Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
True; on average you get between 2.2% and 3.1% more - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Please stop with that rubbish... average wage is higher in public sector and you have better packages overall.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
It should not be this way, pay should be higher in private sector, but once again that is 'unfair' and union blackmailing has made it such that public sector are better off and still not happy.
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Apologies for the potential misunderstanding. Public sector pay is generally higher on a like-for-like basis, even when qualifications, age and location are taken into account, and pensions are undoubtedly better. This is the overall position, and there are all sorts of excuses but this is it:ONS based comparison said:
Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector.
Taking pensions into account widens the gulf apparently:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
So bearing in mind the possibility of a misunderstanding - what exactly are public sector unions protecting their people against?
ETA Du1point8 got there already
crankedup said:
The politics of envy again seem to be shining bright, we all make our choices in life. Public sector are generally dead end jobs whilst the private sector offer greater opportunity. Heads or tails!
Eh? Public sector jobs are generally dead end? Absolutely disagree. There are some professions that tend not to be great public sector careers, such as IT or finance, but in general, Public Sector management careers are shining lights, as opposed to private sector management. Clear, defined structure, ability to skip sideways, lovely.The crappy jobs have mostly been outsourced now anyway, so your binman, dinnerlady and road mender are all poddling along with crappy pay and now, new, improved crappy private pension.
corporate greedTrashbat and arp.
Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
blindswelledrat said:
I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
Nor me, if that's what happens - what is or are the single valid point(s)?Hopefully "belittling" doesn't refer to "putting forward counterpoints" as that would be n/a.
Du1point8 said:
Funny why private sector won't join public sector?
I presume its because they don't have the same industry, Im finance and so I can't really join a public sector finance company and nothing else is challenging enough at the moment to consider elsewhere.
I'm private sector (formerly public sector). The reason I left is the pay is much better and the work is more interesting.. Last time I checked I think the FD of Manchester City Council was on £130k. In my humble opinion there are easier ways to earn £130k.I presume its because they don't have the same industry, Im finance and so I can't really join a public sector finance company and nothing else is challenging enough at the moment to consider elsewhere.
To put it another way, like the perpetual banker bashing, if its "that good" why don't people apply to do it?
Countdown said:
Du1point8 said:
Funny why private sector won't join public sector?
I presume its because they don't have the same industry, Im finance and so I can't really join a public sector finance company and nothing else is challenging enough at the moment to consider elsewhere.
I'm private sector (formerly public sector). The reason I left is the pay is much better and the work is more interesting.. Last time I checked I think the FD of Manchester City Council was on £130k. In my humble opinion there are easier ways to earn £130k.I presume its because they don't have the same industry, Im finance and so I can't really join a public sector finance company and nothing else is challenging enough at the moment to consider elsewhere.
To put it another way, like the perpetual banker bashing, if its "that good" why don't people apply to do it?
Was the MCC FD a sole applicant (not expecting you'll necessarily know)?
Do banks only recruit by headhunting with no applications for advertised banking jobs?
Beyond that, there are all sorts of reasons why people won't apply for certain jobs in either sector other than pay and pension.
Qualifications, experience, location, workplace context, prospects, and so on.
blindswelledrat said:
Trashbat and arp.
Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
I would not say every strike is frivolous, and without strong representation that we are lucky to have (and pay for), means that we should not be bent over and ask for more, be rolled over and have our bellies tickled. When management/government try to push on with the erosion of hard fought terms, conditions, reduced (real term) wages, punishment of increased pension subs for a much less end result (thanks to the bankers), we have the union to turn to in order to assist us in protecting our workers rights etc. Without the unions, we are up the creek without a paddle, and CMD is laughing all the way to the bank.Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
arp1 said:
blindswelledrat said:
Trashbat and arp.
Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
I would not say every strike is frivolous, and without strong representation that we are lucky to have (and pay for), means that we should not be bent over and ask for more, be rolled over and have our bellies tickled. When management/government try to push on with the erosion of hard fought terms, conditions, reduced (real term) wages, punishment of increased pension subs for a much less end result (thanks to the bankers), we have the union to turn to in order to assist us in protecting our workers rights etc. Without the unions, we are up the creek without a paddle, and CMD is laughing all the way to the bank.Unlike others here, whilst I disagree with your views on unions I do think you make some valid points and I am not a fan of PH's method of belittling those with a different view and pretending they don't have a single valid point.
To respond to one salient question about how low paid workers achieve a victory for themselves without unions I can certainly address this with regards to the construction industry and the answer is quite simple.
When times are hard, the recession is on and every company is squeezed, making no money and struggling to survive - the low paid workers score no victories. They remain low paid and the only way to increase it is to better themselves. When times are good, however, they score easy victories. THeres lots of work, there are margins, the end user can stomach higher costs so the general lack of both skilled and unskilled labour means that they work for whoever pays the most and treats them the best.
THis is, in my opinion, how things should work. The salaries of the private sector took an absolute hammering over the recession because there was no money. The public sector, however, remained fine because we borrow money to maintain their salaries.
SO simply, when times are good low paid workers do better and when times are bad they do worse just like everyone else. Except the public sector.
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
The last resort of the weak and workshy IMO.
blindswelledrat said:
TO ask you both a question back: It is clear that this Conservative move is a direct response to frivolous strikes that adversely affect millions, which were bought often about for almost no reason and deliberately timed to impose maximum inconvenience of the public. Do you think this is reasonable behaviour? Is that what you pay your union subs for? What do you, personally, think would be reasonable grounds for a mass strike of essential services?
Why I pay my subs is easy. I do so primarily as a charitable donation; I'm almost certainly never going to be balloted for strike action myself, and it's probably unlikely but not impossible that I will ever need representation myself, so I regard it as a donation to ensuring that other people get adequate representation in the workplace when they need it. Plus it roughly ties in with my politics, noting that I don't support (or pay for) its connections to the Labour Party.The 'deliberately timed' bit is a nonsense; of course they do that, why wouldn't they? You don't go into a fight with one hand tied behind your back in case someone accuses you of deliberately trying to impose maximum inconvenience to your opponent.
Whether it's or what is reasonable grounds is more interesting. I don't know is the simple answer. To comment on for example an RMT tube strike, I would have to have at least some knowledge of what it's like to be a tube driver, which I don't have, so I can't claim that it's justified, and nor can I claim 'no reason'. I'd gently suggest that for everyone to go out and lose a day or more's pay, incur the public wrath and potentially face other consequences, they must at least believe it to be something slightly greater than frivolity. But others may disagree.
Du1point8 said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Please stop with that rubbish... average wage is higher in public sector and you have better packages overall.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
It should not be this way, pay should be higher in private sector, but once again that is 'unfair' and union blackmailing has made it such that public sector are better off and still not happy.
johnfm said:
Du1point8 said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Please stop with that rubbish... average wage is higher in public sector and you have better packages overall.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
It should not be this way, pay should be higher in private sector, but once again that is 'unfair' and union blackmailing has made it such that public sector are better off and still not happy.
lets take pharmacists in the UK- they are working in the private sector although ultimately paid by the public sector.
There is significant variance in the wages of pharmacists- in the last 5 years wages have dropped around 15% (especially if you Locum), interestingly they have dropped in the south but increased in the North. So if you are a Locum pharmacy working in Bournemouth you could move to Newcastle Upon Tyne and received about 20% more.
These changes are entirely based on supply of pharmacists across the country.
Its the same with most professions and most private sector jobs.
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff