied and the march in Birmingham, at which the organisers had predicted a turnout of thousands, was attended by only a few hundred. Similar reports elsewhere in the country.

Were the hearts of many public sector workers not really in it?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 11, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees *but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand*.
		
Click to expand...

Why?  Private companies do it all the time.  I've had at least 4 changes to my terms and conditions and I just accept it as part of being employed.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 11, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.
		
Click to expand...

I had a serious H&S management problem with the Council I was working with.
We had a change of conditions which made me, and not the Director responsible.
I refused to sign the new agreement.
6 months later I was told that as I had continued to work I had automatically agreed the new contract.
Shortly afterwards I resigned.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Another consideration is that the current journey we have set out on whereby we have decided on a policy to create a very large increase in the population which will have to be funded, these additional people will need to use  public services so the bill will get even bigger.
		
Click to expand...

Eh? What 'policy' is that?

Have MP's started a breeding program? Or are you talking about 'immigration'!



Old Skier said:



			Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree! It's more than a bit underhand imo. Contracts should be such that there is a periodic review - where T&Cs can be changed, but without affecting the value of anything in the previous 'version'.

That is not the case in many of the changes being imposed on Public Servants  - and Private sector employees - currently.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Eh? What 'policy' is that?

Have MP's started a breeding program? Or are you talking about 'immigration'!



Totally agree! It's more than a bit underhand imo. Contracts should be such that there is a periodic review - where T&Cs can be changed, but without affecting the value of anything in the previous 'version'.

That is not the case in many of the changes being imposed on Public Servants  - and Private sector employees - currently.
		
Click to expand...

Population increase, I thought that was obvious!  And yes they have started a breeding program by increasing the population by around 4 million and with people who are mostly of child bearing age and also from cultures that tend to have large families.  They also pay benefits that encourage the feckless to have more children so they can claim benefits that mean they dont need to work.

This is not about some small company its about a pension scheme that is Â£550 billion in the red.  How exactly do you propose to resolve that while not changing T&C


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Population increase, I thought that was obvious!  And yes they have started a breeding program by increasing the population by around 4 million and with people who are mostly of child bearing age and also from cultures that tend to have large families.  They also pay benefits that encourage the feckless to have more children so they can claim benefits that mean they dont need to work.

This is not about some small company its about a pension scheme that is Â£550 billion in the red.  How exactly do you propose to resolve that while not changing T&C
		
Click to expand...

That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole! 

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable.


----------



## Papas1982 (Jul 12, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole! 

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! *Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable*.
		
Click to expand...

having not read all the current changes, isn't that generally what happens. People within certain range of retirement not affected. IMO, if your more than a decade from retirement changes should be acceptable. I'm sure all the public sector workers who have benefitted (along with everyone else) from the changes in holiday entitlement increase over the years did put up a fight and turn it down as it was a change to their contracts?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole! 

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable.
		
Click to expand...

The policy was engineered by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.  Increasing the population will not solve anything, you would have to expand it at an exponential rate for that but they would all become ill, need housing, have children who need educating, grow old so it just wont work.

The new T&Cs don't apply to people within 10 years of retirement.
This link explains the offer, see section 2.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...120524_-_Final_Agreement_-_Fire_-_FINALv2.pdf


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 12, 2014)

So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?
		
Click to expand...

Population increase is not only about immigrants.   All I want is a sensible Immigration policy in place of an open doors one that will become unfundable and unmanageable.   You may be happy to live in an overcrowded country where public services will not be able to cope and the national standard of living will be forced down by poverty due to the national debt spiralling further out of control. I'm not.

And to answer your first point:   I don't want non Brits living here for any extended time.  I would hope they would become Brits.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			The new T&Cs don't apply to people within 10 years of retirement.
		
Click to expand...

But the guys with 10 years an 1 day or more (as of April 2012 too, so in reality, much less!) get shafted.

And there's a 'guarantee' that the 'new' scheme will last 25 years!

