Unions halt industrial action in council pay cuts dispute (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Unions to ballot members on proposed deal to end pay cuts dispute
4:13pm Thursday 16th August 2012 in News
By Matt Smith, Politics and business reporter
Unions halt industrial action in council pay cuts dispute
Unions have agreed to suspend a £12m legal action and 15-months of industrial action against Southampton council over staff pay cuts.
Unite and Unison said they will ballot their 2,400 members at the council next month on a proposed deal to end the long running industrial dispute over cuts to staff pay, terms and conditions.
Pay cuts of between two per cent and 5.5 per cent, brought in last July by the previous Tory administration to make budget savings, provoked 12 weeks of rolling strikes, mass protest marches, and ongoing industrial action.
It left rotting rubbish spilling onto the city streets last summer.
Unions launched a legal claim, worth up to £12m, that the council failed to properly consult about its plan to dismiss workers if they didn’t sign up to worse contracts.
Separate unfair dismissal claims have been lodged on behalf of 1,000 union members.
The new Labour administration, which took power in May, has been negotiating with unions over the restoration of staff pay and conditions to end the dispute.
The council’s finance boss and lead negotiator councillor Simon Letts said: “On behalf of Southampton City Council , I welcome the decision to suspend the legal action as a vital first step to settling an industrial dispute which left a million uncollected bin bags rotting on the streets of our city.
“This is a vital first step in rebuilding a positive relationship with our staff and improving the quality of services we deliver to our citizens.”
Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said: “We welcome the progress that has been made in the negotiations with the council and believe that the majority of our members will vote to accept the council’s proposal for a phased restoration of the pay cuts”.
Unite Convenor Mark Wood added: “We stated all along that this dispute will only be resolved by negotiation and agreement.
"We are very pleased with the way negotiations have been conducted since May and are hopeful of a positive outcome in the forthcoming member consultation and ballot.”
Details of the proposed deal will be published next week.
The Conservatives said the cuts to staff pay, terms and conditions protected 400 jobs at the cash-strapped authority.
Comments(109)
Shoong
says...
4:24pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:25pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Shoong
says...
4:30pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:37pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
Shoong
says...
4:41pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:47pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:My, arent you cynical shoong. Or is it because your 'man' got it wrong and failed miserably to get his party back in?
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
Lesson in Politics. People generally vote against a party. Consequence of this is that over the years politicians are seen as the same and so turn outs have gone down. Last year according to the pages in the Echo discussions took place with the incoming Labour Council who agreed to restore the pay. They didnt have to but they did. If you want to call it 'pillow talk' thats up to you but then from the content of many of your posts you talk '50 Shades of Sh*te'!!
OSPREYSAINT
says...
4:49pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:Not sure whether you are pleased that it has been settled, do you see something sinister in how it was done?
No surprises here then.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:51pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OSPREYSAINT wrote:Of course he does!! According to the Tories on here they actually believe the piffle that strike was deliberately started by Labour and the Unions last May 2011 to get Labour elected. I mean what else was the strike for??
Shoong wrote:Not sure whether you are pleased that it has been settled, do you see something sinister in how it was done?
No surprises here then.
Lone Ranger.
says...
4:57pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move" ......... Take your own advice .
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
There's nothing to see so move along
Lone Ranger.
says...
4:58pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Lone Ranger. wrote:Oh dear :- should read...... To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move on" ......... Take your own advice .
Shoong wrote:To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move" ......... Take your own advice .
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
There's nothing to see so move along
.
There's nothing to see so move along
OceansofRed
says...
4:59pm Thu 16 Aug 12
We've already got a swimming pool closing, what's next?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:01pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Lone Ranger. wrote:A good bit of advice there LR. Still we have the rants of Looserhead and George4th next on their lifelong mission to get in the last word on the strike on the Echo message board. Luckily hardly anyone whose vote counts read it!!
Lone Ranger. wrote:Oh dear :- should read...... To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move on" ......... Take your own advice .
Shoong wrote:To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move" ......... Take your own advice .
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
There's nothing to see so move along
.
There's nothing to see so move along
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:03pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:Is the swimming pool being cut to restore workers pay then?
It is good news it there is no more strikes but what is going to be cut in order to restore the workers pay?
We've already got a swimming pool closing, what's next?
.
Remember the cuts come from Central Govt. It is the Coalition we need to take issue with.
OceansofRed
says...
5:10pm Thu 16 Aug 12
The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut.
Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts.
That money has got to come from somewhere.
It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.
aldermoorboy
says...
5:16pm Thu 16 Aug 12
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:17pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader.
Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP!
The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut.
Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts.
That money has got to come from somewhere.
It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.
.
The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
Lone Ranger.
says...
5:18pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:You should be delighted.
Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP!
The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut.
Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts.
That money has got to come from somewhere.
It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.
.
It means that this Council does NOT have the high risk of losing a court case and paying £12m out.
.
Now that is a result ......... BUT it could have been settled months ago if only an ex failed leader knew how to negotiate
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:19pm Thu 16 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:21pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:And another thing. Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment. Make use of it.
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
.
What 'that labour that fair' mean?
Lone Ranger.
says...
5:24pm Thu 16 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:Point 4. All the councillors can have their 5% cuts back as we have been saved £12m from losing a court case.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
But you would never be pleased unless it was Tories "wot won it".
.
Fortunately we wont be seeing them locally for a very long time .... or nationally from about 2 years if the Lib Dems hold out ..... dont hold your breath though ..... 2 years is long time for Slippery Dave and Useless George to survive
Shoong
says...
5:30pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Not my 'man', but whether he got it totally wrong is up for debate, lots of voter apathy and switching votes as a kind of protest didn't help.
Shoong wrote:My, arent you cynical shoong. Or is it because your 'man' got it wrong and failed miserably to get his party back in?
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
Lesson in Politics. People generally vote against a party. Consequence of this is that over the years politicians are seen as the same and so turn outs have gone down. Last year according to the pages in the Echo discussions took place with the incoming Labour Council who agreed to restore the pay. They didnt have to but they did. If you want to call it 'pillow talk' thats up to you but then from the content of many of your posts you talk '50 Shades of Sh*te'!!
Hilarious line at the end there, I'll need stitching up (wipes tear from eye).
Shoong
says...
5:31pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Looserhead!!!
Lone Ranger. wrote:A good bit of advice there LR. Still we have the rants of Looserhead and George4th next on their lifelong mission to get in the last word on the strike on the Echo message board. Luckily hardly anyone whose vote counts read it!!
Lone Ranger. wrote:Oh dear :- should read...... To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move on" ......... Take your own advice .
Shoong wrote:To quote only yourself recently " Get over it pal and move" ......... Take your own advice .
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
There's nothing to see so move along
.
There's nothing to see so move along
Get yourself on stage son.
Shoong
says...
5:35pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:What a nasty, spiteful, playground type insult.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:And another thing. Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment. Make use of it.
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
.
What 'that labour that fair' mean?
It's almost sounds like something a Tory Boy might say...
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:35pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:Anyway. Time for me to go back to work. Cant go hanging around here all day. Just happy the strike is nearly over. Tories will make up what they want (they always have) aldermoorboy just confirms this.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Not my 'man', but whether he got it totally wrong is up for debate, lots of voter apathy and switching votes as a kind of protest didn't help.
