STRIKE - Scab bastards

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

That's not 'my' notion though! It's your own strawcraft based on your perception of my politics. Just because I question part of your post doesn't give you the licence to put words in my mouth.

Many people in the public sector actually (get this) believe in what they're doing and thus tolerate their often-meagre salaries.

I guess this is just me creating strawmen and putting words in your mouth? I can only go off what you say too, lets not forget that.

Did you not say 'my satisfaction comes from paying taxes' or words to that effect? Hang on:



I can only go off what you say.

Yes, there is satisfaction, then there is 'getting off'. I think you know full well how you were trying to paint me by saying that I sit here jacking off at how much tax I pay, and if you don't i've obviously credited you with too much self awareness. But of course, the whiter than white Sam would never say anything with the intention of trying to defame someone.

 

[Myshkin]

I guess this is just me creating strawmen and putting words in your mouth? I can only go off what you say too, lets not forget that.

For the love of God, I was responding to your claim that public sector workers would be 'retarded' not to abandon their jobs for something with a better salary by pointing out that some people choose not to work for private companies.

As for the rest of your post, I really think you need to put this in perspective. Do you expect nobody to contest the points you make, given that your stated purpose in posting is to 'challenge entrenched views'? I'm sure that's not the case. I'm not out to 'paint you' as anything; you do a good job of making your views known and I merely question them, as I do those of others. Seemingly that's a problem for you.

 

[Ismene]

Forgive me Ismene, I know nothing about the sector I personally work in. I'm certainly on at least 10k less than working in the private sector.

What's your reasoning behind believing public sector are paid less than private sector?

Lets take an example of a HGV driver going to work for the council or a private company. For what reason would the private company pay him 10 grand a year more than the council?

Here's the statistical take on this:

The average hourly pay of someone in the public sector is 7.8 per cent higher than the equivalent worker in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics.

This gap has widened considerably by 47 per cent between 2007 to 2010. Back in 2007 the gap was 5.3 per cent.

Experts said the figures - published less than a week after civil servants and teachers went on strike over changes to their pensions - were significant because they finally debunked the myth that the public sector enjoyed better terms and conditions because they suffered from lower wages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-workers-paid-more-official-figures-show.html

 

[Ismene]

For the love of God, I was responding to your claim that public sector workers would be 'retarded' not to abandon their jobs for something with a better salary by pointing out that some people choose not to work for private companies.

Any examples of these Sam? Which jobs choose to work for the public sector when they could make more money in th e private sector?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

For the love of God, I was responding to your claim that public sector workers would be 'retarded' not to abandon their jobs for something with a better salary by pointing out that some people choose not to work for private companies.

As for the rest of your post, I really think you need to put this in perspective. Do you expect nobody to contest the points you make, given that your stated purpose in posting is to 'challenge entrenched views'? I'm sure that's not the case. I'm not out to 'paint you' as anything; you do a good job of making your views known and I merely question them, as I do those of others. Seemingly that's a problem for you.

I made the comment that they would be retarded not to move jobs for better pay, for an identical job, because that is human nature, even if they do get another type of job satisfaction from the altruistic nature of their work. The fact that they aren't jumping ship in their droves seems to back up the statistics which show their pay is in actual fact higher in like for like jobs.

I have no problem with people contending my views, in fact I thoroughly enjoy it. Do you see me directing any negativity or insults towards chinup, mailmonkey, jb, or anyone else who disagrees with what I say? No. It was you who once again threw the first insult, and it is quite clearly you who has a problem with having their views questioned. Personally I think you have a real problem with my posts because of cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), it is far easier for you to try and make me out to be a jackass by saying things like I jerk off at my p60, than it is to put in the actual intellectual leg work required to defend your points properly.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Any examples of these Sam? Which jobs choose to work for the public sector when they could make more money in th e private sector?

Now now, lets not let something as trivial as evidence get in the way of a good debate

 

[Myshkin]

It wasn't my assertion, Issy. I merely pointed out that some people work in the public sector not because they're 'retarded' as was claimed but because they choose to. All hell promptly broke loose after that.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

It wasn't my assertion, Issy. I merely pointed out that some people work in the public sector not because they're 'retarded' as was claimed but because they choose to. All hell promptly broke loose after that.

Once again you are trying to paint that I called public sector workers retarded for taking lower pay when they could get higher, when that wasn't what I said at all. The sun does not shine out of your ass as you seemingly believe, luckily you are in a boat all of your own in believing that to be the case.

 

[Myshkin]

The sun does not shine out of your ass as you seemingly believe, luckily you are in a boat all of your own in believing that to be the case.

I own neither an ass nor a boat. Nor do I feel the need to continue arguing with somebody who consistently proves their inability to sustain a debate without recourse to ad hominem hissy fits.

If you wish to take your ball home then I for one am relieved.

 

[TheSpade]

I don't think you get the idea of a union Spadey.

It's the non union members who get replaced with monkeys first, or find themselves redundant.

I'm in the union. I'm also employed through an agency as my company (and it's a MASSIVE company making huge profits atm) are too cheap to employ me directly. If I went on strike I'd be marked down as AWOL and told my contract had finished. I'm not against the strikes, all for them, but if I went on strike I'd be without a job.

Trouble is, a lot of people can't handle life without their job. They get ''bored'' or complain of ''Sundayitis''

I actually hate, with a passion, people like this. As if having a job isn't the most boring, inconvenient, mind numbing and soul sucking thing ever. Like these people who say if they won the lotto they'd keep their jobs it makes me sick. Know a few people like this they say it'd be boring having no routine and nothing to do every day. Why does not having a job mean you'ld be bored? Like fuck I would, plenty of stuff to be doing especially if I was minted and a lotto winner( even if not).

 

[parttime crackhead]

I made the comment that they would be retarded not to move jobs for better pay, for an identical job, because that is human nature, even if they do get another type of job satisfaction from the altruistic nature of their work. The fact that they aren't jumping ship in their droves seems to back up the statistics which show their pay is in actual fact higher in like for like jobs.

Would you jump ship if there was no other ship to jump on to? Now that would be retarded.

I'm with chinup on the race to the bottom thing. You can't say people have to accept something shite just because other people have something shiter.

You should be happy getting 5% coke for £40 a g because somewhere down the road someone is getting 2% coke for £40 a g. Should you fuck.

 

[Jabberwocky]

MSB- I, for one, am relieved that someone has the guts to post a contrasting viewpoint even though that has become so difficult on EADD, and can understand why you'd want to throw insults when you've been accused of wanking over your p60 just for stating how you feel as a tax payer subsidising people to get larger pensions than you. the first stone was thrown at, not by, you.

soade- you need to get real about what your choice to travel so much has done to your employment opportunities. by choosing never to get a proper job, proper training, or anything above something to pay for your next trip, you're choosing to get the piss taken out of you employment wise. my boyf was looking for work recently, a large number of agencies wouldn't even have taken him on if he'd have travelled like you. i totally respect your choice but complaints about the consequences of that choice do get a bit wearing for those of us who've chosen to work and not travel loads to ensure our future. though that is piss poor about you being in the union yet still not allowed to strike. and damn well you should be angry about it.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

^Thanks for the support chinup, it's nice to have a good debate with someone who has reasonably opposite beliefs to me. I feel that most of us want identical outcomes, we just disagree on how to go about achieving those ends. I'm not some sort of monster who just wants pensioners to all live in squalor or anything, even if that is difficult for some to grasp.

Would you jump ship if there was no other ship to jump on to? Now that would be retarded.

I'm with chinup on the race to the bottom thing. You can't say people have to accept something shite just because other people have something shiter.

You should be happy getting 5% coke for £40 a g because somewhere down the road someone is getting 2% coke for £40 a g. Should you fuck.

But what if you could both have 4% coke - wouldn't that be fairer? In this analogy the person getting 2% coke would be getting 2% coke because 2% of their coke had been forcibly taken off of them to make other people's coke better. I do not contend that public sector workers should be dragged down to the pitiful state of affairs in the private sector, my contention is that were public sector pensions not gold plated and forecast to cost us 10% of GDP by 2050, maybe we could all have a reasonably comfortable retirement. At the moment we have a two tier system whereby a public sector worker can expect an average of about 7-12k per year more than a private sector worker, and I would prefer it if both got 3.5-6k. One thing I am absolutely certain of though, is that it would be entirely impossible for our society to function if everyone had public sector standard pensions because we would be spending well over 20% of our GDP on pensioners. If we all have to work longer and harder for a fairer society, personally I think it's worth it.

If there is no other ship to jump onto at the moment, that just makes public sector jobs all the sweeter from my perspective, and sort of backs up my point that there are other benefits such as greater job security in the public sector.

 

[JB]

blah blah blah ....afterall paid on average 7%+ more than public (sic) sector workers.

I think you need to look in to the demographic that Unison caters for if you some how think we're rolling in cash. Yes I do enjoy my work environment, that is why I'm still here and I will fight tooth and nail to preserve my way of life.

On an unrelated note regarding your earlier post about the fact about the fact that the public sector is paid for by the private, good look engineering a wealth creating society with no local services, education or health care. I would actually claim education is the number one wealth provider in the country in the long run.....

 

[JB]

What's your reasoning behind believing public sector are paid less than private sector?

Lets take an example of a HGV driver going to work for the council or a private company. For what reason would the private company pay him 10 grand a year more than the council?

Here's the statistical take on this:

The average hourly pay of someone in the public sector is 7.8 per cent higher than the equivalent worker in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics.

This gap has widened considerably by 47 per cent between 2007 to 2010. Back in 2007 the gap was 5.3 per cent.

Experts said the figures - published less than a week after civil servants and teachers went on strike over changes to their pensions - were significant because they finally debunked the myth that the public sector enjoyed better terms and conditions because they suffered from lower wages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-workers-paid-more-official-figures-show.html

I know nothing about HGV drives Izzy, as you'll notice in my post I was talking about myself.

P.s did you even read the article you posted?

"The average private sector worker with a degree or similar qualification was paid 5.7 per cent better than their equivalent in the public sector."

I would say most of the people I'm talking about would fit in to the "average" category.

 

[Ismene]

Only 38% of public sector workers have a degree or equivalent tho JB, so no, most of the people you're talking about wouldn't fit in the "average" category.

And 5.7% isn't exactly the kind of salary difference people are going to give up a gold plated pension for. If your pay was 20-30% less you might see public sector workers rushing for those jobs.

EDIT: And you can assure us that the 5.7% figure doesn't include the pay of the cheif executives awarding themselves whatever they want? Can you see any examples of this in job offers? Are job adverts for a computer programmer in the public sector always much lower pay than the private?

 

[RLP]

You're all missing the point.

UK public sector pension went through a slight reform three years ago to provide sustainability for the next 50 years. Public sector pensions as a % of GDP is set to FALL continually over this period. The figures were compiled by Lord Hutton who commissioned the fucking report on behalf of the Government in the first place. Money isn't the issue.

The public sector pension reform from this Government, whilst predictable, is nothing more than reneging on contracts due to ideological beliefs. If you still wish public sector workers to receive less, fine, but you're in support of a race to the bottom and have no concept of facts. Let me guess, Thatcher, despite killing off our manufacturing base and leading us to the financial problems were currently in, was a brilliant PM?

Oh, I guess there is one scenario whereby public sector pensions would become unaffordable - the Government destroying what was left of a brittle economy, hmm. Well, at least the banks will be able to buy up a shed load of cheap stocks.

 

[RLP]

Oh, and if anyone is still unconvinced and believes Cameron is telling the truth, this is the same bullshit from the man who sold to the country a pre-election promise of "we won't interfere with the NHS" before trying to push through the biggest top-down change in the organisations history! It's as bad as Clegg's "we'll vote against tuition fees" debacle.

The man is a corrupt, evil, lying smarmy sonofabitch and by the time most people realise we'll all be donning our caps at our superiors who, if we're lucky, might throw us a potato for supper.

 

[TheSpade]

soade- you need to get real about what your choice to travel so much has done to your employment opportunities. by choosing never to get a proper job, proper training, or anything above something to pay for your next trip, you're choosing to get the piss taken out of you employment wise. my boyf was looking for work recently, a large number of agencies wouldn't even have taken him on if he'd have travelled like you. i totally respect your choice but complaints about the consequences of that choice do get a bit wearing for those of us who've chosen to work and not travel loads to ensure our future. though that is piss poor about you being in the union yet still not allowed to strike. and damn well you should be angry about it

What exactly is a 'proper' job? Training for what? I went to uni, that was fun, didn't learn much though. You think I'm a "bit wearing" you should try reading your own posts.

This idea about getting a job to 'ensure your future'. You're going to work all your days in that job and then get screwed out your pension and told to work a bit longer then die. May as well just work for short periods then drop out and enjoy life IMO. Least when you're about to kick the bucket you can look back andand be happy you spent a good period of your life doing stuff you actually wanted to do rather than being stuck in the office for most of it.

 

[Ismene]

If you still wish public sector workers to receive less, fine, but you're in support of a race to the bottom

The trouble is the race is already over for everyone who isn't in the public sector. That race was run years ago and everyone is already at the bottom. You're asking the people on the bottom to pay for the people above them. Is that really fair? Someone on £6.50 and no pension rights whatsoever should subsidise someone on £12 an hour retiring on a final salary pension?

I'm all for people having nice pensions. I'm for EVERYONE having nice pensions. If the public sector workers had said 20 years ago "Hold on a fucking minute, we're going on strke for EVERYONES pensions" I think you'd see a tremendous amount of support for them. But they didn't do that. They stood by and watched as the private sector took a kicking. Presumably they were thinking "Oh dear, what a pity, never mind".

Bruce Springsteen said "Remember, in the end, nobody wins unless everybody wins".