| Health Workers on Strike. 09:55 - Oct 13 with 5777 views | lifelong |
Including Midwives.
What sort of state is the country in for these people to find in necessary to take such action? |  | | |  |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 07:48 - Oct 14 with 1172 views | epaul |
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nhs-staff-strike-standing-on-the-pic
NHS staff strike: Standing on the picket line makes this the saddest day of my life
We midwives have talked about strikes before, but this is the first time we have felt cornered |  |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 09:42 - Oct 14 with 1142 views | johnlangy |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:47 - Oct 13 by jack_lord |
As Richard has said, it is the 1970's all over again and I had been thinking this earlier today. I wonder if the Labour Party will get blamed this time?
The problem for me, is that it is public money. This is raised from a variety of sources including our taxes and therefore our money but obviously it cannot be thrown about because people need more. There is no way that the private sector would be able to give pay rises in these circumstances. My pay (and I hate my company for it) has not seen a rise for at least six years but my company say that they can't afford it as they are in a competitive environment and everyone else is also cutting costs to survive. |
'but my company say that they can't afford it as they are in a competitive environment and everyone else is also cutting costs to survive.'
Meanwhile the pay of the average director in the UK (of large companies I presume) is now 125 times the average of £26,000. If they can afford that why can't they afford a trivial amount for the people that work for them.
And please don't anyone say there's a lot more workers than directors. If it applies to one group it should apply to the other. |  | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 12:28 - Oct 14 with 1117 views | jackb |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 09:42 - Oct 14 by johnlangy |
'but my company say that they can't afford it as they are in a competitive environment and everyone else is also cutting costs to survive.'
Meanwhile the pay of the average director in the UK (of large companies I presume) is now 125 times the average of £26,000. If they can afford that why can't they afford a trivial amount for the people that work for them.
And please don't anyone say there's a lot more workers than directors. If it applies to one group it should apply to the other. |
In 2000, it was 47 times more which was hugely obscene, 120x is just criminal.
There is no way on this earth they are worth that much, and if they fail, they just walk into another position, makes you want to spit! |  | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 12:48 - Oct 14 with 1105 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 12:28 - Oct 14 by jackb |
In 2000, it was 47 times more which was hugely obscene, 120x is just criminal.
There is no way on this earth they are worth that much, and if they fail, they just walk into another position, makes you want to spit! |
the differential is obscene, but one thing I never understand is this.
Let's say the CEO of a big company, employing many tens of thousands of British people does earn 125 times the national average and let's say that is £26,000 (I don't know whether those figures are correct but they sound pretty close to me). that means that the CEO is earning £3.25m per annum). That's a lot, lot less than top footballers earn. There are probably 20 -25 players at Man City alone earning more than that.
Now the argument is that the footballers generate millions in sponsorship, bums on seats, merchandising and so on, but they generate a fraction of the income that top companies generate for their shareholders.
Ahh, but rich bloody shareholders eh? No - the shareholders of the big companies in this country are largely you and me via pension funds, savings and so on. In fact, there is far, far greater public ownership of companies like Tesco, or Vodafone or similar than there is of football clubs (most of whose owners are a small number of already super wealthy individuals, largely from overseas so they don't pay tax on the income either).
So why is it that CEOs or 'Bankers' or whatever are criticised and footballers aren't (people may think that they earn too much, but there isn't a general indignation about it every week on Question Times - you don't see calls on here for people to go on strike because Rooney earns more than a nurse or teacher). It's inconsistent outrage, and one that is largely brought about by a sense of inverted snobbery. Footballers / pop stars / Simon Cowell - they're 'ordinary' aren't they - same as us, not 'posh boys'.
It's nonsense - the people running big companies are as ordinary as anyone else - they aren't all public school boys born with a silver spoon - those days have long gone. They are far more likely to be people that have worked a hundred hours a week for years to get to where they are and they were, largely, born bright (in the same way as Rooney was born with a talent for playing football) and are well educated - not because it's 'easy' to be well educated if you've money - of course it is, but a lot of them were born with nothing, or nothing much at least.