Shoong wrote:My, arent you cynical shoong. Or is it because your 'man' got it wrong and failed miserably to get his party back in?
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
.
Lesson in Politics. People generally vote against a party. Consequence of this is that over the years politicians are seen as the same and so turn outs have gone down. Last year according to the pages in the Echo discussions took place with the incoming Labour Council who agreed to restore the pay. They didnt have to but they did. If you want to call it 'pillow talk' thats up to you but then from the content of many of your posts you talk '50 Shades of Sh*te'!!
Hilarious line at the end there, I'll need stitching up (wipes tear from eye).
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:36pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:Well....... "he who casts" and all that!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:What a nasty, spiteful, playground type insult.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:And another thing. Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment. Make use of it.
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
.
What 'that labour that fair' mean?
It's almost sounds like something a Tory Boy might say...
.
Sadly we live in a nasty world eh shoong?
OceansofRed
says...
5:39pm Thu 16 Aug 12
It also never mentioned closing a swimming pool or mentioned that Erskine Court was going to be closed but that's another matter.
My point is it is all very well celebrating the workers getting their money back but if services are cut and people sacked to pay for it then I for one won't be happy!
Shoong
says...
5:40pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:I was watching a repeat of Harry Enfield last night doing the Tory Boy sketch, You Tube it up if you're familiar and then afterwards try envisioning Tory boy saying 'Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment.'
Shoong wrote:Well....... "he who casts" and all that!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:What a nasty, spiteful, playground type insult.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:And another thing. Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment. Make use of it.
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
.
What 'that labour that fair' mean?
It's almost sounds like something a Tory Boy might say...
.
Sadly we live in a nasty world eh shoong?
It ain't hard to imagine.
bigfella777
says...
5:43pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Weston I recall resembled something from the slums of Calcutta.
On the inside
says...
5:43pm Thu 16 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:1. Wrong they are still going ahead. They may withdraw them if they reach agreement and not before.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer. 2/. The strikes were political. 3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it. 4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know. 5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair. 6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies. 7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
2. Of course, everything is and so it should be.
3. Not if you are acting smartly not stupidly.
4. Wrong, they all did and gave it to good causes unlike the Tories who claimed allowances whilst in America.
5. Two totally unconnected issues unless you are one of those people who can count to 10 but not 400,000,000 (the total council bunget).
6. Not a new trick even if it was true.
7. The earth moved for me.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:44pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:Ask them then why and stop moaning about it here! I would be interested in their answer as well.
But Ant MP no one can answer what is being cut to restore the workers pay? The Labour manifesto which I voted for said nothing about how it would be funded.
It also never mentioned closing a swimming pool or mentioned that Erskine Court was going to be closed but that's another matter.
My point is it is all very well celebrating the workers getting their money back but if services are cut and people sacked to pay for it then I for one won't be happy!
.
The money shouldnt have been taken in the 1st place. It was the wrong choice by the then Tory Council. The Coalition Govt are at fault for cutting the local Government Grant!! Blame them.
.
Anyway I said Im going. I'm late.
On the inside
says...
5:44pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP
says...
5:45pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:OK shoong you win!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:I was watching a repeat of Harry Enfield last night doing the Tory Boy sketch, You Tube it up if you're familiar and then afterwards try envisioning Tory boy saying 'Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment.'
Shoong wrote:Well....... "he who casts" and all that!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:What a nasty, spiteful, playground type insult.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:And another thing. Your grammar is sh*t. Plenty of evening classes being advertised at the moment. Make use of it.
aldermoorboy wrote:Sorry I forgot to mention aldermoorboy with George4th and Loserhead!!.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
.
You said all that in one breath mate, must be a record. Wipe you mouth now!
.
What 'that labour that fair' mean?
It's almost sounds like something a Tory Boy might say...
.
Sadly we live in a nasty world eh shoong?
It ain't hard to imagine.
OceansofRed
says...
5:50pm Thu 16 Aug 12
The decision to restore the pay cuts will mean a new cost to the council.
Which has got to be paid for!
Whynot32
says...
6:11pm Thu 16 Aug 12
thinklikealocal
says...
6:11pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:Ermm, one that would have been cut last year if staff pay hadn't been? Central Govt have decided Local Councils will get a lot less funding. DON'T blame SCC staff for service cuts its hardly their fault!
Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.
Whynot32
says...
6:16pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed
says...
6:26pm Thu 16 Aug 12
IronLady2010
says...
6:32pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
OceansofRed
says...
6:39pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Lone Ranger.
says...
6:43pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Whynot32 wrote:And your point is ....... No there isnt one is there.
All I ever see is the driver of Council Van Number 1534 sat in his van reading the paper until 9am every day !!!
.
It may be difficult ... but ....think......... could he be on a break after starting at 06-00am or even earlier.
.
Have you asked ...... NO.
.
Have you spoken to the council as it concerns you so much ..... NO
IronLady2010
says...
6:45pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:The Unions say a lot of things, but not replacing a job isn't a job cut as there would be no-one employed to cut, I do agree with you on what the future holds and look forward to how the Council can cope with this situation.
OK, Iron, when the tories didn't replace jobs the unions said it was a job cut.
thinklikealocal
says...
6:56pm Thu 16 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:There are plenty of other cost saving options thet could be explored. Those in power need to start listening to officers ideas and stop playing politics. Staff have clearly indicated they don't want their pay cut. If that means further job cuts (lets not pretend there haven't been lots already) then I think they have signed up for that. By the way, no one gets sacked, they get made redundant or maybe redeployed? The Council also has lots oh temp and agency staff who can go first.
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
lordshill loyal
says...
7:55pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Mark643
says...
8:00pm Thu 16 Aug 12
I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin.
If the Labour run council would like a rate increase next year (or to cut my local services) I can't afford it. It's simple economics.
So someone please explain why in these extreme financial conditions I shouldn't think that taking a pay cut and freeze say my salary to keep jobs, possibly say my own job, is not a reasonable alternative, that council workers are selfish to depend on people like me with a fixed salary to give them an increase every year to breaking point, that these so called negotiations are nothing but political mischief.
Mark643
says...
8:00pm Thu 16 Aug 12
I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin.
If the Labour run council would like a rate increase next year (or to cut my local services) I can't afford it. It's simple economics.
So someone please explain why in these extreme financial conditions I shouldn't think that taking a pay cut and freeze say my salary to keep jobs, possibly say my own job, is not a reasonable alternative, that council workers are selfish to depend on people like me with a fixed salary to give them an increase every year to breaking point, that these so called negotiations are nothing but political mischief.
Linesman
says...
8:01pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:I don't think the gun is loaded, but think that it's you that's cocked.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
Linesman
says...
8:04pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Shoong wrote:My betting is that, like a true blue Tory, you did not deliver.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:'Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute.'
Shoong wrote:It was lowered on May 3rd when you know who lost the Leadership of the Council. Labour said they would restore the pay that was cut. With that assurance the easy task of voting the Tories out needed to happen, It happened on May 3rd. The Tories were not up for the fight and their vote collapsed.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Indeed.
Shoong wrote:No surprises at all shoong. Well spotted!
No surprises here then.
Does this mean the metaphorical gun has been lowered from the collective heads of the good people of Southampton?
Still loaded and cocked though as always.
.
