Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Civil servant at work: Peloton and Netflix Civil servant on strike: Peloton and Netflix"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Civil servant at work: Peloton and Netflix Civil servant on strike: Peloton and Netflix" Buck talking BOLLOCKS = priceless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads!" Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise?" I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. " Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued." Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals." Even more reason to link pay and performance then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued." how much fraud do they uncover ? TBF very few ppl have true perfomance related pay based on the bottom line. Maybe the fraud team could be on commission... But you'd end up with every time you went to claim someone whould intergate you and treat you as guilty as they want the pay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. Even more reason to link pay and performance then." How? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. Even more reason to link pay and performance then. How? " Easy for DWP, the entire budget for pay rises is funded by the reduction of errors and fraud. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. Even more reason to link pay and performance then. How? Easy for DWP, the entire budget for pay rises is funded by the reduction of errors and fraud." Does this apply to individuals or the entire department | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. Even more reason to link pay and performance then. How? Easy for DWP, the entire budget for pay rises is funded by the reduction of errors and fraud. Does this apply to individuals or the entire department " Entire organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued.how much fraud do they uncover ? TBF very few ppl have true perfomance related pay based on the bottom line. Maybe the fraud team could be on commission... But you'd end up with every time you went to claim someone whould intergate you and treat you as guilty as they want the pay. " So true….performance related pay is behind so many of the scandals like PPI and other types of misconduct. I know someone who was a senior investigator for HMRC who spent five years tracing down the fraudulent tax avoidance of a very successful business man which involved huge amounts of time and work and most relevantly cost. It was about to go to court and the businessman negotiated a payment of about one eighth of what HMRC wanted and because the potential expense of court proceedings was so huge HMRC accepted this deal. My friend felt hugely uncomfortable about this deal as he knew that it was only the tip of what this businessman was up to but he couldn’t get any traction from his bosses to take it further. He retired shortly afterwards as he felt his job was pointless. So I guess you could say that as a civil servant he had failed to pay his way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise?" I used to work in HMRC - we were told not to investigate certain cases. Aligns with Rishi wiping off a lot of fraudulent COVID loan debt. I understand that to a lot of people the civil service looks like an inefficient slab. But the average workers - those on £20-£30k, can only be as good as the ministers in charge, and as good as the government who runs them allows. Honestly I've seen sone government policy which seems to exist to make being a civil servant hard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I used to work in HMRC - we were told not to investigate certain cases. Aligns with Rishi wiping off a lot of fraudulent COVID loan debt. I understand that to a lot of people the civil service looks like an inefficient slab. But the average workers - those on £20-£30k, can only be as good as the ministers in charge, and as good as the government who runs them allows. Honestly I've seen sone government policy which seems to exist to make being a civil servant hard." The Rwanda scheme proves your point, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals." £8.6 billion for DWP mistakes seems very high. Not saying your wrong but certainly is a problem as is the fraud | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. £8.6 billion for DWP mistakes seems very high. Not saying your wrong but certainly is a problem as is the fraud" Took the figure from GOV.UK so it is the governments own figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I’d rather the focus be on HMRC rather than DWP and they investigated and chased down all the individual and corporate tax evasion. It is worth a damn sight more than benefit fraud. Possibly, but benefit fraud is still significant. I have recently seen £9bn a year, of which 75% is fraud, the rest mistakes. Should be easier to root out than tax evasion, which should also be pursued. Lates tax year figures are... £8.6bn due to error (ie DWP mistakes) £6.5bn due to fraud Majority of fraud is undertaken by organised crime rather than individuals. £8.6 billion for DWP mistakes seems very high. Not saying your wrong but certainly is a problem as is the fraud Took the figure from GOV.UK so it is the governments own figures." Very alarming indeed. The only glimmer of light is that it shows there are savings to be made | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cue a bunch of people moaning about public sector workers and how they shouldn’t be getting a decent payrise, taxpayer money etc Then in another thread same people moaning about the degradation of public services and failing to make the link between poor pay, demotivated staff and staff shortages (due to low pay). Never the twain shall meet in their heads! Maybe if they were more productive and efficient there would be a case for paying more. It is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation. How about making pay rises entirely funded from performance and efficiency savings? So cut the billions of fraudulent and incorrect benefit payments then you can have a pay rise? I used to work in HMRC - we were told not to investigate certain cases. Aligns with Rishi wiping off a lot of fraudulent COVID loan debt. I understand that to a lot of people the civil service looks like an inefficient slab. But the average workers - those on £20-£30k, can only be as good as the ministers in charge, and as good as the government who runs them allows. Honestly I've seen sone government policy which seems to exist to make being a civil servant hard. The Rwanda scheme proves