|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 14, 2005 19:06:46 GMT 1
The world of Equality, Diversity & Workers Rights, celbrates the land-mark victory of Unison over the North Cumbria NHS Trust.
Over £300 million to be shared between 1,500 women workers, who have been under paid for many years, will have massive consequences throughout the public and private sectors.
Now just watch the sh!t hit the fan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 20:36:22 GMT 1
Is there a more detailed story about this on the net? I'm quite interested to read the full details.....
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Mar 14, 2005 20:38:34 GMT 1
The world of Equality, Diversity & Workers Rights, celbrates the land-mark victory of Unison over the North Cumbria NHS Trust. Over £300 million to be shared between 1,500 women workers, who have been under paid for many years, will have massive consequences throughout the public and private sectors. Now just watch the sh!t hit the fan Your industry being the ranks of highly paid "human rights" lawyers and other professional liberal bigots, who ultimately are the only people to benefit from such exercises in spending taxpayers money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 20:55:04 GMT 1
Your industry being the ranks of highly paid "human rights" lawyers and other professional liberal bigots, who ultimately are the only people to benefit from such exercises in spending taxpayers money. CynicalShrew clearly isn't au fait with the Treaty of Rome.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 14, 2005 21:18:51 GMT 1
CynicalShrew clearly isn't au fait with the Treaty of Rome. I take it the Ladies don't like him, thats why he had to answer this post, do you think he lifts this stuff off the Uni pc's, all sounds the same.
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 14, 2005 21:22:14 GMT 1
Is there a more detailed story about this on the net? I'm quite interested to read the full details..... Try this www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1525604,00.html
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Mar 14, 2005 21:24:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 14, 2005 21:24:50 GMT 1
Your industry being the ranks of highly paid "human rights" lawyers and other professional liberal bigots, who ultimately are the only people to benefit from such exercises in spending taxpayers money. A major decision, that will be a massive boost to many thousands of under paid workers and their families, and p!ssing off cynical - big time. Days don't get much better than this
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Mar 14, 2005 21:58:08 GMT 1
All for equal pay as should be the case in all industries and if any staff have been unfairly treated then it is only fair that any wrong is corrected.
That said I am struggling a bit to work out how they are comparing like for like when it says the successful women in this case range from telephone operators to cleaners, and were compared against wages paid to men for jobs such as labourers, maintenance staff and supervisors.
I'm sure there is more to it than a 1/2 page article can cover but the thought strikes me that they are not comparing like for like here.
All of the above jobs have an important however minor role in running any organisation the size of the NHS but I can't see how they have built an argument that a cleaner should be paid the same as an on-site joiner.
The best & fairest way to look at pay scales would surely have been to look at what salaries are paid in the private sector (private hospital care, nursing & care homes etc) and compare from there - then they would see that they would get paid according to skill levels & experience , and that differentiation (as long as is not on the basis of gender or race) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Then again, that would mean that the unions and the Government would have to deal with the fact that any government institution should be run efficiently like a sound commercial business which doesn't seem to be part of their language.
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Mar 14, 2005 22:09:40 GMT 1
A major decision, that will be a massive boost to many thousands of under paid workers and their families, and p!ssing off cynical - big time. Days don't get much better than this Whatever. The reality is that in modern Britain it is getting ever more difficult to bring up a family for professionals or skilled tradesman, never mind those doing menial jobs. I'm sure as I type the unions are busy protesting about 150000 immigrants every year depressing wages, the scale of the black economy, outsourcing to the third world etc etc. Then again, perhaps not.
|
|
chrisj
Midland League Division Two
Just get on with it.
Posts: 164
|
Post by chrisj on Mar 14, 2005 22:33:16 GMT 1
Whatever. The reality is that in modern Britain it is getting ever more difficult to bring up a family for professionals or skilled tradesman, never mind those doing menial jobs. I'm sure as I type the unions are busy protesting about 150000 immigrants every year depressing wages, the scale of the black economy, outsourcing to the third world etc etc. Then again, perhaps not. Maybe they have better things to do - campaigning against racism? Perhaps the thought of you struggling as your family starves just encourages them to redouble their efforts to impose their liberal bigotry on the downtrodden Anglo-Celtic indigenes? Maybe the surrender of economic power to the swarming subhuman mud-races is their secret goal? Maybe you just talk sh!t? When will you answer me, Cynical Shrew?
|
|
Specter on his laptop
Guest
|
Post by Specter on his laptop on Mar 14, 2005 22:33:39 GMT 1
A major decision, that will be a massive boost to many thousands of under paid workers and their families, and p!ssing off cynical - big time. Days don't get much better than this Cheers OJ - MAKE MY DAY WHY DON'T YA I'm supposed to be in Cheltenham mode and I've got the repercussions of that in Salop to get back to I couldn't possibly comment if the decision was right or wrong , but nice one Enjoy
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Mar 14, 2005 22:44:52 GMT 1
Maybe they have better things to do - campaigning against racism? Perhaps the thought of you struggling as your family starves just encourages them to redouble their efforts to impose their liberal bigotry on the downtrodden Anglo-Celtic indigenes? Maybe the surrender of economic power to the swarming subhuman mud-races is their secret goal? Maybe you just talk sh!t? When will you answer me, Cynical Shrew? Has your rhetorical skill never progressed past the lower-sixth form tactic of reducio ad absurdum. Unless you are a true believer in conspiracy theories which you smother behind PeeCee languague, hoping to pass Tourette's style outbursts as irony and sarcasm. The unions won't address the issues that are really affecting their member's (those that they have left!) lives as they - like most other branches of public life - are led by careerists who are most concerned with protecting their cushy positions. These people have got to the top by pandering to establishment norms, they are not going to change even as the edifice on which they are built starts crumbling. For all these triumphant gains in "equality", my generation are worse off than my parents' and grandparents'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 22:47:54 GMT 1
For all these triumphant gains in "equality", my generation are worse off than my grandparents'. Aside from the increased average length of living, higher standards of living and decreased chance of being sent off to die for your country in a field somewhere in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Mar 14, 2005 23:04:52 GMT 1
Aside from the increased average length of living, higher standards of living and decreased chance of being sent off to die for your country in a field somewhere in Europe. 1/ Small difference since the 1950s 2/ In the 50/60s a working man could support a family on his wages alone. He could expect to live in a house, in an area largely free of crime and serious anti-social behaviour. Divorce and barstewardy were rare. The murder of unborn children was illegal. Children's health was better. The endless middle-class worries about "good schools" etc. were unknown. How is today an improvement on this exactly? 3/WWII was over by time grandparents' were my age, indeed on one side my grandfather wasn't conscripted until after VJ day. Whilst one is grateful for the lasting peace that our generation enjoys, I wonder what I forebears would think if they were shown the Britain of today that they fought for?
|
|
chrisj
Midland League Division Two
Just get on with it.
Posts: 164
|
Post by chrisj on Mar 14, 2005 23:04:55 GMT 1
Has your rhetorical skill never progressed past the lower-sixth form tactic of reducio ad absurdum. Unless you are a true believer in conspiracy theories which you smother behind PeeCee languague, hoping to pass Tourette's style outbursts as irony and sarcasm. The unions won't address the issues that are really affecting their member's (those that they have left!) lives as they - like most other branches of public life - are led by careerists who are most concerned with protecting their cushy positions. These people have got to the top by pandering to establishment norms, they are not going to change even as the edifice on which they are built starts crumbling. For all these triumphant gains in "equality", my generation are worse off than my parents' and grandparents'. D'you know, I've noticed you're beginning to repeat yourself, ad absurdum? Find a new phrase to parrot. Don't play stupid debating games, I'm cleverer than you are and, not being a racist, I'm right. You keep forgetting I'm not a liberal and I don't believe in being 'PeeCee', (Cynical! PeeCee? What a lazy, sloppy non-argument for a self-proclaimed graduate. I'd expect that of Kickin', but surely you aspire to intellectual credibility?) which kind of pulls the rug from under your attack. If you were as smart as you thought, you'd have noticed that lacking any kind of reasoned response from you, I'm actually just taking the p**s out of you. When are you going to answer me? (At your sixth form, did they never teach you, by the way that questions are punctuated differently from statements? You have to look at the end.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 23:13:12 GMT 1
Good result for the female NHS workers.
The question that now needs to be asked is why were female workers earning less in ther first place? Also why has it taken so long for this case to be settled?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 23:14:56 GMT 1
1/ Small difference since the 1950s 2/ In the 50/60s a working man could support a family on his wages alone. He could expect to live in a house, in an area largely free of crime and serious anti-social behaviour. Divorce and barstewardy were rare. The murder of unborn children was illegal. Children's health was better. The endless middle-class worries about "good schools" etc. were unknown. How is today an improvement on this exactly? 3/WWII was over by time grandparents' were my age, indeed on one side my grandfather wasn't conscripted until after VJ day. Whilst one is grateful for the lasting peace that our generation enjoys, I wonder what I forebears would think if they were shown the Britain of today that they fought for? Very little point arguing with you any more on this one as it's clear we have polar opposite views. That said, I like to base my opinions on factual evidence, and as long as you're going to come out with statements like 'children's health was better' (check the mortality rates dude), then we're going to be on different wavelengths.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Mar 15, 2005 0:30:33 GMT 1
I like his 150,000 immigrants a year quote straight out of the Daily Mail, oh sorry he told us he does not read that.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 15, 2005 0:45:31 GMT 1
Mortality is different from morbidity Welshshrew. Although I don't know the comparisons for that between now and 30 or 40 years ago either.
I think it is harder to bring families up on one wage/salary. Partly that's because we are running on emptiness and define our worth in terms of what we own and what we wear. The old working class savings culture has gone in the last 20 years too.
My dad wasn't a lazy man by any means but I work a lot harder than he did.
Globalisation is a threat. In terms of jobs, communities (such as there are any left in Britain today) and in terms of economics - in the broadest sense.
Communities are less cohesive the more that they rely upon other parts of the globe or even regions of the country for goods and services and jobs. We should think more carefully about providing for our own needs as families, communities and as a country.
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 15, 2005 9:46:47 GMT 1
My goodness! Pop out for a couple of bevvies, and look what happens. It seems that cynical hates women, as well as all non-whites. Just a couple of points. For Mark Rowley. The actual comparison IS between like and like. There is an accepted formula, (I was involved in the trial) which is used throughout the country to compare work that is, on the face of it, apparently different. When examining equal pay, there has to be a 'comparitor' i.e. a man or woman, within the same organisation, doing the same or similar work, or work OF EQUAL VALUE. Lots of things are taken into consideration. Skill level, intellectual content, physical effort, training needs, consequence of error etc, etc. If after this exercise has taken place, the work is considered 'the same', then the terms of the Equal Pay Act apply. The bottom line in all this is that, on average, women earn 70% of what men earn, for doing jobs that are considered 'the same' under the terms of the Act. As Loyalshrew, so rightly, asks, why has this been aloud to happen in the first place? The answer? The problem has been ignored for so long, that those who have been exploiting women workers felt they were immune. But not any longer. This ruling will really send a shiver throughout the land. Not only within Local Authorities and the like, but private businesses will feel the knock-on too. Another point for Mark. The Act only recognises the difference in earnings betwen men and women, with the same employer. Not between those of the same gender, working in different organisations. This would them involve comparisons betwen commercial circumstances, markets etc. Cynical, once again you're wrong - No change there then - on many issues. Just two examples. You say it's now more difficult for professionals and skilled tradesmen to bring up a familly. Have you tried to get a plumber lately, and what's the hourly rate. And would these struggling 'professionals' include all the highly paid human rights lawyers and liberal biggots? As far as the Unions fighting to prevent the loss of jobs to the "third world". Of course, there have been massive campaigns to do just that. Unfortunately, the abject greed of those that run a large part of todays commerce has riden rough shod over all legitimate argument. BUT, guess what? Take a look at those companies who have been involved in some of the most high profile (and blatant) cases of equal pay breaches. Yes, you've guessed it. The same major financial institutions that are the movers and shakers, involved in the rush to move jobs off-shore. Mr Ghost. (I presume it's you) Sorry for the inconvenience mate. I'm sure it won't detract from your enjoyment of the Festival. And think of all that overtime you will come back to Better sign off now Liberal Biggot - Surely not
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2005 10:15:42 GMT 1
Mortality is different from morbidity Welshshrew. Although I don't know the comparisons for that between now and 30 or 40 years ago either. I think it is harder to bring families up on one wage/salary. Partly that's because we are running on emptiness and define our worth in terms of what we own and what we wear. The old working class savings culture has gone in the last 20 years too. My dad wasn't a lazy man by any means but I work a lot harder than he did. Globalisation is a threat. In terms of jobs, communities (such as there are any left in Britain today) and in terms of economics - in the broadest sense. Communities are less cohesive the more that they rely upon other parts of the globe or even regions of the country for goods and services and jobs. We should think more carefully about providing for our own needs as families, communities and as a country. If someone can provide statistics to show that morbidity in the UK as a whole has worsened since the 1950s then I'm happy to say I was wrong. Although numbers of children dying seems to me to be a pretty decent indicator of child health also. I thought your post was thought-provoking Sean.
|
|
McKie
Midland League Division One
Pretend this text is something clever.
Posts: 389
|
Post by McKie on Mar 15, 2005 11:59:00 GMT 1
Your industry being the ranks of highly paid "human rights" lawyers and other professional liberal bigots, who ultimately are the only people to benefit from such exercises in spending taxpayers money. I think the women who are getting the money may well benefit from it. Maybe the extra money will do them all manner of evil and they will all go off the rails and live fast and die young. My guess is that the soon to be retiring nurses with the untreated back injuries may well benefit from a more comfortable economic situation. Do you not think so? I know you have to live up to your name, but not everything like this that happens is an "exercise". I think they meant it.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Mar 15, 2005 13:56:12 GMT 1
Anyone what discuss all things STFC to keep me awake
|
|
Guest Just Browsing
Guest
|
Post by Guest Just Browsing on Mar 15, 2005 17:49:12 GMT 1
Anyone what discuss all things STFC to keep me awake There seem to be a fair few other threads for you to enter into discussions on. Can't you find anything at all of interest?
|
|
chrisj
Midland League Division Two
Just get on with it.
Posts: 164
|
Post by chrisj on Mar 15, 2005 18:50:39 GMT 1
Some first rate posts on this thread.
|
|
bristol loggerheads
Guest
|
Post by bristol loggerheads on Mar 15, 2005 21:23:50 GMT 1
I don't get the maths - 1500 women share £300m yet a woman on 5 Live said she'd get £4 or 5k (I think) after 28 years service!
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 16, 2005 9:03:48 GMT 1
I don't get the maths - 1500 women share £300m yet a woman on 5 Live said she'd get £4 or 5k (I think) after 28 years service! There is a large variation between the amounts that people will receive. If the underpayment was minimal, then obviously the total will be a lot less. I am a bit surprised, though, at this figure,as it does seem a little low for 28 years. I know that some of the women will be picking up £200,000+
|
|
McKie
Midland League Division One
Pretend this text is something clever.
Posts: 389
|
Post by McKie on Mar 16, 2005 10:43:56 GMT 1
When you say "my industry" what is it you mean? What do you work with?
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Mar 16, 2005 11:08:32 GMT 1
When you say "my industry" what is it you mean? What do you work with? I used the word 'industry' as a sort of catch-all, because it's hard to think of how to describe the 'can of worms' that I work in. I am certainly not a "highly paid human rights lawyer" but could well fit in to cynical's definition of a "professional liberal bigot". I advise businesses (often finding funding, so they don't have to pay) on such things as employment law, equality & diversity, anti-discrimination issues and the like. This (I hope) benefits small businesses, as they can make sure they don't get themselves into any trouble and also that their staff are well treated and happy. I also work with private clients, employers and employees, advising on specific issues. I help people who have been unfairly dismissed, and companies who are facing unreasonable pressure from staff. I hold seminars for private and public sector organisations on a variety of topics, but all related to legislation and (dare I say it) Human Rights. All in all I would say that, although cynical appears to hate everyone on this board, I probably represent everything he really detests about this country today. It's a wonder I can sleep at night
|
|