Unfortunately the gun held to Southamptons head is held by the Coalition Govt. While the hands of Southampton councillors are tied over the ridiculous cut in grant from contral govt at least Labour Councillors have lived up to their promise of settling the dispute (pending a ballot of union members) something the Tories were incapable of doing.
I've promised loads of things over pillow talk too.
OceansofRed
says...
8:14pm Thu 16 Aug 12
loosehead
says...
9:32pm Thu 16 Aug 12
& before you call me a liar answer this "why did they make up a cabinet post to review refuse services?"
The money made from closing the pool will be no where near the £7million+ they will need to restore all pay but with so many losing there jobs they won't need that much.
Shame on these two unions who would have saved jobs & only seen people on £22,000 & above take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same cut Tory & Liberal councillors took.
If these Unions were acting on behalf of their members how can they stop legal proceedings unless they've got permission from their members first or wasn't that what Unite said before?
I remember a Union striker asking if the unions settled with the council would legal action still take place & he said YES so why have the unions over ruled their membership?
Will this pay be back dated? or will the job losses take place & then pay restored?
I honestly thought the unions were there to safeguard jobs these two aren't are they?
So come on what's the next place to close? Labour has said this pool had to close to safe money & that would go towards restoring pay is this the same as Erskine Court closing then?
I've read & been insulted by you Union lovers for a while now but this agreement is nothing but insulting to all the electorate accepting a worse deal than the Tories offered Not Political? really showing what Liars both the Labour Party & these two unions are aren't You?
OSPREYSAINT
says...
10:05pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:I admit that I was critical about the Sea City Museum, that was until I visited it, it is worth every penny and I suggest that you make an effort to go and visit it, you won't be disappointed no matter how cynical you are.
OceansofRed wrote:The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader.
Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP!
The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut.
Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts.
That money has got to come from somewhere.
It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.
.
The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
freemantlegirl2
says...
10:09pm Thu 16 Aug 12
If people want to save the pool, they will have to do what the enterprising people did with Red Lodge did and take it over..... I'd rather see a pool close than vital services. .... there are other pools in the city, the Quays is very disabled friendly (and pensioner friendly), it has some of the best facilities in the region, hence them hosting many disabled swimming events....
Poppy22
says...
10:18pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Disgusted!
Well done, Labour party; you've just lost an awful lot of possible private sector and self employed voters!
Mark643
says...
11:00pm Thu 16 Aug 12
Mark643 wrote:Two and a half hours and not a single explanation. Why? I meant to say earlier that where my son works the company is finding it tough so they have closed for one day a week. That means everyone there loses a days pay each week (like for like MORE of a pay cut than ANY Council worker) BUT nobody loses their job. They have all accepted the situation and all kept their jobs. That's what happens in the REAL world, you adapt to survive. He's finding it tough, as is the family because he can't contribute as much, but we get by. Now if he worked for Southampton City Council with a Labour Council and joined a Union, he could live in fantasy world where you never lose your job, never take a pay cut and everybody else subsidises you whether they can afford to or not. I give up waiting for responses now. I just assume my thoughts are correct from the lack of response.
A simple lesson in economics. If I earn £100 I only have £100 to spend. If I spend £10 more then I have to go overdrawn before paying the £10 back. That means next month I only have £90 to spend. If I continue to overspend then I am in serious financial s*!t as I still have to pay what I owe. This example is true whether it be you, me or Southampton City Council.
I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin.
If the Labour run council would like a rate increase next year (or to cut my local services) I can't afford it. It's simple economics.
So someone please explain why in these extreme financial conditions I shouldn't think that taking a pay cut and freeze say my salary to keep jobs, possibly say my own job, is not a reasonable alternative, that council workers are selfish to depend on people like me with a fixed salary to give them an increase every year to breaking point, that these so called negotiations are nothing but political mischief.
OceansofRed
says...
11:06pm Thu 16 Aug 12
I'd rather have a job on less money than no job at all.
loosehead
says...
8:29am Fri 17 Aug 12
OceansofRed wrote:These unions are dropping legal action before they've even put it to the vote?
Mark its because people are selfish. it's sad but the council now seems to be saying it is better to sack people so there's the money to restore pay cuts rather than keep people in jobs.
I'd rather have a job on less money than no job at all.
does this mean the members just follow like sheep?
I like & get on well with a few refuse collectors, But how can they vote to restore pay when most won't see any or next to no pay rise knowing this council want fortnightly collections?
What will the voters think when surprise,surprise the review's finished & fortnightly collections are the way to go with the 1-10 job losses that will bring?
Sorry but if I was a refuse collector I would be voting against the deal but if I blindly do as my union tell me to then it will be accepted & then we the voters can see the real reasons of this dispute & maybe then the voters will wake up & this will be the last Labour council for a very long time
loosehead
says...
8:32am Fri 17 Aug 12
thinklikealocal wrote:So you're happy 1-10 refuse jobs are to go?
OceansofRed wrote:There are plenty of other cost saving options thet could be explored. Those in power need to start listening to officers ideas and stop playing politics. Staff have clearly indicated they don't want their pay cut. If that means further job cuts (lets not pretend there haven't been lots already) then I think they have signed up for that. By the way, no one gets sacked, they get made redundant or maybe redeployed? The Council also has lots oh temp and agency staff who can go first.
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
You're okay you're getting you're money back bugg*r the rest of them?
The Workers United Can Never Be Defeated is a real joke when one side want to see the other side of their unions lose their jobs isn't it?
loosehead
says...
8:37am Fri 17 Aug 12
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady still upset with you calling me barmy.
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
What the council actually said was that any jobs that go these people will be kept on for a set period.
any vacancies they must apply for them if they don't find work then the contract runs out & they have to leave with no redundancies.
If made redundant know they could look for other work whilst having a pay off the Councils way is take really low paid work or get nothing for every thing you've done for Labour.
I can't believe the Unions are accepting these conditions?
loosehead
says...
8:44am Fri 17 Aug 12
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady had my green bag nicked so got a new one which was much smaller than the previous one. when they came to empty the bags I asked why it was smaller the answer given was "the larger bags contravene health & safety as they can carry 50kg the new smaller bags hold 40kg we are starting to leave the big bags & only taking the smaller ones"
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
I said to him my wife can lift the larger bag so why not you ? he looked at me & just said Health & Safety.
so get an order in for a new green bag if you have garden waste if you live in a flat sorry for telling you this
loosehead
says...
8:47am Fri 17 Aug 12
On the inside wrote:WRONG. listen to Meridian news the unions have agreed to stop all legal action immediately & will be putting the deal to it's members was a union press release.
aldermoorboy wrote:1. Wrong they are still going ahead. They may withdraw them if they reach agreement and not before.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer. 2/. The strikes were political. 3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it. 4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know. 5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair. 6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies. 7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
2. Of course, everything is and so it should be.
3. Not if you are acting smartly not stupidly.
4. Wrong, they all did and gave it to good causes unlike the Tories who claimed allowances whilst in America.
5. Two totally unconnected issues unless you are one of those people who can count to 10 but not 400,000,000 (the total council bunget).
6. Not a new trick even if it was true.
7. The earth moved for me.
So what happened to asking the membership first?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
8:51am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:"These unions are dropping legal action before they've even put it to the vote?"
OceansofRed wrote:These unions are dropping legal action before they've even put it to the vote?
Mark its because people are selfish. it's sad but the council now seems to be saying it is better to sack people so there's the money to restore pay cuts rather than keep people in jobs.
I'd rather have a job on less money than no job at all.
does this mean the members just follow like sheep?
I like & get on well with a few refuse collectors, But how can they vote to restore pay when most won't see any or next to no pay rise knowing this council want fortnightly collections?
What will the voters think when surprise,surprise the review's finished & fortnightly collections are the way to go with the 1-10 job losses that will bring?
Sorry but if I was a refuse collector I would be voting against the deal but if I blindly do as my union tell me to then it will be accepted & then we the voters can see the real reasons of this dispute & maybe then the voters will wake up & this will be the last Labour council for a very long time
.
Really Loserhead? Read the article again
.
"The council’s finance boss and lead negotiator councillor Simon Letts said: “On behalf of Southampton City Council , I welcome the decision to SUSPEND the legal action as a vital first step to settling an industrial dispute which left a million uncollected bin bags rotting on the streets of our city."
.
I have put the key word you ignored in capitals.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:00am Fri 17 Aug 12
.
None of you have as yet seen the deal to end the dispute so unless you are psychic no one one has the foresight to make any comment beyond uninformed assumptions bound by whatever political prejudices that inflict your minds.
.
I have seen nothing but Tory spin suggesting 1 in 10 binnies being made redundant. I think this is unlikely to happen (i know this is a sore point for you loserhead since you found out you didnt get the job you applied for)
.
From what I have read and seen Unions now cuts will be made because of the Government cuts. Whether Labour ,Liberal , Tory or anyone else doing them , they will not agree with them.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:01am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:Wrong. The legal action hasnt been dropped. It has been suspended!! Idiot!!
On the inside wrote:WRONG. listen to Meridian news the unions have agreed to stop all legal action immediately & will be putting the deal to it's members was a union press release.
aldermoorboy wrote:1. Wrong they are still going ahead. They may withdraw them if they reach agreement and not before.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer. 2/. The strikes were political. 3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it. 4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know. 5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair. 6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies. 7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
2. Of course, everything is and so it should be.
3. Not if you are acting smartly not stupidly.
4. Wrong, they all did and gave it to good causes unlike the Tories who claimed allowances whilst in America.
5. Two totally unconnected issues unless you are one of those people who can count to 10 but not 400,000,000 (the total council bunget).
6. Not a new trick even if it was true.
7. The earth moved for me.
So what happened to asking the membership first?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:01am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:Wrong. The legal action hasnt been dropped. It has been suspended!! Idiot!!
On the inside wrote:WRONG. listen to Meridian news the unions have agreed to stop all legal action immediately & will be putting the deal to it's members was a union press release.
aldermoorboy wrote:1. Wrong they are still going ahead. They may withdraw them if they reach agreement and not before.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer. 2/. The strikes were political. 3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it. 4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know. 5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair. 6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies. 7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
2. Of course, everything is and so it should be.
3. Not if you are acting smartly not stupidly.
4. Wrong, they all did and gave it to good causes unlike the Tories who claimed allowances whilst in America.
5. Two totally unconnected issues unless you are one of those people who can count to 10 but not 400,000,000 (the total council bunget).
6. Not a new trick even if it was true.
7. The earth moved for me.
So what happened to asking the membership first?
loosehead
says...
9:08am Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Right you say my name wrong as an insult.
The Tories wanted to make 1500 SCC workers redundant by 2015. This fact was published in the Echo last year in July after a meeting of senior management discussed it. this cut is due to the governments (wrong in my view) cut in local government grants. The Government are the real villain in this whole story.
.
None of you have as yet seen the deal to end the dispute so unless you are psychic no one one has the foresight to make any comment beyond uninformed assumptions bound by whatever political prejudices that inflict your minds.
.
I have seen nothing but Tory spin suggesting 1 in 10 binnies being made redundant. I think this is unlikely to happen (i know this is a sore point for you loserhead since you found out you didnt get the job you applied for)
.
From what I have read and seen Unions now cuts will be made because of the Government cuts. Whether Labour ,Liberal , Tory or anyone else doing them , they will not agree with them.
you then call me an idiot for repeating what the news presenter said which was stopped legal proceedings but stopped suspended surely before they can do either they should have asked their members first or is that a concept to alien for them or you to comprehend?
Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go?
When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?
How you can slag down people like me & then praise people who want to see job losses get's me & you call yourself a Union member?
not the unions I use to belong to & was a shop steward in
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:15am Fri 17 Aug 12
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
aldermoorboy
says...
9:17am Fri 17 Aug 12
You do a great job in standing up for ordinary Southampton people, keep exposing these Labour lies.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:24am Fri 17 Aug 12
.
LEGAL CLAIMS for beginners;
.
"you then call me an idiot for repeating what the news presenter said which was stopped legal proceedings but stopped suspended surely before they can do either they should have asked their members first or is that a concept to alien for them or you to comprehend?"
.
My understanding is this. There are two legal claims in. One is over the Lack of Consultation. Only the unions can make this claim not individual members. I have heard in these pages that no individual has put in a claim for this. The unions have suspended the claim pending a ballot. If the ballot goes in favour of the dispute settlement then the claim drops anyway. My understanding from these pages as well was that suspending the claim was put to the Union shop stewards (elected from the members) They agreed to suspend.
.
The 2nd claim (s) are for unfair dismissal. These are individual claims. It is up to the individual whether to pursue these or not. Its not for the union to decide. As far as I know these are still going.
.
Is that clear enough for you or do you want me to draw pictures?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:25am Fri 17 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:Lets all vote for Loosehead. A vote for sober (sic) sanity in a cloudy world on confusion!!
Well said Loosehead, you are correct as usual.
You do a great job in standing up for ordinary Southampton people, keep exposing these Labour lies.
southy
says...
9:27am Fri 17 Aug 12
freemantlegirl2 wrote:The Oaklands pool wasn't taken over because the Torys was all ready in talks with Sainsburys to have the land for there new store.
Fact: has anyone thought why the oaklands pool wasn't taken over with the rest of the transfer to Active Nation (done by the Tories I might add) because it would have cost them too much and the council too much to keep going and it wasn't going to make ends meet.
If people want to save the pool, they will have to do what the enterprising people did with Red Lodge did and take it over..... I'd rather see a pool close than vital services. .... there are other pools in the city, the Quays is very disabled friendly (and pensioner friendly), it has some of the best facilities in the region, hence them hosting many disabled swimming events....
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:41am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead
says...
9:42am Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:No because this is speculation and made up by you.
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
.
Funny I read it in an article in this paper & saw it on the BBC?
Funny after saying it publicly & seeing the public's reaction to it you all had a meeting where this paper's journalist was accused of making it up?
There is a review on refuse so I'm not making that one up but this is par for course with you.
You're beloved Unions & Labour party are going against everything that they've said over the last year you can't justifiably argue their case so you throw insults & try to belittle people who are pointing out the truth.
What is it Every one else is lying but not the Union leaderships or Williams Labour Council?
You are quite happy to see a pool & old peoples home close?
At the Pool meeting you're mate Warwick-Payne said it was closing & the monies saved would go to restore pay & unless you were there how can you deny this?
loosehead
says...
9:45am Fri 17 Aug 12
southy wrote:Southy attacking the Tories again?
freemantlegirl2 wrote:The Oaklands pool wasn't taken over because the Torys was all ready in talks with Sainsburys to have the land for there new store.
Fact: has anyone thought why the oaklands pool wasn't taken over with the rest of the transfer to Active Nation (done by the Tories I might add) because it would have cost them too much and the council too much to keep going and it wasn't going to make ends meet.
If people want to save the pool, they will have to do what the enterprising people did with Red Lodge did and take it over..... I'd rather see a pool close than vital services. .... there are other pools in the city, the Quays is very disabled friendly (and pensioner friendly), it has some of the best facilities in the region, hence them hosting many disabled swimming events....
Surely job losses to restore pay to higher workers should be what you're attacking oh! it's you're friends the Labour Party you know the ones you didn't contest against or where thinking of not contesting against.
Why not grow some & attack this Labour job cutting council?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
9:48am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:Speculation!! Bit of pot calling kettle black here!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:No because this is speculation and made up by you.
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
.
Funny I read it in an article in this paper & saw it on the BBC?
Funny after saying it publicly & seeing the public's reaction to it you all had a meeting where this paper's journalist was accused of making it up?
There is a review on refuse so I'm not making that one up but this is par for course with you.
You're beloved Unions & Labour party are going against everything that they've said over the last year you can't justifiably argue their case so you throw insults & try to belittle people who are pointing out the truth.
What is it Every one else is lying but not the Union leaderships or Williams Labour Council?
You are quite happy to see a pool & old peoples home close?
At the Pool meeting you're mate Warwick-Payne said it was closing & the monies saved would go to restore pay & unless you were there how can you deny this?
.
Im off before all our IQs drop listening to your jealous rantings!!
southy
says...
9:49am Fri 17 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:The court case and industral action was holted about 6 weeks before the Local elections, this was agreement between Union members only, to allow the Elections to take place with out any hinderence, and because of the total new Council time would be giving to see what the new council would do, this is normal practice by Unions.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
As for who would win the local election that was a foregone conclusion every one knew with the results of the 2011 elections, Labour had done and more than it needed to, to win the 2012 local elections, this had happen not just in Southampton but up and down the country, the only reason why Labour lost this Council in the first place was because there was a revolt against the Labour Party 4 and bit years ago, and it wasn't a case of switching votes, it was a case of not voting and that allowed the Torys in.
Who earns this 50K in wages, its not the front line staff, I know R Smith earns alot more than that because he sits on the council, he not only earns money for being a councillor he raking it in just because he sits on boards like the Fire Brigade and ABP'j Southampton Dock Board. did not here him say he take a pay cut on the boards that he sits on, only the council one.
southy
says...
9:51am Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:I not only attack the Torys, I also attack Lib'dems, Labour, UKIP, Greens, BNP, The First Party, I will even attack the TUSC if I think they are in the wrong.
southy wrote:Southy attacking the Tories again?
freemantlegirl2 wrote:The Oaklands pool wasn't taken over because the Torys was all ready in talks with Sainsburys to have the land for there new store.
Fact: has anyone thought why the oaklands pool wasn't taken over with the rest of the transfer to Active Nation (done by the Tories I might add) because it would have cost them too much and the council too much to keep going and it wasn't going to make ends meet.
If people want to save the pool, they will have to do what the enterprising people did with Red Lodge did and take it over..... I'd rather see a pool close than vital services. .... there are other pools in the city, the Quays is very disabled friendly (and pensioner friendly), it has some of the best facilities in the region, hence them hosting many disabled swimming events....
Surely job losses to restore pay to higher workers should be what you're attacking oh! it's you're friends the Labour Party you know the ones you didn't contest against or where thinking of not contesting against.
Why not grow some & attack this Labour job cutting council?
southy
says...
9:57am Fri 17 Aug 12
Front line Public jobs should all ways remain in line with population growth.
And we should be fighting the main Government for more council tax money returned to the Council. If not then with hold the Council tax from government for a year and claim the interest it makes.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
11:07am Fri 17 Aug 12
southy wrote:"The court case and industral action was holted about 6 weeks before the Local elections, this was agreement between Union members only, to allow the Elections to take place with out any hinderence, and because of the total new Council time would be giving to see what the new council would do, this is normal practice by Unions."
aldermoorboy wrote:The court case and industral action was holted about 6 weeks before the Local elections, this was agreement between Union members only, to allow the Elections to take place with out any hinderence, and because of the total new Council time would be giving to see what the new council would do, this is normal practice by Unions.
1/.If the unions thought they could win £15m in court they would have gone ahead. There was no case to answer.
2/. The strikes were political.
3/. Restore the pay of the best paid, sack more workers to pay for it.
4/. Only Sotondave in the Labour group took a pay cut as far as we know.
5/. Close the pool, restore workers pay when some already earn £50k+, that Labour that's fair.
6/. Promise anything to win, hope the electorate forget. Confuse the picture with lies.
7/. Move heaven and earth for 5 minutes.
As for who would win the local election that was a foregone conclusion every one knew with the results of the 2011 elections, Labour had done and more than it needed to, to win the 2012 local elections, this had happen not just in Southampton but up and down the country, the only reason why Labour lost this Council in the first place was because there was a revolt against the Labour Party 4 and bit years ago, and it wasn't a case of switching votes, it was a case of not voting and that allowed the Torys in.
Who earns this 50K in wages, its not the front line staff, I know R Smith earns alot more than that because he sits on the council, he not only earns money for being a councillor he raking it in just because he sits on boards like the Fire Brigade and ABP'j Southampton Dock Board. did not here him say he take a pay cut on the boards that he sits on, only the council one.
.
Except for there was no agreement was there Southy? excuse me but where did you get this info from?
.
Apart from that you are in general correct in what you say.
George4th
says...
11:21am Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why do you and some Labour leaning posters resort to insults and swearing? Is it a prerequisite for supporting Labour?
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
George4th
says...
11:42am Fri 17 Aug 12
Mark643 wrote:"I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did, that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin. "
Mark643 wrote:Two and a half hours and not a single explanation. Why? I meant to say earlier that where my son works the company is finding it tough so they have closed for one day a week. That means everyone there loses a days pay each week (like for like MORE of a pay cut than ANY Council worker) BUT nobody loses their job. They have all accepted the situation and all kept their jobs. That's what happens in the REAL world, you adapt to survive. He's finding it tough, as is the family because he can't contribute as much, but we get by. Now if he worked for Southampton City Council with a Labour Council and joined a Union, he could live in fantasy world where you never lose your job, never take a pay cut and everybody else subsidises you whether they can afford to or not. I give up waiting for responses now. I just assume my thoughts are correct from the lack of response.
A simple lesson in economics. If I earn £100 I only have £100 to spend. If I spend £10 more then I have to go overdrawn before paying the £10 back. That means next month I only have £90 to spend. If I continue to overspend then I am in serious financial s*!t as I still have to pay what I owe. This example is true whether it be you, me or Southampton City Council.
I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin.
If the Labour run council would like a rate increase next year (or to cut my local services) I can't afford it. It's simple economics.
So someone please explain why in these extreme financial conditions I shouldn't think that taking a pay cut and freeze say my salary to keep jobs, possibly say my own job, is not a reasonable alternative, that council workers are selfish to depend on people like me with a fixed salary to give them an increase every year to breaking point, that these so called negotiations are nothing but political mischief.
"Now if he worked for Southampton City Council with a Labour Council and joined a Union, he could live in fantasy world where you never lose your job, never take a pay cut and everybody else subsidises you whether they can afford to or not."
Thank you for that dose of reality and for saying it as it is.
>
The Private Sector is the energy and the driving force for the economy - the Public Sector are the drag parachutes of the economy - the Unions are the saboteurs of growth, investment and peoples aspirations.
IronLady2010
says...
1:32pm Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:I haven't called you barmy! This is the name I use for Paramjet as I can't spell his name.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady still upset with you calling me barmy.
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
What the council actually said was that any jobs that go these people will be kept on for a set period.
any vacancies they must apply for them if they don't find work then the contract runs out & they have to leave with no redundancies.
If made redundant know they could look for other work whilst having a pay off the Councils way is take really low paid work or get nothing for every thing you've done for Labour.
I can't believe the Unions are accepting these conditions?
Ant Smoking MP
says...
1:38pm Fri 17 Aug 12
George4th wrote:And you George4th are a comedy character who just mouths off random statements to your tiny Tory audience on here.
Mark643 wrote:"I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did, that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin. "
Mark643 wrote:Two and a half hours and not a single explanation. Why? I meant to say earlier that where my son works the company is finding it tough so they have closed for one day a week. That means everyone there loses a days pay each week (like for like MORE of a pay cut than ANY Council worker) BUT nobody loses their job. They have all accepted the situation and all kept their jobs. That's what happens in the REAL world, you adapt to survive. He's finding it tough, as is the family because he can't contribute as much, but we get by. Now if he worked for Southampton City Council with a Labour Council and joined a Union, he could live in fantasy world where you never lose your job, never take a pay cut and everybody else subsidises you whether they can afford to or not. I give up waiting for responses now. I just assume my thoughts are correct from the lack of response.
A simple lesson in economics. If I earn £100 I only have £100 to spend. If I spend £10 more then I have to go overdrawn before paying the £10 back. That means next month I only have £90 to spend. If I continue to overspend then I am in serious financial s*!t as I still have to pay what I owe. This example is true whether it be you, me or Southampton City Council.
I didn't have a pay increase this year and in past years when I didn't get an increase and Council workers did that was the equivalent for me of a pay cut in comparison. Like everyone in my position, I didn't complain. I took it on the chin.
If the Labour run council would like a rate increase next year (or to cut my local services) I can't afford it. It's simple economics.
So someone please explain why in these extreme financial conditions I shouldn't think that taking a pay cut and freeze say my salary to keep jobs, possibly say my own job, is not a reasonable alternative, that council workers are selfish to depend on people like me with a fixed salary to give them an increase every year to breaking point, that these so called negotiations are nothing but political mischief.
"Now if he worked for Southampton City Council with a Labour Council and joined a Union, he could live in fantasy world where you never lose your job, never take a pay cut and everybody else subsidises you whether they can afford to or not."
Thank you for that dose of reality and for saying it as it is.
>
The Private Sector is the energy and the driving force for the economy - the Public Sector are the drag parachutes of the economy - the Unions are the saboteurs of growth, investment and peoples aspirations.
.
The Private sector have NOT come to the rescue so far. This Govt has put paid to that. Didnt we read somewhere that it is the 3rd quarter of negative growth in the economy?
.
The Tories are the saboteurs of growth, champions of Tax Avoidance by the big corporations (£120 Billion!! a year) and of senseless cuts that hit both the public and the private sector.
.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
1:39pm Fri 17 Aug 12
George4th wrote:No,no, no> Its how to deal with thick Tories.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why do you and some Labour leaning posters resort to insults and swearing? Is it a prerequisite for supporting Labour?
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
George4th
says...
2:23pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Thank you for confirming my statement and answering my question.
George4th wrote:No,no, no> Its how to deal with thick Tories.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why do you and some Labour leaning posters resort to insults and swearing? Is it a prerequisite for supporting Labour?
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
loosehead
says...
2:35pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:So If you don't agree with you.if you have any other political view point than you you're thick or talking sh*t?
George4th wrote:No,no, no> Its how to deal with thick Tories.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why do you and some Labour leaning posters resort to insults and swearing? Is it a prerequisite for supporting Labour?
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
so I have apologised when proven to have got it wrong. I have stood for Bio Mass when the Tory party are against it so I have a free mind.
But you decided before you even knew me to take the mick by adopting a line where I accidentally missed an I out of Anti as you're on line title.
now you can't see that the Unions should not be accepting this deal & the best deal they had was under the Tory council.
Do you think it's right that a pool & old peoples home should shut?
Do you think it's wrong the pool's sell will give money to restore pay?
Or are you just going to deny the Unions are in the wrong putting this to it's members asking for acceptance?
How can you a Whitehead fan accept this councils demolition of a pool fought for & built because of him yet he won't comment on it?
sottondave
says...
2:38pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:The SS museum. I know the Tories are accused of being right wing but even I would not accuse them of that.
OceansofRed wrote: Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader. . The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
loosehead
says...
2:42pm Fri 17 Aug 12
sottondave wrote:Maybe Herr Williams?
Ant Smoking MP wrote:The SS museum. I know the Tories are accused of being right wing but even I would not accuse them of that.
OceansofRed wrote: Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader. . The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
2:54pm Fri 17 Aug 12
sottondave wrote:Good joke mate. Like it, but any Nazi connotations should probably be directed at the previous council leadership. I have heard an allegation that one or two of them may have form in this department!! Hopefully in this day and age not true but you never know!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:The SS museum. I know the Tories are accused of being right wing but even I would not accuse them of that.
OceansofRed wrote: Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader. . The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
2:55pm Fri 17 Aug 12
George4th wrote:No problem Georgio. I am here to assist you understand.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Thank you for confirming my statement and answering my question.
George4th wrote:No,no, no> Its how to deal with thick Tories.
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why do you and some Labour leaning posters resort to insults and swearing? Is it a prerequisite for supporting Labour?
"Will you come back on here & slate the Unions & Labour council when it's announced 1-10 refuse jobs to go"
.
No because this is speculation and made up by you.
.
"When this sham of a review advocates fortnightly collections?"
.
The Council leader made public that there would be no return to 2 weekly collections apart from in your imagination.
.
The Unions do not want to see job losses. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
.
Aha!! We used to be a shop steward did you? At BAT where you received all those union negotiated benefits such as Pension, Good Terms and Condition and decent holidays? Now you could probably understand why the SCC went on strike last year to defend their T's and C's. Quite rightly so in my opinion. How did you get on defending T's and C's at BAT?
.
I will stop offending you when you stop talking sh*t!!
loosehead
says...
3:03pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why not print your name & then name these people then?
sottondave wrote:Good joke mate. Like it, but any Nazi connotations should probably be directed at the previous council leadership. I have heard an allegation that one or two of them may have form in this department!! Hopefully in this day and age not true but you never know!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:The SS museum. I know the Tories are accused of being right wing but even I would not accuse them of that.
OceansofRed wrote: Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader. . The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
3:17pm Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:Because they are allegations Loosey. In your world allegations are true but in the real world I think proof is needed as Cllr Moulton found out when he was forced to put an apology on his blog because he accused the Leader of Unite of being a Communist .
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Why not print your name & then name these people then?
sottondave wrote:Good joke mate. Like it, but any Nazi connotations should probably be directed at the previous council leadership. I have heard an allegation that one or two of them may have form in this department!! Hopefully in this day and age not true but you never know!!
Ant Smoking MP wrote:The SS museum. I know the Tories are accused of being right wing but even I would not accuse them of that.
OceansofRed wrote: Well the unions were going round saying the workers pay was being cut to pay for the sea city museum ant smoking MP! The government has given the council less money. Something has to be cut. Now, the cost of running the council will be going up because the council is going to restore the workers pay cuts. That money has got to come from somewhere. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask as a city resident what services will have to be cut in order for the workers to get their pay back.The Unions had a go at the SS Museum because they disagreed with the then councils priorities. The SS Museum is just in my view a vanity project hoisted on our city by a very vain Tory Council leader. . The thing about living in a democracy is the ability to ask. Why dont YOU ask the council where the money is going to come from? A bit pointless asking the question here only to listen to the rantings of our resident 'experts' George4th and Looserhead. But if you hang on they will be here to clarify things for you.
.
Ask him. You have his phone number!!
aldermoorboy
says...
3:26pm Fri 17 Aug 12
This country would be better off without both. They will destroy jobs in the UK AS THEY WON'T ALLOW US TO COMPETE.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
3:37pm Fri 17 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:Dream on aldermoorboy. Since when are you a spokesperson for what this country wants? Who elected you? You only have to look at the resurgent Car Industry to see how the unions have brought it back from the brink, in particular Unite.
The Unite leadership and the Labour party are a disgrace in my view.
This country would be better off without both. They will destroy jobs in the UK AS THEY WON'T ALLOW US TO COMPETE.
.
http://www.unitetheu
nion.org/news__event
s/latest_news/uk_car
_industry_continues_
to_b.aspx
.
Just go away.
aldermoorboy
says...
4:19pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Business people from Japan, Germany and India have saved what's left of our industry.
Unions and Labour have done good things in the distant past (NHS is a good example), but this mob care only for themselves.A good example is the Southampton council who will give people on £50k a £2,500 pay rise while sacking workers to pay for it.
Have a good weekend I am off to support the Saints.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:21pm Fri 17 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:You have a good weekend aldermoorboy. I would be very interested in this "A good example is the Southampton council who will give people on £50k a £2,500 pay rise while sacking workers to pay for it". Have you been looking through thev Loserhead book of Facts?
ant the unions destroyed our car industry in the 1970 decade.
Business people from Japan, Germany and India have saved what's left of our industry.
Unions and Labour have done good things in the distant past (NHS is a good example), but this mob care only for themselves.A good example is the Southampton council who will give people on £50k a £2,500 pay rise while sacking workers to pay for it.
Have a good weekend I am off to support the Saints.
Ant Smoking MP
says...
4:30pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP
says...
6:16pm Fri 17 Aug 12
aldermoorboy wrote:Oh I forgot to say. Boring Tory/Daily Mail type of rubbish. Have a lovely weekend. Make the most of the good weather before Camoron and his Tory nutjobs privatise it!!
ant the unions destroyed our car industry in the 1970 decade.
Business people from Japan, Germany and India have saved what's left of our industry.
Unions and Labour have done good things in the distant past (NHS is a good example), but this mob care only for themselves.A good example is the Southampton council who will give people on £50k a £2,500 pay rise while sacking workers to pay for it.
Have a good weekend I am off to support the Saints.
whyalwaysme
says...
6:19pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Whynot32 wrote:Really Whynot32 !!! And where have you seen this van EVERY DAY?? As far as I know they work ALL over the city. So unless you are stalking van 1534 I find that hard to believe !!!!
All I ever see is the driver of Council Van Number 1534 sat in his van reading the paper until 9am every day !!!
loosehead
says...
9:25pm Fri 17 Aug 12
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady I'm sorry & would like to apologise for thinking you would call me a name SORRY
loosehead wrote:I haven't called you barmy! This is the name I use for Paramjet as I can't spell his name.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady still upset with you calling me barmy.
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
What the council actually said was that any jobs that go these people will be kept on for a set period.
any vacancies they must apply for them if they don't find work then the contract runs out & they have to leave with no redundancies.
If made redundant know they could look for other work whilst having a pay off the Councils way is take really low paid work or get nothing for every thing you've done for Labour.
I can't believe the Unions are accepting these conditions?
loosehead
says...
9:39pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Ant Smoking MP wrote:Well you've just proved what a low IQ you really have haven't you?
aldermoorboy wrote:Dream on aldermoorboy. Since when are you a spokesperson for what this country wants? Who elected you? You only have to look at the resurgent Car Industry to see how the unions have brought it back from the brink, in particular Unite.
The Unite leadership and the Labour party are a disgrace in my view.
This country would be better off without both. They will destroy jobs in the UK AS THEY WON'T ALLOW US TO COMPETE.
.
http://www.unitetheu
nion.org/news__event
s/latest_news/uk_car
_industry_continues_
to_b.aspx
.
Just go away.
As far as I remember it wasn't just the Unions who secured the extra work at Ellesmere port but a certain coalition MP called oh! Let me see? Vince Cable why did that name not appear in your Union Rant?
As for the British Car Industry do you not remember Leyland? Nationalised by Labour only for the likes of Red Ken to strike at a drop of a hat.
to the point it would cost less in dole money than subsidising a car manufacturer that couldn't invest as the workers were always on strike & no one wanted their cars.
You are so blinkered you distort the past to suit your political point of view then you have the audacity to insult me & other posters on here go & crawl back into your hole.
This Labour council in a short time has been accused by it's own cabinet members of being run by a liar & has been proven to be liars by their actions at Oaklands Pool & Erskine Court now your beloved Unions are betraying their membership & you dare come on here insulting people?
I hope even left wing posts on here see what a disgrace you are to the Union movement
IronLady2010
says...
10:21pm Fri 17 Aug 12
loosehead wrote:No need to apologise, but at least you have the courage to do so, unlike many on here.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady I'm sorry & would like to apologise for thinking you would call me a name SORRY
loosehead wrote:I haven't called you barmy! This is the name I use for Paramjet as I can't spell his name.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady still upset with you calling me barmy.
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
What the council actually said was that any jobs that go these people will be kept on for a set period.
any vacancies they must apply for them if they don't find work then the contract runs out & they have to leave with no redundancies.
If made redundant know they could look for other work whilst having a pay off the Councils way is take really low paid work or get nothing for every thing you've done for Labour.
I can't believe the Unions are accepting these conditions?
We don't always agree on things, but I respect you as an honest person.
You are the last person I would insult! Have a great weekend!
loosehead
says...
6:28am Sat 18 Aug 12
If it is now I know why so many personal insults to so many people.
You're a disgrace to this city either way & I hope your Unite Union Members vote against the deal.
loosehead
says...
6:30am Sat 18 Aug 12
southy wrote:Southy let's see if you can tell the truth(talk it)?
freemantlegirl2 wrote:The Oaklands pool wasn't taken over because the Torys was all ready in talks with Sainsburys to have the land for there new store.
Fact: has anyone thought why the oaklands pool wasn't taken over with the rest of the transfer to Active Nation (done by the Tories I might add) because it would have cost them too much and the council too much to keep going and it wasn't going to make ends meet.
If people want to save the pool, they will have to do what the enterprising people did with Red Lodge did and take it over..... I'd rather see a pool close than vital services. .... there are other pools in the city, the Quays is very disabled friendly (and pensioner friendly), it has some of the best facilities in the region, hence them hosting many disabled swimming events....
Is Ant Smoking Ian Woodland Unite Union?
tootle
says...
10:16am Sat 18 Aug 12
OSPREYSAINT
says...
1:28pm Sat 18 Aug 12
IronLady2010 wrote:I think you have pulled there LH, get in my boy.
loosehead wrote:No need to apologise, but at least you have the courage to do so, unlike many on here.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady I'm sorry & would like to apologise for thinking you would call me a name SORRY
loosehead wrote:I haven't called you barmy! This is the name I use for Paramjet as I can't spell his name.
IronLady2010 wrote:Ironlady still upset with you calling me barmy.
OceansofRed wrote:I believe Williams said he won't make major job cuts until next year, so that gives a few months of people leaving and the jobs either not being replaced or offered at a lower salary?
I'm not saying it is but if the restoration of pay cuts means that more staff are sacked thinklocal then how is that a good thing for the public services?
No point in speculating until we hear the true facts, but I do agree with your point.
What the council actually said was that any jobs that go these people will be kept on for a set period.
any vacancies they must apply for them if they don't find work then the contract runs out & they have to leave with no redundancies.
If made redundant know they could look for other work whilst having a pay off the Councils way is take really low paid work or get nothing for every thing you've done for Labour.
I can't believe the Unions are accepting these conditions?
We don't always agree on things, but I respect you as an honest person.
You are the last person I would insult! Have a great weekend!
loosehead
says...
1:42pm Sat 18 Aug 12
tootle wrote:tootle how does two Unions look good after rejecting a deal that would have seen very low job losses & only people above £22,000 taking any form of pay cut only then to accept a deal that will see in one department alone 1-10 job losses, shutting of a community pool & OAP's home?
Well, jobs will be cut therefore services will be cut OR the Council Tax bill will go up. Sorry but whilst the paycut is unfair and only delays the inevitable job losses the longer services and jobs can be kept the nearer we may be to a recovery. Our workers haven't had a pay increase since the start of the recession, it is our income that falls, our customers are in the recession too, put prices up to allow the pay rises and they walk away, go for new jobs and we are in direct competition with the redundant cash rich and the black market economy. We are doing what we always do in a downturn - surviving. Maybe, just maybe accepting the status quo would have been in the best interests of the workers and council tax payers of the City long term - I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that this compromise is designed to make the Labour Council and the Union negotiators look good - I really hope there is more to it than that but with politicians and modern Unions involved I am very sceptical.
they say they will keep them on at a low paid job for eight months but fail to say what happens then?
At my last company if they scrapped your job but offered you a lower paid one you stayed on your current pay for two years then your wages dropped & so did your redundancy pay & pension.
If you applied for another job on lower pay you would take an immediate drop in pay & pension & of course redundancy pay.
So if all these council workers work for eight months on lower pay will their redundancy package & pension be lower?
As I've said these two Union leaders have shafted their own members for the sake of getting a Labour council & Ant Smoking should be ashamed of himself
OSPREYSAINT
says...
5:35pm Sat 18 Aug 12
tootle wrote:I think that the only real difference is in the fact that the two sides have actually negotiated rather than having one side trying to impose impossible demands.
Well, jobs will be cut therefore services will be cut OR the Council Tax bill will go up. Sorry but whilst the paycut is unfair and only delays the inevitable job losses the longer services and jobs can be kept the nearer we may be to a recovery. Our workers haven't had a pay increase since the start of the recession, it is our income that falls, our customers are in the recession too, put prices up to allow the pay rises and they walk away, go for new jobs and we are in direct competition with the redundant cash rich and the black market economy. We are doing what we always do in a downturn - surviving. Maybe, just maybe accepting the status quo would have been in the best interests of the workers and council tax payers of the City long term - I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that this compromise is designed to make the Labour Council and the Union negotiators look good - I really hope there is more to it than that but with politicians and modern Unions involved I am very sceptical.
IronLady2010
says...
6:21pm Sat 18 Aug 12
OSPREYSAINT wrote:But Osprey, what will happen next year when Labour start with the main cuts? Williams himself said he will be leaving the cuts until next year if I remember right.
tootle wrote:I think that the only real difference is in the fact that the two sides have actually negotiated rather than having one side trying to impose impossible demands.
Well, jobs will be cut therefore services will be cut OR the Council Tax bill will go up. Sorry but whilst the paycut is unfair and only delays the inevitable job losses the longer services and jobs can be kept the nearer we may be to a recovery. Our workers haven't had a pay increase since the start of the recession, it is our income that falls, our customers are in the recession too, put prices up to allow the pay rises and they walk away, go for new jobs and we are in direct competition with the redundant cash rich and the black market economy. We are doing what we always do in a downturn - surviving. Maybe, just maybe accepting the status quo would have been in the best interests of the workers and council tax payers of the City long term - I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that this compromise is designed to make the Labour Council and the Union negotiators look good - I really hope there is more to it than that but with politicians and modern Unions involved I am very sceptical.
We have to question wether the Unions will walk out again in protest of the potential cuts, of course with any luck they can solve many cuts with natural wastage.
But we have to remember the cuts are yet to come, let's not get too excited just yet.
Time will tell and I'm trying my hardest to keep an open mind.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
9:34pm Sat 18 Aug 12
IronLady2010 wrote:I have no idea, my crystal ball is blank. I have no doubt that there are jobs that can be disposed of, as they are not needed anymore, tough on those affected, but times are hard, there is no room for luxury, as you say natural wastage carefully managed could ease the situation, I am just glad I never took up a management position, despite many offers, I am too soft to handle the trauma of telling anyone that they were expendable. You often seem to want put the blame on a particular party, but these matters have no political allegiance, whoever is in charge has to select how they go about it and bias will creep in, and fairness goes out of the window.
OSPREYSAINT wrote:But Osprey, what will happen next year when Labour start with the main cuts? Williams himself said he will be leaving the cuts until next year if I remember right.
tootle wrote:I think that the only real difference is in the fact that the two sides have actually negotiated rather than having one side trying to impose impossible demands.
Well, jobs will be cut therefore services will be cut OR the Council Tax bill will go up. Sorry but whilst the paycut is unfair and only delays the inevitable job losses the longer services and jobs can be kept the nearer we may be to a recovery. Our workers haven't had a pay increase since the start of the recession, it is our income that falls, our customers are in the recession too, put prices up to allow the pay rises and they walk away, go for new jobs and we are in direct competition with the redundant cash rich and the black market economy. We are doing what we always do in a downturn - surviving. Maybe, just maybe accepting the status quo would have been in the best interests of the workers and council tax payers of the City long term - I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is that this compromise is designed to make the Labour Council and the Union negotiators look good - I really hope there is more to it than that but with politicians and modern Unions involved I am very sceptical.
We have to question wether the Unions will walk out again in protest of the potential cuts, of course with any luck they can solve many cuts with natural wastage.
But we have to remember the cuts are yet to come, let's not get too excited just yet.
Time will tell and I'm trying my hardest to keep an open mind.
sarfhamton says...
4:23pm Thu 16 Aug 12