Seems to me that pretty much the reverse (those who have contributed for 50% of there expected career see no change) would be much 'fairer' - and more appropriate! 

As for the Blair/Brown 'policy', you are indeed showing your other prejudices!

And no. Simply maintaining the number in work would suffice - but an increase would help more. It's not the immediate cash-flow that's the 'problem' (yet). It's increased life expectancy that warps the cost balance - a problem that has been around for 25+ years, but failed to be addressed!

In the case of Fire-fighters, there's also the requirement to be fit enough to be able to do the job! So there's where the greater conflict arises - not something that is a consideration for the likes of the Armed Forces!


----------



## DaveM (Jul 12, 2014)

The whole country should back the strikes. Then just maybe things would get better for all.
All you bleating idiots out there make me laugh. Talk about being brainwashed into knowing your place.
As for the idiot who wanted that woman back. We are still suffering from her legacy.


----------



## rosecott (Jul 12, 2014)

hovis said:



			No,  a fire fighter will have to will have to work past 60 to get his term in. To get mine i would have to work until im 63. Which was fine as i could move sideways into another less physically demanding role.  But no more

However if you was lucky enough to land the job early and get your 35 years in by the age of 56. You still can't collect that pension until your 60.  the youngest ff a have seen recruited is 22. They really dont like to take on 18 year old boys so the above will rarely happen
		
Click to expand...

Surely it was a major mistake not to model the fire service recruitment and conditions policies on those of the armed forces. Contracts for 12 or 22 years would provide the necessary "cannon fodder" for frontline operations without perpetuating the problem of personnel becoming too old or unfit for purpose. Those who had the qualities to either continue physically or to progress to management positions could have their contracts extended.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 12, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?
		
Click to expand...

Seems most threads end up talking about immigration, Celtic/Rangers or dress codes given enough time. As they are all apparently in their own way the root of all evil.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 12, 2014)

DaveM said:



			The whole country should back the strikes. Then just maybe things would get better for all.
All you bleating idiots out there make me laugh. Talk about being brainwashed into knowing your place.
As for the idiot who wanted that woman back. We are still suffering from her legacy.
		
Click to expand...

And now I suppose you are going to tell us how all these things can be paid for.

Get real and don't tell me we should tax the bankers, because we should, but it would not go even part the way towards funding the pay and conditions that the public sector wish to retain.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 12, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			And now I suppose you are going to tell us how all these things can be paid for.
		
Click to expand...


Ensuring 'big business' paid the correct amount of taxes would be a start....


----------



## WeekendHacker (Jul 12, 2014)

As someone who works in the public sector, people need to realise public services are going to be slaughtered due to the Tory agenda to privatise the country, and everyone who uses public services will suffer.
Here's the thing. The strikes are from people who had nothing (at least directly) to do with the collapse of the banks and subsequent bailout of western economies. Governments and big business sleepwalked incompetantly/arrogantly and greedily into the disaster and now they will happily take it back from the workers who had nothing (directly) to do with it. Individual workers salary & pensionvcontracts have been re-written without choice so money is simply "stolen" back.
That's why people are annoyed. The government wants people to fight amongst themselves over the scraps (private vs public sector workers) whilst they line their pockets and delude people.
If there's no money, what about Â£50 billion for a railway line, Â£40 billion spent on illegal wars, foreign aid money increasing, money to royal family increasing, money for an imminent MP salary rise etc etc. In Northern Ireland Â£500 million has just been paid out in compensation for hearing loss problems 30 years ago when at the same time old people are dying on trolleys on hospital wards because there's "no money". When the government needs money it always finds it or invents it (Â£375 billion created a couple of years ago for "quantitive easing". If people have to share the burden together then that's fine, but everyone should share it equally and ideally the people who caused the problem should be accountable first. The burden is not being shared equally. The poorest are paying back a far larger proportion of the debt relative to their income, and the poorest had the least to do with the problem. Hence the increasing disparity between rice and poor.
Next time the government gets itself into a war and needs "cannon fodder" to protect the country's wealth, people have long memorys.


