Public 'Service' Unions to go on strike.

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I've noticed a lot of Eastern Europeans in the Grimsby area have gone home mainly because the cost of living in the UK has gone up so much in the last 3 to 4 years. The majority of them were saving part of their wages or sending money back to their families but once they found it wasn't possible to keep doing so have upped sticks and returned home.

 

[ferring seagull]

As one shafted by the deteriorating circumstances of the last, lets say, 20 years, we need to seriously look at the overall situation and take account of the circumstances of the entire population. We cannot continue as we are now and, most importantly, the government (of whichever persuasion, cannot just print money.

The need to reduce spending is paramount and this has to be recognised.

 

[fork me]

The reality (long before the banking crash) is that the % of the population bothering to work, out of the shrinking proportion of the pop'n who are of working age .... can't sustain with their hard earned taxes & nat ins, the payment of pensions and benefits for the masses on invalidity benefits, dole, or state pensions (as we live longer) of the growing retired pop'n.

The sums just don't add up.


Or in other words, can a teacher working between just age 22 to 55 working (they still wish), in those 33 years, save enough to say live on 2/3 final salary, from age 55 to 85.
It's impossible.

Public and private sector workers will long term have to wait until say 70 to receive a state pension, and whilst working be made to put a good % away for either/and state/private pensions.

This is gutting for us non-wealthy, but is simple to see. It shouldn't be political. The wealth cannot be printed.

Which still totally ignores the question, would you want a doddery 70 year old responsible for the safety of a science lab, or PE class full of 30 lively 14-15 year olds?

 

[northampton_seagull]

Northants County Council last year implemented their new pay scales, to make the pay 'fair' across the council as a whole. It was amazing. The managers all got pay rises of thousands of pounds and the lower end stayed the same or had their pay cut, teaching assistants were one to take a large decrease in pay. The system selected was clearly chosen to feather the nests of the already high earners.

I could tell about known corruption and very dodgy dealings.

 

[DIRK STEELE]

Jesus wept.....

 

[User removed 4]

Which still totally ignores the question, would you want a doddery 70 year old responsible for the safety of a science lab, or PE class full of 30 lively 14-15 year olds?

Just as you've chosen to ignore my post about the thousands of shit jobs being done by immigrants that could be done by native british people.

 

[fork me]

Just as you've chosen to ignore my post about the thousands of shit jobs being done by immigrants that could be done by native british people.

Ignored it because it's complete and utter nonsense. The immigration argument is largely a red herring. It's insignificant compared to the bigger problems. Including the other thing yoou annoyed, which is that our benefits system actually leaves people worse off if they take those shitty jobs. Someone with a family to feed often can't AFFORD to take those shitty jobs. Thus we need foreigners prepared to work for peanuts to do them.

 

[bhaexpress]

But is it a cost that can be avoided anyway? I don't see problems with huge amounts of unfilled jobs, meaning that if we did foce those people off their settees and into work, then someone who actually wanted the job wouldn't get it and would be claiming dole.

Having said that, IMO, one of the biggest problems with our benefits system is that you can be worse off going to work. I remember when I was younger, My Dad spent a small amount of time on the dole after being made redundant. With a family of four, the first few jobs he was offered would have, with the cuts in benefit he would have got, actually made him worse off. As dole is supposed to be the minimum you need to live (and yes, times were tough while he wasn't working) how can he possibly work for less with a family to feed?

The amount you lose when you accept low paid work seriously needs to be adjusted so that nobody is worse off by going to work.

It's amusing (almost) that again there's the myth about there being 'huge amounts of unfilled jobs'. Where are they all ? Take a trip down to your local Job Centre and you'll see that there is not a boundless amount of available employment. Factor in the small issue of being over forty five let alone handicapped in any way. I'll accept that there are people who genuinely don't want to work but they are the exception and not the rule. You're right about some people being better off unemployed, a low paid job won't cover rent and Council Tax both of which are covered when you are in receipt of benefits. Here's another though. Suppose you're offered a job which involves travelling, how do you pay the fares until you get paid ? Granted you can get some assistance but frankly £200 (about the most you can get as a back to work grant) doesn't cover much. You may have to wait for a month or more to be paid and yet your benefit stops the day you start work. I don't have the answer but I know I get bored with this regular "People are too lazy to work" rhetoric.

 

[fork me]

It's amusing (almost) that again there's the myth about there being 'huge amounts of unfilled jobs'. Where are they all ?

They aren't there, that was my point.

Take a trip down to your local Job Centre and you'll see that there is not a boundless amount of available employment. Factor in the small issue of being over forty five let alone handicapped in any way. I'll accept that there are people who genuinely don't want to work but they are the exception and not the rule. You're right about some people being better off unemployed, a low paid job won't cover rent and Council Tax both of which are covered when you are in receipt of benefits. Here's another though. Suppose you're offered a job which involves travelling, how do you pay the fares until you get paid ? Granted you can get some assistance but frankly £200 (about the most you can get as a back to work grant) doesn't cover much. You may have to wait for a month or more to be paid and yet your benefit stops the day you start work. I don't have the answer but I know I get bored with this regular "People are too lazy to work" rhetoric.

I'm in full agreement with you, but I go even further, which was my point. There are some people who would rather not work, and prefer living on the dole. Given that there are more people that actually want jobs than there are jobs, I say the lazy ones aren't a problem, that was my point. Forcing the lazy few to work just means less jobs for those that do want them.

 

[bhaexpress]

They aren't there, that was my point.



I'm in full agreement with you, but I go even further, which was my point. There are some people who would rather not work, and prefer living on the dole. Given that there are more people that actually want jobs than there are jobs, I say the lazy ones aren't a problem, that was my point. Forcing the lazy few to work just means less jobs for those that do want them.

Right, that's what happens when you don't read the whole thread, apologies. It annoys me the way some people on here think that there are loads of jobs, good or bad there's not many of either.

 

[Firefly]

Which still totally ignores the question, would you want a doddery 70 year old responsible for the safety of a science lab, or PE class full of 30 lively 14-15 year olds?

I dont want to see a 70 year old front line fireman or for that matter an 18 year old government minister. You do the the jobs that suit your current ablities - Why should you have to do the same job for your whole working life - people can be economically active from 16 - 70
you will earn different amounts over the course of a life time - its your responsibility to save enough to retire on. Having large numbers of our population being economically inactive is not sustainable in a Global economy

 

[User removed 4]

Ignored it because it's complete and utter nonsense. The immigration argument is largely a red herring. It's insignificant compared to the bigger problems. Including the other thing yoou annoyed, which is that our benefits system actually leaves people worse off if they take those shitty jobs. Someone with a family to feed often can't AFFORD to take those shitty jobs. Thus we need foreigners prepared to work for peanuts to do them.

I hope you didnt teach economics when you worked as a teacher, this is possibly the most ridiculous argument on immigration and the benefits system i've ever heard.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why should you have to do the same job for your whole working life

thats far too clever and insightful question for these parts. i see you're new, you'll learn.

 

[fork me]

I hope you didnt teach economics when you worked as a teacher, this is possibly the most ridiculous argument on immigration and the benefits system i've ever heard.

Of course it is in your eyes, because your one of those blinkered people who find it easier to blame everything on immigration than to actually bother to analyse things properly. I've met hundreds of your ilk before.

And, for the record, I still work as a teacher and I'm a scientist, not an economist. However, I'm damn certain from the limited arguments you put forward that you're no economist either.

 

[fork me]

I dont want to see a 70 year old front line fireman or for that matter an 18 year old government minister. You do the the jobs that suit your current ablities - Why should you have to do the same job for your whole working life - people can be economically active from 16 - 70
you will earn different amounts over the course of a life time - its your responsibility to save enough to retire on. Having large numbers of our population being economically inactive is not sustainable in a Global economy

Of course you don't have to do the same job, however, people spend a lot of time training to specialise in certain areas. However, the current government want people to stay IN THE SAME JOB till 70 to get a full pension. If a science teacher leaves teaching at 60, and then becomes economically active in another job afterwards, they won't get their full pension because they didn't stay in teaching for long enough.

...and as far as "saving enough". Teachers pension contributions are at 6.5% of their salary, the highest in the public sector. Our pensions aren't free, we pay for them. People who have already been in teaching for 10, 20 years or so, haven't been joining private schemes because THEY ALREADY PAY FOR THEIR SCHEME and have been told what it will pay out. To change that after people have been paying in should be, and possibly is illegal.

 

[User removed 4]

Of course it is in your eyes, because your one of those blinkered people who find it easier to blame everything on immigration than to actually bother to analyse things properly. I've met hundreds of your ilk before.

And, for the record, I still work as a teacher and I'm a scientist, not an economist. However, I'm damn certain from the limited arguments you put forward that you're no economist either.

I'm not blinkered , I just refuse to accept the smoke and mirrors arguments you put forward, i havent seen anyone saying that there are loads of jobs out there, there dont seem to be, so why the f*** are there 3 filipinos,2 congolese and a south african working at the care home at the top of my road, why isnt the bloke who drinks in my local , very very regularly and is on benefits due to his "bad back" (doesnt stop him doing the odd casual day as a painter and decorator though)working there ?

 

[User removed 4]

Of course it is in your eyes, because your one of those blinkered people who find it easier to blame everything on immigration than to actually bother to analyse things properly. I've met hundreds of your ilk before.

And, for the record, I still work as a teacher and I'm a scientist, not an economist. However, I'm damn certain from the limited arguments you put forward that you're no economist either.

You dont say.

 

[fork me]

I'm not blinkered ,

Yes you are, it shows very clearly in your posts.

I just refuse to accept the smoke and mirrors arguments you put forward, i havent seen anyone saying that there are loads of jobs out there, there dont seem to be, so why the f*** are there 3 filipinos,2 congolese and a south african working at the care home at the top of my road, why isnt the bloke who drinks in my local , very very regularly and is on benefits due to his "bad back" (doesnt stop him doing the odd casual day as a painter and decorator though)working there ?

A stupid example to start with. Someone with a bad back can't work in a nursing home. You have to be able to lift patients.

You fail at the first hurdle.

0/10 Must try harder.

 

[User removed 4]

Yes you are, it shows very clearly in your posts.



A stupid example to start with. Someone with a bad back can't work in a nursing home. You have to be able to lift patients.

You fail at the first hurdle.

0/10 Must try harder.

R E A D T H R O U G H M Y P O S T S L O W L Y and tell me what strikes you as strange about a bloke with a bad back?


PS It's the bit about him doing casual shifts as a painter and decorator.

 

[fork me]

R E A D T H R O U G H M Y P O S T S L O W L Y and tell me what strikes you as strange about a bloke with a bad back?


PS It's the bit about him doing casual shifts as a painter and decorator.

The lifting required to do casual shift as a painter and decorator caused a lot less back strain than regularly lifting people.

Your argument fell at the first hurdle, you've now attempted to jump it again and fallen a second time.

I'd give up while your behind if I were you.