Southampton City Council leader Royston Smith warns staff threatening to strike

Royston Smith

Royston Smith

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

COUNCIL leaders in Southampton have warned unions they have not won public backing for looming crippling strikes over pay.

Members of the Unison and Unite unions voted for strike action after the council issued 90-day dismissal notices to about 4,300 members of staff to force them to sign contracts for worse pay and conditions.

A total of 495 union members who took part in the secret ballots voted in favour of strike action (55 per cent) and 725 backed industrial action short of a strike (80 per cent).

Union leaders have threatened the “most serious industrial action the city has ever seen”.

But council said more than 2,700 staff facing the pay cuts, of between two and 5.5 per cent to help plug a £25m budget hole, have now said they will accept them. More than 200 workers and 40 senior managers are also being axed.

Council leader Royston Smith insisted they were the “only credible alternative”

to the loss of 400 more jobs over two years and essential services.

He said: “It is encouraging that well over half of Southampton City Council staff have now agreed to the new terms and conditions.

“I very much hope that unions decide not to pursue strike action, which will only cause problems and disruption for our customers, particularly on the basis that only a small minority of council staff have voted to strike.

“I do not think the general public would support this strike action and the loss of their services based on these low numbers.”

But Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said it was more significant that half of council workers had not signed up to new contracts.

He admitted they would ultimately have to accept them or lose their jobs but could be in line for compensation of up to £10m under a legal claim brought by the unions that the council failed to consult properly.

He said turnout in the Unison ballot, at 39 per cent of nearly 1,800 members, was higher than the elections which put the councillors in power.

He added: “I don’t think any of the public like to have services disrupted but all the indications are they understand why we are doing this.”

Unite’s convenor at the City Council Mark Wood, whose union balloted 692 members, insisted they had received a strong mandate for industrial action.

He said: “The turnout of 42 per cent is very high for ballots of this nature and reflects the anger and frustration that our members feel.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:34am Mon 16 May 11

Datarater says...

..but what were the 40 senior managers doing?
..but what were the 40 senior managers doing? Datarater
  • Score: 0

10:51am Mon 16 May 11

loosehead says...

How is 39% of the union membership a strong mandate for strike action especially when not all of this low figure voted for strike action? Why don't they ask the members are you willing to be one of the 400 extra redundancies if the minority of the workforce get their way & no pay cuts are implemented to the "high" earners £25,000-£40,000 ? as that's what Mike Tucker seems so glad about,Reminds me of the seamans union leading them out on strike whilst doing a deal putting them all out of work & bringing in foreign workers.I wonder who that was ? was it someone called Prescott?the strike ( one) took place on the Ocean Monarch & whilst striking the messages were going to the shipping lines from the union & my friend read one of the communiques to canard with the famous working class two jags.Now exactly what does /where does Mike Tucker work & in what way will he be affected by these cuts? or is he making a run for promotion up the union ranks or does he have political aspirations ? He must be gaining some thing from this otherwise why would any Union/Labour member want to see 400 more people than needs be made redundant?How can a Labour ( would be) councillor knock doors & say they are in favour of strikes to make 400 unemployed? yet we have Labour/socialists on here arguing for exactly that who's on the side of the working class? the tory's who are trying to limit the amount of redundancies & saving 400 jobs or the Union/Labour party who want to save high earners from a pay cut?Let the public hear the truth & then see what happens at the ballot box?
How is 39% of the union membership a strong mandate for strike action especially when not all of this low figure voted for strike action? Why don't they ask the members are you willing to be one of the 400 extra redundancies if the minority of the workforce get their way & no pay cuts are implemented to the "high" earners £25,000-£40,000 ? as that's what Mike Tucker seems so glad about,Reminds me of the seamans union leading them out on strike whilst doing a deal putting them all out of work & bringing in foreign workers.I wonder who that was ? was it someone called Prescott?the strike ( one) took place on the Ocean Monarch & whilst striking the messages were going to the shipping lines from the union & my friend read one of the communiques to canard with the famous working class two jags.Now exactly what does /where does Mike Tucker work & in what way will he be affected by these cuts? or is he making a run for promotion up the union ranks or does he have political aspirations ? He must be gaining some thing from this otherwise why would any Union/Labour member want to see 400 more people than needs be made redundant?How can a Labour ( would be) councillor knock doors & say they are in favour of strikes to make 400 unemployed? yet we have Labour/socialists on here arguing for exactly that who's on the side of the working class? the tory's who are trying to limit the amount of redundancies & saving 400 jobs or the Union/Labour party who want to save high earners from a pay cut?Let the public hear the truth & then see what happens at the ballot box? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:56am Mon 16 May 11

Shoong says...

I love the way these people in public sector seem to think that they are somehow high & mighty & are 'doing me a favour'.

I don't care who does the job. Just get it done.
I love the way these people in public sector seem to think that they are somehow high & mighty & are 'doing me a favour'. I don't care who does the job. Just get it done. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:10am Mon 16 May 11

The Wickham Man says...

As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 16 May 11

legod7 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away legod7
  • Score: 0

11:25am Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

legod7 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away
When he changed the rules of pensions about 13 years ago- taking away tax relief and helping himself to the profits didn't help.

As for SCC staff they have to remember that most employees aren't "professionals" and most have generic skills that another person could easily pick up. Most are expendable and should consider their futures carefully.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away[/p][/quote]When he changed the rules of pensions about 13 years ago- taking away tax relief and helping himself to the profits didn't help. As for SCC staff they have to remember that most employees aren't "professionals" and most have generic skills that another person could easily pick up. Most are expendable and should consider their futures carefully. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

11:31am Mon 16 May 11

Allotment man 66 says...

How about Royston Smith and the rest of City Council leaders leading by example and taking a pay cut. (ha,ha,ha, i dont think that would happen)
How about Royston Smith and the rest of City Council leaders leading by example and taking a pay cut. (ha,ha,ha, i dont think that would happen) Allotment man 66
  • Score: 0

11:39am Mon 16 May 11

MSK says...

"Union leaders have threatened the 'most serious industrial action the city has ever seen' ".
.
That will go down well with the Southampton residents, struggling to cope.
.
If the unions were clever about it, they would work with the council for the best possible deal for their members, rather than voicing threats, as per comment above.
"Union leaders have threatened the 'most serious industrial action the city has ever seen' ". . That will go down well with the Southampton residents, struggling to cope. . If the unions were clever about it, they would work with the council for the best possible deal for their members, rather than voicing threats, as per comment above. MSK
  • Score: 0

11:46am Mon 16 May 11

AndyAndrews says...

I didn't see much public support for the Council's decisions in the recent local elections: the Tories in Southampton lost seats.
I didn't see much public support for the Council's decisions in the recent local elections: the Tories in Southampton lost seats. AndyAndrews
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Mon 16 May 11

Poppy22 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support!
Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too).
So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it??
I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable!
CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:-
- ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!)
- ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support! Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too). So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it?? I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable! CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:- - ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!) - ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN) Poppy22
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Mon 16 May 11

The Wickham Man says...

legod7 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away
Further to the very detailed posts you have already read above - in 1997 Brown removed all the dividend tax credits from (private sector) pension funds - which as everyone should know are the major institutional investor in the stock market - that is how they get the money back to pay thei pensioners. Without dividends they have to rely on speculation - and did labour help out when the stock market crashed? No - they were nowhere to be seen and the private sector lost £100bn. And again in 2006 when Brown knew Labour had another term in office he had to find the money to pay for his runaway PSBR debt so what did he do? He halved the state second pension for everyone earning over £18k pa (just about everyone) even though NI contributions (which pays the state second pension) DID NOT CHANGE ONE PENNY. So that helped the "Iron Chancellor" (ha)) to cover up labour's debt spiral until now when a braver government are sorting out the mess. So tell me - why does the public sector think that the private sector should now pay to bail this Greek style mess out out when for the last 15 years the public sector has sat back and got richer and richer at the private sector taxpayer's expense? They can take their medicine and lump it.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]When exactly did Gordon Brown take your pension fund away[/p][/quote]Further to the very detailed posts you have already read above - in 1997 Brown removed all the dividend tax credits from (private sector) pension funds - which as everyone should know are the major institutional investor in the stock market - that is how they get the money back to pay thei pensioners. Without dividends they have to rely on speculation - and did labour help out when the stock market crashed? No - they were nowhere to be seen and the private sector lost £100bn. And again in 2006 when Brown knew Labour had another term in office he had to find the money to pay for his runaway PSBR debt so what did he do? He halved the state second pension for everyone earning over £18k pa (just about everyone) even though NI contributions (which pays the state second pension) DID NOT CHANGE ONE PENNY. So that helped the "Iron Chancellor" (ha)) to cover up labour's debt spiral until now when a braver government are sorting out the mess. So tell me - why does the public sector think that the private sector should now pay to bail this Greek style mess out out when for the last 15 years the public sector has sat back and got richer and richer at the private sector taxpayer's expense? They can take their medicine and lump it. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 16 May 11

Lionel P says...

Not a lot of support for striking workers in the above comments. And how many successful strikes have there been since Scargill got his come-uppance?
Not a lot of support for striking workers in the above comments. And how many successful strikes have there been since Scargill got his come-uppance? Lionel P
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Mon 16 May 11

Condor Man says...

Allotment man 66 wrote:
How about Royston Smith and the rest of City Council leaders leading by example and taking a pay cut. (ha,ha,ha, i dont think that would happen)
If you follow developments at SCC you'll know full well that since 2008 the Tories have reduced the amount they are able to claim as councillors so they have taken a pay cut.
[quote][p][bold]Allotment man 66[/bold] wrote: How about Royston Smith and the rest of City Council leaders leading by example and taking a pay cut. (ha,ha,ha, i dont think that would happen)[/p][/quote]If you follow developments at SCC you'll know full well that since 2008 the Tories have reduced the amount they are able to claim as councillors so they have taken a pay cut. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Mon 16 May 11

The Grinch says...

I think some people need to remember the difficult position some Council workers are being placed in with regards to the pay cuts being forced on them.

Many workers were in line for a 4% approx pay rise, based on progressional scales. Then, that is taken away and a 5% cut given instead. That's a swing if you like of approx 9%. Against a backdrop of rising costs everywhere.

OK, some people argue that a job is better than no job at all - but, having one's existing contract amended downwards is exteremly unpleasant. Same work, less pay. Try that for a motivation factor.

Besides which, justifying cutting people's existing contracts is based on one assumption - that it was actually necessary. All the propaganda says it was necessary - the truth probably says something else. Cuts should be made in some areas, but not all.

I don't see why people should be forced to sign up for worse terms if they don't want to and if they want to strike, then fair play - strike.
I think some people need to remember the difficult position some Council workers are being placed in with regards to the pay cuts being forced on them. Many workers were in line for a 4% approx pay rise, based on progressional scales. Then, that is taken away and a 5% cut given instead. That's a swing if you like of approx 9%. Against a backdrop of rising costs everywhere. OK, some people argue that a job is better than no job at all - but, having one's existing contract amended downwards is exteremly unpleasant. Same work, less pay. Try that for a motivation factor. Besides which, justifying cutting people's existing contracts is based on one assumption - that it was actually necessary. All the propaganda says it was necessary - the truth probably says something else. Cuts should be made in some areas, but not all. I don't see why people should be forced to sign up for worse terms if they don't want to and if they want to strike, then fair play - strike. The Grinch
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 16 May 11

Just A Voice says...

The Grinch wrote:
I think some people need to remember the difficult position some Council workers are being placed in with regards to the pay cuts being forced on them.

Many workers were in line for a 4% approx pay rise, based on progressional scales. Then, that is taken away and a 5% cut given instead. That's a swing if you like of approx 9%. Against a backdrop of rising costs everywhere.

OK, some people argue that a job is better than no job at all - but, having one's existing contract amended downwards is exteremly unpleasant. Same work, less pay. Try that for a motivation factor.

Besides which, justifying cutting people's existing contracts is based on one assumption - that it was actually necessary. All the propaganda says it was necessary - the truth probably says something else. Cuts should be made in some areas, but not all.

I don't see why people should be forced to sign up for worse terms if they don't want to and if they want to strike, then fair play - strike.
The money this Tory council has stockpiled over the years, should be used first,,,I wonder how much SCC has in it's reserve account? before insisting on pay cuts,,, Royston and boys should look into using half the councils reserves to soften the blow.

I defy anyone working who can say they would be happy to work the same hours for less pay,,, most of the workforce see their managers swanning around doing very little whilst costing a small fortune.

Sell some of the paintings to raise the cash,,,, how many people in this have ever been in the Civic's vaults?

There is stuff in there that has seen the light of day for at least 20 years,,,,flog it off, save some jobs
[quote][p][bold]The Grinch[/bold] wrote: I think some people need to remember the difficult position some Council workers are being placed in with regards to the pay cuts being forced on them. Many workers were in line for a 4% approx pay rise, based on progressional scales. Then, that is taken away and a 5% cut given instead. That's a swing if you like of approx 9%. Against a backdrop of rising costs everywhere. OK, some people argue that a job is better than no job at all - but, having one's existing contract amended downwards is exteremly unpleasant. Same work, less pay. Try that for a motivation factor. Besides which, justifying cutting people's existing contracts is based on one assumption - that it was actually necessary. All the propaganda says it was necessary - the truth probably says something else. Cuts should be made in some areas, but not all. I don't see why people should be forced to sign up for worse terms if they don't want to and if they want to strike, then fair play - strike.[/p][/quote]The money this Tory council has stockpiled over the years, should be used first,,,I wonder how much SCC has in it's reserve account? before insisting on pay cuts,,, Royston and boys should look into using half the councils reserves to soften the blow. I defy anyone working who can say they would be happy to work the same hours for less pay,,, most of the workforce see their managers swanning around doing very little whilst costing a small fortune. Sell some of the paintings to raise the cash,,,, how many people in this have ever been in the Civic's vaults? There is stuff in there that has seen the light of day for at least 20 years,,,,flog it off, save some jobs Just A Voice
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Mon 16 May 11

loosehead says...

Poppy22 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support!
Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too).
So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it??
I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable!
CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:-
- ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!)
- ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)
Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns)
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support! Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too). So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it?? I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable! CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:- - ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!) - ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)[/p][/quote]Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns) loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Mon 16 May 11

Just A Voice says...

loosehead wrote:
Poppy22 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support!
Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too).
So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it??
I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable!
CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:-
- ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!)
- ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)
Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns)
Did BAT have millions in reserve and a vault full of paintings that no one see's or really cares about?

All councils staff have been told to take an extra 5 days leave without pay, not just those over £40k,,,,

You also seem to have missed my point, I am not saying no the job cuts, just not so many so fast, it is the Governments insistence on paying the debt back too quickly that's crippling the nation.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support! Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too). So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it?? I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable! CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:- - ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!) - ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)[/p][/quote]Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns)[/p][/quote]Did BAT have millions in reserve and a vault full of paintings that no one see's or really cares about? All councils staff have been told to take an extra 5 days leave without pay, not just those over £40k,,,, You also seem to have missed my point, I am not saying no the job cuts, just not so many so fast, it is the Governments insistence on paying the debt back too quickly that's crippling the nation. Just A Voice
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Mon 16 May 11

BurningRAGE says...

People who dont know what is happening inside the council may need to get facts right before commenting.
The reason for the industrial action is due to the fact that the council refused to consult on any of the matters and just kept handing proposals of cuts to union leaders and said thats what we are doing. The unions are looking at industrial action as a last resort, but with a council not willing to listen to its staff what other choice do we have (yes i am a council worker).
The council unfortunity is great at lying and spinning, first they will say we need to save money so will axe staff and cut pay and conditions then spend over £5m on outside consultants! oh and lets not forget decorating the new Chief Exec's office!
And now the council is starting to sell of more departments to private companies, which will cost the remaining council more money (as it currently does with Capita and Balfour Beatty). so with even more private departments, who are all profit focused, the customer - residents of southampton, you will be waiting longer for services and yes, you will be paying more for them. Looking at the comments and the lack of empathy for hard working people getting scr*wed by class descrimination i for one will enjoy watching and hearing you all moan when the streets become dirtier, bins become overflowing, parks are covered in litter and offensive graffiti is sprawled across the city, or perhaps you may get made homeless due to the downturn in the econemy and you seek help from the relevant council team, only to find they cant help because the person who deals with homelessness has been axed, or its not cost effective to house you etc.

The point is when the council is no longer a local authority which looks out for its constituants and becomes an almagamation of profit hungry companies you will realise your mistake.

Royston is a c*** and does not care for those who make his position and wage possible, one day, we may be lucky enough to witness him get his karma slung back with amazing force into his face, needless to say i wont help him up.
People who dont know what is happening inside the council may need to get facts right before commenting. The reason for the industrial action is due to the fact that the council refused to consult on any of the matters and just kept handing proposals of cuts to union leaders and said thats what we are doing. The unions are looking at industrial action as a last resort, but with a council not willing to listen to its staff what other choice do we have (yes i am a council worker). The council unfortunity is great at lying and spinning, first they will say we need to save money so will axe staff and cut pay and conditions then spend over £5m on outside consultants! oh and lets not forget decorating the new Chief Exec's office! And now the council is starting to sell of more departments to private companies, which will cost the remaining council more money (as it currently does with Capita and Balfour Beatty). so with even more private departments, who are all profit focused, the customer - residents of southampton, you will be waiting longer for services and yes, you will be paying more for them. Looking at the comments and the lack of empathy for hard working people getting scr*wed by class descrimination i for one will enjoy watching and hearing you all moan when the streets become dirtier, bins become overflowing, parks are covered in litter and offensive graffiti is sprawled across the city, or perhaps you may get made homeless due to the downturn in the econemy and you seek help from the relevant council team, only to find they cant help because the person who deals with homelessness has been axed, or its not cost effective to house you etc. The point is when the council is no longer a local authority which looks out for its constituants and becomes an almagamation of profit hungry companies you will realise your mistake. Royston is a c*** and does not care for those who make his position and wage possible, one day, we may be lucky enough to witness him get his karma slung back with amazing force into his face, needless to say i wont help him up. BurningRAGE
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 16 May 11

The Wickham Man says...

Very eloquent post BurningRage but were you manning the barriades when all the things you mention in your post were being done to the private sector? In a word, no. People in the private sector do not get pay rises as a right and so all this stuff we keep hearing from Unison & co about pay going down in "real terms" has been a fact of life in this country for the last decade - only you and your colleagues never noticed it because while the country suffered you just kept getting your annual iinfaltion linked rise plus some. Who do you think has been paying for all that FFS - Father Christmas? As for all this outsourcing nonsense I can tell you one thing for a fact from the sector I work in (NHS outsourcing) that the NHS now outsources core services because it is CHEAPER not more expensive - so the bottom line is there is less burden on taxpayers. If you tool a look at simple balance sheet economics you'd see how often a service can be done at less cost privately - and do you know why? It's because public sector workers benefits packages have become too b****dy unaffordable and every year a public sector worker stays in work it gets worse because of final salary pensions allowances! You want to blame someone blame Alan Johnson back in 2005. He knew it when he reviewed pensions but was too spineless and afraid of the public sector unions to stand up and admit the horrific reality of the economic problem. You have brought it on yourself old chum. This is the real world and the unions are still trying to hide you from it. Take your pay cut and be thankful or go on strike and face the consequences - the country is not behind you.
Very eloquent post BurningRage but were you manning the barriades when all the things you mention in your post were being done to the private sector? In a word, no. People in the private sector do not get pay rises as a right and so all this stuff we keep hearing from Unison & co about pay going down in "real terms" has been a fact of life in this country for the last decade - only you and your colleagues never noticed it because while the country suffered you just kept getting your annual iinfaltion linked rise plus some. Who do you think has been paying for all that FFS - Father Christmas? As for all this outsourcing nonsense I can tell you one thing for a fact from the sector I work in (NHS outsourcing) that the NHS now outsources core services because it is CHEAPER not more expensive - so the bottom line is there is less burden on taxpayers. If you tool a look at simple balance sheet economics you'd see how often a service can be done at less cost privately - and do you know why? It's because public sector workers benefits packages have become too b****dy unaffordable and every year a public sector worker stays in work it gets worse because of final salary pensions allowances! You want to blame someone blame Alan Johnson back in 2005. He knew it when he reviewed pensions but was too spineless and afraid of the public sector unions to stand up and admit the horrific reality of the economic problem. You have brought it on yourself old chum. This is the real world and the unions are still trying to hide you from it. Take your pay cut and be thankful or go on strike and face the consequences - the country is not behind you. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Mon 16 May 11

southy says...

BurningRAGE wrote:
People who dont know what is happening inside the council may need to get facts right before commenting.
The reason for the industrial action is due to the fact that the council refused to consult on any of the matters and just kept handing proposals of cuts to union leaders and said thats what we are doing. The unions are looking at industrial action as a last resort, but with a council not willing to listen to its staff what other choice do we have (yes i am a council worker).
The council unfortunity is great at lying and spinning, first they will say we need to save money so will axe staff and cut pay and conditions then spend over £5m on outside consultants! oh and lets not forget decorating the new Chief Exec's office!
And now the council is starting to sell of more departments to private companies, which will cost the remaining council more money (as it currently does with Capita and Balfour Beatty). so with even more private departments, who are all profit focused, the customer - residents of southampton, you will be waiting longer for services and yes, you will be paying more for them. Looking at the comments and the lack of empathy for hard working people getting scr*wed by class descrimination i for one will enjoy watching and hearing you all moan when the streets become dirtier, bins become overflowing, parks are covered in litter and offensive graffiti is sprawled across the city, or perhaps you may get made homeless due to the downturn in the econemy and you seek help from the relevant council team, only to find they cant help because the person who deals with homelessness has been axed, or its not cost effective to house you etc.

The point is when the council is no longer a local authority which looks out for its constituants and becomes an almagamation of profit hungry companies you will realise your mistake.

Royston is a c*** and does not care for those who make his position and wage possible, one day, we may be lucky enough to witness him get his karma slung back with amazing force into his face, needless to say i wont help him up.
Well said, good post.

Just A Voice, Sholing The Council has £15 Million sitting in the bank do nothing for the City.
[quote][p][bold]BurningRAGE[/bold] wrote: People who dont know what is happening inside the council may need to get facts right before commenting. The reason for the industrial action is due to the fact that the council refused to consult on any of the matters and just kept handing proposals of cuts to union leaders and said thats what we are doing. The unions are looking at industrial action as a last resort, but with a council not willing to listen to its staff what other choice do we have (yes i am a council worker). The council unfortunity is great at lying and spinning, first they will say we need to save money so will axe staff and cut pay and conditions then spend over £5m on outside consultants! oh and lets not forget decorating the new Chief Exec's office! And now the council is starting to sell of more departments to private companies, which will cost the remaining council more money (as it currently does with Capita and Balfour Beatty). so with even more private departments, who are all profit focused, the customer - residents of southampton, you will be waiting longer for services and yes, you will be paying more for them. Looking at the comments and the lack of empathy for hard working people getting scr*wed by class descrimination i for one will enjoy watching and hearing you all moan when the streets become dirtier, bins become overflowing, parks are covered in litter and offensive graffiti is sprawled across the city, or perhaps you may get made homeless due to the downturn in the econemy and you seek help from the relevant council team, only to find they cant help because the person who deals with homelessness has been axed, or its not cost effective to house you etc. The point is when the council is no longer a local authority which looks out for its constituants and becomes an almagamation of profit hungry companies you will realise your mistake. Royston is a c*** and does not care for those who make his position and wage possible, one day, we may be lucky enough to witness him get his karma slung back with amazing force into his face, needless to say i wont help him up.[/p][/quote]Well said, good post. Just A Voice, Sholing The Council has £15 Million sitting in the bank do nothing for the City. southy
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Mon 16 May 11

BurningRAGE says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Very eloquent post BurningRage but were you manning the barriades when all the things you mention in your post were being done to the private sector? In a word, no. People in the private sector do not get pay rises as a right and so all this stuff we keep hearing from Unison & co about pay going down in "real terms" has been a fact of life in this country for the last decade - only you and your colleagues never noticed it because while the country suffered you just kept getting your annual iinfaltion linked rise plus some. Who do you think has been paying for all that FFS - Father Christmas? As for all this outsourcing nonsense I can tell you one thing for a fact from the sector I work in (NHS outsourcing) that the NHS now outsources core services because it is CHEAPER not more expensive - so the bottom line is there is less burden on taxpayers. If you tool a look at simple balance sheet economics you'd see how often a service can be done at less cost privately - and do you know why? It's because public sector workers benefits packages have become too b****dy unaffordable and every year a public sector worker stays in work it gets worse because of final salary pensions allowances! You want to blame someone blame Alan Johnson back in 2005. He knew it when he reviewed pensions but was too spineless and afraid of the public sector unions to stand up and admit the horrific reality of the economic problem. You have brought it on yourself old chum. This is the real world and the unions are still trying to hide you from it. Take your pay cut and be thankful or go on strike and face the consequences - the country is not behind you.
Your absolutely right in theory old chum, contracting out is SUPPOSED to be cheaper but its has already cost Southampton City Council MORE than it would of cost to maintain the team which was already in place. ontop of that the council are looking to take back that service as it is failing in 3rd party hands, but i believe they signed a 10 year deal! woops!

I dont know where you get your facts from but my wage has gone back consistently for the past 3 years, and now am a fair bit below my starting salary over 5 years ago!

And with regard to the pensions the council are tacking a hatchet and a spade to the pension scheme and is going to cripple those who remain in the scheme (eceptions to those fat cat managers of course).

People need to realise that the council has lots of hard working members of staff and like all places has the dead beats, unfortunately some dead beats are in positions of power and juggle the system to ensure they stay and hard workers are axed.

I did not cause the econemic downfall, but am willing to do my part to help, but not when greedy fat cat bankers and politicians continue to line their own pockets!

Viva La Revolution!
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Very eloquent post BurningRage but were you manning the barriades when all the things you mention in your post were being done to the private sector? In a word, no. People in the private sector do not get pay rises as a right and so all this stuff we keep hearing from Unison & co about pay going down in "real terms" has been a fact of life in this country for the last decade - only you and your colleagues never noticed it because while the country suffered you just kept getting your annual iinfaltion linked rise plus some. Who do you think has been paying for all that FFS - Father Christmas? As for all this outsourcing nonsense I can tell you one thing for a fact from the sector I work in (NHS outsourcing) that the NHS now outsources core services because it is CHEAPER not more expensive - so the bottom line is there is less burden on taxpayers. If you tool a look at simple balance sheet economics you'd see how often a service can be done at less cost privately - and do you know why? It's because public sector workers benefits packages have become too b****dy unaffordable and every year a public sector worker stays in work it gets worse because of final salary pensions allowances! You want to blame someone blame Alan Johnson back in 2005. He knew it when he reviewed pensions but was too spineless and afraid of the public sector unions to stand up and admit the horrific reality of the economic problem. You have brought it on yourself old chum. This is the real world and the unions are still trying to hide you from it. Take your pay cut and be thankful or go on strike and face the consequences - the country is not behind you.[/p][/quote]Your absolutely right in theory old chum, contracting out is SUPPOSED to be cheaper but its has already cost Southampton City Council MORE than it would of cost to maintain the team which was already in place. ontop of that the council are looking to take back that service as it is failing in 3rd party hands, but i believe they signed a 10 year deal! woops! I dont know where you get your facts from but my wage has gone back consistently for the past 3 years, and now am a fair bit below my starting salary over 5 years ago! And with regard to the pensions the council are tacking a hatchet and a spade to the pension scheme and is going to cripple those who remain in the scheme (eceptions to those fat cat managers of course). People need to realise that the council has lots of hard working members of staff and like all places has the dead beats, unfortunately some dead beats are in positions of power and juggle the system to ensure they stay and hard workers are axed. I did not cause the econemic downfall, but am willing to do my part to help, but not when greedy fat cat bankers and politicians continue to line their own pockets! Viva La Revolution! BurningRAGE
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Mon 16 May 11

The Wickham Man says...

I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?
I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 16 May 11

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?
I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again.

Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top.

How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years.
Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years.
But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder.
And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits.
Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?[/p][/quote]I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again. Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top. How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years. Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years. But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder. And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits. Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham. southy
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 16 May 11

Bossy-Boots says...

I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational.

The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated.

If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.
I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational. The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated. If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba. Bossy-Boots
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Mon 16 May 11

headworm says...

This is all very sad to watch. Bickering between each other while things continue to deteriorate around us and/or get sold to the highest bidder while the rich get richer and those fortunate enough to have a job work harder for longer to pay for the ever increasing tax burden to fund the lifestyles of the rich and powerful.

They have robbed us blind and all we can do is argue over the details.

They could try an alternative to austerity measures and make this country great again but that is not their goal; an ounce of common sense will confirm this for anyone in any doubt.

Still, we'll continue to play the game and keep bickering amongst ourselves until we are fighting over the discounted loaves of bread at the supermarket, barricading our homes from the bailiffs and selling anything of any value we don't use.

Which country do you think is next in line for a bailout? You can see it coming a mile off. We are still sat on a housing bubble waiting to burst, teetering on the edge of higher interest rates and struggling to keep our jobs or get a pay increase.

All this bickering and the fun hasn't even started yet. It is very sad indeed.

Strike dammit; you know it makes sense.
This is all very sad to watch. Bickering between each other while things continue to deteriorate around us and/or get sold to the highest bidder while the rich get richer and those fortunate enough to have a job work harder for longer to pay for the ever increasing tax burden to fund the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. They have robbed us blind and all we can do is argue over the details. They could try an alternative to austerity measures and make this country great again but that is not their goal; an ounce of common sense will confirm this for anyone in any doubt. Still, we'll continue to play the game and keep bickering amongst ourselves until we are fighting over the discounted loaves of bread at the supermarket, barricading our homes from the bailiffs and selling anything of any value we don't use. Which country do you think is next in line for a bailout? You can see it coming a mile off. We are still sat on a housing bubble waiting to burst, teetering on the edge of higher interest rates and struggling to keep our jobs or get a pay increase. All this bickering and the fun hasn't even started yet. It is very sad indeed. Strike dammit; you know it makes sense. headworm
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Mon 16 May 11

headworm says...

Bossy-Boots wrote:
I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational.

The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated.

If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.
It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily.

Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore?

I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong.

If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to.

Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.
[quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational. The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated. If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.[/p][/quote]It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily. Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore? I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong. If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to. Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs. headworm
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Mon 16 May 11

Georgem says...

loosehead wrote:
How is 39% of the union membership a strong mandate for strike action especially when not all of this low figure voted for strike action? Why don't they ask the members are you willing to be one of the 400 extra redundancies if the minority of the workforce get their way & no pay cuts are implemented to the "high" earners £25,000-£40,000 ? as that's what Mike Tucker seems so glad about,Reminds me of the seamans union leading them out on strike whilst doing a deal putting them all out of work & bringing in foreign workers.I wonder who that was ? was it someone called Prescott?the strike ( one) took place on the Ocean Monarch & whilst striking the messages were going to the shipping lines from the union & my friend read one of the communiques to canard with the famous working class two jags.Now exactly what does /where does Mike Tucker work & in what way will he be affected by these cuts? or is he making a run for promotion up the union ranks or does he have political aspirations ? He must be gaining some thing from this otherwise why would any Union/Labour member want to see 400 more people than needs be made redundant?How can a Labour ( would be) councillor knock doors & say they are in favour of strikes to make 400 unemployed? yet we have Labour/socialists on here arguing for exactly that who's on the side of the working class? the tory's who are trying to limit the amount of redundancies & saving 400 jobs or the Union/Labour party who want to save high earners from a pay cut?Let the public hear the truth & then see what happens at the ballot box?
TL;DR
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: How is 39% of the union membership a strong mandate for strike action especially when not all of this low figure voted for strike action? Why don't they ask the members are you willing to be one of the 400 extra redundancies if the minority of the workforce get their way & no pay cuts are implemented to the "high" earners £25,000-£40,000 ? as that's what Mike Tucker seems so glad about,Reminds me of the seamans union leading them out on strike whilst doing a deal putting them all out of work & bringing in foreign workers.I wonder who that was ? was it someone called Prescott?the strike ( one) took place on the Ocean Monarch & whilst striking the messages were going to the shipping lines from the union & my friend read one of the communiques to canard with the famous working class two jags.Now exactly what does /where does Mike Tucker work & in what way will he be affected by these cuts? or is he making a run for promotion up the union ranks or does he have political aspirations ? He must be gaining some thing from this otherwise why would any Union/Labour member want to see 400 more people than needs be made redundant?How can a Labour ( would be) councillor knock doors & say they are in favour of strikes to make 400 unemployed? yet we have Labour/socialists on here arguing for exactly that who's on the side of the working class? the tory's who are trying to limit the amount of redundancies & saving 400 jobs or the Union/Labour party who want to save high earners from a pay cut?Let the public hear the truth & then see what happens at the ballot box?[/p][/quote]TL;DR Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Mon 16 May 11

loosehead says...

Just A Voice wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Poppy22 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.
Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support!
Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too).
So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it??
I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable!
CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:-
- ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!)
- ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)
Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns)
Did BAT have millions in reserve and a vault full of paintings that no one see's or really cares about?

All councils staff have been told to take an extra 5 days leave without pay, not just those over £40k,,,,

You also seem to have missed my point, I am not saying no the job cuts, just not so many so fast, it is the Governments insistence on paying the debt back too quickly that's crippling the nation.
BAT have millions in reserve? are you having a laugh ? the BAT group made millions in profit every year but some **** hole Labour leader curtailed to Europe & banned us from exporting to the customers the strength of Cigarettes they wanted & then after BAT warned him not to Brown put up NI stamp so we had to cut costs to cover this rise or lose our jobs,Ask your mate Mike Tucker what alternative's they were putting forward to the council besides telling them to hit the banks you know the local council hitting the banks? As I've said on this subject start asking HSBC employee's ( now ex)if HSBC are leaving this country & I think you'll find it's already happening after a small tax by the Government so there's no solution in hitting banks as this will end up with thousands made unemployed.Now I personally agree with you about the paintings but do you remember what happened when they talked about selling just a few? they were going mad & I think they stopped it ( art lovers) & I think that every council has to have a reserve in case of an emergency ( Disaster) not to pay for job losses.Labour took millions from the south ( including Southampton) to give to the North this council cut it's cloth not expecting to get a hit if cut's happened but then the Liberals got in the mix & as Clegg's seat is up North there was no way the South was hardly touched & the North bore the brunt of the cuts so you could say if Labour hadn't taken that money this government could have done & we wouldn't now be losing this £25million so blame Labour & the Liberals & remember Labour spent spent just before the election knowing who ever got in would have to cut everything they had spent on & a little bit more.So ask your self this are you so easily duped by Labour? Do you know exactly what the union proposed? Do you trust Mike Tucker? Is it 250 or 650 redundant it's in the workers hands!
[quote][p][bold]Just A Voice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: As a working class taxpayer I resent the fact that the 40 "senior managers" being laid off will all still receive guaranteed final salary pensions and redundancy far more generous than anything in the private sector even though private sector pensions have been decimated through Gordon's BRown's clawbacks. Why should I have to use my taxes to give these lazy public sector bureaucrats a nice comfy retirement while I have to work until I'm 70 because my own pension has halved in value? Where were Unite and Unison when Gordon Brown took my pension fund away? Ah yes - they were in the TUC conference year after year applauding him.[/p][/quote]Not sure about the Gordon Brown bit but I totally agree with the rest of this post. My 30 years' working in the private sector (mostly at management level in financial services) will give me just £2000-4000 a year at "retirement" (what retirement??!! - I'll be working till I die!) due to a series of compulsory redundancies in several companies, mis-management & transfer after transfer of my pension funds, so they've reduced very year instead of increasing, etc. That pension figure includes some final salary pension too, though only a little as most financial services companies did away with their final salary pension schemes over 15 years ago when they realised the cost was too high to support! Similarly, financial services' pay levels (apart from "fat cats" and investment banks/similar) have dropped hugely in real terms over the last 15 years or so (eg many staff in what used to be the "professions" of banking & insurance, with suitably qualified staff who studied for years in their own time, are now on little more than minimum pay and managers are largely inexperienced and on low pay too). So how is the public sector getting away with much higher-than-average salaries and keeping final salary pension schemes? Final salary schemes should be done away with immediately for new staff and "frozen" for existing staff. TOUGH!! Why should the rest of us (mostly worse off than the public sector!) subsidise the public sector pensions and salaries when we and the country can't afford it?? I've tried to get work in the public sector for 3 years now (realised their pay & pension are much better than the private sector!) but haven't even got interviews - largely because every job advert is either open for existing employees only or requires some nonsensical "NVQ" that is totally unncessary for the role in question! EG a recent advert for a manager to co-ordinate volunteers at a very small local leisure attraction, open only 1-2 days a week, wanted a qualification in leisure management/museum work and was open only to existing employees. Yet one of the volunteers themselves could have fulfilled the role, saving approx £20-25k per annum! Unbelievable! CAN THE ECHO ALSO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE LEADERS OF THE COUNCIL:- - ARE THEIR PAY RATES REDUCING BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE? (IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE!) - ARE STAFF BEING ASKED TO WORK THE SAME HOURS FOR LOWER PAY OR ARE THEIR HOURS BEING REDUCED PRO RATA? (IF THE LATTER, THEN I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!!! SURELY WORKING A FEW FEWER HOURS IS GOOD? IF NOT, THEN BRING IN MORE FLEXIBLE WORKING SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK MORE HOURS CAN AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK FEWER HOURS CAN)[/p][/quote]Iron lady the ones on £40,000 a year are going to get a 5.5%pay cut but are going to get one more weeks holiday so basically they are going to work less hours.Just a voice people in the private sector are taking pay cuts & my old company (BAT) the employees went in on overtime for no pay but one days extra holiday sounds a bit like the council workers right? they wanted to get costs down to save jobs.It seems the Unions don't want to save jobs but just want to cause trouble at the expense of their members & look at the figures only 39% of union members voted & then it wasn't all of them who voted for this strike action so how can this be what the workers want ? it's not it's what the union want & every one council workers & the public will suffer for these tin pot gods ( clowns)[/p][/quote]Did BAT have millions in reserve and a vault full of paintings that no one see's or really cares about? All councils staff have been told to take an extra 5 days leave without pay, not just those over £40k,,,, You also seem to have missed my point, I am not saying no the job cuts, just not so many so fast, it is the Governments insistence on paying the debt back too quickly that's crippling the nation.[/p][/quote]BAT have millions in reserve? are you having a laugh ? the BAT group made millions in profit every year but some **** hole Labour leader curtailed to Europe & banned us from exporting to the customers the strength of Cigarettes they wanted & then after BAT warned him not to Brown put up NI stamp so we had to cut costs to cover this rise or lose our jobs,Ask your mate Mike Tucker what alternative's they were putting forward to the council besides telling them to hit the banks you know the local council hitting the banks? As I've said on this subject start asking HSBC employee's ( now ex)if HSBC are leaving this country & I think you'll find it's already happening after a small tax by the Government so there's no solution in hitting banks as this will end up with thousands made unemployed.Now I personally agree with you about the paintings but do you remember what happened when they talked about selling just a few? they were going mad & I think they stopped it ( art lovers) & I think that every council has to have a reserve in case of an emergency ( Disaster) not to pay for job losses.Labour took millions from the south ( including Southampton) to give to the North this council cut it's cloth not expecting to get a hit if cut's happened but then the Liberals got in the mix & as Clegg's seat is up North there was no way the South was hardly touched & the North bore the brunt of the cuts so you could say if Labour hadn't taken that money this government could have done & we wouldn't now be losing this £25million so blame Labour & the Liberals & remember Labour spent spent just before the election knowing who ever got in would have to cut everything they had spent on & a little bit more.So ask your self this are you so easily duped by Labour? Do you know exactly what the union proposed? Do you trust Mike Tucker? Is it 250 or 650 redundant it's in the workers hands! loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Mon 16 May 11

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?
I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again.

Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top.

How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years.
Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years.
But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder.
And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits.
Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.
Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?[/p][/quote]I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again. Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top. How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years. Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years. But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder. And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits. Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.[/p][/quote]Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Mon 16 May 11

Bossy-Boots says...

headworm wrote:
Bossy-Boots wrote:
I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational.

The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated.

If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.
It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily.

Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore?

I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong.

If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to.

Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.
You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them.

I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard.

Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause.

To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract.

I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council.

Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so.
[quote][p][bold]headworm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational. The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated. If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.[/p][/quote]It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily. Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore? I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong. If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to. Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.[/p][/quote]You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them. I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard. Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause. To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract. I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council. Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so. Bossy-Boots
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Mon 16 May 11

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?
I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again.

Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top.

How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years.
Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years.
But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder.
And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits.
Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.
Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter
Its not left wing crap and you know it, its factal, the biggest gains in dropping Corporation Tax is for the Big Corporation them selfs they will gain the most, The smaller the business the less the gain, how is that helping small business, it don't those small indepenant shop keepers are closing up at a faster rate than they did before. And how is it going to hit the well off with VAT rising, it don't they have more than enough for it be like water of a ducks back, its peanut money to them. While the poor will aft to go with out even more, because they can afford it.
And your wrong some Foods will be hit with rising the VAT, just that it has not filter down to the selfs yet. The effect of the fuel prise rises have not even filtered down to us yet, wait till that happens, agian it will be the poor that get hit the hardest.
Make no mistake the poor are paying for the rich to be rich.
And you going on about a person calling smithy a see you next tuesday, what are you saying about me, your no better than that person or wickham man, got to result to insults.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?[/p][/quote]I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again. Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top. How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years. Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years. But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder. And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits. Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.[/p][/quote]Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter[/p][/quote]Its not left wing crap and you know it, its factal, the biggest gains in dropping Corporation Tax is for the Big Corporation them selfs they will gain the most, The smaller the business the less the gain, how is that helping small business, it don't those small indepenant shop keepers are closing up at a faster rate than they did before. And how is it going to hit the well off with VAT rising, it don't they have more than enough for it be like water of a ducks back, its peanut money to them. While the poor will aft to go with out even more, because they can afford it. And your wrong some Foods will be hit with rising the VAT, just that it has not filter down to the selfs yet. The effect of the fuel prise rises have not even filtered down to us yet, wait till that happens, agian it will be the poor that get hit the hardest. Make no mistake the poor are paying for the rich to be rich. And you going on about a person calling smithy a see you next tuesday, what are you saying about me, your no better than that person or wickham man, got to result to insults. southy
  • Score: 0

2:54am Tue 17 May 11

headworm says...

Bossy-Boots wrote:
headworm wrote:
Bossy-Boots wrote:
I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational.

The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated.

If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.
It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily.

Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore?

I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong.

If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to.

Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.
You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them.

I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard.

Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause.

To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract.

I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council.

Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so.
Our own situations don't sound so different but unlike you, if something is wrong, I don't think the reality should be acceptance. Just because these workers have been given a choice, does not make either of those choices acceptable. It's like being bent over a bench and offered the choice between a protected or unprotected shafting, it's just wrong, however dressed up it is. The coalition cuts are wrong, the council cuts are wrong and none of us should accept any of it whether affected directly or not (which we all are in some way). The sooner people realise this the sooner those at the top will have to step aside or show us their true colours in full. The only certainty is that we'll keep getting shafted so long as we keep fighting each other over things that should probably unite us. The longer it takes for people to realise this, the more painful and drawn out it's going to be for everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]headworm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational. The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated. If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.[/p][/quote]It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily. Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore? I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong. If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to. Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.[/p][/quote]You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them. I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard. Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause. To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract. I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council. Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so.[/p][/quote]Our own situations don't sound so different but unlike you, if something is wrong, I don't think the reality should be acceptance. Just because these workers have been given a choice, does not make either of those choices acceptable. It's like being bent over a bench and offered the choice between a protected or unprotected shafting, it's just wrong, however dressed up it is. The coalition cuts are wrong, the council cuts are wrong and none of us should accept any of it whether affected directly or not (which we all are in some way). The sooner people realise this the sooner those at the top will have to step aside or show us their true colours in full. The only certainty is that we'll keep getting shafted so long as we keep fighting each other over things that should probably unite us. The longer it takes for people to realise this, the more painful and drawn out it's going to be for everyone. headworm
  • Score: 0

9:31am Tue 17 May 11

loosehead says...

headworm wrote:
Bossy-Boots wrote:
headworm wrote:
Bossy-Boots wrote:
I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational.

The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated.

If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.
It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily.

Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore?

I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong.

If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to.

Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.
You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them.

I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard.

Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause.

To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract.

I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council.

Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so.
Our own situations don't sound so different but unlike you, if something is wrong, I don't think the reality should be acceptance. Just because these workers have been given a choice, does not make either of those choices acceptable. It's like being bent over a bench and offered the choice between a protected or unprotected shafting, it's just wrong, however dressed up it is. The coalition cuts are wrong, the council cuts are wrong and none of us should accept any of it whether affected directly or not (which we all are in some way). The sooner people realise this the sooner those at the top will have to step aside or show us their true colours in full. The only certainty is that we'll keep getting shafted so long as we keep fighting each other over things that should probably unite us. The longer it takes for people to realise this, the more painful and drawn out it's going to be for everyone.
If the cuts are so wrong why is it that Labour has stated that they would have to implement cuts? when we were under Hampshire we ( Southampton) were given an option of becoming an unitarian authority The Southampton Labour party jumped at it saying it would be better & cheaper for the residents of this city it wasn't cheaper it cost us a lot more .now this council could follow other councils & join up ( office work & day to day running)meaning there would only need to be half the work force so is that better or what they're advocating? what ever way you look at it this council is trying to save 400 jobs but the union & high paid workers don't want to save them they'd rather see 650 job losses than lose a fraction of their pay & to say we've also lost 4% pay rise is rubbish as until it's in your pay packet you haven't lost any thing
[quote][p][bold]headworm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]headworm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bossy-Boots[/bold] wrote: I would apply a reasoned arguement to this but there are a lot of public sector workers on here who are being irrational. The council have made it clear that there are two options new terms and conditions or job losses, they are rejecting both and striking. Pick one and put up, if you work for the council you are employed by the council. As a private sector employee I do not go to my employer and tell them how I want to work I either do this or get sacked, not complicated. If working for the council is so terrible may I suggest you refuse to accept the new contracts and find a new job. You do not have to work for them we are not in Cuba.[/p][/quote]It's hardly irrational to try and defend your job, or your wages. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think people can just give up their jobs that easily. Ever heard of mortgage payments or rent? Has the term 'rising cost of living' ever echoed in your ears or is this a concept you've been in a fortunate enough position to ignore? I dread to think I really do and btw. I'm not a public sector worker btw, I think it's way too big and expensive and needs a drastic change but I am able to see right from wrong and what the council is doing, forced into it or not is wrong. If I had my way we'd take the council from the idiots currently running it and take back this city from the gold diggers they've been selling it to. Southampton is not a business venture, it's a city that should be thriving instead of struggling to pay for services the tax payers have long since paid through the nose to have. They can't even get a pot hole filled in ffs.[/p][/quote]You may think I live in cloud cuckoo land, but I can see that the terms and conditions the workers are fighting for are being withdrawn in July, whether you strike or not. I have also had years of pay cuts and my employers have not recognised unions and most private sector emplyers dont recognise them. I am not fortunate enough to be able to ignore cost of living , mortgages etc but I know how to budget, you start with the luxuries its not hard. Right or wrong the reality is accept the terms or accept unemployment, if life under these amended conditions will be so terrible you are been given a get out clause. To refuse both these options increases your risk of unemployment when they make 400 people redundant, and all your terms and conditions become worthless when you dont have an employment contract. I am so sorry you find reality so galling and the council cant be such a terrible employer why do so many not just up and leave. As I have said previously you do not have to work for the council. Talking of work I hope the union allow those council employees union members or not to get to and be able to work in peace as everyone has a right NOT to strike as well as to do so.[/p][/quote]Our own situations don't sound so different but unlike you, if something is wrong, I don't think the reality should be acceptance. Just because these workers have been given a choice, does not make either of those choices acceptable. It's like being bent over a bench and offered the choice between a protected or unprotected shafting, it's just wrong, however dressed up it is. The coalition cuts are wrong, the council cuts are wrong and none of us should accept any of it whether affected directly or not (which we all are in some way). The sooner people realise this the sooner those at the top will have to step aside or show us their true colours in full. The only certainty is that we'll keep getting shafted so long as we keep fighting each other over things that should probably unite us. The longer it takes for people to realise this, the more painful and drawn out it's going to be for everyone.[/p][/quote]If the cuts are so wrong why is it that Labour has stated that they would have to implement cuts? when we were under Hampshire we ( Southampton) were given an option of becoming an unitarian authority The Southampton Labour party jumped at it saying it would be better & cheaper for the residents of this city it wasn't cheaper it cost us a lot more .now this council could follow other councils & join up ( office work & day to day running)meaning there would only need to be half the work force so is that better or what they're advocating? what ever way you look at it this council is trying to save 400 jobs but the union & high paid workers don't want to save them they'd rather see 650 job losses than lose a fraction of their pay & to say we've also lost 4% pay rise is rubbish as until it's in your pay packet you haven't lost any thing loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:53am Tue 17 May 11

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?
I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again.

Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top.

How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years.
Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years.
But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder.
And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits.
Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.
Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter
Its not left wing crap and you know it, its factal, the biggest gains in dropping Corporation Tax is for the Big Corporation them selfs they will gain the most, The smaller the business the less the gain, how is that helping small business, it don't those small indepenant shop keepers are closing up at a faster rate than they did before. And how is it going to hit the well off with VAT rising, it don't they have more than enough for it be like water of a ducks back, its peanut money to them. While the poor will aft to go with out even more, because they can afford it.
And your wrong some Foods will be hit with rising the VAT, just that it has not filter down to the selfs yet. The effect of the fuel prise rises have not even filtered down to us yet, wait till that happens, agian it will be the poor that get hit the hardest.
Make no mistake the poor are paying for the rich to be rich.
And you going on about a person calling smithy a see you next tuesday, what are you saying about me, your no better than that person or wickham man, got to result to insults.
Southy this is why I think your a Loony! you state Tourism isn't what this city needs it's heavy industry then you go all out in your hatred of big business! what do you think heavy industry is? we've tried Nationalised industries & look what happened? They had it in their heads that they won't sack me or shut us down so STRIKE so look at British Leyland how much taxpayers money went into it for them to strike over any thing? Now any one who was actually listening to the budget would know that small business's were looking for help as the banks weren't lending so as well as putting pressure on the banks he lowered Capital Gains tax in the hope that industry could take up the unemployed & help cut the dole queues he also slapped a tax on the banks you know big industry/fat cats. As I've already said a former employee of HSBC has told me that was the final straw & HSBC are moving abroad & that's after people like you & these council strikers who say hit the banks they won't be going any where WRONG.you will be left with banks that are partly public owned so what are you going to do I know wallop every single man & woman as we part own the banks & it will be those banks that will be left & the left has a great record of hitting the poor in hidden taxes like the last Government or the 40% tax that Ed Milliband was shouting about before he got voted Leader of the Labour party & if that happened how many council workers would be wishing they would have accepted the tory councils deal?I remember the docks hanging Prescott over the side of the docks after he sold out the seamen & he became deputy priminister under a socialist party that should say it all & I hope these people aren't on strike for too long before they realise they've lost more on strike than what they were going to lose.Bring on the revolution all unemployed put to work in the fields & this would include single mothers & the disabled Exactly as it happened in SOCIALIST CAMBODIA isn't that what you in the loony left want?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Redbridge Dope has arrived with the fantastic suggestion of making no cuts at all to balance the books, so his answer is the leave things as they are with national PSBR debt rising daily, but to carry on creating the illustion that it is all find by spending the council's contingency fund to keep things exactly as they are until.......well until it runs out. Is there a village somewhere missing its idiot?[/p][/quote]I see the right wing false propagandist Wickham is trying to peddle his propaganda again. Making cuts and people unemployed do not reduce the Debt, all it do is move the debt from A to B with Admin cost in doing so on top. How much is it the Tory-Con Party wants to save over 4 years £84 Billion in 4 years, and the Labour party want to do the same but over 5 years. Before any cuts, should look where the biggest saving can be made, And that is claiming that £120 Billion per year in Tax Advoidance and Evasion, just think if you done this that is £480 Billion saved in 4 years or £600 Billion in 5 years. But they will not do that because it means attacking just a few, the 1% of the top of the wealth ladder. And how is dropping Corporation Tax and putting up VAT the same amount helping, It don't it hit the hardest the very same people who spends a lot more in a local economy, the poor spends the most, and if they got less money to spend so do the local economy start to fall, and you end up with more cuts, and putting more pressure on the Benefits. Your not kidding a Village is missing its idiot he lives in Fareham.[/p][/quote]Left wing crap. The government dropped capital gains tax so small businesses could expand & take on more people ( you know "working" class people.VAT going up is going to hit the well off more than the poor as I believe food won't be hit,Luxury items or should I say high value items are going to rise in value the most & these are what the rich buy so you could say they're taking from the rich & giving to the poor ( jobs in the private sector) the jobs created aren't going to cost the council tax payers anything & are going to give some unemployed people a chance of a future.Now calling Royston a c++t shows exactly what type of people they are & maybe a time in the real world might do them good maybe working for ASDA or an agency on shift work paying about £6.00 an hour & then maybe they would realise just how well off they are.Remember British Leyland & Red Ken where are they now? Well you've got red mike tucker & Loony Southy can youn really believe your right? I wish they would re-open Tachbury Mount Asylum & take you back in you total nutter[/p][/quote]Its not left wing crap and you know it, its factal, the biggest gains in dropping Corporation Tax is for the Big Corporation them selfs they will gain the most, The smaller the business the less the gain, how is that helping small business, it don't those small indepenant shop keepers are closing up at a faster rate than they did before. And how is it going to hit the well off with VAT rising, it don't they have more than enough for it be like water of a ducks back, its peanut money to them. While the poor will aft to go with out even more, because they can afford it. And your wrong some Foods will be hit with rising the VAT, just that it has not filter down to the selfs yet. The effect of the fuel prise rises have not even filtered down to us yet, wait till that happens, agian it will be the poor that get hit the hardest. Make no mistake the poor are paying for the rich to be rich. And you going on about a person calling smithy a see you next tuesday, what are you saying about me, your no better than that person or wickham man, got to result to insults.[/p][/quote]Southy this is why I think your a Loony! you state Tourism isn't what this city needs it's heavy industry then you go all out in your hatred of big business! what do you think heavy industry is? we've tried Nationalised industries & look what happened? They had it in their heads that they won't sack me or shut us down so STRIKE so look at British Leyland how much taxpayers money went into it for them to strike over any thing? Now any one who was actually listening to the budget would know that small business's were looking for help as the banks weren't lending so as well as putting pressure on the banks he lowered Capital Gains tax in the hope that industry could take up the unemployed & help cut the dole queues he also slapped a tax on the banks you know big industry/fat cats. As I've already said a former employee of HSBC has told me that was the final straw & HSBC are moving abroad & that's after people like you & these council strikers who say hit the banks they won't be going any where WRONG.you will be left with banks that are partly public owned so what are you going to do I know wallop every single man & woman as we part own the banks & it will be those banks that will be left & the left has a great record of hitting the poor in hidden taxes like the last Government or the 40% tax that Ed Milliband was shouting about before he got voted Leader of the Labour party & if that happened how many council workers would be wishing they would have accepted the tory councils deal?I remember the docks hanging Prescott over the side of the docks after he sold out the seamen & he became deputy priminister under a socialist party that should say it all & I hope these people aren't on strike for too long before they realise they've lost more on strike than what they were going to lose.Bring on the revolution all unemployed put to work in the fields & this would include single mothers & the disabled Exactly as it happened in SOCIALIST CAMBODIA isn't that what you in the loony left want? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Tue 17 May 11

headworm says...

Labour, Tory, Lib Dems the coalition, what's the difference? Very little. the failings of one always benefit the other eventually and it's always the tax payer that pays for their failings and the ever increasing wealth of those making all the mistakes.

They are having laugh. The council isn't trying to save jack, they are trying to dress it up and make it palatable when they know full well it is all about cuts. I'm not defending the unions, they have their own agenda that has little bearing on the workers, but that doesn't mean people should roll over.
Stick to right and wrong and there's only one option that makes sense. It might be a risk, but it's a risk that's always worth taking in my mind. We wouldn't have half the 'rights' we have now if people hadn't taken such risks in the past.

The choices on offer are not set in stone until they are accepted by weak minded fools who choose not what's right, but what's easy which is why this country is in the state it's in today.
Labour, Tory, Lib Dems the coalition, what's the difference? Very little. the failings of one always benefit the other eventually and it's always the tax payer that pays for their failings and the ever increasing wealth of those making all the mistakes. They are having laugh. The council isn't trying to save jack, they are trying to dress it up and make it palatable when they know full well it is all about cuts. I'm not defending the unions, they have their own agenda that has little bearing on the workers, but that doesn't mean people should roll over. Stick to right and wrong and there's only one option that makes sense. It might be a risk, but it's a risk that's always worth taking in my mind. We wouldn't have half the 'rights' we have now if people hadn't taken such risks in the past. The choices on offer are not set in stone until they are accepted by weak minded fools who choose not what's right, but what's easy which is why this country is in the state it's in today. headworm
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree