Final shift for many at Ford's Transit plant in Swaythling

Daily Echo: End of an era for Southampton Ford staff End of an era for Southampton Ford staff

IT IS the end of an era for a major Hampshire employer today as more than 500 workers at the giant Ford plant will walk through the gates for the last time.

The motor giant blames the economic downturn and lack of demand for the massive round of redundancies which will mean half the workforce going, taking with them 14,000 years of experience.

One worker, who at 48 years old can’t afford to leave, said: “I feel like I am being left on a sinking ship watching half my friends sail away in the last remaining lifeboat.

“I can’t see Ford being here in a few years time.”

Stephen Slominski, 52, who is leaving today after 23 years, said: “I have no faith in the promises we have been made about the future and I think lots of people share this feeling.

Daily Echo: Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

“I have only taken retirement because I feel there will be more cuts to come with less of a redundancy package on offer.”

News the huge firm was to slash jobs was exclusively revealed by the Daily Echo earlier this year.

Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts.

Nick Chaffey, of the National Shop Stewards Network and Unison, said: “This is one chapter in a story that could spell the end for British manufacturing.

“I want to know why it is not the top level management who are losing out but the guys who have made the vans and the profit for all these years.”

He went on to say the ripples of these drastic cuts could cost the Hampshire economy as much as £20m a year and continue to hit the supply chain and related industries.

While Tuesday is officially the last day, most workers are handing in their uniforms and having one last look around the plant today.

Many have followed family members into the Swaythling plant and been clocking in for more than 30 years.

With their pensions, some of the high-grade, long-serving staff could be looking at leaving with up to £100,000.

Due to the recession the company has pushed back controversial plans to export the iconic Transit to Turkey.

There will be three weeks of nonproduction days starting next week.

The Daily Echo understands output has dropped from 380 a day last year to just 125.

Plant manager Martin Chapman told workers: “As we approach another significant milestone in the history of our plant I think it important to recognise our colleagues who will be leaving us shortly.

“A great many of those leaving will have spent most, if not all, of their working lives at Ford, and I would like to personally thank them on behalf of the management team and the company for their contribution and wish them every success in the future.”

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:39am Fri 1 May 09

Totton Ric says...

Last one out of Southampton put the light out.
With Saints,the docks jobs,Fords jobs etc it's not looking good !
Last one out of Southampton put the light out. With Saints,the docks jobs,Fords jobs etc it's not looking good ! Totton Ric

9:42am Fri 1 May 09

Martin Wellbourne says...

"Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts"

You have to admit, it is a very good excuse.
"Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts" You have to admit, it is a very good excuse. Martin Wellbourne

9:51am Fri 1 May 09

DftT says...

wonder what the average payout for the leaving workers is? With the article mentioning £100k, is that what the highest payout is? i dont know anyone from Ford's but is that 3 years worth of salary or 5 years?
wonder what the average payout for the leaving workers is? With the article mentioning £100k, is that what the highest payout is? i dont know anyone from Ford's but is that 3 years worth of salary or 5 years? DftT

10:45am Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

DftT wrote:
wonder what the average payout for the leaving workers is? With the article mentioning £100k, is that what the highest payout is? i dont know anyone from Ford's but is that 3 years worth of salary or 5 years?
£100,000 is only 5 years worth off work, and thats only if prices and the cost off living remains the same over 5 years, most off the workers thats being laid off will only get about a years worth off work around about the £20,000 mark
[quote][p][bold]DftT[/bold] wrote: wonder what the average payout for the leaving workers is? With the article mentioning £100k, is that what the highest payout is? i dont know anyone from Ford's but is that 3 years worth of salary or 5 years?[/p][/quote]£100,000 is only 5 years worth off work, and thats only if prices and the cost off living remains the same over 5 years, most off the workers thats being laid off will only get about a years worth off work around about the £20,000 mark southy

10:57am Fri 1 May 09

Sadaff Bakhoum says...

That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits. Sadaff Bakhoum

11:04am Fri 1 May 09

DftT says...

if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid
s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon.
if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon. DftT

11:07am Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

Martin Wellbourne wrote:
"Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts"

You have to admit, it is a very good excuse.
Exactly. The very notion of them having "an excuse" defies logic anyway. Like it or not, companies do not exist primarily to employ people. They don't need excuses to make job cuts, they either need to make job cuts or they don't. The unions seem to think these cuts are some spiteful act, and that the Ford board is filled with evil men twirling their moustaches and plotting the downfall of lowly workers. "Huzzah! World economic collapse! Now we can put our mass redundancy plan into action! Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha!"
[quote][p][bold]Martin Wellbourne[/bold] wrote: "Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts" You have to admit, it is a very good excuse.[/p][/quote]Exactly. The very notion of them having "an excuse" defies logic anyway. Like it or not, companies do not exist primarily to employ people. They don't need excuses to make job cuts, they either need to make job cuts or they don't. The unions seem to think these cuts are some spiteful act, and that the Ford board is filled with evil men twirling their moustaches and plotting the downfall of lowly workers. "Huzzah! World economic collapse! Now we can put our mass redundancy plan into action! Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha!" Georgem

11:09am Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

Sadaff Bakhoum wrote:
That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
I find this difficult to reconcile with your previous comments alluding to you subsidising your own benefits with a spot of off-the-books taxi-driving. It's almost as if you're just making up any old rubbish to provoke arguments with people.....
[quote][p][bold]Sadaff Bakhoum[/bold] wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.[/p][/quote]I find this difficult to reconcile with your previous comments alluding to you subsidising your own benefits with a spot of off-the-books taxi-driving. It's [italic]almost[/italic] as if you're just making up any old rubbish to provoke arguments with people..... Georgem

11:24am Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

DftT wrote:
if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid

s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon.
while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper.
[quote][p][bold]DftT[/bold] wrote: if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon. [/p][/quote]while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper. southy

11:42am Fri 1 May 09

Mburnett says...

To what exetent can the workers' trade unions help with these redundancies? Is there any unemployment insurance? If not, we need a "Roosevelt" to stimulate the car industry!
To what exetent can the workers' trade unions help with these redundancies? Is there any unemployment insurance? If not, we need a "Roosevelt" to stimulate the car industry! Mburnett

11:49am Fri 1 May 09

DftT says...

while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper


after reading your post three times to make sense of it, I want to reply.

If we follow your rationale to its logical conclusion, a single job-loss would result in full global unemployment. The labour market is fluid - one industry changes and contracts and another opens up. Manufacturing droppped over the last few years and we turn into a nation of call centre workers. Whilst I appreciate all redundant workers cant all go into a single industry now is the time to diversify the working environment. Do you feel that ALL the Ford people have ZERO transferable skills?

I am more than happy to have people train up in my profession - sales - as it would only make it more competitive and the standards would increase - if i'm good at my job that can only be a good thing! If i can prove i'm better than the majority of the people i am competing with and they are already at a high standard, i can command a higher salary and position!

i truly feel for the youngsters that have go to go.. limited experience and perhaps a lesser work ethic ('i aint doing a job like that' kinda attitude...)means they are likely to become a state burden for a prolonged period. Address that and i think we wont necessarily descend into the doom and gloom you feel we are facing.
while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper after reading your post three times to make sense of it, I want to reply. If we follow your rationale to its logical conclusion, a single job-loss would result in full global unemployment. The labour market is fluid - one industry changes and contracts and another opens up. Manufacturing droppped over the last few years and we turn into a nation of call centre workers. Whilst I appreciate all redundant workers cant all go into a single industry now is the time to diversify the working environment. Do you feel that ALL the Ford people have ZERO transferable skills? I am more than happy to have people train up in my profession - sales - as it would only make it more competitive and the standards would increase - if i'm good at my job that can only be a good thing! If i can prove i'm better than the majority of the people i am competing with and they are already at a high standard, i can command a higher salary and position! i truly feel for the youngsters that have go to go.. limited experience and perhaps a lesser work ethic ('i aint doing a job like that' kinda attitude...)means they are likely to become a state burden for a prolonged period. Address that and i think we wont necessarily descend into the doom and gloom you feel we are facing. DftT

12:06pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
DftT wrote:
if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid


s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon.
while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper.
This only tells part of the story, Southy. Your scenario assumes that there is absolutely no growth in any sector, any industry, whatsoever. Also, not everybody laid off will be left without a job. An amount will find immediate employment elsewhere, and have the redundancy payout as an effective bonus. Regardless of what doom and gloom there is, some of them will spend it on luxury items (by which I mean non-essentials) and thus contribute to stimulating growth. For the downward spiral you describe, there is also an upward spiral.

Your scenario assumes that everybody made redundant will remain out of work for the foreseeable future, and that's simply not the case. We are of course in recession, but there seems to be an unspoken assumption that this means nobody is spending money, there are no jobs to be found and that the entire country became penniless overnight. On the contrary, the recent spate of interest rate cuts have left many mortgage-payers more cash-rich than they have ever been. I know people who are anything up to £1000pcm better off than a year ago, simply because of interest rate cuts. What are they doing with the money? Spending it! Growth!

We're in recession, not complete economic collapse. It should be noted that consumer confidence is damaged by endless talk of financial ruin. Arguably, the media hype over Northern Rock contributed to the current economic climate. Let's not make this seem worse than it is, eh
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DftT[/bold] wrote: if an individual is walking away from any workplace with more than 6 months salary, then although i do feel for them in terms of the upheaval and stress of having to find more work, its not as tho anyones hitting the breadline is it?!? If it is the case that most of them are walking away with a year or mores money then the monthly mortgage is paid, food shopping/clothes/kid s swimming lessons arent going to suffer AND there's enough money to either re-train and/or find alternative work without ANYONE landing on the Social Security bandwagon. [/p][/quote]while you have £6000 it might be lower than this, you will not get any help from social security, train them into what to do you job and take yours away and give it to some else, you really need to think about things, its means there will be less people buying things, then some one else gets effected and loses there job and it just gets deeper and deeper.[/p][/quote]This only tells part of the story, Southy. Your scenario assumes that there is absolutely no growth in any sector, any industry, whatsoever. Also, not everybody laid off will be left without a job. An amount [bold]will[/bold] find immediate employment elsewhere, and have the redundancy payout as an effective bonus. Regardless of what doom and gloom there is, some of them [bold]will[/bold] spend it on luxury items (by which I mean non-essentials) and thus contribute to stimulating growth. For the downward spiral you describe, there is also an upward spiral. Your scenario assumes that everybody made redundant will remain out of work for the foreseeable future, and that's simply not the case. We are of course in recession, but there seems to be an unspoken assumption that this means nobody is spending money, there are no jobs to be found and that the entire country became penniless overnight. On the contrary, the recent spate of interest rate cuts have left many mortgage-payers more cash-rich than they have ever been. I know people who are anything up to £1000pcm better off than a year ago, simply because of interest rate cuts. What are they doing with the money? Spending it! Growth! We're in recession, not complete economic collapse. It should be noted that consumer confidence is damaged by endless talk of financial ruin. Arguably, the media hype over Northern Rock contributed to the current economic climate. Let's not make this seem worse than it is, eh Georgem

12:07pm Fri 1 May 09

S Pance says...

Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels.

Average is around £37,000.
Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000. S Pance

12:20pm Fri 1 May 09

Martin Wellbourne says...

S Pance wrote:
Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.
We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford.

Hopefully this depression will realign these things.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.[/p][/quote]We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford. Hopefully this depression will realign these things. Martin Wellbourne

12:25pm Fri 1 May 09

Southampton boy says...

Dont be so quick to write Fords off as a major player in Southampton they need this plant but need it to be costing alot less then it is doing now it will not be as it is now but as a contract plant on less per hour even with this and the out cry there will be remember a £7.50 ph job is better then no job
Dont be so quick to write Fords off as a major player in Southampton they need this plant but need it to be costing alot less then it is doing now it will not be as it is now but as a contract plant on less per hour even with this and the out cry there will be remember a £7.50 ph job is better then no job Southampton boy

12:34pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

Martin Wellbourne wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.
We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford.

Hopefully this depression will realign these things.
I fully agree this is a dreadful imbalance. But how can we address it? If Ford (for example) are generating revenues such that they can pay those salaries, so be it. They have to pay a competitive rate or else they won't fill the position. So that salary can't conceivably be lowered, unless you can persuade workers to take a cut rate in order to subsidise nursing salaries. Good luck with that. Seems that we simply can't say "pay nurses that, not people at Ford" unless you want the Government to step in and put caps on worker's salaries. In which case, since Ford is still generating the same revenues, but less is being passed on to the workers, because the government says so. So where does that excess revenue go? In the pockets of the shareholders, that's where. Not toward nurses salaries. So the problem is "how do we translate corporate revenue into nursing salary increases?". And the answer is "higher taxes". But of course, that doesn't work either (see: the Laffer Curve), if taxes are too high, people have no incentive to be productive, so what can be done about it? Does anybody really want state-regulated salaries? Those measures can only ever benefit the rich anyway.

The only answer is to make the NHS more efficient by stripping out the excess layers of middle-management and wastage. Which is something we already know, have known about for years. I'd like to think the recession will force the issue, but I doubt it will. In a recession, both the private and public sector look to lower costs, not increase them. I can't see nurses salaries increasing to a fairer amount any time soon, sadly.

It is disgusting that the life-saving professions are so poorly paid, but that's capitalism for you, and most people will gladly hang on to capitalism, being the only economic model so far that steadily increases a general standard of living, which is what individuals generally want.
[quote][p][bold]Martin Wellbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.[/p][/quote]We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford. Hopefully this depression will realign these things.[/p][/quote]I fully agree this is a dreadful imbalance. But how can we address it? If Ford (for example) are generating revenues such that they can pay those salaries, so be it. They have to pay a competitive rate or else they won't fill the position. So that salary can't conceivably be lowered, unless you can persuade workers to take a cut rate in order to subsidise nursing salaries. Good luck with that. Seems that we simply can't say "pay nurses that, not people at Ford" unless you want the Government to step in and put caps on worker's salaries. In which case, since Ford is still generating the same revenues, but less is being passed on to the workers, because the government says so. So where does that excess revenue go? In the pockets of the shareholders, that's where. Not toward nurses salaries. So the problem is "how do we translate corporate revenue into nursing salary increases?". And the answer is "higher taxes". But of course, that doesn't work either (see: the Laffer Curve), if taxes are too high, people have no incentive to be productive, so what can be done about it? Does anybody really want state-regulated salaries? Those measures can only ever benefit the rich anyway. The only answer is to make the NHS more efficient by stripping out the excess layers of middle-management and wastage. Which is something we already know, have known about for years. I'd like to think the recession will force the issue, but I doubt it will. In a recession, both the private and public sector look to lower costs, not increase them. I can't see nurses salaries increasing to a fairer amount any time soon, sadly. It is disgusting that the life-saving professions are so poorly paid, but that's capitalism for you, and most people will gladly hang on to capitalism, being the only economic model so far that steadily increases a general standard of living, which is what individuals generally want. Georgem

12:58pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

Sadaff Bakhoum wrote:
That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone.

Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other.
[quote][p][bold]Sadaff Bakhoum[/bold] wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.[/p][/quote]there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone. Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other. southy

1:07pm Fri 1 May 09

BrixtonSaint says...

I can't believe what I am reading, surely some of the comments here are simply left to stir up arguments. Typical of a reporter to leave something like the £100K figure to raise some eyebrows - I bet the average payout will be nothing near that.
True, the emergency services / nurses etc aren't paid what they ought to be but as has been said, the market forced Ford to pay good wages - at a time when the market was bouyant - those times are over and forgive me, where are the jobs these people are supposed to fall into? The jobs section in the paper isn't what it was and as for going into sales??? Selling what? WTF is buying anything.
I can't believe what I am reading, surely some of the comments here are simply left to stir up arguments. Typical of a reporter to leave something like the £100K figure to raise some eyebrows - I bet the average payout will be nothing near that. True, the emergency services / nurses etc aren't paid what they ought to be but as has been said, the market forced Ford to pay good wages - at a time when the market was bouyant - those times are over and forgive me, where are the jobs these people are supposed to fall into? The jobs section in the paper isn't what it was and as for going into sales??? Selling what? WTF is buying anything. BrixtonSaint

1:16pm Fri 1 May 09

Finlay says...

Has Ford closed down then?

But the Union said they would fight to keep it in Southampton ... the little fibbers!

Never mind theres other jobs.

Ooops! I forgot. There isn't other jobs are there
Has Ford closed down then? But the Union said they would fight to keep it in Southampton ... the little fibbers! Never mind theres other jobs. Ooops! I forgot. There isn't other jobs are there Finlay

1:31pm Fri 1 May 09

greystonesben says...

southy wrote:
Sadaff Bakhoum wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone. Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other.
What?!

I dont think you quite understand economics Southy. Recessions dont last for a set 4 years! There is no set time line to these things where suddenly on the morning of the 4th year we all wake up out of recession.

The cut in interest rates was designed to free up extra spending money for people by a) Giving them more money at the end of the month due to cheaper mortgages (those lucky enough to be on variable rates) and b) by disuading people to save money by offering next to nothing in return for their savings. All this extra spending should increase the size of the economy and recession starts to be staved off.

Yes there maybe fewer jobs available today, but people saying there are NO jobs are just being silly. There will always be jobs available, even if its shelf stacking at Tesco's. If people choose not to take jobs like that because it is 'below' them then more fool them, and bluntly, they deserve to be in the mess they are in.

If god forbid I was to ever lose my job, no other job would be below me. I would do whatever I had to, to put food on the table.

I feel for these people that have lost their jobs but as stated above, they will have a years worth of salary so have either a year to find a new job or could even find another job straight away and earn even more money!

Correct me if i am wrong, but I also believe its a years salary tax free!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sadaff Bakhoum[/bold] wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.[/p][/quote]there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone. Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other. [/p][/quote]What?! I dont think you quite understand economics Southy. Recessions dont last for a set 4 years! There is no set time line to these things where suddenly on the morning of the 4th year we all wake up out of recession. The cut in interest rates was designed to free up extra spending money for people by a) Giving them more money at the end of the month due to cheaper mortgages (those lucky enough to be on variable rates) and b) by disuading people to save money by offering next to nothing in return for their savings. All this extra spending should increase the size of the economy and recession starts to be staved off. Yes there maybe fewer jobs available today, but people saying there are NO jobs are just being silly. There will always be jobs available, even if its shelf stacking at Tesco's. If people choose not to take jobs like that because it is 'below' them then more fool them, and bluntly, they deserve to be in the mess they are in. If god forbid I was to ever lose my job, no other job would be below me. I would do whatever I had to, to put food on the table. I feel for these people that have lost their jobs but as stated above, they will have a years worth of salary so have either a year to find a new job or could even find another job straight away and earn even more money! Correct me if i am wrong, but I also believe its a years salary tax free! greystonesben

1:31pm Fri 1 May 09

Dr Alimantado says...

southy wrote:
Sadaff Bakhoum wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone. Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other.
Leave out the doom and gloom Southy. I will be surprised if the recession lasts 4 years.

There are jobs out there, people just may have to accept that they will have to take a pay cut for a while. Better to work for less than not work at all and to try and survive on state bens.