And by the way - when footballers fail, or football managers fail - they also walk into another position as well. Look at Hughes, or Laudrup for that matter. | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:04 - Oct 14 with 1094 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 12:48 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001 |
the differential is obscene, but one thing I never understand is this.
Let's say the CEO of a big company, employing many tens of thousands of British people does earn 125 times the national average and let's say that is £26,000 (I don't know whether those figures are correct but they sound pretty close to me). that means that the CEO is earning £3.25m per annum). That's a lot, lot less than top footballers earn. There are probably 20 -25 players at Man City alone earning more than that.
Now the argument is that the footballers generate millions in sponsorship, bums on seats, merchandising and so on, but they generate a fraction of the income that top companies generate for their shareholders.
Ahh, but rich bloody shareholders eh? No - the shareholders of the big companies in this country are largely you and me via pension funds, savings and so on. In fact, there is far, far greater public ownership of companies like Tesco, or Vodafone or similar than there is of football clubs (most of whose owners are a small number of already super wealthy individuals, largely from overseas so they don't pay tax on the income either).
So why is it that CEOs or 'Bankers' or whatever are criticised and footballers aren't (people may think that they earn too much, but there isn't a general indignation about it every week on Question Times - you don't see calls on here for people to go on strike because Rooney earns more than a nurse or teacher). It's inconsistent outrage, and one that is largely brought about by a sense of inverted snobbery. Footballers / pop stars / Simon Cowell - they're 'ordinary' aren't they - same as us, not 'posh boys'.
It's nonsense - the people running big companies are as ordinary as anyone else - they aren't all public school boys born with a silver spoon - those days have long gone. They are far more likely to be people that have worked a hundred hours a week for years to get to where they are and they were, largely, born bright (in the same way as Rooney was born with a talent for playing football) and are well educated - not because it's 'easy' to be well educated if you've money - of course it is, but a lot of them were born with nothing, or nothing much at least.
And by the way - when footballers fail, or football managers fail - they also walk into another position as well. Look at Hughes, or Laudrup for that matter. |
As obscene as some footballers pay is, i think the difference is that footballers didn't lend out billions and billions to anyone who wanted it couldnt afford it, got super fat pay checks, f*cked the country up and walked away laughing at us all and are still earning the obscene fat pay checks.
In Iceland bankers who did that were brought to account and jailed, that'll never happen here because the bankers run the country | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:29 - Oct 14 with 1079 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:04 - Oct 14 by epaul |
As obscene as some footballers pay is, i think the difference is that footballers didn't lend out billions and billions to anyone who wanted it couldnt afford it, got super fat pay checks, f*cked the country up and walked away laughing at us all and are still earning the obscene fat pay checks.
In Iceland bankers who did that were brought to account and jailed, that'll never happen here because the bankers run the country |
neither did the head of all of the UK's top companies Paul.
The CEO of Vodafone didn't lend billions and f*** the country up did he? Nor the head of Sainsbury, or Glaxo, or Rolls Royce or Morrisons or Tate & Lyle or anyone else.
Those people aren't laughing at us, they are employing most of us, or generating money for our pensions, or generating money that supports UK public services (including incidentally, the pay of those health workers striking yesterday).
It's fine wanting a more just society and I'm sure that most people do - I certainly do, but someone has to pay for it, and the people that you are keen to criticise are the ones generating the income that does pay for it. It's the politics of envy at play here and it doesn't work.
Yesterday you were urging people to become unionised - now if ever there was a bunch of greedy f**kers sitting on their fat backsides, doing sod all and laughing at the 'ordinary people' it's the people at the top of unions. They sit there, collecting their subs (which the 'down trodden' can barely afford), creating havoc and chaos while living on their £100k per year salaries, living in their grace and favour houses (or in their council houses in true man of the people style, taking that valuable resource away from someone who actually needs it) and dining out in a succession or Michelin starred restaurants that their 'ordinary members' are paying for.
That's bloody obscene.
But please don't fall into the trap of thinking I'm a 'Tory' or whatever. I'm not and I can't stand the people at the top of the Tory party at the moment since they seem hell bent on removing aspiration from the minds of ordinary people. But the way to improve the lives of ordinary people is to show them a world of aspiration, where nothing is closed to them, where they can set up and run companies and in turn employ others and drive a successful and envied economy and an economy that properly supports those that are unable to do that (note unable, not unwilling).
The way to improve their lot is not to just try to squeeze more and more out of 'wealthy f**kers' and demand more and more public sector jobs for 'ordinary people'. That's what leads to a society where social mobility is virtually impossible, where you are born into your lot in life and are stuck with it unless you happen to be able to play football or go on X Factor. What chance there for a bright kid that is born on a shitty estate and can't play football nor sing but could go on to start a booming company? | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:34 - Oct 14 with 1075 views | dickythorpe |
I'm pretty sure some employee contracts state "Unions not recognised".
Rocking the boat for the sake of "rocking the boat" achieves nothing. |  | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 14:25 - Oct 14 with 1057 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:34 - Oct 14 by dickythorpe |
I'm pretty sure some employee contracts state "Unions not recognised".
Rocking the boat for the sake of "rocking the boat" achieves nothing. |
Companies by Law have to "recognise" Trade Unions, by having that in a contract would be breaching the law | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Health Workers on Strike. on 14:55 - Oct 14 with 1050 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:29 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001 |
neither did the head of all of the UK's top companies Paul.
The CEO of Vodafone didn't lend billions and f*** the country up did he? Nor the head of Sainsbury, or Glaxo, or Rolls Royce or Morrisons or Tate & Lyle or anyone else.
Those people aren't laughing at us, they are employing most of us, or generating money for our pensions, or generating money that supports UK public services (including incidentally, the pay of those health workers striking yesterday).
It's fine wanting a more just society and I'm sure that most people do - I certainly do, but someone has to pay for it, and the people that you are keen to criticise are the ones generating the income that does pay for it. It's the politics of envy at play here and it doesn't work.
Yesterday you were urging people to become unionised - now if ever there was a bunch of greedy f**kers sitting on their fat backsides, doing sod all and laughing at the 'ordinary people' it's the people at the top of unions. They sit there, collecting their subs (which the 'down trodden' can barely afford), creating havoc and chaos while living on their £100k per year salaries, living in their grace and favour houses (or in their council houses in true man of the people style, taking that valuable resource away from someone who actually needs it) and dining out in a succession or Michelin starred restaurants that their 'ordinary members' are paying for.
That's bloody obscene.
But please don't fall into the trap of thinking I'm a 'Tory' or whatever. I'm not and I can't stand the people at the top of the Tory party at the moment since they seem hell bent on removing aspiration from the minds of ordinary people. But the way to improve the lives of ordinary people is to show them a world of aspiration, where nothing is closed to them, where they can set up and run companies and in turn employ others and drive a successful and envied economy and an economy that properly supports those that are unable to do that (note unable, not unwilling).
The way to improve their lot is not to just try to squeeze more and more out of 'wealthy f**kers' and demand more and more public sector jobs for 'ordinary people'. That's what leads to a society where social mobility is virtually impossible, where you are born into your lot in life and are stuck with it unless you happen to be able to play football or go on X Factor. What chance there for a bright kid that is born on a shitty estate and can't play football nor sing but could go on to start a booming company? |
Any Trade Union leader's pay is agreed by members so the members obviously don't have issues with what their leaders get paid. How many are on 100k very few. If members aren't happy with the work they do for the pay then they can vote them out. To equate a handful of Union leaders as being the downfall of this country as opposed to what the bankers did is frankly laughable. I can assure you that they aint sitting on their backsides and I have worked closely with trade union leaders, no one is forced to join a trade union do you actually know the cost to join a union I suspect not, generally a month it equates to 0.1% of pay or less for low paid. Not a bad price to pay for assistance in the workplace up and to representation at ET's. Along with many other money off benefits on insurance household goods etc
I'm sure even though you have a clear hatred of trade unions you benefit for all that they have fought fr for people in the workplace, you know leave, the working week, time off, paternity, maternity etc etc
I'm also sure that these union barons unlike big business/Co's dont owe around 80 billion in unpaid tax or tax avoidance, imagine what that amount to do to help this country.
Your obviously a manager where a TU rep has got the better of you and it hurts or a banker | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 15:58 - Oct 14 with 1019 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 14:55 - Oct 14 by epaul |
Any Trade Union leader's pay is agreed by members so the members obviously don't have issues with what their leaders get paid. How many are on 100k very few. If members aren't happy with the work they do for the pay then they can vote them out. To equate a handful of Union leaders as being the downfall of this country as opposed to what the bankers did is frankly laughable. I can assure you that they aint sitting on their backsides and I have worked closely with trade union leaders, no one is forced to join a trade union do you actually know the cost to join a union I suspect not, generally a month it equates to 0.1% of pay or less for low paid. Not a bad price to pay for assistance in the workplace up and to representation at ET's. Along with many other money off benefits on insurance household goods etc
I'm sure even though you have a clear hatred of trade unions you benefit for all that they have fought fr for people in the workplace, you know leave, the working week, time off, paternity, maternity etc etc
I'm also sure that these union barons unlike big business/Co's dont owe around 80 billion in unpaid tax or tax avoidance, imagine what that amount to do to help this country.
Your obviously a manager where a TU rep has got the better of you and it hurts or a banker |
You're wrong on all counts Paul regarding your assumptions of me. This is the problem - it's not black and white but the way you are describing it all is very black and white.
I didn't say that Union leaders have caused any downfall - I said that they way that some of them behave is obscene. Yes, I do know exactly what it costs to join a union (why judge in the way that you are) and even a few quid a month is a lot for people that are 'dependent on food banks' isn't it.
in my experience of unions (and I have a lot) they often don't help individuals at all - that is the problem - they're as often working against the interests of individuals as for them, because putting unrealistic demands on employers leads to people losing jobs, it's as simple as that. Whole industries in this country have effectively closed in part because of the stupidity of unions.
You can vote them out? Tell that to the members of the NUM who tried to get shot of Scargill from his grace and favour flat for years and eventually had to take him to court to evict him.
I have absolutely no hatred of trade unions, far from it, I have endless admiration and respect for what they have achieved in the past, I have a hatred for the people that abuse them and their positions within them. A lot of senior people in unions these days aren't frankly fit to be spoken of in the same breath as those that came before them to establish some of those rights that you speak of.
And I equally haven't said that big business shouldn't pay their fair share - of course they should, no one has mentioned that even in the slightest.
And please don't presume to speculate about what I am or what I do. You haven't a clue. But just to help you out, I am neither someone that is a manager nor a banker.
What's your solution? What would you prefer if you had 100 workers? Give all of them 1% rise and 1 person loses their job or all stay in work? If both, then who's going to pay for it? The 'rich' - give me a break - the rich will all scarper. This is what's so ridiculous about these arguments. The 'left' stand there and shout about the top rate of tax being cut. The people who theoretically 'lead the left' know damn well that cutting the top rate from 50% to 40% actually increases the amount of tax paid because people make less of an effort to avoid tax if they believe it to be reasonable but they won't say that because it doesn't play well with their voters. So they all sit there talking about tax cuts to millionaires while knowing that what their saying will reduce the amounts available for public services. It's a farce caused by resentment. | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 17:52 - Oct 14 with 988 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 15:58 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001 |
You're wrong on all counts Paul regarding your assumptions of me. This is the problem - it's not black and white but the way you are describing it all is very black and white.
I didn't say that Union leaders have caused any downfall - I said that they way that some of them behave is obscene. Yes, I do know exactly what it costs to join a union (why judge in the way that you are) and even a few quid a month is a lot for people that are 'dependent on food banks' isn't it.
in my experience of unions (and I have a lot) they often don't help individuals at all - that is the problem - they're as often working against the interests of individuals as for them, because putting unrealistic demands on employers leads to people losing jobs, it's as simple as that. Whole industries in this country have effectively closed in part because of the stupidity of unions.
You can vote them out? Tell that to the members of the NUM who tried to get shot of Scargill from his grace and favour flat for years and eventually had to take him to court to evict him.
I have absolutely no hatred of trade unions, far from it, I have endless admiration and respect for what they have achieved in the past, I have a hatred for the people that abuse them and their positions within them. A lot of senior people in unions these days aren't frankly fit to be spoken of in the same breath as those that came before them to establish some of those rights that you speak of.
And I equally haven't said that big business shouldn't pay their fair share - of course they should, no one has mentioned that even in the slightest.
And please don't presume to speculate about what I am or what I do. You haven't a clue. But just to help you out, I am neither someone that is a manager nor a banker.
What's your solution? What would you prefer if you had 100 workers? Give all of them 1% rise and 1 person loses their job or all stay in work? If both, then who's going to pay for it? The 'rich' - give me a break - the rich will all scarper. This is what's so ridiculous about these arguments. The 'left' stand there and shout about the top rate of tax being cut. The people who theoretically 'lead the left' know damn well that cutting the top rate from 50% to 40% actually increases the amount of tax paid because people make less of an effort to avoid tax if they believe it to be reasonable but they won't say that because it doesn't play well with their voters. So they all sit there talking about tax cuts to millionaires while knowing that what their saying will reduce the amounts available for public services. It's a farce caused by resentment. |
I'll certainly give you, there are some lazy shysters out for their own end, as there is in all walks of life, as there are good reps as there are bad reps, having seen it myself, whilst busting a gut putting 1500 members that were in my branch before myself. As for leaders behaving obscene in what sense, who? as far as I'm concerned leaders represent the will of it's members via democratically voted on motions etc..
I doubt a member would put membership before food, so therefore, they can afford it, in fact when looking at cutting back generally the few quid it costs in membership is one of the first things to go.
Unrealistic demands? care to give examples where trade unions have lost jobs, I always thought it was management who come up with idea's to remove jobs to save money and the unions challenge that. What industries have closed because of unions then, I thought it was govt that closed industries say mining for example.
As for scargill and a flat one leader over the years out of how many and lets be fair he was a bit of an idiot, any more been taken to court. People abuse their postions in all walk of life I hope you hate them too. Care to name senior people in unions who aren't fit to be spoken of in the same breath as those of old, there are some outstanding leaders of TU out there, Bob Crow(RIP), Serwotka, Frances O'Grady, Matt Wrack, Dave Prentiss.
My solution, ensure everyone gets a fair rise sso noone loses out there's a pot to be shared, no one needs lose a job, that's never happened over a pay rise.
I put banker or manager as a wind up tbh I wouldn't second guess what you do | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 18:58 - Oct 14 with 959 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 17:52 - Oct 14 by epaul |
I'll certainly give you, there are some lazy shysters out for their own end, as there is in all walks of life, as there are good reps as there are bad reps, having seen it myself, whilst busting a gut putting 1500 members that were in my branch before myself. As for leaders behaving obscene in what sense, who? as far as I'm concerned leaders represent the will of it's members via democratically voted on motions etc..
I doubt a member would put membership before food, so therefore, they can afford it, in fact when looking at cutting back generally the few quid it costs in membership is one of the first things to go.
Unrealistic demands? care to give examples where trade unions have lost jobs, I always thought it was management who come up with idea's to remove jobs to save money and the unions challenge that. What industries have closed because of unions then, I thought it was govt that closed industries say mining for example.
As for scargill and a flat one leader over the years out of how many and lets be fair he was a bit of an idiot, any more been taken to court. People abuse their postions in all walk of life I hope you hate them too. Care to name senior people in unions who aren't fit to be spoken of in the same breath as those of old, there are some outstanding leaders of TU out there, Bob Crow(RIP), Serwotka, Frances O'Grady, Matt Wrack, Dave Prentiss.
My solution, ensure everyone gets a fair rise sso noone loses out there's a pot to be shared, no one needs lose a job, that's never happened over a pay rise.
I put banker or manager as a wind up tbh I wouldn't second guess what you do |
the pot's empty Paul in a lot of businesses - there is no more pot to share out. Even a 1 or 2 % rise is a lot of money if you're a small business.
I know a lot of business owners who haven't taken any pay for a number of years in order to keep paying their staff and to keep their staff employed. Not everyone who owns and runs a business is a fat cat.
I also know of several examples where the actions of the unions have directly lost many jobs - I won't say on here because it would be obvious which companies I'm talking about and I can't do that I'm afraid.
Mining was closed by a mixture of government and unions - as I say, it's not all as black and white.
No problem re the banker bit - I probably overreacted because of the 'anti trade union' bit because to be frank, irrespective of what i do now and what I have done, I would no more cross a picket line than you would - my Grandfather would turn in his grave if I did so and I have nothing but respect for what people have done in the past as I say. But I have been in situations on many occasions myself, as an employer, where I know that the person sitting opposite me is, by their reluctance to accept the truth, directly costing jobs (and sometimes on a wide scale). | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 19:11 - Oct 14 with 950 views | Darran |
Union leaders on £100k a year?
F*cking disgusting,they don't need all that money and I bet they've got big houses with rooms they don't use that could be filled with homeless people. |  |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 19:29 - Oct 14 with 938 views | max936 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 14:25 - Oct 14 by epaul |
Companies by Law have to "recognise" Trade Unions, by having that in a contract would be breaching the law |
They have to if a percentage of their employees join up, but getting the numbers to do so is another matter Paul, if directors get wind of a recruitment drive, its goodnight sweetheart for the instigator with regards their jobs. |  |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 19:58 - Oct 14 with 914 views | perchrockjack |
This is now surely a case whereby it is not possible to agree.
Paul and his ilk blame the bankers ,which is correct but the time comes when you have to stop it affecting your every thought process. Only alternative is state control as benn believed. Then ,you d have control, workers also in control of the means of production etc.
It's a matter of philosophy | |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 20:11 - Oct 14 with 912 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
If trade unions were abolished in this country and many more across the world we would all be fuc ked.
It will come though & I sincerely hope none of us or our family's are about when it does. |  |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 20:56 - Oct 14 with 881 views | johnnyKing |
Offering 1% when the torys allow themselves 10% also the consultants and hierarchy in the health service get huge increases. | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:01 - Oct 14 with 878 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 19:29 - Oct 14 by max936 |
They have to if a percentage of their employees join up, but getting the numbers to do so is another matter Paul, if directors get wind of a recruitment drive, its goodnight sweetheart for the instigator with regards their jobs. |
Max,everybody can join a trade union irrespective but to have recognition of a trade union in the work place you have to have a minimum of 50 . ICE regs sets all this out. Although that doesnt stop you individually being represented
Of course any management wouldnt be happy if a place became unionised, if it wasn't in the first place | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:12 - Oct 14 with 869 views | jackonicko |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 20:56 - Oct 14 by johnnyKing |
Offering 1% when the torys allow themselves 10% also the consultants and hierarchy in the health service get huge increases. |
Just one point. The 10% pay rise was recommended by the independent watchdog (IPSA) which was created following the expenses scandals.
All three party leaders have opposed the increase. Including David Cameron.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-pay-rise-2014-head-of-expenses |  | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:13 - Oct 14 with 868 views | epaul |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 20:56 - Oct 14 by johnnyKing |
Offering 1% when the torys allow themselves 10% also the consultants and hierarchy in the health service get huge increases. |
Sadly the 1% wasnt even an offer it was a recommendation by a committee set up by the govt, just like the commitee set up to look at MP's pay, where by the mp's say but we cant turn it down as its recommended, yet they refuse to implement the recommendation for nurses
This is this f*cking govt for you last year during the floods when all their mates places got flooded in Surrey Camoron said "This is a wealthy country.Money is no object." in reference to putting all the damage right C*nt of the highest order | |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:25 - Oct 14 with 858 views | jackforever |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 13:29 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001 |
neither did the head of all of the UK's top companies Paul.
The CEO of Vodafone didn't lend billions and f*** the country up did he? Nor the head of Sainsbury, or Glaxo, or Rolls Royce or Morrisons or Tate & Lyle or anyone else.
Those people aren't laughing at us, they are employing most of us, or generating money for our pensions, or generating money that supports UK public services (including incidentally, the pay of those health workers striking yesterday).
It's fine wanting a more just society and I'm sure that most people do - I certainly do, but someone has to pay for it, and the people that you are keen to criticise are the ones generating the income that does pay for it. It's the politics of envy at play here and it doesn't work.
Yesterday you were urging people to become unionised - now if ever there was a bunch of greedy f**kers sitting on their fat backsides, doing sod all and laughing at the 'ordinary people' it's the people at the top of unions. They sit there, collecting their subs (which the 'down trodden' can barely afford), creating havoc and chaos while living on their £100k per year salaries, living in their grace and favour houses (or in their council houses in true man of the people style, taking that valuable resource away from someone who actually needs it) and dining out in a succession or Michelin starred restaurants that their 'ordinary members' are paying for.
That's bloody obscene.
But please don't fall into the trap of thinking I'm a 'Tory' or whatever. I'm not and I can't stand the people at the top of the Tory party at the moment since they seem hell bent on removing aspiration from the minds of ordinary people. But the way to improve the lives of ordinary people is to show them a world of aspiration, where nothing is closed to them, where they can set up and run companies and in turn employ others and drive a successful and envied economy and an economy that properly supports those that are unable to do that (note unable, not unwilling).
The way to improve their lot is not to just try to squeeze more and more out of 'wealthy f**kers' and demand more and more public sector jobs for 'ordinary people'. That's what leads to a society where social mobility is virtually impossible, where you are born into your lot in life and are stuck with it unless you happen to be able to play football or go on X Factor. What chance there for a bright kid that is born on a shitty estate and can't play football nor sing but could go on to start a booming company? |
No the ceo of Vodafone just runs a company that avoids billions in tax. Tax avoidance by the rich and famous or multinationals is this countries biggest economic issue | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:43 - Oct 14 with 844 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:25 - Oct 14 by jackforever |
No the ceo of Vodafone just runs a company that avoids billions in tax. Tax avoidance by the rich and famous or multinationals is this countries biggest economic issue |
and tax avoidance is utterly wrong.
If I was in charge, I would make everyone pay a flat tax rate (above a certain threshold) on all global income if they are a British company or a British citizen. Wherever that income arises.
But that is not the discussion here. | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 21:45 - Oct 14 with 838 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 20:56 - Oct 14 by johnnyKing |
Offering 1% when the torys allow themselves 10% also the consultants and hierarchy in the health service get huge increases. |
It's not the 'Torys' allowing themselves a rise - it's all of them equally. Cameron is against it.
By the way - the consultants (of the non medical type) is half the problem in the NHS - the service is shambolic at the moment and the waste is enormous. | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 22:47 - Oct 14 with 814 views | jackb |
Footballers have a talent, CEOs are generaly just arrogant gobshites who can speak management gibberish that is meaningless drivel | | | |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 23:24 - Oct 14 with 791 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Health Workers on Strike. on 22:47 - Oct 14 by jackb |
Footballers have a talent, CEOs are generaly just arrogant gobshites who can speak management gibberish that is meaningless drivel |
what a load of absolute nonsense.
A wise man once said that the true difference between the attitude of the average American and the attitude of he average British person to aspiration can be summed up by the attitude to inheritance tax. In the UK the popular opinion is that inheritance tax should be as high as possible because the 'people' hate the rich, whereas in the US no one wants any inheritance tax because they all believe that one day they or their descendants will be rich themselves.
This is not to say that being 'rich' should in itself carry any meaning, but it does indicate the relative aspiration of each population at large. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
