The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...

[rs1952]

Some people posting here are clerarly not old enough to remember what unions were like in the 1970s - effectively laws unto themselves.

This was put right during the early years of the 1979-97 conservative governments, culminating in the miners strike in 1984/85. There appeared to be a general consensus after that that, if the miners couldn't "win" a strike any more, there wasn't a cat in hells chance of anybody else winning one.

The unions have been little more than an irrelevance since the mid-1980s, and it has only really been in the last couple of years that we have seen any significant action from them, the current BA nonsense being a case in point. They may well have been flexing their muscles because there was a labour administration, but now there suddenly isn't one any more.

I can't see the coalition government giving in to blustering union chiefs, even if the Libs might be slightly more sympathetic (but not much). You would expect unions to bluff and bluster in circumstances like these, but I think we will find that is all it will be in the long run.

[OneDs]

rs1952 said:

I can't see the coalition government giving in to blustering union chiefs, even if the Libs might be slightly more sympathetic (but not much). You would expect unions to bluff and bluster in circumstances like these, but I think we will find that is all it will be in the long run.

I hope your right, I have a feeling the new coalition will have to take such drastic measures that they will be taken to court for every change and cut implemented in the public sector as Labour agreed legally binding initatives for many areas of the public sector which the unions faught(well not really faught, just made it part of normal Labour govt operations) for.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 10:15

[Yertis]

NoelWatson said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-238...

Unpleasant fellow. Replaces Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as my bogeyman, and person to blame for rain.

[markcoznottz]

OneDs said:

rs1952 said:

I can't see the coalition government giving in to blustering union chiefs, even if the Libs might be slightly more sympathetic (but not much). You would expect unions to bluff and bluster in circumstances like these, but I think we will find that is all it will be in the long run.

I hope your right, I have a feeling the new coalition will have to take such drastic measures that they will be taken to court for every change and cut implemented in the public sector as Labour agreed legally binding initatives for many areas of the public sector which the unions faught(well not really faught, just made it part of normal Labour govt operations) for.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 10:15

I dont think a previous governmnet can implement legislation which is legally binding for a suceeding government.

[Don]

markcoznottz said:

I dont think a previous governmnet can implement legislation which is legally binding for a suceeding government.

They can. But there's little point as Parliament can repeal any law they so choose...with enough determination.

[Andy Zarse]

Tony*T3 said:

Dupont666 said:

Thats nice of them...

The new government is tasked with reducing the overspend and has started by cutting MP wages to show the way and Bob Crow comes up with this little gem:

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

"We have to start the fightback now and that means concerted action by trade unions to resist the all-out assault we know is coming."

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

And again here:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826643-advice-to-treas...

Why just Why!! said:

Trade unionists say they are ready for a fight to save jobs in the face of cuts.

‘The Tories have always been the party of mass unemployment because that suits their class and keeps the workers under the cosh,’ said the RMT’s Bob Crow.

‘The Labour movement and community groups and campaigns cannot afford to wait for Cameron and Osborne and their Lib Dem lackeys to fire up the bulldozer – we need to be preparing to fight back right now.’

Britain faces ‘fiscal fascism in all its Thatcherite glory,’ he claimed.

we need to cut the public sector and the wastage of the previous government and we need to do it yesterday so that we dont go the same way as Greece.

And these window lickers are doing their best to take the UK to the cleaners.

What is it they dont get?

Its their job to do this though, so why the surprise? You might not like or agree, but its their job. They are paid by their members to protect the rights of the workers. Lets face it, the Tories will most likely cut around 2 million jobs in the government sector over the next 5 years, to save money to pay this big black hole in the economy. There may be a sma ll percentage of high end wage earners losing their jobs, but the majority will be lower scale people, those providing real frontline services.

PistonHeaders will be the first complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc. Yet these are likely the level of people that will nmost suffer from government cuts.

How ever will we cope without thousands of gay outreach workers, dustbin inspectors, re-usable nappy coordinators, playtime facilitators and suchlike non-jobs.

I'd have said they're frontline services we can all somehow manage to struggle along without, thank you very much, seeing as so many of them can no longer be afforded. Or would you disagree?

[Dupont666]

Andy Zarse said:

Tony*T3 said:

Dupont666 said:

Thats nice of them...

The new government is tasked with reducing the overspend and has started by cutting MP wages to show the way and Bob Crow comes up with this little gem:

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

"We have to start the fightback now and that means concerted action by trade unions to resist the all-out assault we know is coming."

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

And again here:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826643-advice-to-treas...

Why just Why!! said:

Trade unionists say they are ready for a fight to save jobs in the face of cuts.

‘The Tories have always been the party of mass unemployment because that suits their class and keeps the workers under the cosh,’ said the RMT’s Bob Crow.

‘The Labour movement and community groups and campaigns cannot afford to wait for Cameron and Osborne and their Lib Dem lackeys to fire up the bulldozer – we need to be preparing to fight back right now.’

Britain faces ‘fiscal fascism in all its Thatcherite glory,’ he claimed.

we need to cut the public sector and the wastage of the previous government and we need to do it yesterday so that we dont go the same way as Greece.

And these window lickers are doing their best to take the UK to the cleaners.

What is it they dont get?

Its their job to do this though, so why the surprise? You might not like or agree, but its their job. They are paid by their members to protect the rights of the workers. Lets face it, the Tories will most likely cut around 2 million jobs in the government sector over the next 5 years, to save money to pay this big black hole in the economy. There may be a sma ll percentage of high end wage earners losing their jobs, but the majority will be lower scale people, those providing real frontline services.

PistonHeaders will be the first complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc. Yet these are likely the level of people that will nmost suffer from government cuts.

How ever will we cope without thousands of gay outreach workers, dustbin inspectors, re-usable nappy coordinators, playtime facilitators and suchlike non-jobs.

I'd have said they're frontline services we can all somehow manage to struggle along without, thank you very much, seeing as so many of them can no longer be afforded. Or would you disagree?

Not me... I just like the way you put that and then someone from the public sector will come in and suggest you are talking about binmen, nurses, firemen, BiB, gritting and pothole repair (as above)... Its the penpushing managers and I suspect quite a few public sector workers posting on this thread are those and are trying justkfy their roles to PH...

As a side note, if the council actually go and replace all the roads instead of pothole repair, it works out cheaper in the long run and has been proved as a cost cutting measure.

Bonus we get better roads

[elster]

There is a simple way to get this.

Unions have to become charities.

Charities can not donate to political parties.

The union should not become a political machine, it should be there to aid it's workers when they have problems. Nothing more.

[Olivera]

OneDs said:

It is their job and unfortunatley they are winning. The PCS union got the new severance terms quashed last week. This basically means that even if you do slash 20%-25% of the jobs it will cost on average about £50k-£80k to cut out each and every one.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 09:34

People just don't realise how much it costs to get rid of even a single government employee. Even compulsory redundancies will come with a huge payoff of around 50 grand. Cutting 2,000,000 government jobs would cost approximately £100 billion pounds. Even cutting 500,000 jobs at £25 billion is more than 4 times what the conservatives will save from their 2010 deficit reduction plan!

[Dupont666]

Olivera said:

OneDs said:

It is their job and unfortunatley they are winning. The PCS union got the new severance terms quashed last week. This basically means that even if you do slash 20%-25% of the jobs it will cost on average about £50k-£80k to cut out each and every one.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 09:34

People just don't realise how much it costs to get rid of even a single government employee. Even compulsory redundancies will come with a huge payoff of around 50 grand. Cutting 2,000,000 government jobs would cost approximately £100 billion pounds. Even cutting 500,000 jobs at £25 billion is more than 4 times what the conservatives will save from their 2010 deficit reduction plan!

So what do you suggest then to make the cuts?

How do you suggest the government reduce that spending by government/public sector = tax income?

Or shall we let the country implode in debt?

[Olivera]

Dupont666 said:

Olivera said:

OneDs said:

It is their job and unfortunatley they are winning. The PCS union got the new severance terms quashed last week. This basically means that even if you do slash 20%-25% of the jobs it will cost on average about £50k-£80k to cut out each and every one.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 09:34

People just don't realise how much it costs to get rid of even a single government employee. Even compulsory redundancies will come with a huge payoff of around 50 grand. Cutting 2,000,000 government jobs would cost approximately £100 billion pounds. Even cutting 500,000 jobs at £25 billion is more than 4 times what the conservatives will save from their 2010 deficit reduction plan!

So what do you suggest then to make the cuts?

How do you suggest the government reduce that spending by government/public sector = tax income?

Or shall we let the country implode in debt?

I actually agree that we should slash the amount of public sector workers. However the amount of contractually obliged redundancy money they are owed is astounding. In fact we can't actually afford to make many public sectors workers redundant because of this.

[10 Pence Short]

Olivera said:

I actually agree that we should slash the amount of public sector workers. However the amount of contractually obliged redundancy money they are owed is astounding. In fact we can't actually afford to make many public sectors workers redundant because of this.

It's not the people you make redundant- it's the positions.

[amir_j]

Dupont666 said:

RMT wker leader said:

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

[Mojocvh]

Yertis said:

NoelWatson said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-238...

Unpleasant fellow. Replaces Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as my bogeyman, and person to blame for rain.

and volcanoes don't forget them too....

[GT03ROB]

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

Hmmm interesting so sex workers are now on the public sector payroll.....

[cmsapms]

Dupont666 said:

Olivera said:

OneDs said:

It is their job and unfortunatley they are winning. The PCS union got the new severance terms quashed last week. This basically means that even if you do slash 20%-25% of the jobs it will cost on average about £50k-£80k to cut out each and every one.

Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 09:34

People just don't realise how much it costs to get rid of even a single government employee. Even compulsory redundancies will come with a huge payoff of around 50 grand. Cutting 2,000,000 government jobs would cost approximately £100 billion pounds. Even cutting 500,000 jobs at £25 billion is more than 4 times what the conservatives will save from their 2010 deficit reduction plan!

So what do you suggest then to make the cuts?

How do you suggest the government reduce that spending by government/public sector = tax income?

Or shall we let the country implode in debt?

Use "job evaluation"? As an example; if we drastically simplified and reduced the benefits system, there would be far less work required in its administration. Benefit office workers would then be in a position where their jobs had to be re-evaluated with a consequent reduction in position/salary - you're doing less work, you get less pay. It would not be possible to add to their workload, because the amount of work overall would have fallen. The unions surely couldn't insist that more people are put out of work just to give work to the benefits clerks. A substantial saving would result, without the need for redundancies, and you'd find that many of the clerks would move on fairly quickly thus reducing the benefits workforce, giving further savings. I'm sure that there are many other parts of the bloated state that could receive the same treatment.

It just needs a bit of subtle legislation to make public sector jobs susceptible to re-evaluation wherever it can be shown that a measureable change in workload has occurred. This could be sold to the unions as a chance for their members to earn more if they work harder, but the rest of us would know better

[Mojocvh]

GT03ROB said:

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

Hmmm interesting so sex workers are now on the public sector payroll.....

Indeed, next step legalise it and have the councils run it under license including health checks etc.
Workers pay tax and stamp like anyone else and have their rights upheld in law.

Time to move into the 21st Century.......

[superlightr]

Mojocvh said:

GT03ROB said:

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

Hmmm interesting so sex workers are now on the public sector payroll.....

Indeed, next step legalise it and have the councils run it under license including health checks etc.
Workers pay tax and stamp like anyone else and have their rights upheld in law.

Time to move into the 21st Century.......

but you would then have a Minister for sex workers with associated secretaries, PA's pensions, new offices, advisors, fact finding trips to Thailand, and more cost.

[Dupont666]

superlightr said:

Mojocvh said:

GT03ROB said:

RMT wker leader said:

General secretary Bob Crow said: "We cannot afford to wait for politicians to unleash a £50 billion slash and burn attack on our public services, jobs and living standards after May 6.

The GMB said its members would be out in force over the weekend across the UK and Ireland, including a rally in London on Saturday, where officials from the union's sex workers branch will be among the speakers.

Hmmm interesting so sex workers are now on the public sector payroll.....

Indeed, next step legalise it and have the councils run it under license including health checks etc.
Workers pay tax and stamp like anyone else and have their rights upheld in law.

Time to move into the 21st Century.......

but you would then have a Minister for sex workers with associated secretaries, PA's pensions, new offices, advisors, fact finding trips to Thailand, and more cost.

It will be a hard job to get into in some depth... But I can step forward and take up the role.

[OneDs]

cmsapms said:

Use "job evaluation"? As an example; if we drastically simplified and reduced the benefits system, there would be far less work required in its administration. Benefit office workers would then be in a position where their jobs had to be re-evaluated with a consequent reduction in position/salary - you're doing less work, you get less pay. It would not be possible to add to their workload, because the amount of work overall would have fallen. The unions surely couldn't insist that more people are put out of work just to give work to the benefits clerks. A substantial saving would result, without the need for redundancies, and you'd find that many of the clerks would move on fairly quickly thus reducing the benefits workforce, giving further savings. I'm sure that there are many other parts of the bloated state that could receive the same treatment.

It just needs a bit of subtle legislation to make public sector jobs susceptible to re-evaluation wherever it can be shown that a measureable change in workload has occurred. This could be sold to the unions as a chance for their members to earn more if they work harder, but the rest of us would know better

No chance every public sector employee re-evaluated to a lower job would be put on mark-time on their old T&C's, their pay would be frozen, thus they would be paid very highly to do even less of a job than in the first place. They would also have the opportunity to claim complusary redundancy as anyone would in this situation.