Civil servants vote for strike ballot over cuts

[Thunder Bolt]

but what i really want to know is what do you mean about your "allowed" 5 days off? everyone gets statutory, then most get bank hols on top, then many get extra days for years service. whats this 5 days?

I assume he is talking about sick leave. Someone made an ill informed comment that civil servants have loads of unassessed sick leave with pay.

 

[blue'n'white]

I assume he is talking about sick leave. Someone made an ill informed comment that civil servants have loads of unassessed sick leave with pay.

Dead right - we are "allowed" 5 days sick per year in three separate occasions. After that they will suggest you leave ! I guess all the civil servant haters on here will crow about that but it really is very stressful if you're ill - do you stay at home to get better or go into work when unfit and wipe yourself out.

 

[beorhthelm]

Dead right - we are "allowed" 5 days sick per year in three separate occasions.

oh dear. i bet you make sure you take them too eh? in reality you have no such entitlement. normal people have time off for being sick too, not as an entitlement but as necessary due to actual sickness. this shows exactly the problem with the mindset in the public sector.

 

[drew]

oh dear. i bet you make sure you take them too eh? in reality you have no such entitlement. normal people have time off for being sick too, not as an entitlement but as necessary due to actual sickness. this shows exactly the problem with the mindset in the public sector.

I don't see that anywhere is it being suggested it is an entitlement. Merely stating that if you have more than 5 days off then you are going to be closely assessed. When I was in insurance, on two occassions I had knee surgery and was out of action for 3 months. Both those employers allowed 6 months paid sick leave per year.

I would say that I probably had more than 5 genuine sick days per year (not alcohol related or monday morning duvet days) and in the private sector I was never called to task.

 

[DerbyGull]

first lets be clear what the deficit is. its the yearly overdraft, money borrowed to make up the difference between tax revenues and government spending. tax - spending = surplus or deficit.

£76bn bail out cost on RBS and Lloyds was made in 2008, once. it wasn't paid again in 2009, 2010, nor this year (though there is a interest cost in the deficit). the £200bn Indemnity, £250bn Guarantee and £280bn insurance were just that, imdemnity , guarantees and insurance. it wasnt/hasnt been spent. so where is the deficit last year and this year from? tax - spending = -£140bn. there was always going to be a deficit, there was already questions on how they planned to reduce spending as the economic cycle went down, before the buble burst.

btw, if you did sell RBS & Lloyds tomorrow, they wouldnt even cover half the deficit (todays market cap combined ~60bn). it might help this year, but what would you sell off to decrease the deficit next year? and the year after?

I know RBS and Lloyds are well down on what they paid for them. However a big chunk of the deficit willbe wiped when they're in over 60p and 75p respectively. And what about Northern Rock that must have been a fair whack too.

 

[beorhthelm]

I know RBS and Lloyds are well down on what they paid for them. However a big chunk of the deficit willbe wiped when they're in over 60p and 75p respectively. And what about Northern Rock that must have been a fair whack too.

debt. a chunk of the debt will be wiped out when they are sold on. the deficit continues on without them.

 

[bhaexpress]

oh dear. i bet you make sure you take them too eh? in reality you have no such entitlement. normal people have time off for being sick too, not as an entitlement but as necessary due to actual sickness. this shows exactly the problem with the mindset in the public sector.

The self employed get neither sick pay or pension, just a thought.

 

[fork me]

Do you work for the Civil Service by some freak off chance ? The eloquence of your post would seem to suggest that you do. No one is suggesting that Civil Servants 'sponge off the state' any more than anybody else. However a lot of people feel with good reason that the Civil Service is riddled with dead beats who should be on the dole.

So instead of paying them a salary for doing something worthwhile, we pay them rent and benefits for doing nothing with all the associated costs. Just how much will that actually save?

 

[fork me]

Don't know the ins and outs in full of the specifics for civil servants, but I do know that teachers are also likely to be striking for similar reasons and I know a lot more about that.

The government has announced changes to the teachers pension scheme. Basically they want teachers to pay more per month (£100 seems to about average), get less at the end and work for longer before they can retire. Before we hear all about teachers massive pensions, the average teacher pension at the current time is £10,000 per annum. Not exactly a lot to live on. The government HAD promisied to wait for the report into public pensions to be completed before making any decisions but have backtracked on that.

It's not just "extremists" threatening strike action either. ATL, the moderate teachers' union are balloting members on strike action. Let's put that into perspective. ATL have NEVER taken strike action in the past. The last time they took ANY kind of industrial action was 1979. Hell, their "Action Committee" hasn't even MET for the last 6 years before this time.

Yes, some cuts are needed, but the scale we have is ridiculous.

 

[bhaexpress]

So instead of paying them a salary for doing something worthwhile, we pay them rent and benefits for doing nothing with all the associated costs. Just how much will that actually save?

When we get paid whatever sector we work in it's considered worthwhile, that's the reason we're getting paid. The problem is that many people feel or in my case, have experienced first hand just how much money is wasted. If a private sector organisation wastes money with few exceptions it's them that suffers. If on the other hand the Civil Service wastes money then anybody who pays tax loses out. As has been said repeatedly the Civil Service needs to accept that they are to be subject to the same restrictions and limitations of the private sector. Job cuts, pension changes are part of life, the Civil Service does not have a divine right to something that is not available in the private sector. If on the other hand a Civil Servant thinks that they'd better better off in the private sector there's nothing to stop them changing jobs and vice versa of course.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

I assume he is talking about sick leave. Someone made an ill informed comment that civil servants have loads of unassessed sick leave with pay.

Hardly ill informed if it is first hand experience ? Oh well, you know best

 

[fork me]

When we get paid whatever sector we work in it's considered worthwhile, that's the reason we're getting paid. The problem is that many people feel or in my case, have experienced first hand just how much money is wasted. If a private sector organisation wastes money with few exceptions it's them that suffers. If on the other hand the Civil Service wastes money then anybody who pays tax loses out. As has been said repeatedly the Civil Service needs to accept that they are to be subject to the same restrictions and limitations of the private sector. Job cuts, pension changes are part of life, the Civil Service does not have a divine right to something that is not available in the private sector. If on the other hand a Civil Servant thinks that they'd better better off in the private sector there's nothing to stop them changing jobs and vice versa of course.

All of which completes ignores the main point I made, which is that making them redundant means we have to pay them benefits from the same public purse for doing absolutely nothing. Once you factor in rent allowance, child benefit, council tax benefit and the actuial cost of processing it all, how much do we actually save for each employer made redundant?

 

[Acker79]

All of which completes ignores the main point I made, which is that making them redundant means we have to pay them benefits from the same public purse for doing absolutely nothing. Once you factor in rent allowance, child benefit, council tax benefit and the actuial cost of processing it all, how much do we actually save for each employer made redundant?

But that makes the assumption they never get another job. The belief is likely that they will get a job in the private sector and therefore receive neither wages nor benefits from the public purse.

Even if they don't get a job immediately, while you're paying about the same out of the public purse, it is hopefully temporary because they are looking for a new job, whereas if they stay in employment, there is no end in sight, the employee has a job, so isn't looking for a new one so will be an indefinite burden on the public purse.

 

[bhaexpress]

All of which completes ignores the main point I made, which is that making them redundant means we have to pay them benefits from the same public purse for doing absolutely nothing. Once you factor in rent allowance, child benefit, council tax benefit and the actuial cost of processing it all, how much do we actually save for each employer made redundant?

Still a lot cheaper than paying them a wage isn't it ? did you really need an answer to that ? Pretty obvious is it not ? Hate to tell you a Civil Servant who loses their job is unemployed and is entitled to exactly the same as any other unemployed individual. However a Civil Servant who earns a wage for a job that is superfluous costs a lot more.

 

[blue'n'white]

Still a lot cheaper than paying them a wage isn't it ? did you really need an answer to that ? Pretty obvious is it not ? Hate to tell you a Civil Servant who loses their job is unemployed and is entitled to exactly the same as any other unemployed individual. However a Civil Servant who earns a wage for a job that is superfluous costs a lot more.

Oh what really is the point ? Nobody bloody listens because they've got their own blinkered views so :

Yes I'm a civil servant therefore I am a parasite
All I do all day is sit at my desk drinking tea and working out how many ways I can screw over the good old working man
If I do do any work it's of no importance whatsoever - just pushing bits of paper around
If I don't fancy coming into work i can take as much time off as I want in the sure and certain knowledge that when I retire I will be able to buy a couple of Greek islands where I can retire and a huge f*** off yacht to sail between the islands

Happy now ?

 

[fork me]

But that makes the assumption they never get another job. The belief is likely that they will get a job in the private sector and therefore receive neither wages nor benefits from the public purse.

That belief would only make any sense if the number of jobs in the private sector increased at the same rate as public sector workers were made redundant. Even then it still doesn't make sense, new jobs aren't going to be created BECAUSE of these reduncancies, meaning that even if they DO get a private sector job, it means someone else didn't get it. Either way, it's an extra person on the dole than otherwise.

 

[fork me]

Still a lot cheaper than paying them a wage isn't it ?

I'm not convinced it is THAT much cheaper, and we're getting nothing back for it.

did you really need an answer to that ?

Yes.

Pretty obvious is it not ?

No.

Hate to tell you a Civil Servant who loses their job is unemployed and is entitled to exactly the same as any other unemployed individual. However a Civil Servant who earns a wage for a job that is superfluous costs a lot more.

A lot of the people being made redundant are low wage earners. Once you factor in all benefits, especially if they have kids (and you have to throw in free school meals etc) amd the administrative costs of assessing and paying those benefits I doubt very much it will be a "lot more". As to "same" entitlements, that also isn't necessarily the case. For a high wage earner renting a big house being made redundant, their rent will be paid until the council can find cheaper suitabe accomodation, and with the waiting lists on most councils at the moment, that's gonna take a long time.

 

[Simster]

you really need to put things into context, relative to private pension, ordinary public pensions are pretty podgy. and most people in private dont get 10% pay rises, they usually have to change jobs or roles to get a substantial increase.

but what i really want to know is what do you mean about your "allowed" 5 days off? everyone gets statutory, then most get bank hols on top, then many get extra days for years service. whats this 5 days?

He is indeed talking about sick leave and has just scored a massive own goal. I know for a fact that there is a culture in some areas of the public sector that it is OK to simply take this as additional holiday if you haven't needed to use the full 5 days to get over the flu or whatever. I also know of a policemen who was working part-time hours for months because of a bad back. I wouldn't mind so much, but he seems to have enough time to moonlight as a carpenter, and his back was never bad enough to stop him constructing a shed in his back garden or to put slate flooring down in his kitchen.

Just anecdotal evidence, but these are things that some public sector workers take for granted, but is a separate discussion from the issue of pension reform in the public sector.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

The private sector doesn't 'generate wealth for the country'.

They generate wealth for themselves alone, everyone else can take a running jump. That's why companies like Vodafone spend a fortune putting money overseas to avoid paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that allow them to operate in this country.

If the private sector really wanted to 'generate wealth for the country' they would pay the taxes that they are supposed to, and give their employees a better remuneration package, especially when it comes to pensions.

The fact that they'd rather abolish their pension provider ( ie. their pension schemes ) but protect their investors and shareholders speaks volumes for the way the private sector likes to keep it's wealth private.

People like Lokki 7 would like this country to be run like Monaco, where the public sector simply doesn't exist. Well just look how expensive it is to live there..........

Mind you abolishing the NHS would save a lot of money, but no-one would be able to afford a system based on private provision - just look at healthcare ( or I should say LACK of healthcare ) provision in the USA, and ask yourself, would I really be better off if all the hospitals closed forever tomorrow?

Abolishing the Armed Services would also save a fortune, but would leave us open to attack from just about anybody ( and the only solution would be one where everyone has to buy their own gun and ammunition to defend their property ).

Why aren't the Libdems pressing for the abolition of Trident as they PROMISED before the election? Because now they're in Cabinet they should be if they're really serious about saving money. We already know that the cost of getting involved in Libya is now over £ 100 M. That's £ 100 M which could have been saved by NOT getting involved. Not only is that £ 100 M of aircraft fuel, and missiles that has been squandered, but for our armed forces to work effectively, they will have to spend another £ 100 M to replace those consumables - no point having a gun if you haven't got the bullets to shoot from it. And if you've no intention of ever using a weapon, then there really isn't any benefit to having it, it's just a heap of junk that will eventually be worth nothing when it eventually becomes obsolete or unusable.

 

[sten_super]

That belief would only make any sense if the number of jobs in the private sector increased at the same rate as public sector workers were made redundant. Even then it still doesn't make sense, new jobs aren't going to be created BECAUSE of these reduncancies, meaning that even if they DO get a private sector job, it means someone else didn't get it. Either way, it's an extra person on the dole than otherwise.

Except that some jobs are created by redundancies. Economic recoveries are often times of high levels of innovation and entrepreneurship, exactly because people are encouraged to 'take risks' because they don't have a job to fall back on. It's not a particularly great way to encourage entrepreneurship, but it does work.

Incidentally, I heard an interesting theory the other day that the reason that the recovery in the US and UK has been largely 'jobless' is because the firms that are doing well are those in the service sector, particularly IT, which have a very high level of productivity per employee and in actual fact employ a fairly small number of people (relatively to the value added that they create). In that case, we may find that entrepreneurship and innovation actually increase the income disparities, because all they are doing is creating a small number of high earners, rather than a large number of people being employed by a successful entrepreneur.