your point, "But that is a funtion of civil servants seeing their jobs through the optics of their poltical preferences rather than being politically neutral agents of Government. Frankly, my view is that if you don’t like the policy get out. It’s morally inexcusable to take tax payers money to actively undermine policy. If you want to fight the policy do it outside of the organisation. My view, having been a SCS, is that the upper echelons need to be political apointees (Perm Sec, Perm Under Sec, Dirs Gen at least) with fixed term appts for the life of a Parliament so that they are personally motivated to deliver the policy they are responsible. There is too mech technocratic approach to a world view of managed decline and a UK with no identity or role in the world other than to be part of a wierd view of globalism - it’s why the CS and the FCDO in particular cannot understand why Russia, China, and India behave the way they do and constantly fail to contend with them at a policy level. Equally, upper and middle management must be held to account for delivery, and PRP does play a role in this. Fibnally, I would do away with the nonesense that the advice that the CS gives one Govt canot be seen by another, because the CS hides the fact it recycles bad policy from one Gvt to another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Civil servant at work: Peloton and Netflix Civil servant on strike: Peloton and Netflix Buck talking BOLLOCKS = priceless" Yes, but cut him some slack. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So how would performance pay work for border force at air ports. Or prison staff. Driving examinations. Oh that might be posable the more you fail the more re book the more you earn.." You start by differentiating between Civil Servants - those who work accross government depatments, and Crown Servants who fulfil operational roles. PRP already exists in the Govt Commercial Function. Commercial staff in GCF have to sit and pass a structured assessment centre which comprises a number of tests on key capabilities and when appointed are on a different pay scale with up to 20% PRP based on performance with targets linked to value, and those targets can run over multiple years if involves change management. If you did the same in key areas of specialism such as policy, finance then you incentivise progression. There are many CS in junior commercial roles that aren’t senior enough to be part of the Comercial Specialism framework that aspire, and are being developed through that route. There are also a number of staff in commercial roles of equivalent grade that don’t want the extra responsibility and accountability that comes with being in the GCF and so saty in the meainstream in supporting roles. In terms of Crown Servants you link pay to performance in a positive way. It’s interesting your first assumption is it’s negative - you quote incentivising driving instructors to fail and rebook for example. Not only would you senibly NOT do that, it begs the question WHY would you do that? Instead you incentivise development like contributing to improved/different examing techniques if you are a manager, and all manner of things that add value. Where it tends to fail is when the Unions start watering down the PRP process so the median point of PRP becomes assumed and nobody gets into the top band. I noticed an advert the other day forthe Workers of England Union - non-politically afilliated, don’t pay into the Labour Party, and set up specifically to provide advice and support to members not to tub thump, toady up to Labour politicians in order to pull their strings or cause drama to governments they don’t like. To my mind that is what a Union should be. Strikes should be a last resort not a tool in the political tool kit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Never got strike action, if you are not happy with what you earn or conditions, leave and find a job that does. Eventually if an organisation can't recruit for a position then the pay and conditions for that position will get better. " Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. Not everybody is as mobile or has as easily transferable skills or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options." Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour." How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something." How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there " Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table." Do you have children? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit." Introduction of the "living wage" is a method of controlling of wages and keeping poor people poor. It is not a good thing well maybe if one is an employer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? " Yes, although it is irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant." It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation " No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit." Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers." You ‘suspect’ ?? You must have a very supportive family network if you can work away all week? Like I said, not everyone is in the same situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers." You work in IT/Digital right? Contractor/Consultant? You often talk about office based/knowledge based jobs and working remotely. I am in a similar position (different industry) and it gives you a skewed outlook on working life. There are still a majority of jobs in this country that require you to be present in the workplace. Retail, factories, logistics, healthcare, emergency svcs, farming, etc. You said you worked in a factory when needed, that is admirable. Good job that factory was commutable and paid enough to cover the commuting costs. What if there wasn’t a factory? One example in news today. The frozen seafood processing factory in Brexit voting Grimsby is closing down (citing Brexit as one of the major reasons). That factory isn’t being replaced. Unless those workers secure alternative work then it will have a knock on to local economy meaning less alternative jobs for those redundant to apply for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers. You ‘suspect’ ?? You must have a very supportive family network if you can work away all week? Like I said, not everyone is in the same situation " Nope, no family or "support network" (don't know what that really is as we have never had one) around here at all. Children have nearly left home now and the number of times they have been looked after by others can be counted on one hand. Was the same when I was growing up, grandparents lived a hundred miles away so we only saw them in the school holidays. Both my parents worked so I had a house key and used to come home from primary school by myself and let myself in, looking after my younger brother. Find it strange that people stay in one area and have family nearby. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers. You ‘suspect’ ?? You must have a very supportive family network if you can work away all week? Like I said, not everyone is in the same situation Nope, no family or "support network" (don't know what that really is as we have never had one) around here at all. Children have nearly left home now and the number of times they have been looked after by others can be counted on one hand. Was the same when I was growing up, grandparents lived a hundred miles away so we only saw them in the school holidays. Both my parents worked so I had a house key and used to come home from primary school by myself and let myself in, looking after my younger brother. Find it strange that people stay in one area and have family nearby." Different strokes for different folks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers. You work in IT/Digital right? Contractor/Consultant? You often talk about office based/knowledge based jobs and working remotely. I am in a similar position (different industry) and it gives you a skewed outlook on working life. There are still a majority of jobs in this country that require you to be present in the workplace. Retail, factories, logistics, healthcare, emergency svcs, farming, etc. You said you worked in a factory when needed, that is admirable. Good job that factory was commutable and paid enough to cover the commuting costs. What if there wasn’t a factory? One example in news today. The frozen seafood processing factory in Brexit voting Grimsby is closing down (citing Brexit as one of the major reasons). That factory isn’t being replaced. Unless those workers secure alternative work then it will have a knock on to local economy meaning less alternative jobs for those redundant to apply for." I do work in a knowledge based industry however do have an appreciation that a lot of jobs do need physical presence. There are, however, a lot of jobs where people are forced to commute when it is unnecessary. Call centres, places such as the DVLA etc. could recruit people living anywhere if the will and the IT infrastructure was there. That infrastructure should have been built instead of the madness of HS2, which is a vanity project using Victorian era technology. The Grimsby factory closure is sad but the writing has been on the wall for that factory for years. It used to employ 500 people, closed in 2018, taken over and reopened, consolidated with another site. Employed about 100 before the latest closure. From Grimsby, many cities are commutable, even as far as Leeds snd Nottingham. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...or indeed lives in an area with a wide and diverse set of employment options. Never understood this excuse. People moan that "there are no jobs around here" - so, go somewhere else then. Or work remotely. Tends to be the ones who messed about the most and had least interest in school who complain the most about this and about "not being given the opportunity" to do something. How far do you think they should travel to find work ? Should they commute to these areas or move there Knowledge or office based work can all be done remotely these days. If that is not possible, then people should go as far as necessary. I have worked all over the UK in the past, staying away from home as necessary. If the job is permanent, move permanently. Also, when jobs in people's preferred industry are not available they should take anything going. Again, I have taken temporary jobs in factories etc. some distance from home when my usual professional work has not been available. Not ideal but it put food on the table. Do you have children? Yes, although it is irrelevant. It isn’t, when you ‘moved away from home’ did you take them with you?just to clarify , I am not criticising you for taking any job no matter where but not everyone is in the same situation No, I only saw them at the weekend for those periods. As I said, if the job was permanent, we would all have moved permanently. For short term work, say up to 6 months, staying away during the week is the best option. It is very rare that there really is no work within daily commuting distance of anywhere in the UK. Saw a story a few weeks ago that a Yorkshire sausage factory shut down due to lack of workers. I suspect that it is a lack of people willing to work, not a real lack of workers. You work in IT/Digital right? Contractor/Consultant? You often talk about office based/knowledge based jobs and working remotely. I am in a similar position (different industry) and it gives you a skewed outlook on working life. There are still a majority of jobs in this country that require you to be present in the workplace. Retail, factories, logistics, healthcare, emergency svcs, farming, etc. You said you worked in a factory when needed, that is admirable. Good job that factory was commutable and paid enough to cover the commuting costs. What if there wasn’t a factory? One example in news today. The frozen seafood processing factory in Brexit voting Grimsby is closing down (citing Brexit as one of the major reasons). That factory isn’t being replaced. Unless those workers secure alternative work then it will have a knock on to local economy meaning less alternative jobs for those redundant to apply for. I do work in a knowledge based industry however do have an appreciation that a lot of jobs do need physical presence. There are, however, a lot of jobs where people are forced to commute when it is unnecessary. Call centres, places such as the DVLA etc. could recruit people living anywhere if the will and the IT infrastructure was there. That infrastructure should have been built instead of the madness of HS2, which is a vanity project using Victorian era technology. The Grimsby factory closure is sad but the writing has been on the wall for that factory for years. It used to employ 500 people, closed in 2018, taken over and reopened, consolidated with another site. Employed about 100 before the latest closure. From Grimsby, many cities are commutable, even as far as Leeds snd Nottingham. " I agree with you on universal superfast broadband being a better UK infrastructure investment than HS2 (we all laughed at Corbyn when he included that in his 2019 Labour manifesto - ironically) The whole WFH thing is a bit of a mixed bag though. You articulated the approach of your 100 person SME and it sounds good to me. Many companies just aren’t there yet. However, the accountants are seeing a chance to reduce office space costs with more people WFH more of the time and love it. For many it means productivity has increased (but it needs a framework like the one your company has). At my stage of life/career I can easily and productively WFH (and have done for years anyway). I have an office in my house, proper desk and chair etc. Flexibility to govern my own time (and watch some of the match today). However, for 20somethings living in a flatshare, balancing their laptop on the bed, scrabbling over the internet, it must be hard? On the commutable thing...it may be possible but will it be affordable against the salary on offer? eg. Yearly season ticket Brighton to London is almost £5k (paid for out of post tax income). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour." "How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit." "Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions" Agreed. But your original contention was that the workers never gained anything except through industrial action. The minimum wage was introduced by the trade unions asking for it, and the government agreeing. This would seem to be an example of workers rights being strengthened by simply requesting them, with no industrial action required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit. Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions Agreed. But your original contention was that the workers never gained anything except through industrial action. The minimum wage was introduced by the trade unions asking for it, and the government agreeing. This would seem to be an example of workers rights being strengthened by simply requesting them, with no industrial action required." Hmmm clever use of semantics but we can break that down: 1) Trade Unions came about due to workers getting organised and seeing that collective bargaining, backed by the threat of mass withdrawal of labour, gave them the power to force through change that benefitted the workers. 2) Strike action is the ultimate sanction but to be avoided through negotiation (as it actually loses the workers their income). That negotiation is only possible due to the threat of the withdrawal of labour. 3) A political movement evolved out of the Trade Union movement and came to be funded by it (the money coming from Union Membership fees). 4) It is only against that backdrop that any “polite requests” are granted/considered. Without that history or potential sanction, there would unlikely have been any progress in favour of the workers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit. Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions Agreed. But your original contention was that the workers never gained anything except through industrial action. The minimum wage was introduced by the trade unions asking for it, and the government agreeing. This would seem to be an example of workers rights being strengthened by simply requesting them, with no industrial action required. Hmmm clever use of semantics but we can break that down: 1) Trade Unions came about due to workers getting organised and seeing that collective bargaining, backed by the threat of mass withdrawal of labour, gave them the power to force through change that benefitted the workers. 2) Strike action is the ultimate sanction but to be avoided through negotiation (as it actually loses the workers their income). That negotiation is only possible due to the threat of the withdrawal of labour. 3) A political movement evolved out of the Trade Union movement and came to be funded by it (the money coming from Union Membership fees). 4) It is only against that backdrop that any “polite requests” are granted/considered. Without that history or potential sanction, there would unlikely have been any progress in favour of the workers. " As I am not a fan of the living wage, I wonder those who are on this wage, can they take industrial action? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour." "How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit." "Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions" "Agreed. But your original contention was that the workers never gained anything except through industrial action. The minimum wage was introduced by the trade unions asking for it, and the government agreeing. This would seem to be an example of workers rights being strengthened by simply requesting them, with no industrial action required." "Hmmm clever use of semantics but we can break that down: 1) Trade Unions came about due to workers getting organised and seeing that collective bargaining, backed by the threat of mass withdrawal of labour, gave them the power to force through change that benefitted the workers. 2) Strike action is the ultimate sanction but to be avoided through negotiation (as it actually loses the workers their income). That negotiation is only possible due to the threat of the withdrawal of labour. 3) A political movement evolved out of the Trade Union movement and came to be funded by it (the money coming from Union Membership fees). 4) It is only against that backdrop that any “polite requests” are granted/considered. Without that history or potential sanction, there would unlikely have been any progress in favour of the workers." By that logic, everything the Labour party does is a result of industrial action. But how do you explain the rise in the Living Wage announced by the Tory party last week? That's a benefit to the workers, but it didn't come about through industrial action. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Might be worth reading a few history books. all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour. How about the introduction of the Minimum Wage in 1998. There wasn't any industrial action or withdrawal of labour that forced the government to provide that benefit. Labour Govt funded by Trade Unions Agreed. But your original contention was that the workers never gained anything except through industrial action. The minimum wage was introduced by the trade unions asking for it, and the government agreeing. This would seem to be an example of workers rights being strengthened by simply requesting them, with no industrial action required. Hmmm clever use of semantics but we can break that down: 1) Trade Unions came about due to workers getting organised and seeing that collective bargaining, backed by the threat of mass withdrawal of labour, gave them the power to force through change that benefitted the workers. 2) Strike action is the ultimate sanction but to be avoided through negotiation (as it actually loses the workers their income). That negotiation is only possible due to the threat of the withdrawal of labour. 3) A political movement evolved out of the Trade Union movement and came to be funded by it (the money coming from Union Membership fees). 4) It is only against that backdrop that any “polite requests” are granted/considered. Without that history or potential sanction, there would unlikely have been any progress in favour of the workers. By that logic, everything the Labour party does is a result of industrial action. But how do you explain the rise in the Living Wage announced by the Tory party last week? That's a benefit to the workers, but it didn't come about through industrial action." “By that logic, everything the Labour party does is a result of industrial action.” No it doesn’t. You do have form for putting words into others mouths. Your logic is flawed. “But how do you explain the rise in the Living Wage announced by the Tory party last week?” Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”. It’s not as if the burden falls in the exchequer anyway as employers have to pay it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...However, for 20somethings living in a flatshare, balancing their laptop on the bed, scrabbling over the internet, it must be hard? On the commutable thing...it may be possible but will it be affordable against the salary on offer? eg. Yearly season ticket Brighton to London is almost £5k (paid for out of post tax income)." For some of the younger members of staff, I agree it can be hard. They are the ones most keen to be in an office, either due to lack of dedicated work space or fast enough Internet connection. Universal fibre broadband can't remedy the space issue but it can eliminate connection issues. Commuting on over priced trains seems to be a Southerners' fetish. On a 125cc scooter the 50 miles or so from Brighton to London can be done for less than £2k per year even allowing for servicing and depreciation on the machine. If you lived a bit closer, then electric scooters become viable and they are even cheaper to run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...However, for 20somethings living in a flatshare, balancing their laptop on the bed, scrabbling over the internet, it must be hard? On the commutable thing...it may be possible but will it be affordable against the salary on offer? eg. Yearly season ticket Brighton to London is almost £5k (paid for out of post tax income). For some of the younger members of staff, I agree it can be hard. They are the ones most keen to be in an office, either due to lack of dedicated work space or fast enough Internet connection. Universal fibre broadband can't remedy the space issue but it can eliminate connection issues. Commuting on over priced trains seems to be a Southerners' fetish. On a 125cc scooter the 50 miles or so from Brighton to London can be done for less than £2k per year even allowing for servicing and depreciation on the machine. If you lived a bit closer, then electric scooters become viable and they are even cheaper to run." My friend if you are happy to travel 50 miles each way, everyday, on a scooter, regardless of weather conditions and traffic conditions, then be my guest 
I think for many “southerners” the issue is they have been priced out of London so moved to commuter towns. For years they have spent 2-4hrs a day commuting in and out and been fleeced to pay for the privilege. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a civil servant that has been out on strike before I don’t think I will be going out again as I don’t believe our union is strong enough to defend us.Also our office managers can find ways to do without us on the day whether it’s advancing payments or rebooking interviews.It seems the only person it effects is me as I lose a days pay which I would accept if some good came out of it but as I said at the start I don’t think our union is strong enough to defend us." If you fight you might lose,if you don't fight you lose anyway..Bob Crow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...However, for 20somethings living in a flatshare, balancing their laptop on the bed, scrabbling over the internet, it must be hard? On the commutable thing...it may be possible but will it be affordable against the salary on offer? eg. Yearly season ticket Brighton to London is almost £5k (paid for out of post tax income). For some of the younger members of staff, I agree it can be hard. They are the ones most keen to be in an office, either due to lack of dedicated work space or fast enough Internet connection. Universal fibre broadband can't remedy the space issue but it can eliminate connection issues. Commuting on over priced trains seems to be a Southerners' fetish. On a 125cc scooter the 50 miles or so from Brighton to London can be done for less than £2k per year even allowing for servicing and depreciation on the machine. If you lived a bit closer, then electric scooters become viable and they are even cheaper to run. My friend if you are happy to travel 50 miles each way, everyday, on a scooter, regardless of weather conditions and traffic conditions, then be my guest
I think for many “southerners” the issue is they have been priced out of London so moved to commuter towns. For years they have spent 2-4hrs a day commuting in and out and been fleeced to pay for the privilege."For many years I ran a motorcycle and the motorhome. No car. It wasn't possible to park the motorhome where I was working at the time so I commuted on the bike every day. 30 miles each way, whatever the weather. If I had to do it now it would be easier as there has been great improvement in the quality of protective kit. So, yes, if I did live down there (more likely to be Eastbourne not Brighton due to house prices) and had to commute, 2 wheeled commuting would be high on my list of options. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But how do you explain the rise in the Living Wage announced by the Tory party last week?" "Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”." Agreed, but that doesn't match up with your original statement that workers only acquire rights through industrial action. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But how do you explain the rise in the Living Wage announced by the Tory party last week? Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”. Agreed, but that doesn't match up with your original statement that workers only acquire rights through industrial action." Ah I see what you are doing but again it is semantics. I said... “all the workers rights and benefits enjoyed today were secured off the back of hard fought industrial action and the threat of the withdrawal of labour.” The threat of something happening can be implicit as well as explicit. If Workers not being treated well could potentially result in industrial action, then that provides leverage in negotiations. If a workforce cannot withhold their labour, then they have no leverage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”. It’s not as if the burden falls in the exchequer anyway as employers have to pay it." To be clear about this, it isn’t the Exchequer that carries the burden, it is the tax payer, invariably now the middle-income taxpayer, as the Exchequer does not generate wealth or equity, it collects revenue from those of us who bother to get off our arses and go to work. The other logical fallacy is that “conservativism” is somehow uncompassionate (and by corollory that socialism is compassionate). Both are to a greater or lesser extent moraly nutral, they are differening outlooks as to the solutions to economic issues. That said, you only have to lok at the millions of people who have died at the hands of socialism under Stalin, Lennin, Castro, the Kims and their ilk to realise that their “softer” versions and apologists like Corbin and his predecessors carry a great deal moral accountability and asociation with the monsters of socialist atrocity because they would inflict it on the rest of us given half the chance (not to mention that there isn’t an enemy of this country Corbin doesn’t consider his friend). The issue we face now is that between the Conservatives and Labour we have a globalist-socialist outlook in place of what should be the centre-right, and a communist outlook in what should be the centre left, they are two cheeks of the same arse. I was never in favour of PR before, but the days of a stable, confident, internationalist free-market supporting noninterventionist government are long gone, mostly killed off by the civil service blob and the left wing media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”. It’s not as if the burden falls in the exchequer anyway as employers have to pay it. To be clear about this, it isn’t the Exchequer that carries the burden, it is the tax payer, invariably now the middle-income taxpayer, as the Exchequer does not generate wealth or equity, it collects revenue from those of us who bother to get off our arses and go to work. The other logical fallacy is that “conservativism” is somehow uncompassionate (and by corollory that socialism is compassionate). Both are to a greater or lesser extent moraly nutral, they are differening outlooks as to the solutions to economic issues. That said, you only have to lok at the millions of people who have died at the hands of socialism under Stalin, Lennin, Castro, the Kims and their ilk to realise that their “softer” versions and apologists like Corbin and his predecessors carry a great deal moral accountability and asociation with the monsters of socialist atrocity because they would inflict it on the rest of us given half the chance (not to mention that there isn’t an enemy of this country Corbin doesn’t consider his friend). The issue we face now is that between the Conservatives and Labour we have a globalist-socialist outlook in place of what should be the centre-right, and a communist outlook in what should be the centre left, they are two cheeks of the same arse. I was never in favour of PR before, but the days of a stable, confident, internationalist free-market supporting noninterventionist government are long gone, mostly killed off by the civil service blob and the left wing media. " You lost my attention when you started the Lennin (who he?) diatribe and weakened your points by talking about the civil service and left wing media! If you were an SCS then I would have hoped you would have had a more nuanced and coherent argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Political expediency. We have a cost of living crisis and Sunak/Hunt who want to try and present themselves as “compassionate conservatives”. It’s not as if the burden falls in the exchequer anyway as employers have to pay it. To be clear about this, it isn’t the Exchequer that carries the burden, it is the tax payer, invariably now the middle-income taxpayer, as the Exchequer does not generate wealth or equity, it collects revenue from those of us who bother to get off our arses and go to work. The other logical fallacy is that “conservativism” is somehow uncompassionate (and by corollory that socialism is compassionate). Both are to a greater or lesser extent moraly nutral, they are differening outlooks as to the solutions to economic issues. That said, you only have to lok at the millions of people who have died at the hands of socialism under Stalin, Lennin, Castro, the Kims and their ilk to realise that their “softer” versions and apologists like Corbin and his predecessors carry a great deal moral accountability and asociation with the monsters of socialist atrocity because they would inflict it on the rest of us given half the chance (not to mention that there isn’t an enemy of this country Corbin doesn’t consider his friend). The issue we face now is that between the Conservatives and Labour we have a globalist-socialist outlook in place of what should be the centre-right, and a communist outlook in what should be the centre left, they are two cheeks of the same arse. I was never in favour of PR before, but the days of a stable, confident, internationalist free-market supporting noninterventionist government are long gone, mostly killed off by the civil service blob and the left wing media. " Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving?" Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. " As SCS2 were you a “Head of”, “Deputy Director”, “Director”, “Executive Director”, “Director General”? Don’t answer if that is too probing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The other logical fallacy is that “conservativism” is somehow uncompassionate (and by corollory that socialism is compassionate). Both are to a greater or lesser extent moraly nutral, they are differening outlooks as to the solutions to economic issues. That said, you only have to lok at the millions of people who have died at the hands of socialism under Stalin, Lennin, Castro, the Kims and their ilk to realise that their “softer” versions and apologists like Corbin and his predecessors carry a great deal moral accountability and asociation with the monsters of socialist atrocity because they would inflict it on the rest of us given half the chance (not to mention that there isn’t an enemy of this country Corbin doesn’t consider his friend). " I find socialism a very selfish philosophy. It wants to force you by law to pay for other peoples healthcare and education. So there is no longer any concept of charity or generosity , everything is given based on state rules. Keep in mind hospitals and schools were started by charities, mostly religions, not governments. Same with any major disaster or war zone it’s the charities sending people and aid within hours, while governments sit on it for months. The state decide exactly how much money you need for food, entertainment , clothes, a bit like universal credit. All choices about lifestyle and savings are made by the state for you. No one needs to be generous or kind. They ban religion because it promotes selfless giving. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. As SCS2 were you a “Head of”, “Deputy Director”, “Director”, “Executive Director”, “Director General”? Don’t answer if that is too probing." The titles tend to vary a bit by department and size. I was a Director as an SCS 2, and Exec Dir in the NHS. I’m now the commercial director of a large(ish) service sector organisation that manages international property and project management solutions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The other logical fallacy is that “conservativism” is somehow uncompassionate (and by corollory that socialism is compassionate). Both are to a greater or lesser extent moraly nutral, they are differening outlooks as to the solutions to economic issues. That said, you only have to lok at the millions of people who have died at the hands of socialism under Stalin, Lennin, Castro, the Kims and their ilk to realise that their “softer” versions and apologists like Corbin and his predecessors carry a great deal moral accountability and asociation with the monsters of socialist atrocity because they would inflict it on the rest of us given half the chance (not to mention that there isn’t an enemy of this country Corbin doesn’t consider his friend). I find socialism a very selfish philosophy. It wants to force you by law to pay for other peoples healthcare and education. So there is no longer any concept of charity or generosity , everything is given based on state rules. Keep in mind hospitals and schools were started by charities, mostly religions, not governments. Same with any major disaster or war zone it’s the charities sending people and aid within hours, while governments sit on it for months. The state decide exactly how much money you need for food, entertainment , clothes, a bit like universal credit. All choices about lifestyle and savings are made by the state for you. No one needs to be generous or kind. They ban religion because it promotes selfless giving. " A born again Christian on Fab…whatever is the world coming to?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. As SCS2 were you a “Head of”, “Deputy Director”, “Director”, “Executive Director”, “Director General”? Don’t answer if that is too probing. The titles tend to vary a bit by department and size. I was a Director as an SCS 2, and Exec Dir in the NHS. I’m now the commercial director of a large(ish) service sector organisation that manages international property and project management solutions. " So I find your reference to the Civil Service as “the blob” as curious. It is quite a disparaging viewpoint about what the CS is there to do and how it is required to behave. Was your time in the CS not something you have fond memories of? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. As SCS2 were you a “Head of”, “Deputy Director”, “Director”, “Executive Director”, “Director General”? Don’t answer if that is too probing. The titles tend to vary a bit by department and size. I was a Director as an SCS 2, and Exec Dir in the NHS. I’m now the commercial director of a large(ish) service sector organisation that manages international property and project management solutions. So I find your reference to the Civil Service as “the blob” as curious. It is quite a disparaging viewpoint about what the CS is there to do and how it is required to behave. Was your time in the CS not something you have fond memories of?" In a lot of ways, no. I think that has a lot to do with personality. I have always been quite driven and motivated by solving problems and achieving an end result, and in terms of the CS this is counter-intuative. Getting decisions made is not something it culturally does. I remember giving a presentation once around a solution which involved risk-informed costing metrics. I was told afterwards it was going fine until I pointed out the MI would demonstrate where the critical path decision point was, and the consequence of delay leaving no place to hide in terms of vascillating around an issue. In effect I was creating a mechanism that shone a light on accountability. The whole thing was killed with typical decision making inertia - the Execs I was talking to were utterly averse to being accountable for their decisions. It’s why you get the consultant-go-round of PA Consulting reviewing the work of EY, reviewing the work of McKinsey reviewing… well pick your consultant off the framework. When I moved into the private sector I had a reasonably important decision that needed to be made around an investment in an MI platform. The decision was made off the back of a conversation with my MD, a business case, and a presentation to the Board, all of which happened in weeks. I was asked will it work? (yes) Do I have an implementation plan and a risk mitigation strategy I would stand by? (Yes), would it come in on cost and budget and would I take the rap if it bombed? (Yes). I was underway within 4 weeks when the CS would take months debating, consultants reviewing, and no-one taking responsibility. The reason it is disparaging is it’s an organisation that has lost confidence in itself. Personally, I would make all exec and director level appointments fixed term political ones, I would leave people in post long enough to see through the decisions they are accountable for and end the merry go round of pass-the-parcel of accountability, and seriously restrict the way consultants are used to hide behind. I would make promotion, and pay, dependent on delivery. You either step up, plan, and deliver, or you are gone. Unfortunately there is too much failing upwards in the CS and to get on you really do have to be the type of person who never rocks the boat. At the more senior levels your chances of survilval are based solely on who is the guardian angel looking out for you - so many times I saw people brought into a role by a senior who effectively acts as their guardian angel and when they move on the poor sod they brought in has their world ripped appart to grow the empire of the people a rung or two up the ladder from them. Culturally, bullying is rife. It is very passive-aggressive (though not always). My observation is that the worst bullies are women who bully other women. A former boss of mine, who was excellent in every way, was near broken by a female Exec Dir who had ambitions to take over the unit my former boss ran and wanted her out of the way in order to achieve it. Eventually she was successful. I’ve been shouted at in public and told (and I will quote) “I get that you will have found this difficult (after being publicly shouted at and told I was wrong - by the very person who went on and demanded all of the things I argued for for himself) but it’s not every day you come to work thinking that you are doing OK just to be told that you are shit at your job”. These are the same CS who, when asked by Ministers to take ownership of the papers they submit, keep them to less than 4 pages, make sure they are gramatically correct and understandable, and to put options and facts in the summary not bury them in appendices cry victim status (and I’m referring to the SCS who when given this feedback by Dominic Raab claims he was “bullied” - anywhere else you would just get on with it and do as you are asked). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Curious what grade SCS you were before leaving? Joined as a Grade 7 and left 13 years later as SCS2 to join the NHS in a VSM grade as a Dir of a trust. Now out of the public sector altogether. As SCS2 were you a “Head of”, “Deputy Director”, “Director”, “Executive Director”, “Director General”? Don’t answer if that is too probing. The titles tend to vary a bit by department and size. I was a Director as an SCS 2, and Exec Dir in the NHS. I’m now the commercial director of a large(ish) service sector organisation that manages international property and project management solutions. So I find your reference to the Civil Service as “the blob” as curious. It is quite a disparaging viewpoint about what the CS is there to do and how it is required to behave. Was your time in the CS not something you have fond memories of? In a lot of ways, no. I think that has a lot to do with personality. I have always been quite driven and motivated by solving problems and achieving an end result, and in terms of the CS this is counter-intuative. Getting decisions made is not something it culturally does. I remember giving a presentation once around a solution which involved risk-informed costing metrics. I was told afterwards it was going fine until I pointed out the MI would demonstrate where the critical path decision point was, and the consequence of delay leaving no place to hide in terms of vascillating around an issue. In effect I was creating a mechanism that shone a light on accountability. The whole thing was killed with typical decision making inertia - the Execs I was talking to were utterly averse to being accountable for their decisions. It’s why you get the consultant-go-round of PA Consulting reviewing the work of EY, reviewing the work of McKinsey reviewing… well pick your consultant off the framework. When I moved into the private sector I had a reasonably important decision that needed to be made around an investment in an MI platform. The decision was made off the back of a conversation with my MD, a business case, and a presentation to the Board, all of which happened in weeks. I was asked will it work? (yes) Do I have an implementation plan and a risk mitigation strategy I would stand by? (Yes), would it come in on cost and budget and would I take the rap if it bombed? (Yes). I was underway within 4 weeks when the CS would take months debating, consultants reviewing, and no-one taking responsibility. The reason it is disparaging is it’s an organisation that has lost confidence in itself. Personally, I would make all exec and director level appointments fixed term political ones, I would leave people in post long enough to see through the decisions they are accountable for and end the merry go round of pass-the-parcel of accountability, and seriously restrict the way consultants are used to hide behind. I would make promotion, and pay, dependent on delivery. You either step up, plan, and deliver, or you are gone. Unfortunately there is too much failing upwards in the CS and to get on you really do have to be the type of person who never rocks the boat. At the more senior levels your chances of survilval are based solely on who is the guardian angel looking out for you - so many times I saw people brought into a role by a senior who effectively acts as their guardian angel and when they move on the poor sod they brought in has their world ripped appart to grow the empire of the people a rung or two up the ladder from them. Culturally, bullying is rife. It is very passive-aggressive (though not always). My observation is that the worst bullies are women who bully other women. A former boss of mine, who was excellent in every way, was near broken by a female Exec Dir who had ambitions to take over the unit my former boss ran and wanted her out of the way in order to achieve it. Eventually she was successful. I’ve been shouted at in public and told (and I will quote) “I get that you will have found this difficult (after being publicly shouted at and told I was wrong - by the very person who went on and demanded all of the things I argued for for himself) but it’s not every day you come to work thinking that you are doing OK just to be told that you are shit at your job”. These are the same CS who, when asked by Ministers to take ownership of the papers they submit, keep them to less than 4 pages, make sure they are gramatically correct and understandable, and to put options and facts in the summary not bury them in appendices cry victim status (and I’m referring to the SCS who when given this feedback by Dominic Raab claims he was “bullied” - anywhere else you would just get on with it and do as you are asked). " Yes but Dominic Raab is a cunt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes but Dominic Raab is a cunt "I didn’t say he wasn’t…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
