Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what the Nutcracker is?
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (34 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Quite an interesting concession for him to make. Admitting that 'cracking the unions' is more important to the government than money.
Train strikes: Cheaper to settle, minister admits
It would have cost less to settle earlier but reforms remained necessary, rail minister tells MPs.
www.bbc.co.uk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They’d rather have a culture war at any cost than take a sensible approach to finding a solution. Divide and conquer. Although I think the majority of the country has seen through the Tories and the divide and conquer boat has not only sailed its vanished over the horizon.Quite an interesting concession for him to make. Admitting that 'cracking the unions' is more important to the government than money.
Train strikes: Cheaper to settle, minister admits
It would have cost less to settle earlier but reforms remained necessary, rail minister tells MPs.www.bbc.co.uk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It's hard for them to declare a culture war on someone like Mick Lynch who they can't exactly trot out the 'cosmopolitan leftist elite' lines at. Really made a lot of them look stupid one after the other.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Eddie Dempsey is to clever for them as well, just typed in Mick Lynch and the mail had a headline calling him rail baron Mick Lynch
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'd love it to be the case but I don't think it is.
Divide and conquer and the culture war are still very much alive and conning people into thinking it's the unions being unreasonable. Obv some older people from the 70's/80's will be ingrained to believe unions are bad but even some that wouldn't remember that period are taken in by the "unaffordable and will bankrupt the country" and "it causes inflation" arguments.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They may well do, but others will see what unions will ultimately win for their members and perhaps even try to start new ones in other sectors that really need them. Gig economy workers especially.
Quite an interesting concession for him to make. Admitting that 'cracking the unions' is more important to the government than money.
Train strikes: Cheaper to settle, minister admits
It would have cost less to settle earlier but reforms remained necessary, rail minister tells MPs.www.bbc.co.uk
Theres not doubt the government wouldn’t want to be seen backing down straight away but as the article says the unwillingness to modernise was also another main issue.
You could argue ulterior motives from the other side as well. Out of the strikes Lynch showed his hand when he rejected the last offer. He started talking about better redistribution of wealth when asked about cost of the strikes to workers. Whilst noble, that’s not his remit. The rail workers are likely to be currently worse off in short term even if they get another percent or two due to loss of working days. I did wonder if the unions actually shared with members the comparison of what increase they’re realistically looking to achieve and the average cost per day of striking in terms of percentage of annual wage. Lynch refused to answer this on tv
Just to be clear, as I’ve said before, I’ve got different views of the different strikes. If there’s a massive shortage of workers/huge number of vacancies, difficulties with retention and where the system/workplace is close to breaking point (like nurses and nhs) that’s totally different. I understand there’s similar but maybe not quite as bad challenges in teaching. I might be wrong but I’m not aware there is in rail or postal services.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The teaching challenges don’t get publicity but for example my daughter is no longer taught Computing because they simply can’t find any staff. Even asked if I’d be willing to work one day a week for them.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
This country is a fucking shambles.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
This response doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I see a lot of French unions striking over Macron wanting to raise their pension age up from 62. In this country we all seem to passively accept that it’ll go up to 70 only in a matter of time.
The consequence of repeated failure by the left to win elections
Yeah, I was suggesting teaching does face challenges and was differentiating it from rail and postal
I really hope that's them fucked for a generation.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah I know. Was just pointing out you don’t hear about them. Schools have a habit of just cracking on and “kid misses Computing” isn’t as sexy as “lady dies on trolley”
We live a lot longer as well. Theres a massive pension/aging population timebomb that nobody wants to discuss. It’s also a massive problem with public sector pensions
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The answer of taxing the rich and big business more is one that the Tories know is what’s required but are held back from admitting.
Last time I checked French life expectancy was higher too.
Probably not quite as important either
. I’ve got views around salaries etc but don’t know enough about set up in public sector pay levels etc so some of these might already happen…Increased rewards for higher performance (what’s the pay differential between a great teacher and a shit one excl heads of department etc ?)
Higher salaries for subjects where there’s shortages
Much higher salaries to attract best teachers into poor performing/less attractive schools
Offer nurses (and potentially other public sector) a chance to flex emp’er pension contributions by 5% or so for period of time to increase basic in short term
More bursaries for areas where there’s shortages
That’s why Macrons had to do something
You’ve got to remember, I come from a private sector background where if I wasn’t getting rewarded I’d change careers or go to a different firm. I appreciate its different in public sector and the last thing the country needs is a load of nurses and teachers leaving the profession, especially when vacancies are high, which is why there is more justification for the strikes. I just can’t get onboard with the rail and postal ones in particular, as I don’t think the same reasonings or justifications apply
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Probably not quite as important either
Increased rewards for higher performance (what’s the pay differential between a great teacher and a shit one excl heads of department etc ?)
Higher salaries for subjects where there’s shortages
Much higher salaries to attract best teachers into poor performing/less attractive schools
Offer nurses (and potentially other public sector) a chance to flex emp’er pension contributions by 5% or so for period of time to increase basic in short term
More bursaries for areas where there’s shortages
It’s really hard to say what a good teacher is TBF. Results? Massively dependent on exam choice and cohort. Ofsted rating? Very variable and subjective. I’ve been everything from Requires Improvement to Outstanding depending on the school and the class and the inspector.
I’ve seen schools try this sort of approach but it doesn’t really work for knowledge workers. It’s fine if you’re a widget maker or salesman, but really most teachers aren’t motivated by pay and those that are are incentivised to cut corners and cheat the system. Same with league tables really, it created all kinds of perverse incentives for schools.
The fundamental problem is that generally Teacher pay has dropped, but in certain subjects it’s significantly lower than industry pay for that qualification. If you’ve got Maths, Physics, Computing backgrounds you’d have to be a saint to work as a teacher.
It’s easy to say “get rid of bad teachers” but until you’ve got a surplus that’s pretty much impossible.
The whole system needs a rethink because right now it forces anyone with any options at all out through stress and frustration.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
This post pretty much backs up what I wrote about people having their focus pulled away from the issue of wages consistently over a period of time not keeping up with inflation to talk about other issues like modernisation and efficiency. Even got the "unions are too pushy" in there for good measure.
The fact is that these workers, many of whom not that long ago were consider frontline and vital, are now being castigated for wanting wages increases that match their increasing costs.
There are huge numbers of vacancies to be filled in places like the NHS and teaching. Even most unfilled posts in general are relatively low skilled. Economics would say high demand, low supply = wages get higher. But apparently that doesn't matter.
I don't see a huge number of unfllled executive posts or consituencies without anyone wanting to be the MP. So where is the uproar when MP's give themselves massive pay rises? Where is the call for an institution that still works from rules set out hundreds of years ago to modernise and be more efficient instead?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
There is the issue of increasing life expectancy so therefore a pension would have to provide for longer and therefore need a bigger pot.
But the correct response, as has been pointed out, is distribute wealth more fairly and people will be able to better provide for their old age.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
As I am finding in trying to leave the profession, my pay as a teacher is actually on par with what I can get in the chemicals sector, even with a PhD. Which does to be honest come as a bit of a shock.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I took a pay hit initially, but very quickly moved up both internally and by moving jobs, which isn’t really possible in teaching.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’m talking about what is pretty much the peak salary in pharma or related roles. It pretty much flattens out at 50k.
We agree on the main point. It’s down to supply and demand and the government/pay bodies need to better recognise there is a shortage of staff and retention issue in certain areas and reflect that in better pay or numbers
The problem was the pay body met before the massive increase in inflation. This should’ve been easily resolved with a bonus payment to tide workers over until next pay review
ps I’d gladly reform the Lords to save money. Aren’t they up to 900 now ?! WTF ?! I haven’t got an issue with MP salaries but think they should wa them if they have second salaries about a certain amount (or stop second incomes if it’s above certain hours)
You wait until you pro rate it taking holidays into consideration and add the pension
Next rounds on you BSB
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The life expectancy in here and in France is roughly the same.
It is staggering how in this country people time and again vote against their best interests.
Last edited:
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
£50k is not a bad salary of course, let's just remember that too
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it isn't.
Also often there are two spouses earning money so 2 professionals can end up with close to £100k together