----------



## WeekendHacker (Jul 12, 2014)

.....and breathe . But I suppose if you spend your whole life dwelling on it you spend your whole life pissed off. So now that the rants done, i'll move on.....


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 12, 2014)

WeekendHacker said:



			.....and breathe . But I suppose if you spend your whole life dwelling on it you spend your whole life pissed off. So now that the rants done, i'll move on.....
		
Click to expand...

And think.

Public sector pension deficit is calculated to be in excess of Â£500 billion.

Tax the rich, get big business to pay their fair share by all means, it is not going to be enough.

The fact is successive Governments have maintained pension promises to the public sector with no thought as to how the costs were ultimately to be met. 

It is all too easy to blame Mrs Thatcher, the Tories and so on but in truth it is every party that has failed us and left the country in debt to such an extent that even my four day old grandson is going to be helping to pay it off. 

Of course none of us want our terms of employment changed, unless it is to our advantage, but public or private we all have to accept that as a nation we cannot continue paying ourselves what we have not got.

 The recession did not cause our problem over this, it merely exacerbated it. The damage has been built up over 60 years of sticking our collective heads in the sand in the hope that any problems would disappear.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 12, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			get big business to pay their fair share by all means, it is not going to be enough.
		
Click to expand...


It won't but it might be an attitude changer... That we are genuinely all in it together....


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2014)

WeekendHacker said:



			As someone who works in the public sector, people need to realise public services are going to be slaughtered due to the Tory agenda to privatise the country, and everyone who uses public services will suffer.
Here's the thing. The strikes are from people who had nothing (at least directly) to do with the collapse of the banks and subsequent bailout of western economies. Governments and big business sleepwalked incompetantly/arrogantly and greedily into the disaster and now they will happily take it back from the workers who had nothing (directly) to do with it. Individual workers salary & pensionvcontracts have been re-written without choice so money is simply "stolen" back.
That's why people are annoyed. The government wants people to fight amongst themselves over the scraps (private vs public sector workers) whilst they line their pockets and delude people.
If there's no money, what about Â£50 billion for a railway line, Â£40 billion spent on illegal wars, foreign aid money increasing, money to royal family increasing, money for an imminent MP salary rise etc etc. In Northern Ireland Â£500 million has just been paid out in compensation for hearing loss problems 30 years ago when at the same time old people are dying on trolleys on hospital wards because there's "no money". When the government needs money it always finds it or invents it (Â£375 billion created a couple of years ago for "quantitive easing". If people have to share the burden together then that's fine, but everyone should share it equally and ideally the people who caused the problem should be accountable first. The burden is not being shared equally. The poorest are paying back a far larger proportion of the debt relative to their income, and the poorest had the least to do with the problem. Hence the increasing disparity between rice and poor.
Next time the government gets itself into a war and needs "cannon fodder" to protect the country's wealth, people have long memorys.
		
Click to expand...

Thats not correct.

The current debt was mainly caused by the Government increasing public spending by massive amounts. Welfare under Labour increased by 60%.   Gordon's Tax Credits and the massive increase in the Public sector workforce was nothing to do with Bankers.

Public sector costs need to be slaughtered and the sooner services are put up for private tender the better, institutions like the NHS are good at wasting money by the shedload and in most cases dont understand the term 'Value for Money'. How do you propose to keep spending at current unaffordable levels?   I am genuinely  interested in your ideas?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 13, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			the sooner services are put up for private tender the better,
		
Click to expand...


The answer to everything.... NOT!


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

In efficient public sector. Or screwed by the private sector. Some choice.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			The answer to everything.... NOT!
		
Click to expand...

So what is the answer to everything?


----------



## G1BB0 (Jul 13, 2014)

[video=youtube;aboZctrHfK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8[/video]

42!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2014)

G1BB0 said:



			[video=youtube;aboZctrHfK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8[/video]

42!
		
Click to expand...

Oh Yes!  I forgot that 

Thats a better answer than the two EDs.


----------



## hovis (Jul 13, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So what is the answer to everything?
		
Click to expand...

Selling off public sectors such as police would be a huge mistake.  the feet on the ground would be less and equipment would be cheep.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 13, 2014)

Not much privatisation has worked surely ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 13, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So what is the answer to everything?
		
Click to expand...


Well it certainly isn't Serco, G4S, Veolia et al..


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not much privatisation has worked surely ?
		
Click to expand...

Are you old enough to have had dealings with the nationalised energy or water companies?

They were not exactly the most efficient of organisations, similar story with the railways.

Privatisation has most certainly NOT been an unqualified success and, in some ways, was not the best answer but State ownership and control of essential utilities did not represent a golden era.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Are you old enough to have had dealings with the nationalised energy or water companies?

They were not exactly the most efficient of organisations, similar story with the railways.

Privatisation has most certainly NOT been an unqualified success and, in some ways, was not the best answer but State ownership and control of essential utilities did not represent a golden era.
		
Click to expand...

Late 80's wasnt it ?

Had lots of dealings with British Rail - it certainly seems a lot worse now


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			They were not exactly the most efficient of organisations, similar story with the railways.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing changed there then.


----------



## hovis (Jul 13, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Had lots of dealings with British Rail - it certainly seems a lot worse now
		
Click to expand...

Understatement of the year. I Never had to stand on a british rail train


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Late 80's wasnt it ?

Had lots of dealings with British Rail - it certainly seems a lot worse now
		
Click to expand...

Cannot agree with that as a long distance commuter in the 70's I can assure you it was a lot worse then.

The utility companies had been privatised before the late 80@s.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2014)

hovis said:



			Understatement of the year. I Never had to stand on a british rail train
		
Click to expand...

British Rail was a disaster, it was horribly inefficient and made massive losses.  State run business's never work, just look to the old USSR and her satellite countries to see what they do, they drag the economy into the gutter, its no wonder so many Eastern Europeans want to get away from their countries.   Have you been to these countries and see how they lived!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

hovis said:



			Understatement of the year. I Never had to stand on a british rail train
		
Click to expand...

Well as you were a kid at the time they probably gave up a seat for you.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 13, 2014)

Have not users of the east coast line requested it stays in public hands? And it turns a profit I believe...

If your house was on fire and a team from G4S turned up I think you'd be a little disappointed...


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			British Rail was a disaster, it was horribly inefficient and made massive losses!
		
Click to expand...

Again, no change there then as they all need massive government subsidies.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Have not users of the east coast line requested it stays in public hands? And it turns a profit I believe...

If your house was on fire and a team from G4S turned up I think you'd be a little disappointed...
		
Click to expand...

Would never suggest emergency services, justice system or NHS should be privatised but, on the other hand, do you recollect the nationalised telecom system.

By either design or default spread into areas where the State has no need and, perhaps, no right to be involved.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Would never suggest emergency services, justice system or NHS should be privatised but.
		
Click to expand...

So it's selective privatisation. They are as badly run as all the others.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			So it's selective privatisation. They are as badly run as all the others.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is selective, see my second paragraph.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			do you recollect the nationalised telecom system.
		
Click to expand...


Sadly, I am plenty old enough to remember those days... Knew quite a few that did their apprenticeship with them in the days an apprenticeship was for 5 years not 5 weeks...


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Yes it is selective, see my second paragraph.
		
Click to expand...

If you think there is no need for them to be involved in the utilities to name but one, you need to spend a few days with me when I do my casework for a couple of well known charities.

I suppose if profit means everything then you have a good case.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			If you think there is no need for them to be involved in the utilities to name but one, you need to spend a few days with me when I do my casework for a couple of well known charities.

I suppose if profit means everything then you have a good case.
		
Click to expand...

There are services such as health, defence, justice, law & order,fire service etc; the costs for which are met from direct taxation and the responsibility for their provision, therefore, falls upon the State.

The utilities and transport are products for which we pay from our disposable income and thus competition is essential.

I am certainly not suggesting that the current situation is perfect, far from it, but I do not accept that the old nationalised providers were better than the current.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			There are services such as health, defence, justice, law & order,fire service etc; the costs for which are met from direct taxation and the responsibility for their provision, therefore, falls upon the State.

The utilities and transport are products for which we pay from our disposable income and thus competition is essential.

I am certainly not suggesting that the current situation is perfect, far from it, but I do not accept that the old nationalised providers were better than the current.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the private sector will always cherry pick which leaves many genuinely disadvantaged in a right pickle. Just looking how the care industry is going is enough to convince me there must be a more middle way.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Unfortunately the private sector will always cherry pick which leaves many genuinely disadvantaged in a right pickle. Just looking how the care industry is going is enough to convince me there must be a more middle way.
		
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the care industry which, to me, should be part of the health service and, therefore, provided by the State rather than the private sector. 

There is also no reason why the provision of products and services by the private sector cannot be regulated, but not controlled, by the State.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			There is also no reason why the provision of products and services by the private sector cannot be regulated, but not controlled, by the State.
		
Click to expand...

If OFCOM, OFGEM and all the other OFs are anything to go buy I'm not sure that works to well.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jul 13, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			If OFCOM, OFGEM and all the other OFs are anything to go buy I'm not sure that works to well.
		
Click to expand...

The poor and disadvantaged were still cut off by the nationalised energy providers.

As I have said the current situation is not perfect by a long way but that is no reason to return to the equally failed old system.

Effective regulation should not be beyond the whit of any government (just the last few we have had).


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 13, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			Would never suggest emergency services, justice system or NHS should be privatised but, on the other hand, do you recollect the nationalised telecom system.

By either design or default spread into areas where the State has no need and, perhaps, no right to be involved.
		
Click to expand...

I would agree with that but have grave doubts about the NHS.  It wastes massive amounts of money as people have no understanding or need to be cost effective.   Personally I don't care who runs it as long as we get the very best value for our money and we are getting far from that.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 14, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I would agree with that but have grave doubts about the NHS.  It wastes massive amounts of money as people have no understanding or need to be cost effective.   Personally I don't care who runs it as long as we get the very best value for our money and we are getting far from that.
		
Click to expand...

To be cost effective is NOT one of the NHS's targets! If it was, there would be many treatments and services it  would not undertake, so many would die or suffer that wouldn't need to!

It should, however, not be 'wasteful', an accusation easily made and often embarrassingly correct - more often from personality clashes and hush-up edicts from management than clinical situations, though there have been a few disasters in that area too!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 14, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			To be cost effective is NOT one of the NHS's targets! If it was, there would be many treatments and services it  would not undertake, so many would die or suffer that wouldn't need to!

It should, however, not be 'wasteful', an accusation easily made and often embarrassingly correct - more often from personality clashes and hush-up edicts from management than clinical situations, though there have been a few disasters in that area too!
		
Click to expand...

The NHS is a shambles governance-wise.,  Senior management talk and act tough when it is easy.  Middle management have too much hassle dealing with senior management doing so - and as a result let those they are supposed to manage pretty much manage themselves.  And those who are supposed to be being managed are so fed up with not being managed properly and as a result their working life is chaotic that they just take advantage of the dysfunctional management 'system' to suit themselves.  That's not to say the workers don't do a good job - many if not most do - just that a lot do it as, and often when, it best suits them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 14, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			To be cost effective is NOT one of the NHS's targets! If it was, there would be many treatments and services it  would not undertake, so many would die or suffer that wouldn't need to!

It should, however, not be 'wasteful', an accusation easily made and often embarrassingly correct - more often from personality clashes and hush-up edicts from management than clinical situations, though there have been a few disasters in that area too!
		
Click to expand...

Being cost effective should be the aim of any organisation.  The NHS spends very large amounts of money on equipment and consumables for example but there is no common purchasing policy that gets the very best price for the outfit as a whole.   Treatment is different but even that should be offered in a cost effective manner so that nothing is wasted.


----------

