The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...
Discussion
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:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826643-advice-to-treas...
And these window lickers are doing their best to take the UK to the cleaners.
What is it they dont get?
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 w
ker leader said:
ker 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:"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.
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.‘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.
And these window lickers are doing their best to take the UK to the cleaners.
What is it they dont get?
So its the public sector/government spending that has spiralled out of control and now we effectively using a credit card to pay for them, when the new government try and stop this as its only going to be bad using borrowed money.
The Unions all strike, cost the taxpayers more money and then demand a decent payrise (tube workers demands this year and if not they strike), thats just blackmail... Its not a union in the true sense of the word, a union is there to help unfair decisions, not stop the recovery of the UK deficit and then demand that more money is given to them.
Theoretical question....
What would happen if the ConDem (they will be after this suggestion) were to say that once the money in the coffers from taxs, etc is used up then there is no more... like taking away the credit card and cutting it up. Each sector has a budget for the year, they can do with it as they will, but when the money runs out they have to cost cut themselves and not come to the government begging cap in hand as there is no funds left.
The Unions all strike, cost the taxpayers more money and then demand a decent payrise (tube workers demands this year and if not they strike), thats just blackmail... Its not a union in the true sense of the word, a union is there to help unfair decisions, not stop the recovery of the UK deficit and then demand that more money is given to them.
Theoretical question....
What would happen if the ConDem (they will be after this suggestion) were to say that once the money in the coffers from taxs, etc is used up then there is no more... like taking away the credit card and cutting it up. Each sector has a budget for the year, they can do with it as they will, but when the money runs out they have to cost cut themselves and not come to the government begging cap in hand as there is no funds left.
Pupp said:
Dupont666 said:
The new government... has started by cutting MP wages
Actually, it was ministers' wages. Always lose interest in a thread when the opening assertion is patently inaccurate 
MPs, ministers... was a simple mistake at that time in the morning whilst on the phone at the same time.
Pupp said:
Dupont666 said:
Pupp said:
Dupont666 said:
The new government... has started by cutting MP wages
Actually, it was ministers' wages. Always lose interest in a thread when the opening assertion is patently inaccurate MPs, ministers... was a simple mistake at that time in the morning whilst on the phone at the same time.
garyhun said:
Bob Crowe - such a lovely man http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279035/RM...
So the labour person who was fired over the twitter incident for gloading people etc and this twunt is defended by the union as 'lively bater' and the other team being sore losers.Where is the number for MI5?
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:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826643-advice-to-treas...
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. 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:
ker 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:"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.
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.‘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.
And these window lickers are doing their best to take the UK to the cleaners.
What is it they dont get?
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.
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?
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
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.
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!Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 09:34
How do you suggest the government reduce that spending by government/public sector = tax income?
Or shall we let the country implode in debt?
superlightr said:
Mojocvh said:
GT03ROB said:
RMT wker leader said:
ker 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.....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.
Workers pay tax and stamp like anyone else and have their rights upheld in law.
Time to move into the 21st Century.......
OneDs said:
Ha ha ha ha! you really don't get it, the only benefit of being a civil servant is the severance & pensions terms, the pay is crap the job is painfully bureaucratic and the general public who have never worked in the public sector think they are all to a man worthless pen pushers.
If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang to on it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
Legally binding contracts like the bonuses legally binding ones that joe public complained at and as such many lost their bonus even though they did what was expected and it was in their contract.If you ask me they deserve it, they will hang to on it for grim death as they are pushed from pillar to post by successive governments as political pawns.
These are legally binding contracts, reneging on them will incur not only the original cost but interest and fees in long drawn out court room battles.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 14:51
Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
OneDs said:
Dupont666 said:
Legally binding contracts like the bonuses legally binding ones that joe public complained at and as such many lost their bonus even though they did what was expected and it was in their contract.
Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
Bonuses are not contractual not legally binding and the only thing the govt for now can legitimately go after.Why does everyone say Public sector is worse pay than Private sector, its not, they have better pay and this has been shown in reports and the papers.
The public sector is by far in Base Salary and Bonus terms, in a like for like job paid less than equivalent role in the private sector. Get over it, no amount of spurious tabloid journalism and misguided statistics will change this.
Edited by OneDs on Tuesday 18th May 15:31
Public vs private pay...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/70361...
Devil2575 said:
Zod said:
Dupont666 said:
Cant they just give them basic redundancy of 1 week per year service?
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.Whatever you think of the jobs these people have, they took them in good faith. They will have seen the T&Cs and possibley on this basis accepted the position that was advertised. They won't have questioned whether the job was really needed or not. Did you when you applied for the job you are currently doing?
Many of these people are going to lose thier jobs which I imagine is making and is going to make life very stressful for them. The suggestion that we should just be able to ignore their contract when we decide the job they applied for is of no use is to be quite honest b
ks.Aim your vitriol at the people who employed them, not the ones who took the jobs. They're the ones who are going to be the real victims of this cull. I may not agree with the unions stance on this but I have every sympathy for anyone who is made redundant in either the public or private sector.
So the £60k pay out would be £35k and the rest goes back to the government... then its almost like a BOGOF
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
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!!
OzzyR1 said:
Zod said:
They can and should give them statutory minimum. When they bleat, they can be told that they were being paid to do a non-job, so they should be happy to have been paid the inflated salary they have already received.
That's quite rich coming from a London-based lawyer, although I'm sure you're worth every penny of what you earn I quite agree that cuts will have to be made somewhere, the country's finances are in an appalling state and the most obvious place to make those cuts is the public sector. It has grown a significant magnitude now vs what it was in 1997.
What I don't agree with is people on this thread apparently taking enjoyment from the fact that some people are going to lose their public sector jobs. As has been said before, they probably took the position in good faith - hell if someone offered me a job a few years back where I could earn a better salary, get a better house and have a few treats I'd have gone for it too.
We're all in this together, cuts will have to be made and even if these are centred around public sector roles it will have an impact on the private sector. Take construction for example, those working for private firms will face some tough times ahead when various Govt funded projects and their respective employees are knocked on the head. That goes onto other private sector feeder roles too - lawyers, developers, accountants etc. I would bet that a fair % of most large private sector firm's work is based on public sector fee-earning in some way.
That's without personal tax rises, inflation going up etc etc.
It isn't going to be pleasant, whichever sector you occupy.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Tuesday 18th May 19:17
Which is not doable... its about how do you cut the public sector to an acceptable level that the tax money pays for it without borrowing more?
How do you sort out the government waste on complete crap?
Same goes for the public sector, no more expensive furniture or paintings hanging in senior offices to make them look pretty, this is the whole nine yards that needs to be taken back.
Thats the simple truth the cuts need to happen in the public sector but the public sector are trying to fight tooth and nail to make sure they dont happen, from the unions websites it looks like they would rather bankrupt the UK then help it...
turbobloke said:
Devil2575 said:
the economic collapse, which was caused by the banking sector
Gerald Warner: Capitalism didn't kill the banks – socialism didDate: 23 November 2008
AT LAST – the death of capitalism has occurred, as so often predicted by all those rheumy-eyed revolutionaries bumming drinks off students in pubs ("See me, son, ah'm a socialist. Did ye ever read a book called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? Magic!"). Zzzz…
The thesis is that the banking system, propelled by the centrifugal force of its own greed, has spun off its axis, as it was always predestined to do through the operation of Marxist historical inevitability, and a new order is arising under which the financial institutions are progressively falling into public ownership. Under the stimulus of this unlooked-for remission, even the moribund Labour Left is sitting up and taking some thin gruel.
Alas for all those ragged-trousered philanthropists holding a mirror hopefully to the nostrils of capitalism, a detailed diagnosis shows that socialism is not the cure but the cause of the malady. The notion that capitalism cannibalised itself is bunkum and the evidence is irrefutable. Amid all the myriad analyses of the financial collapse, one sole premise commands universal assent: the crisis originated in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in America.
If we establish what caused that, we shall have discovered the root of the banking crisis. Well, that is easy: it was Gordon Gekko and his ilk, was it not? Actually, no: it was Bill Clinton and his cronies, with their politically correct affirmative action. That is the fact of the matter – the Clinton administration compelled the banks to lend to minorities, to comply with racial and social quotas that defied all the rules of banking.
In 1994 the New York Times reported jubilantly that the Clinton administration was leaning heavily on lenders to embrace people in low-income neighbourhoods or minority groups.
From then on, the madness gathered pace. In 1999, pressured by Clinton, Fannie Mae started a programme of extensive expansion of loans to people with low to moderate credit. Clinton's housing secretary Andrew Cuomo warned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that such loans must amount to 50% of their portfolio by 2001. Other government agencies joined the crusade. In 1999 the Justice Department was reported as trying to establish "a system of racial quotas in lending, regardless of credit risk".
Clinton's Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare cheques and unemployment benefit as income sources to qualify for a mortgage. As the PC terror grew, brokers advised clients to claim they were 1% Native American to qualify for loans. These included the lunatic "Ninja" (No income, no job, no assets) loans. The most flagrant example was a $480,000 (£324,000) mortgage to an illegal alien from Mexico.
The scale of the engineered destabilisation of the housing market was astronomic. In 1994 the share of sub-prime mortgages to total origination was 5% ($35bn); by 2006 it had grown to 20% ($600bn). No market could survive subversion on that scale. When the Justice Department is intervening in the housing market, to describe the economy as either "free" or "capitalist" is a bad joke. That was Clinton's legacy. The Oval Office Onanist may have done wonders for the US dry-cleaning industry, but he destroyed the housing market and, by extension, the banking sector.
Yet, today, his party has been mandated by a brain-damaged electorate to cure the disease it caused. Nothing succeeds like failure. The beneficiaries here are Gordon Brown and his interventionist party. People are still talking about the "£37bn bailout". Did they not notice a further £3bn bleeding out of Northern Rock on Friday?
So it will continue. Alistair Darling ordering banks how to conduct their business; banks hoarding taxpayers' money while charging exorbitant rates; HBOS dying noisily. All the testosterone-charged takeover frenzy of the past decade, with bankers borrowing zillions to buy institutions they could not afford, has come home to roost. This was not capitalism, but a dependency culture. For many, addictive dependency shifted from state handouts to private handouts based on phantom credit.
Those proclaiming the death of capitalism have misread the situation...
When the socialist enforced structure collapsed due to them wanting booze, drugs, etc rather than pay the mortgage given to them by the socialist government the bubble burst.
yet they see it as the fault of the banks for lending it to them... seems they are still owed something by a society they dont support.
Devil2575 said:
Clinton isn't a sociallist...
not even from this:http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/socialist_ag...
or this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=769
Devil2575 said:
fido said:
Devil2575 said:
How then did this problem spread from country to country?
You're now confusing sovereign debt with corporate debt.One of the reasons we have a deficit is that government income has dropped due to the failure of UK campanies due either directly or indirectly to the banking crisis/recession. If the only banks that had failed had been in the US and other countries banks had not bought into these bad debts/created their own bad debts then the situation would have been a lot better.
t...The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!
As has been time and time again the UK had a f
king huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...
Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...
Devil2575 said:
Dupont666 said:
You dont half talk a crock of st...
No need to resort to insults
The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!
so if the economy hadn't collapsed the deficit would have been the same as it is now?
As has been time and time again the UK had a fking huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.
The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...
Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...
And who is the instagator of all this?t...No need to resort to insults
The ONLY reason we have a deficit is due to LABOUR over spending, FFS!!
so if the economy hadn't collapsed the deficit would have been the same as it is now?
As has been time and time again the UK had a f
king huge deficit during the bank boom years, prior to the recession and banking crisis.The companies that graded the structured products wrongly graded them as low risk and not high risk, hence the reason the mortgage banks bought them, they saw them as low risk returns...
Why do you think the instigator of all this is now being investigated? Its not cause they are whiter than white and told everyone they werer high risk... nope its due to them lying about it and then being wrongly graded...
Also as you say that the spending was proportional, that means they looked to see how much money was made and thought...
GB:'bloody hell another 100 billion has come in'
GB:'damn we better spend that...'
GB:'what shall we spend it on...'
Cronie:'Not a clue we have everything'
GB'No we dont lets create some more job'
Cronie:'What jobs'
GB:'Dont know but lets use it as we have it'
Cronie:'You know what I have always fancied a fact finding mission to Moon, but it maybe expensive'
GB:'I like it, better put down for a 100 spaces on that one then!!'
Its like letting a chav loose on a credit card with no way of ever paying it back and letting someone else pick up the pieces... They will get back in eventually and be allowed the credit card again, will they have learnt by then? I doubt it and then it will happen again...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff