Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 14:34:04 GMT 1
Windy, The same is happening in the private sector, as in the public sector, every single institute in the uk economy is looking to be more efficient. Nobody gives a toss about Dulux or RICHO or other industries. However when you state that there are inefficiencies in places such as the NHS, Police and Armed Forces... that is deemed as unnessacery cuts and it should be left well alone!! mate, with the best will in the world thhats a really daft statement dont you think. When Dulux has the same national relevance and importance as either the nhs, police or armed forces then i think your arguement will be a good one, but frankly. its tosh. if dulux go bust i will have every sympathy for those that loose their livelyhoods, but at the end of the day if the do go bust, decorating my living room becomes a little trickyer, if the nhs goes to the wall, you , me and everyone else in the country is affected in ways you cant imagine. Also, companies in the private sector are unfortunate victims, not political footballs or scapegoats like the public sector. no one chose to mess up dulux, the public sector cuts though are a deliberate policy by the conservatives AND lib dems. any comparison between public and private is foolish and only relevant to those wishing to make some political point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 14:39:50 GMT 1
I sometimes wonder!!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Sept 14, 2011 14:53:05 GMT 1
Efficiency savings in either private sector or public sector will not cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Sept 14, 2011 15:22:47 GMT 1
Not really, I aint a pensioner yet.......... and dont use public transport........... I am fine Jack!! However, I still want my bloody bin emptied!! Seems like Boris has been taking lessons from Phillip Hammond and is determined to make London transport the toy of the rich. Increases from January of 8% but of course the Tories have no responsibility for inflation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 15:24:07 GMT 1
Absoloutely, We are in hard times, and have to sit it out!! In my business alone, my turnover is down 35% on last year, but rather than knee jerk reactions, realise that we are in turbulant times, and stop making matters worse by going on strike. That is lose lose situations. Get public sector realising that there is unnessacery waste, and allow the fat to be cut without touching the meat!! When was the last time the country basically said to MP's, right we are making 50 of you redundant!! The goverment have put in place some changes that will take 2 - 3 years for us to see the effect!! IN DAVE I TRUST!! Every time i read comments about cuts, it seems to me it's from people in the Private sector looking in at the sitiuation, from a position of relative security. If i was inclined, i might add looking in with envy or jealousy. Strange that you cannot grasp that a reduction in the number of wage earners = a reduction in Government income through a reduction in direct / indirect taxation. If this Government has the balls to bring in a so-called " Mansion Tax," i am sure you would be the first to complain. Your, " i'm all right jack" attitude is starting to grate. Allow the fat to be cut without touching the meat. WTF. If that is the total understanding and cure-all remedy for our problems then we might as well give up all hope. The glorious leaders " we're all in this together " mantra does'nt seem to have filtered down to the troops. Or maybe ther'e regulars of Daves 1st Mounted Daft and Deaf Regiment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 15:48:28 GMT 1
Yep, a turnover reduction of 35% in a year is so comfortable that I do not see that a reduction in wage erners is an increase in people on benifits.
I do believe that the council have laid there cards on the table and changed terms and conditions etc etc, but the alternative is to cut jobs!! it is not just the public sector that are doing it, its everywhere!! difference is, my workers seem to be able to grasp the situation and realise that tuff times are ahead, rather than burrying there head in the sand and going on strike!!
As for mansion tax!! get on with it!! i am sure that if i had a mansion, i would not worry about the tax!!
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 14, 2011 15:49:17 GMT 1
Large amounts of public sector cuts doesn't exactly improve the prospects of private sector businesses either. Just means lots of potential customers have far less disposable income - case in point Shrewsbury Town could well see yet more attendance drops if large numbers of local council, and health service staff get layed off.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Sept 14, 2011 16:06:38 GMT 1
Yep, a turnover reduction of 35% in a year is so comfortable that I do not see that a reduction in wage erners is an increase in people on benifits. I do believe that the council have laid there cards on the table and changed terms and conditions etc etc, but the alternative is to cut jobs!! it is not just the public sector that are doing it, its everywhere!! difference is, my workers seem to be able to grasp the situation and realise that tuff times are ahead, rather than burrying there head in the sand and going on strike!! As for mansion tax!! get on with it!! i am sure that if i had a mansion, i would not worry about the tax!! Downie, you imply that there is only one alternative to the council cutting wages and that is redundancies but the council could look at increasing income. The only way out of the current situation is by growth and if the private sector is unable to provide growth then it will have to be the public sector that stimulates the economy. It is time that you and others with similar attitudes realised that it is not a them and us war but that there is a need for us all pulling together. We should be all in this together but unfortunately this government wants to reduce the pensions of the poorest in society at the same time as making them pay more and work longer. Do you really want 60 year old scampering up ladders to put out fires and save lives, that's the reality of the changes being forced on the unions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 16:27:20 GMT 1
It really is not a private v public sector war, certainly not from me!! or most in the private sector that I see.
It is about making what money is there, work correctly, and not in a spend thrift manor, are strikes gonna help with growth, no!! is it gonna stop any cuts either in wage or job losses, doubt it very much, its just gonna inconvienience evrty body, and sooner or later peopel will lose what little sympathy there is for the situation.
Difference i see, Is that the workers in the private sector are cracking on with it, whilst those in the public sector continue to moan and groan!!
I aint worried about that, my workers have shown loyalty in me during this poor year, and I will reward that loyalty when hopefully it turns around........... that is happening now, by making sure that what is spent is done so wisely, rather than spending money that we dont have untill the recivers are brought in!! really is quite simple!!
Add to that the ability to do the job, and if a 60 year old wishes and is able to do the job, the yep, i am all for that!!
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Sept 14, 2011 16:28:43 GMT 1
Do you really want 60 year old scampering up ladders to put out fires and save lives, that's the reality of the changes being forced on the unions. That's rather ageist, as well as pushing the boundaries of extreme guff. As long as someone is passed fit to do the job, they should be able to do so. Also, don't forget the amount of experience they have to apply to a task at hand. Consider the opposite - do you want a 19 year old in Incident Command whose only experience of sending men into collapsed buildings was gained on XBox? In an ideal world, nobody should be forced to retire from a job they are perfectly capable of - many don't want to be forced out of work by a mandatory age limit .
|
|
|
Post by wimbledonshrew on Sept 14, 2011 16:29:43 GMT 1
Desperate to move back to Shropshire when I retire (although if this lot have their way I'll be about 80)and will have to if my pension is reduced to 10k as I wont be able to live here even in the not so leafy part of Wimbledon.. So with the boundary changes where's the best place for me to go so that my vote has most impact?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 16:46:08 GMT 1
It really is not a private v public sector war, certainly not from me!! or most in the private sector that I see. It is about making what money is there, work correctly, and not in a spend thrift manor, are strikes gonna help with growth, no!! is it gonna stop any cuts either in wage or job losses, doubt it very much, its just gonna inconvienience evrty body, and sooner or later peopel will lose what little sympathy there is for the situation. Difference i see, Is that the workers in the private sector are cracking on with it, whilst those in the public sector continue to moan and groan!! I aint worried about that, my workers have shown loyalty in me during this poor year, and I will reward that loyalty when hopefully it turns around........... that is happening now, by making sure that what is spent is done so wisely, rather than spending money that we dont have untill the recivers are brought in!! really is quite simple!! Add to that the ability to do the job, and if a 60 year old wishes and is able to do the job, the yep, i am all for that!! Another point for you to choose to ignore, you say its the public sector, not the private that is moaning. Does the TUC only represent the public sector? Also, do you recall last years CBI conference? Fair bit of moaning going on then if I recall. But in general, why is the private sector complaining less than the public? Well that will be because the private sector are gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought of picking up all the public sector cash and contracts, picking up bigger profits as they can offer lower wages as the dole cue gets longer and people are forced to work for less. Private sector, as every time the tories are in power, are p**sing their collective pants at the thought of the victorian conditions being imposed on us again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 16:56:22 GMT 1
And as one of my most lucrative contracts that has dissapreared is the one that was providing training to public sector cos the establishment that I was providing it for brought in there own trainer cos it was more cost effective!! so sorry nursie, that does not wash!!
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 14, 2011 17:00:52 GMT 1
Do you really want 60 year old scampering up ladders to put out fires and save lives, that's the reality of the changes being forced on the unions. That's rather ageist, as well as pushing the boundaries of extreme guff. As long as someone is passed fit to do the job, they should be able to do so. Also, don't forget the amount of experience they have to apply to a task at hand. Consider the opposite - do you want a 19 year old in Incident Command whose only experience of sending men into collapsed buildings was gained on XBox? In an ideal world, nobody should be forced to retire from a job they are perfectly capable of - many don't want to be forced out of work by a mandatory age limit . From recent figures it's seeming extremely unlikely that a 19 year old would have a job full stop!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 17:31:48 GMT 1
And as one of my most lucrative contracts that has dissapreared is the one that was providing training to public sector cos the establishment that I was providing it for brought in there own trainer cos it was more cost effective!! so sorry nursie, that does not wash!! Hmmmm, maybe you need to be a bit more competitive mate.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Sept 14, 2011 17:59:20 GMT 1
When Dulux has the same national relevance and importance as either the nhs, police or armed forces I can't get my head around this Pab, so you are saying the Public Sector are more important than Private thus it's a price worth paying for..by of course lots of private workers. A worker from dulux would probably disagree with the base level that a nursies-soldiers job is more important than theirs. And rightly so. if the nhs goes to the wall, you , me and everyone else in the country is affected in ways you cant imagine. That is precisely what the Government is trying to do surely ? And if that means cutting resources rather than continue to throw money at a massive problem then surely that is acceptable for the greater majority to survive/thrive ? any comparison between public and private is foolish and only relevant to those wishing to make some political point. Which you did in the first piece of your post matey.....poor old Dulux man remember him. But the point of your statement is that we can't equate Public-Private sectors isn't it ? It appears to me you want all the cream mate whilst the rest of us should put up and shut up and be grateful for the scraps .... Nice to see the return of Stalin as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 18:02:03 GMT 1
Windy, FFS man, stop talkin sense and let the lefties wallow in there own pity for a while longer!!
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Sept 14, 2011 18:14:12 GMT 1
Think talk of this being a left v right or public v private issue is a bit too simplistic.
The economic problems in the country and across the western wouldn't have developed for a number of complex reasons. I fear the current government genuinely believe cuts and reduced spending is the answer, but that's only looking at part of the problem.
We're apparently going to wait till 2017 to reform the banks; haven't grasped that the growth in the far east has made their economy a much better investment; yet still want to keep all our services, pensions, health care and military power funded to the hilt.
At some point those in charge have got to stop falling back on party politics and plan a sustainable future for the country based on a honest appraisal of our future economic outcome. Expecting the public or private sector to bail us out is like moving deck chairs round on the titanic
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Sept 14, 2011 18:18:29 GMT 1
Do you really want 60 year old scampering up ladders to put out fires and save lives, that's the reality of the changes being forced on the unions. That's rather ageist, as well as pushing the boundaries of extreme guff. As long as someone is passed fit to do the job, they should be able to do so. Also, don't forget the amount of experience they have to apply to a task at hand. Consider the opposite - do you want a 19 year old in Incident Command whose only experience of sending men into collapsed buildings was gained on XBox? In an ideal world, nobody should be forced to retire from a job they are perfectly capable of - many don't want to be forced out of work by a mandatory age limit . Actually I was quoting the leader of the fire brigade union, what you fail to address is what happens if someone isn't fit to climb the ladder at 55. I guess they are then on the scrap heap of unemployment. Not sure of your age but it's very difficult to get a job after the age of 50 never mind 60. The real point is we need policies from Cameron that reflex reality not the one size fits all policies that he's forcing workers to accept because he does not understand how 95% of us exist.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Sept 14, 2011 18:58:58 GMT 1
Actually I was quoting the leader of the fire brigade union, what you fail to address is what happens if someone isn't fit to climb the ladder at 55. I guess they are then on the scr@p heap of unemployment I'm thinking along the lines of the support roles that I assume (not being in that line of work myself, so excuse any naivety) exist - fire safety officers/inspectors, trainers/examiners, post-incident forensic, admin, equipment maintenance. The wealth of experience gained from being on the frontline in earlier years should be of some benefit in many of those roles. Add to that the private sector possibilities of using that experience to work in fire detection/suppression systems and the like. Not being able to climb a ladder does not have to be an end to employment for anyone other than a one-trick pony - in fact, it can wake people up to the fact there are other jobs they can have a crack at, either in the same career tree, or not. Instead of concentrating on when a pension can be drawn, more effort needs to go into making employers less resistant to employing people "of a certain age". Then, the choice could be there to work until the day you drop should you choose whilst earning a better living than the state could likely ever fund.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 14, 2011 20:23:30 GMT 1
Recent stories about the Tory party have concerned accepting donations from a sub-prime financial business.
Another, shortly after they announced planning 'reforms', revealed they receive millions from property developers. No link there then, I shouldn't think.
So, yep, fully paid up member of the anti Con Dem brigade still.
Just can't be arsed churning over the well worn arguments again and again with people who seem to take some kind of perverse pleasure over the disgraceful situation Unison members have been put in by Shropshire council.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Sept 14, 2011 20:32:15 GMT 1
Just can't be arsed churning over the well worn arguments again and again with people who seem to take some kind of perverse pleasure over the disgraceful situation Unison members have been put in by Shropshire council. Thats certainly not my point of veiw buddy, yes it's a factor in the overall equation ( at least what I may or may not understand of it) but I take no pleasure from it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 14, 2011 20:44:06 GMT 1
Oh, and more money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions, 60% of which goes to earners at the higher rate.
Perhaps the recent revelations about the pension pots of directors and cheif executives might suggest a more deserving target of the bile some direct at public sector workers on average and relatively modest salaries.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Sept 14, 2011 21:28:16 GMT 1
There is an economic storm ripping through the economy. It is even bringing John Lewis to its knees: ht.ly/6uBha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 21:54:15 GMT 1
When Dulux has the same national relevance and importance as either the nhs, police or armed forces I can't get my head around this Pab, so you are saying the Public Sector are more important than Private thus it's a price worth paying for..by of course lots of private workers. Yes thats exactly what im saying, and its an opinion thats confirmed time and time again by numerous and various opinion polls. I loose track of the number of polls and rsearch that has confirmed that the nhs is seen by the overwhelming majority of people as the most important issue of our time.
And wether you are private or public sector (yes the millions of public sector workers pay taxes to!!) the nhs, police and armed forces are as essential to you as anyone.A worker from dulux would probably disagree with the base level that a nursies-soldiers job is more important than theirs. And rightly so. You really think so?I would suspect that your average dulux worker would agree that doctors, nurses, policemen and soldiers do a far more critical and essential job than someone who manufactures paint. That may sound a touch arrogant, its not intended to, but it doesnt take a genius (i thought) to realise that certain jobs/professions have a more critical role in society (remember that) than others. Important as they may be, im sure we could make do without paint for a while, but im sure given the choice, you would much rather be treated for your chest pain by a doctor or nurse than by a manufacturer of decorative supplies!That is precisely what the Government is trying to do surely ? And if that means cutting resources rather than continue to throw money at a massive problem then surely that is acceptable for the greater majority to survive/thrive ? any comparison between public and private is foolish and only relevant to those wishing to make some political point. Which you did in the first piece of your post matey.....poor old Dulux man remember him. I didnt make the initial comparison, i was only continuing an example raised by Comerade DownieBut the point of your statement is that we can't equate Public-Private sectors isn't it ? It appears to me you want all the cream mate whilst the rest of us should put up and shut up and be grateful for the scr@ps .... No you are wrong (imagine that), my point is now, and has been on the previous occassions we have discussed this, that who do you compare the public sector to? Who in the private sector does the job of a nurse, a doctor, a fireman, a policeman or a soldier? A serious answer would be appreciated. Then you can tell me why it is that the public sector being incomparible with those in the private sector, should therefore have to have pay and conditions that are the same or similar to the private sector.
If the jobs do not equate to anything in the private sector, why should the pay and pensions?
And no i dont believe the private sector should get the scraps as you put it, but if you think my pay and conditions are so great, why dont you do what i did, go back to university, do your degree in health studies and become a nurse. Its not a closed shop, its not for some faceless elite, if you have the entry requirements anyone can do it. So instead of whinning like a girl, if you think things are so cushy in the public sector, why not join it?
Answers on a post card to "The Thatcher Brothers, c/o Blue and Amber.Up yours Maggie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 22:58:37 GMT 1
Just to clarify a point, the Dulux worker was just an example, but what about the Stobbart drivers that get our everyday goods to us such as food, think they are slightly more important as everybody needs food every day!! fuel tanker drivers.
Quick one nursie!! do you think the NHS budget is spent wisely and we (Public and Private sector) get full value for money and can you think of saving money.......... my good lady has worked in thge same office for the NHS for 4 years now, and in that time they have rebranded 4 times, just because some has decided to change names etc etc, and that alone costs a fortune!!
That is just an example.
To go on about various other things about the parties being supported by the developers etc etc, all the parties are in my opinion as bad as one another, so we can go on about the arses from each party all day long, it policies that will get this country back on its feet after years of neglect and poor budgeting which even Mr Brown (or was it Darling?) seems to agree now that spending was not reallly the best option. I have yet to hear a policy from the opposition that would ease the burden!
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Sept 14, 2011 23:36:16 GMT 1
Downie, you together with George seem to be the only ones who believe that the current policies are working if slowly, if policies reduce government income while at the same time increasing spending it is hardly a policy that is going to reduce the deficit. The only way that UK plc is going to get out of the mess we are in is by growth. Capital projects should be started, houses built, schools built.
It is essential that instead of 2500000 unemployment we have everyone working to increase growth and improve the infrastructure of this country. Unless this country invests in the future we will over the next 20 years become a third division country with conditions worse than they were 80 years ago. Reduced life expectancy, more pensioners living in poverty, no social care, the future is not orange it is black.
|
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 143
|
Post by rob62 on Sept 15, 2011 1:02:49 GMT 1
On issue that seems to have recieved little thought or discussion is the effect that paycuts at the Council will have on the local economy. Reducing the disposable income of the employees the vast majority or which live and shop in the County will only increase the decline in the retail sector. I fear the effect will be most marked amongst local independant traders as the search for value will push people to the out of town value chains. Is this what we want?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Sept 15, 2011 7:32:06 GMT 1
So here we are then, we dare not touch a penny of Public money. The soap box merchants are bellowing "protect the poor".. I may admittedly not be the sharpest knife in the box but please don't tell me all on the Public payroll are poor...Consultents, Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Council Leaders.....etc etc etc
In fact I would argue that by making the right savings in the right areas the government are trying to protect the poor.
Yet the Public purse still has to be fed because in your eyes there is no room for savings, there is no waste..so the only answer is lets bash the private sector some more (they pay 60% of the Public pension already according to the BBC).
There will likely as not be large strikes in the near future that will bring chaos to the majority. Lets not worry about them though as long as the money keeps pouring in.
Some truly are more equal than others comrade.
|
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 143
|
Post by rob62 on Sept 15, 2011 7:46:17 GMT 1
There no be no doubt that savings can be made at Shropshire Council to improve efficiency. In my experience most people who work there would welcome change. However all we see is the front line being cut..which means you the public are recieving a worse service. At the end of the day will Senior Managers cut their own jobs? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
The real agenda here is to cut the pay and sell the Council off chunk by chunk to the private sector. Companies are already sniffing round. If the experiment fails...then there will be no putting the broken fragments back together. Do you want your County to be the Guinea Pig?
|
|