The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...
Discussion
fbrs said:
of the cull perhaps but the tax payer, past, present and future is the real victim
Edited by fbrs on Tuesday 18th May 16:32
Zod said:
So no ire to be directed at those knowingly taking salaries for doing non-jobs?
If your unemployed and you see a job in advertised that you are qualifed to do do you consider if it is a none-job or not?No you apply for it because you need to know where the next pay check to pay the bills is going to come from.
It is not the fault of the people doing the jobs, it is the fault of those who employed them.
Also do you really think all the cuts are going to come from people in these so called 'non-jobs'?
Devil2575 said:
They are tax payers past, present and future. Everyone in this country will pay for the banking crisis, the world recession and an over inflated public sector.
tired line. 'we pay taxes to'. not net. granted hopefully some of them will be net tax payers in future, we'll see how they feel about funding a bloated public sector then. pulling in other issues, such as the bank bailouts and global recession is simply trying to spread blame and obscure the issue. the 1000bn+ unfunded public sector pension deficit and at least 500bn of the national debt (the 2007 debt) have NOTHING to do with the recession or the banks.
fbrs said:
Devil2575 said:
They are tax payers past, present and future. Everyone in this country will pay for the banking crisis, the world recession and an over inflated public sector.
tired line. 'we pay taxes to'. not net. granted hopefully some of them will be net tax payers in future, we'll see how they feel about funding a bloated public sector then. pulling in other issues, such as the bank bailouts and global recession is simply trying to spread blame and obscure the issue. the 1000bn+ unfunded public sector pension deficit and at least 500bn of the national debt (the 2007 debt) have NOTHING to do with the recession or the banks.Edited by Dupont666 on Tuesday 18th May 17:19
Devil2575 said:
Zod said:
So no ire to be directed at those knowingly taking salaries for doing non-jobs?
If your unemployed and you see a job in advertised that you are qualifed to do do you consider if it is a none-job or not?No you apply for it because you need to know where the next pay check to pay the bills is going to come from.
It is not the fault of the people doing the jobs, it is the fault of those who employed them.
An offer of a non-job doesn't have to be accepted but if circumstances are such that it seems unavoidable or inevitable then looking back there are probably a series of poor decisions and poor life choices that have led to such a restricted choice set.
In each case there will likely be somebody or something else to transfer blame to, ultimately 'society' in that nonsensical 'victim of society' manner.
People are mostly victims of their own poor decision making, which seems to run in families, and are only too willing to go along with excuses made for them by westminster's political weasel wordsmiths who are in reality out to claim their loyalty and buy their vote (with other people's money) and who care only about gaining and keeping power to enact a bankrupt ideology which then bankrupts the country.
Again.
Having been involved in a number of public sector redundancies (administering them not subject to) the figure of £50K pay out is not an accurate picture of what actually happens in my experience.
The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
turbobloke said:
An offer of a non-job doesn't have to be accepted.....
People are mostly victims of their own poor decision making,
If you're on JSA, turning down an offer would result in loss of benefits.People are mostly victims of their own poor decision making,
Mostly, or partly, or sometimes? Supposed you worked for Cadbury, for example, how does this apply?
FunkyGibbon said:
Having been involved in a number of public sector redundancies (administering them not subject to) the figure of £50K pay out is not an accurate picture of what actually happens in my experience.
The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
So not much above minimum statutory amounts then?The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
Shame... sucks to be public sector!!
Dupont666 said:
fbrs said:
Devil2575 said:
They are tax payers past, present and future. Everyone in this country will pay for the banking crisis, the world recession and an over inflated public sector.
tired line. 'we pay taxes to'. not net. granted hopefully some of them will be net tax payers in future, we'll see how they feel about funding a bloated public sector then. pulling in other issues, such as the bank bailouts and global recession is simply trying to spread blame and obscure the issue. the 1000bn+ unfunded public sector pension deficit and at least 500bn of the national debt (the 2007 debt) have NOTHING to do with the recession or the banks.Edited by Dupont666 on Tuesday 18th May 17:19
Everyone pays taxes and the great proportion of public sector jobs are worthwhile and demanded by the people. If you fondly imagine this situation can be sorted just by getting rid of the micky mouse jobs that everyone talks about then think again. I mean do you know anyone who has one of these so called 'non jobs'?
As for not trying to spread the blame, isn't it funny how we seem to have forgotten that part of this mess is down the the banking sector. Ok so a proportion of the problem is down to a bloated public sector, another proportion is down to a far too generous tax credit system but a chunk is also down to having to bail out the banks.
Funny how some are so quick to forget. Very convenient isn't it.
Devil2575 said:
isn't it funny how we seem to have forgotten that part of this mess is down the the banking sector. Ok so a proportion of the problem is down to a bloated public sector, another proportion is down to a far too generous tax credit system but a chunk is also down to having to bail out the banks.
Funny how some are so quick to forget. Very convenient isn't it.
How much of the trillion is down to NR and RBS?Funny how some are so quick to forget. Very convenient isn't it.
turbobloke said:
An offer of a non-job doesn't have to be accepted but if circumstances are such that it seems unavoidable or inevitable then looking back there are probably a series of poor decisions and poor life choices that have led to such a restricted choice set.
How do you know before hand it is a none job???
what is a non job other than a subjective opinion?
In each case there will likely be somebody or something else to transfer blame to, ultimately 'society' in that nonsensical 'victim of society' manner.
a bit like what is happening now on this forum you mean? Everyone taking turns to bash the public sector as if they are somehow to balme for everything
I'd hate to care so little about my fellow man as some of you people.How do you know before hand it is a none job???
what is a non job other than a subjective opinion?
In each case there will likely be somebody or something else to transfer blame to, ultimately 'society' in that nonsensical 'victim of society' manner.
a bit like what is happening now on this forum you mean? Everyone taking turns to bash the public sector as if they are somehow to balme for everything
Trommel said:
Devil2575 said:
isn't it funny how we seem to have forgotten that part of this mess is down the the banking sector. Ok so a proportion of the problem is down to a bloated public sector, another proportion is down to a far too generous tax credit system but a chunk is also down to having to bail out the banks.
Funny how some are so quick to forget. Very convenient isn't it.
How much of the trillion is down to NR and RBS?Funny how some are so quick to forget. Very convenient isn't it.
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
An offer of a non-job doesn't have to be accepted but if circumstances are such that it seems unavoidable or inevitable then looking back there are probably a series of poor decisions and poor life choices that have led to such a restricted choice set.
How do you know before hand it is a none job???
what is a non job other than a subjective opinion?
In each case there will likely be somebody or something else to transfer blame to, ultimately 'society' in that nonsensical 'victim of society' manner.
a bit like what is happening now on this forum you mean? Everyone taking turns to bash the public sector as if they are somehow to balme for everything
I'd hate to care so little about my fellow man as some of you people.How do you know before hand it is a none job???
what is a non job other than a subjective opinion?
In each case there will likely be somebody or something else to transfer blame to, ultimately 'society' in that nonsensical 'victim of society' manner.
a bit like what is happening now on this forum you mean? Everyone taking turns to bash the public sector as if they are somehow to balme for everything
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 18th May 18:23
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
An offer of a non-job doesn't have to be accepted.....
People are mostly victims of their own poor decision making
If you're on JSA, turning down an offer would result in loss of benefits.People are mostly victims of their own poor decision making
Mostly, or partly, or sometimes? Supposed you worked for Cadbury, for example, how does this apply?
You seem to be saying that benefits are too generous, that they've become a lifestyle choice not a safety net, that it should be very favourable to lose benefits in favour of paid work. If so we agree.
As to the rest are you saying joining Cadbury's 25 years or 25 days before some corporate manoeuvre was the same as taking a non-job? Clearly it wasn't. Clairvoyance wasn't mentioned in my post.
Try the case of somebody agreeing to be a public sector Chew Ten Times Outreach Coordinator for Jobsworth Council, working for the 5-a-Day Management Team in the Diversity and Equality directorate, even if they were armed with an NVQ in applied mastication it's not the same as taking a real job in a private sectore company where there is real competition to force salaried or wage earning posts to be worthwhile contributors to the bottom line.
just in case anbody thinks there are wondrous gains from the 5-a-Day myth, a recent study led by Paolo Boffetta from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that eating five portions of fruit or vegetables a day (about 400g) had little effect on cancer risk while the very small effect that was seen could be caused by other factors
turbobloke said:
I'd hate to care so little about my fellow man as the last Labour government which spent the country into bankruptcy while increasing the gap between richj and opor individuals, increasing the gap between rich and poor cities, increasing the health gap between rich and poor areas, and increasing the education gap between rich and poor students. All the well-meaning but useless twaddle spoken and practised by the self-righteous types has led to a worse situation than they inherited. Marvellous!
Labour messed it up but it wasn't because they didn't care. It was because they were stupid enough to believe that the good times would keep going to pay for all the spending.Dupont666 said:
So not much above minimum statutory amounts then?
Shame... sucks to be public sector!!
Not even above statutory minimum - just the minimum!Shame... sucks to be public sector!!
And yes you could argue it sucks for public sector in this regard as redundancies I've dealt with in private sector roles have been way more generous.
But that is the game you play if you are mitigating the risks of "bending of the rules" to expedite a "redundancy" - not so easy to do under the over-scrutiny of auditors and unions in the public sector IMHO.
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
I'd hate to care so little about my fellow man as the last Labour government which spent the country into bankruptcy while increasing the gap between richj and opor individuals, increasing the gap between rich and poor cities, increasing the health gap between rich and poor areas, and increasing the education gap between rich and poor students. All the well-meaning but useless twaddle spoken and practised by the self-righteous types has led to a worse situation than they inherited. Marvellous!
Labour messed it up but it wasn't because they didn't care.We agree, it would seem.
My position is one of being willing to help my fellow man where I can, but paying for any fellow men to continue to take poor life decisions and become more dependent rather than more independent isn't one of them.
It's a simple but ineffective argument to say that people who disagree with you "don't care". The chances are they do care, and the chances are that they also have a much better clue about providing effective help rather than posturing with words.
Helping people to help themselves is the way to go, overseas charities have managed to see that. It would then seem reasonable to say it's a pity that domestic politics is blind to such an obvious truth, but 'caring' politicians are not blind. They can see that they have a means of staying in power and serving themselves by increasing dependency via benefits and non-jobs. The problems always come home to roost though since this is so inefficient and costly that other people's money runs out, then borrowed money runs out.
And here we are, with those needing help worse off and a country on the brink of bankruptcy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff