strike

[Marmora Man]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 80 plus hours work and 60 plus posts on EDF this

> week.

>

> >:D

> 80 hours a week = 16 hour working days without

> lunch, based on a five day week.

>

> No doubt he'll say he doesn't do a five day week,

> but even based on a seven day week it is nearly a

> 12 hour day without lunch everyday.

>

> What with all the 4od and physical demands such as

> taking on food and water, then sleeping, I'm sure

> he must have to sacrifice taking a dump so he can

> fit in his 60+ posts on the EDF ;-)

Chippy - have you ever tried to run your own business? Do you have any idea how it feels to have responsibility for the livelihoods of a number of employees? You worry at it all week, start work at 7.00am and finish after 9.00pm every day - then go home and worry some more. You spend weekends marketing, or sorting out stock problems, preparing accounts for audit, analysing to see where costs can be trimmed and prices made more competitive. You take Sunday mornings to complete the myriad of paperwork returns that are government imposed - and ponder on whether you can afford to take on a new member of staff in these recessionary times, particularly when you have to guarantee them maternity leave, paternity leave, pay for their holidays even if they're a contract worker.

I would be very surprised if any owner / manager of any business larger than a one man band finds themselves doing less than Hugenot's 80 hours a week.

[Chippy Minton]

Certainly have run my own business MM - I employ three people P/T now - and I'm not disputing any of the obvious facts that it's incredibly hard. I just found it funny he still manages to make room for 4OD and 60+ posts a week on here, a large number of which require a considerable amount of Googling beforehand, as well!

[Huguenot]

You're trying to move the goalposts because you've lost the argument Chippy.

It's currently quarter to ten on a Saturday night, and I'm sat in front of a training deck...

It's not about me, it's about public sector pensions, and whether your union chums will finally fess up and let joe public know what their pension and retirement demands will mean to the moths in their wallets.

Remember, in a few years time when there's only two workers for every retiree, each one of them will be paying half the bill for each of these self-righteous ingrates.

[taper]

'I haven't seen a single person claim that public sector pensions should be reduced because private sector ones aren't very good. That's a straw man.'

Read your first posts on this thread.

'Private sector workers are worried about their job security and their future, and their pension isn't even on the horizon. Most of them think they're going to work until they die. And public sector workers are striking over the size of their perks?'

And then

'The strike is because public sector workers think they have a right to bigger salaries, bigger pensions, more perks and stop working earlier than the desperate private sector workers who pay them. '

I reckon the linkage between the quality of private pensions and the inappropriateness of public sector workers wanting to protect theirs is at the heart of your argument.

[Alan Medic]

It seems some people are finding it hard to digest that the comfy world we thought we lived in has to change. I don't know who to blame. When the company I worked for, for many years, and where I'd figured I'd work until I retired, was bought out and redundancy followed, my world changed.

I'm on my 5th temp job since then. I can't even think what is going to happen when I am too old to work and what my pension might be. Lucky for those who can go on strike to protect their 'rights'. My week-day usually starts at 4.30-5am and I get home after 6, which gives me a couple of hours before I have to crash out.

My concern is next month, not when I am in my 60's. That's reality for me. It still beats living in a cave and having to hunt for food I reckon.

[Huguenot]

Eh? There's nothing there that says I think public sector pensions should be reduced. You made that up.

I said private sector workers are likely to be unimpressed with the demands, that's all. You've made some wild and inappropriate jumps to turn that into reducing public sector pensions.

That's like d_c claiming I want to strip workers of their rights. It's an illustration of the weakness of the public sector case that they need to fabricate arguments to knock down.

[????]

...From Straefer Jac's least favourite satirical website

[Otta]

That was pretty funny.

[taper]

Hugs

You have made a straw man of my argument to accuse me of making a straw man out of yours! Good show.

I said;

'some arguments on here appear to boil down to a requirement that because private pensions have gone down the toilet ( the real scandal here) public sector workers should roll over, full of guilt and self loathing, and let the government do what it wants.'

That is precisely what sits behind many of the arguments here. What right have you to strike when your pension deal is superior to everyone else's.

[Marmora Man]

Taper - wrong, wrong, wrong.

Public sector pensions, as currently formulated, are simply unaffordable for the country. That is the core of the problem. Until you, and the many public sector unions, begin to understand this you'll never comprehend the frustrations of the tax paying public which you expect to spend more on you and your colleagues than they can afford to spend on themselves.

[taper]

You are wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying!? I am talking about the realities of the negotiation. It is a bizarrely romantic notion that public sector unions will accept a heavily denuded pension settlement because of the force (or otherwise) of arguments from affordability or certainly from relativity. Why the hell would they! Unions exist to protect the interests of their members. What they will do though is end up accepting a solution that is cheaper and less generous to members than current arrangements. The strike was a bargaining chip to show Government that the current deal on the table isn't good enough.

[katie1997]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think some of the decisions that have to be

> > taken in the public sector, by their very

> nature,

> > are not going to be quick ones no matter how

> much

> > we'd like them to be.

>

> I don't think so - my experience is that they are

> simply culturally unable to make decisions without

> endless delay and, usually, delegation upwards to

> the most senior person available. I'll illustrate

> my view with a tale of a current deal I'm working

> on.

>

> 5 weeks ago on a Monday the hospital I am

> temporarily running was asked to quote, as a

> matter or urgency, to carry out 100 "neuro spine"

> procedures to be carried asap for the local NHS

> Trust that was approaching the 18 week waiting

> time limit for these 100 patients. This work was a

> follow on from very similar neuro procedures

> carried out satisfactorily earlier in the year, so

> there was no question about quality or

> performance.

>

> I gathered the theatre manager, finance manager

> and operations manager together that afternoon. In

> the course of 45 minutes we reviewed pricing,

> theatre & bed capacity, process and identified

> five surgeons that might work with us to undertake

> the procedures. By 8.00am the next day we had

> agreed internally that we could undertake the

> work, that the surgeons would work with us and

> fixed on a price - somewhat less than the going

> NHS Tariff rate.

>

> We accordingly informed the local Trust by midday

> - approximately 26 hours after the initial

> enquiry, and about 9 working hours after the

> initial enquiry.

>

> Yesterday - 5 weeks and 4 days after the initial

> enquiry, 5 weeks and 3 days after the Trust

> received confirmation of capacity, readiness and a

> competitive quote from us the Trust has asked to

> meet next week to discuss how we might quote

> "proceed with the work". As Hugenot might say

> "WTF" - we've been waiting nearly 6 weeks to

> start, they want to delay another week to discuss

> it. Another four letter acronym is "JFDI" and I

> wish the NHS had that capability and I'm sure the

> 100 patients who have been waiting for an

> unnecessary 6 weeks would agree.

MM - thanks, a fine example from practical experience. I'd share the frustration at their inability to take swift action/decision-making in this case. Especially in the healthcare sector where timing is crucial for ill patients.

However, and perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I don't think that JFDI is possible for a lot of the major decisIons that sit with the public sector domain for reasons of fairness and accountability. Eg for those decisions that say whether we will build new infrastructure such as roads or rail networks, new nuclear power stations or even reforming the electricity market. There's a need for research, consultation and parliamentary procedures to go through in order for those decisions to be implemented or not. There are many decisions that are needed and that aren't motivated by profit unlike a private company - perhaps that's where the cultural inability stems from.

Unnecessary bureaucracy though, I agree, slows things down too much and is costly and inefficient.

[Otta]

Hutton has come out and said gov plans are right, because he based his report on more optimistic growth forecasts.

He does say though that he fears many low wage earners will opt out.

[Senor Chevalier]

So Taper. You are not necessarily disagreeing with the principle that there is a problem with the public sector pay / pensions. All you are saying is that anyone who thinks the unions will roll over and accept a new deal in the interests of fairness rather than resist it kicking and screaming is smoking something.

Therefore we all agree.

The End.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Taper - wrong, wrong, wrong.

>

> Public sector pensions, as currently formulated,

> are simply unaffordable for the country. That is

> the core of the problem. Until you, and the many

> public sector unions, begin to understand this

> you'll never comprehend the frustrations of the

> tax paying public which you expect to spend more

> on you and your colleagues than they can afford to

> spend on themselves.

Sorry MM, but your arguments against Public Sector pension are only based on hearsay.

Public Accounts Committee says public service pensions are sustainable.

[Huguenot]

Can you find me a reference to that please UDT?

The only report that I can find on public sector pensions from May of this year says nothing of the sort.

Instead, by questioning the government's GDP forecasts going forward, it effectively questions whether the governments forcasts on costs are too optimistic.

It also suggests that the figures currently put forward are the only ones that meet concerns regarding affordability.

[Undisputedtruth]

Hugo, given that other forum members have complained about your inability to read properly then your previous comments is not surprisinging. Nor do I have the time to help you to read properly.

But here's an abstract from your link:

"Government projections of the future cost of public service pensions suggest that the changes made in 2007-2008 will stabilise costs at around 1% of GDP, thereby bringing substantial savings to the taxpayer. This would be a significant achievement."

[Huguenot]

No UDT, that's your claim being wrong isn't it - you know it too.

Saying it's an achievement is a long way from claiming that it's sustainable isn't it?

When you read it you'll also discover that the committee actually questions quite closely whether it is sustainable or not, and comes to the conclusions that it's only seen to be 'affordable' after the revisions of May 2011.

Even then it doesn't say that it IS affordable, just that it is SEEN TO BE affordable.

So your assertion was wrong.

I fully expect you to start squirming and moving the goalposts now, because that's what you usually do. Why don't you just man up and say you were wrong?

[taper]

It's clearly affordable and sustainable at a stable 2% of public expenditure. The question is whether or not public sector pensions are sufficient a priority to be sustained at those levels. That is a political question. The main conclusion here is that Government needs to be clear about the level of expenditure it considers appropriate. Seems fair enough to me. That way we begin to cut through the hyperbole and humbug that runs through this debate.

[Chippy Minton]

It is a fact that the cost of public pensions is going down and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has concluded "public sector pensions in the UK are affordable in the long run" Factcheck

[Undisputedtruth]

Hardly Hugo, you're speaking nonsense. How can you refute a report from the Public Accounts Committee? It's plain to see. Public Sector pensions are affordable even without Tory's changes.

[Huguenot]

No UDT, it is you that are claiming they are affordable, the public accounts committee that you have asserted supports you made no such claim. Stop bullshitting.

Taper, with a view to getting rid of hyperbole and humbug, to that end Lord Hutton ran an independent enquiry that came to the conclusion that those proposals currently in front of the public sector are fair and equitable.

Hutton has also been on air recently saying that we should NOT bet on the current situation being sustainable.

From Chippy Minton's point of view, it's clear that the recipients of Large pensions and early retirement think it's reasonable to take that bet (after all they cannot lose), and those who have to pay the bill do not think it's a good gamble (they cannot win).

No surprise there.

Your own views about what is 'clearly' sustainable are not shared by the public accounts committee, who have serious doubts not least about the GDP forecasts that would underpin any claim about percentages.

[taper]

'serious doubts about GDP forecasts'? That's a misreading.

Is this the section to which you're referring?

Some of the assumptions underlying the projections have not been tested. The Treasury carried out sensitivity analysis on one key assumption, the age to which pensioners are expected to live, but did not do so for other assumptions.[4] Important areas of uncertainty are: the validity of assumptions that the public sector workforce will remain static over time and that long-term GDP growth will average 2.2% a year to 2050'

It lists areas of uncertainty, one of which is GDP (and of course it's uncertain). This is a technical point about sensitivity testing with a range of Assumptions rather than one.

[Undisputedtruth]

See Hugo, I'm not the only person on this forum who thinks you have a reading problem. I've got no idea why you think you're capable of reading government reports. Peter & Jane books are your level.

[Chippy Minton]

"Those that have to pay bill" - what, you mean the taxpayer?

Let's not forget, the taxpayer subsidises private sector pensions far, far more than is paid to public sector pensions.