I don't think you will have your socialist revolution...just yet anyway
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sadaff Bakhoum[/bold] wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.[/p][/quote]there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse. and they cant claim benefits till there money nearly all gone and they aft to account for where it gone. Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other. [/p][/quote]Leave out the doom and gloom Southy. I will be surprised if the recession lasts 4 years. There are jobs out there, people just may have to accept that they will have to take a pay cut for a while. Better to work for less than not work at all and to try and survive on state bens. I don't think you will have your socialist revolution...just yet anyway Dr Alimantado

1:58pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

well the last one did. and each time one come along about every 15 years they get bigger and deeper, till you get to the stage its not a recession but a depression, think off it has a pyramid. the higher you go up this pyramid the less room you got for move about in. high empolyment, and recession/ or the big one depression is what happens in a capitalise system. its not doom and gloom this is what happens every so often. you might be safe this time but will you or your family be on the next one. people need to stop being greedy and thinking off there selfs, and start thinking about those who are at the lower end off the scale they are your buffer to keep you in employment and keep your money coming in, what will you do with no job and no hope off getting job and no money coming in, all that hard work you put in for years you will lose.
well the last one did. and each time one come along about every 15 years they get bigger and deeper, till you get to the stage its not a recession but a depression, think off it has a pyramid. the higher you go up this pyramid the less room you got for move about in. high empolyment, and recession/ or the big one depression is what happens in a capitalise system. its not doom and gloom this is what happens every so often. you might be safe this time but will you or your family be on the next one. people need to stop being greedy and thinking off there selfs, and start thinking about those who are at the lower end off the scale they are your buffer to keep you in employment and keep your money coming in, what will you do with no job and no hope off getting job and no money coming in, all that hard work you put in for years you will lose. southy

2:16pm Fri 1 May 09

Jesus_02 says...

Georgem wrote:
Martin Wellbourne wrote: "Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts" You have to admit, it is a very good excuse.
Exactly. The very notion of them having "an excuse" defies logic anyway. Like it or not, companies do not exist primarily to employ people. They don't need excuses to make job cuts, they either need to make job cuts or they don't. The unions seem to think these cuts are some spiteful act, and that the Ford board is filled with evil men twirling their moustaches and plotting the downfall of lowly workers. "Huzzah! World economic collapse! Now we can put our mass redundancy plan into action! Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha!"
While Ford don’t have to have an excuse to cut jobs. What they do need to explain is why they are making people redundant and replacing them with agency staff.

redundancy effectively means that these people are no longer required and if therefore they do not need to be replaced.

The truth is that Ford are just cost cutting and most likely increase staffing to their "Pre-recession levels" as soon as there is whiff of an upturn.

You may think that this is all very well but what it means is that there are no benefits to working for the same company long-term.

Including the pension issue that is hanging over everyone like a black cloud
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin Wellbourne[/bold] wrote: "Today unions launched a fresh attack on Ford bosses claiming the firm was using the recession as an excuse to make huge job cuts" You have to admit, it is a very good excuse.[/p][/quote]Exactly. The very notion of them having "an excuse" defies logic anyway. Like it or not, companies do not exist primarily to employ people. They don't need excuses to make job cuts, they either need to make job cuts or they don't. The unions seem to think these cuts are some spiteful act, and that the Ford board is filled with evil men twirling their moustaches and plotting the downfall of lowly workers. "Huzzah! World economic collapse! Now we can put our mass redundancy plan into action! Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha!"[/p][/quote]While Ford don’t have to have an excuse to cut jobs. What they do need to explain is why they are making people redundant and replacing them with agency staff. redundancy effectively means that these people are no longer required and if therefore they do not need to be replaced. The truth is that Ford are just cost cutting and most likely increase staffing to their "Pre-recession levels" as soon as there is whiff of an upturn. You may think that this is all very well but what it means is that there are no benefits to working for the same company long-term. Including the pension issue that is hanging over everyone like a black cloud Jesus_02

2:45pm Fri 1 May 09

thesaint says...

Sadaff Bakhoum wrote:
That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.
post something sensible you idiot more likely you are on benifits.
[quote][p][bold]Sadaff Bakhoum[/bold] wrote: That is still a lot of money, they might even want to try to find another job rather than just scounge state benefits.[/p][/quote]post something sensible you idiot more likely you are on benifits. thesaint

2:48pm Fri 1 May 09

thesaint says...

S Pance wrote:
Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels.

Average is around £37,000.
why do you post nonsence because you never got a job their.
is your name billy bull.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.[/p][/quote]why do you post nonsence because you never got a job their. is your name billy bull. thesaint

2:53pm Fri 1 May 09

thesaint says...

Georgem wrote:
Martin Wellbourne wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.
We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford.

Hopefully this depression will realign these things.
I fully agree this is a dreadful imbalance. But how can we address it? If Ford (for example) are generating revenues such that they can pay those salaries, so be it. They have to pay a competitive rate or else they won't fill the position. So that salary can't conceivably be lowered, unless you can persuade workers to take a cut rate in order to subsidise nursing salaries. Good luck with that. Seems that we simply can't say "pay nurses that, not people at Ford" unless you want the Government to step in and put caps on worker's salaries. In which case, since Ford is still generating the same revenues, but less is being passed on to the workers, because the government says so. So where does that excess revenue go? In the pockets of the shareholders, that's where. Not toward nurses salaries. So the problem is "how do we translate corporate revenue into nursing salary increases?". And the answer is "higher taxes". But of course, that doesn't work either (see: the Laffer Curve), if taxes are too high, people have no incentive to be productive, so what can be done about it? Does anybody really want state-regulated salaries? Those measures can only ever benefit the rich anyway.

The only answer is to make the NHS more efficient by stripping out the excess layers of middle-management and wastage. Which is something we already know, have known about for years. I'd like to think the recession will force the issue, but I doubt it will. In a recession, both the private and public sector look to lower costs, not increase them. I can't see nurses salaries increasing to a fairer amount any time soon, sadly.

It is disgusting that the life-saving professions are so poorly paid, but that's capitalism for you, and most people will gladly hang on to capitalism, being the only economic model so far that steadily increases a general standard of living, which is what individuals generally want.
a good post and i agree with every word.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin Wellbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.[/p][/quote]We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford. Hopefully this depression will realign these things.[/p][/quote]I fully agree this is a dreadful imbalance. But how can we address it? If Ford (for example) are generating revenues such that they can pay those salaries, so be it. They have to pay a competitive rate or else they won't fill the position. So that salary can't conceivably be lowered, unless you can persuade workers to take a cut rate in order to subsidise nursing salaries. Good luck with that. Seems that we simply can't say "pay nurses that, not people at Ford" unless you want the Government to step in and put caps on worker's salaries. In which case, since Ford is still generating the same revenues, but less is being passed on to the workers, because the government says so. So where does that excess revenue go? In the pockets of the shareholders, that's where. Not toward nurses salaries. So the problem is "how do we translate corporate revenue into nursing salary increases?". And the answer is "higher taxes". But of course, that doesn't work either (see: the Laffer Curve), if taxes are too high, people have no incentive to be productive, so what can be done about it? Does anybody really want state-regulated salaries? Those measures can only ever benefit the rich anyway. The only answer is to make the NHS more efficient by stripping out the excess layers of middle-management and wastage. Which is something we already know, have known about for years. I'd like to think the recession will force the issue, but I doubt it will. In a recession, both the private and public sector look to lower costs, not increase them. I can't see nurses salaries increasing to a fairer amount any time soon, sadly. It is disgusting that the life-saving professions are so poorly paid, but that's capitalism for you, and most people will gladly hang on to capitalism, being the only economic model so far that steadily increases a general standard of living, which is what individuals generally want.[/p][/quote]a good post and i agree with every word. thesaint

3:49pm Fri 1 May 09

Dr Alimantado says...

southy wrote:
well the last one did. and each time one come along about every 15 years they get bigger and deeper, till you get to the stage its not a recession but a depression, think off it has a pyramid. the higher you go up this pyramid the less room you got for move about in. high empolyment, and recession/ or the big one depression is what happens in a capitalise system. its not doom and gloom this is what happens every so often. you might be safe this time but will you or your family be on the next one. people need to stop being greedy and thinking off there selfs, and start thinking about those who are at the lower end off the scale they are your buffer to keep you in employment and keep your money coming in, what will you do with no job and no hope off getting job and no money coming in, all that hard work you put in for years you will lose.
utter rubbish

I do what any sensible person with an income should do....protect it.

Many people slag off insurance as a rip off and waste of money but they are all suddenly clambering to get it now, when it's to late and too expensive
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: well the last one did. and each time one come along about every 15 years they get bigger and deeper, till you get to the stage its not a recession but a depression, think off it has a pyramid. the higher you go up this pyramid the less room you got for move about in. high empolyment, and recession/ or the big one depression is what happens in a capitalise system. its not doom and gloom this is what happens every so often. you might be safe this time but will you or your family be on the next one. people need to stop being greedy and thinking off there selfs, and start thinking about those who are at the lower end off the scale they are your buffer to keep you in employment and keep your money coming in, what will you do with no job and no hope off getting job and no money coming in, all that hard work you put in for years you will lose.[/p][/quote]utter rubbish I do what any sensible person with an income should do....protect it. Many people slag off insurance as a rip off and waste of money but they are all suddenly clambering to get it now, when it's to late and too expensive Dr Alimantado

4:01pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

its not rubbish Alimantado what happens when theres to many claims, you have the same thing happen like whats happening to private pensions, the out going money becomes greater than the in coming money.you get companys going under and the burden pass on to the state, but even the state can only take so much, theres your pyramid again.
its not rubbish Alimantado what happens when theres to many claims, you have the same thing happen like whats happening to private pensions, the out going money becomes greater than the in coming money.you get companys going under and the burden pass on to the state, but even the state can only take so much, theres your pyramid again. southy

4:04pm Fri 1 May 09

Hythe says...

Martin Wellbourne wrote:
S Pance wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.
We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford. Hopefully this depression will realign these things.
People who write these pathetic comments obviously have no idea how a business works, and that to achieve high standards of efficiency you need to pay these wages. £37k is a nice salary but nothing special in today's world. The Government however determine how much the nurses etc get paid, therefore you cannot compare the two. I think people are forgetting that it is a sad time for the staff at Fords who have worked hard over the years to have it all taken away from them. Good luck to all of the workers in finding new employment, and as for the ridiculous comment about them going on the dole, these people have been hard workers for years, and are entitled to state benefits a lot more than you are. There is a sad bunch of persons who comment daily on here.
[quote][p][bold]Martin Wellbourne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Most assembly workers are on around £30k to £40K per annum, even for simple jobs such as fitting wheels. Average is around £37,000.[/p][/quote]We need to be paying nurses those figures, not people at Ford. Hopefully this depression will realign these things.[/p][/quote]People who write these pathetic comments obviously have no idea how a business works, and that to achieve high standards of efficiency you need to pay these wages. £37k is a nice salary but nothing special in today's world. The Government however determine how much the nurses etc get paid, therefore you cannot compare the two. I think people are forgetting that it is a sad time for the staff at Fords who have worked hard over the years to have it all taken away from them. Good luck to all of the workers in finding new employment, and as for the ridiculous comment about them going on the dole, these people have been hard workers for years, and are entitled to state benefits a lot more than you are. There is a sad bunch of persons who comment daily on here. Hythe

4:37pm Fri 1 May 09

WorkingClassLackey says...

Ultimately what sets nurses salaries is the value that we put upon them.

In the meantime we should spare some thought and best wishes for all those people who have lost their jobs in this area and the IOW.

Not many of them will be able to walk into another job any time soon. Especially, if like me. they are on the other side of fifty.

I for one am pleased that they got a decent severance deal because they are going to need it!
Ultimately what sets nurses salaries is the value that we put upon them. In the meantime we should spare some thought and best wishes for all those people who have lost their jobs in this area and the IOW. Not many of them will be able to walk into another job any time soon. Especially, if like me. they are on the other side of fifty. I for one am pleased that they got a decent severance deal because they are going to need it! WorkingClassLackey

4:39pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other.


So what you're saying, then, Southy, is, that we're not actually in a recession at all, but that the whole global economy has completely collapsed? 'F'unny, because nobody else has reported such, and I'm pretty sure that the freely examinable figures by, say, my own employer, still actually show some growth. Sorry, Southy, I respect your views in a lot of ways, and you have an understanding of the further-reaching implications of many incidents, but your implication that we are in utter financial meltdown is completely fallacious.
[quote]Georgem, remember we only just started this recession you got another 4 years to go before we start coming out off it. you dont have a nationalize industry any more to keep thing moving along and be ready for when we come out off it. this time when the recession comes to an end, theres going to be nothing there to get things moving so that will mean we will need to import items, whitch in turn will will put us into deeper dept. unempolyment will not come down but still go up. in the end you get to that stage where you got make that social change or have it force on you by soclist revolution. its a choice one way or the other.[/quote] So what you're saying, then, Southy, is, that we're not actually in a recession at all, but that the whole global economy has completely collapsed? 'F'unny, because nobody else has reported such, and I'm pretty sure that the freely examinable figures by, say, my own employer, still actually show some growth. Sorry, Southy, I respect your views in a lot of ways, and you have an understanding of the further-reaching implications of many incidents, but your implication that we are in utter financial meltdown is completely fallacious. Georgem

5:14pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

read what i said georgem ""we only just started this recession"" you will get ups and downs even when the recession is getting deeper, and you still get ups and downs when the recession has based out. when you see a government declared figure off 6 million plus unemployed then you know your are getting close to the bottom off the recession. it will be higher than 6 million. recession dont last only a few mths they last alot longer years. one way to stop it is to start nationalizing industry. keep an eye one the socalist countrys they will be the first ones out off it.
read what i said georgem ""we only just started this recession"" you will get ups and downs even when the recession is getting deeper, and you still get ups and downs when the recession has based out. when you see a government declared figure off 6 million plus unemployed then you know your are getting close to the bottom off the recession. it will be higher than 6 million. recession dont last only a few mths they last alot longer years. one way to stop it is to start nationalizing industry. keep an eye one the socalist countrys they will be the first ones out off it. southy

5:37pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
read what i said georgem ""we only just started this recession"" you will get ups and downs even when the recession is getting deeper, and you still get ups and downs when the recession has based out. when you see a government declared figure off 6 million plus unemployed then you know your are getting close to the bottom off the recession. it will be higher than 6 million. recession dont last only a few mths they last alot longer years. one way to stop it is to start nationalizing industry. keep an eye one the socalist countrys they will be the first ones out off it.
*sigh8 I have read what you said, Southy. Please, this isn't some argument about ice rinks, we're on the verge of a sensible, serious economic discussion here. Don't spoil it with your usual primitive straw man rhetoric.

You painted a bleak picture of the economic climate, which I plainly admit is not unwarranted, and you do make a very good point, but it is only part of the picture. Now you've adopted your age-old tactic of 1) re-wording your point in vague, impossible-to-prove-
conclusive terms and pulled some figures out of your arse and declared them to be canon - "the unemployment figure will be higher than 6 million", and then alluded to this being some officially recognised definition of "recession". Come on, Southy, this is a serious issue, I relish some good debate on the subject. Remember that we are in unchartered waters, don't go spoiling it by claiming you alone know the "correct" answer and that you alone are qualified to comment on the situation. Let's have opposing (or overlapping) views that don't rely on ad hominem for once, eh?

Your assertion that socialist countries will be first out of economic strife holds some truth. Point is, is that what individuals want? Bear in mind we're in an age where the individual rules, and individuals are unlikely to support political models that are anathema to an improvement in personal gain.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: read what i said georgem ""we only just started this recession"" you will get ups and downs even when the recession is getting deeper, and you still get ups and downs when the recession has based out. when you see a government declared figure off 6 million plus unemployed then you know your are getting close to the bottom off the recession. it will be higher than 6 million. recession dont last only a few mths they last alot longer years. one way to stop it is to start nationalizing industry. keep an eye one the socalist countrys they will be the first ones out off it.[/p][/quote]*sigh8 I [bold]have[/bold] read what you said, Southy. Please, this isn't some argument about ice rinks, we're on the verge of a sensible, serious economic discussion here. Don't spoil it with your usual primitive straw man rhetoric. You painted a bleak picture of the economic climate, which I plainly admit is not unwarranted, and you do make a very good point, but it [bold]is[/bold] only part of the picture. Now you've adopted your age-old tactic of 1) re-wording your point in vague, impossible-to-prove- conclusive terms and pulled some figures out of your ar[bold][/bold]se and declared them to be canon - "the unemployment figure will be higher than 6 million", and then alluded to this being some officially recognised definition of "recession". Come on, Southy, this is a serious issue, I relish some good debate on the subject. Remember that we are in unchartered waters, don't go spoiling it by claiming you alone know the "correct" answer and that you alone are qualified to comment on the situation. Let's have opposing (or overlapping) views that don't rely on [italic]ad hominem[/italic] for once, eh? Your assertion that socialist countries will be first out of economic strife holds some truth. Point is, is that what individuals want? Bear in mind we're in an age where the individual rules, and individuals are unlikely to support political models that are anathema to an improvement in personal gain. Georgem

5:41pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

Southy says:

there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse


This is laughably simple to refute. There are plenty of jobs out there. Not as many as, say, this time last year, but "recession" does not mean "overnight poverty for all". Personally, if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be only mildly concerned, having studied closely the potential job market I may well, in all honesty, have to enter. And I'm in no way imagining myself to be any sort of special case
Southy says: [quote]there are no jobs out there and things are going to get a lot worse[/quote] This is laughably simple to refute. There are plenty of jobs out there. Not as many as, say, this time last year, but "recession" does not mean "overnight poverty for all". Personally, if I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be only mildly concerned, having studied closely the potential job market I may well, in all honesty, have to enter. And I'm in no way imagining myself to be any sort of special case Georgem

5:45pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

While Ford don’t have to have an excuse to cut jobs. What they do need to explain is why they are making people redundant and replacing them with agency staff.


Well, our respective political differences mean we cannot fundamentally agree on that point, but I can certainly understand why you'd be unhappy about this situation. Certainly, that seems to be a cynical, self-preserving move on Ford's part, but in my opinion - and it is an opinion - that is their perogative. Suffice to say, I think this is grossly unfair on the workers, but conversely I don't consider or expect a corporation such as Ford to be primarily answerable to the workers. I don't think we'll agree on this point
[quote]While Ford don’t have to have an excuse to cut jobs. What they do need to explain is why they are making people redundant and replacing them with agency staff.[/quote] Well, our respective political differences mean we cannot fundamentally agree on that point, but I can certainly understand why you'd be unhappy about this situation. Certainly, that seems to be a cynical, self-preserving move on Ford's part, but in my opinion - and it [bold]is[/bold] an opinion - that is their perogative. Suffice to say, I think this is grossly unfair on the workers, but conversely I don't consider or expect a corporation such as Ford to be primarily answerable to the workers. I don't think we'll agree on this point Georgem

5:50pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

WorkingClassLackey wrote:
Ultimately what sets nurses salaries is the value that we put upon them.

In the meantime we should spare some thought and best wishes for all those people who have lost their jobs in this area and the IOW.

Not many of them will be able to walk into another job any time soon. Especially, if like me. they are on the other side of fifty.

I for one am pleased that they got a decent severance deal because they are going to need it!
I actually don't agree with this. Well, I agree with the sentiment, but can see that the reality is somewhat different. Only a fool would concede that nurses are paid a fair wage, IMHO. Does that mean the current nurse's salary is indicative of our net value of them? No. I for one would happily subscribe to a scheme that would guarantee that what I paid directly increased the salary of those in the caring profession. Show me a scheme where I pay - for argument's sake - £10 a month, and that money goes directly into the pocket of nursing staff and the like, and I will be more than happy to join in. If any enterprising bod can think of a way of actually making this happen, I'm in. What I won't subscribe to is some vague promise that increased taxes will somehow relate to increased spending in the NHS, and by extension, maybe nurses won't have to live on toast

Perhaps the most poignant security word yet: help-life
[quote][p][bold]WorkingClassLackey[/bold] wrote: Ultimately what sets nurses salaries is the value that we put upon them. In the meantime we should spare some thought and best wishes for all those people who have lost their jobs in this area and the IOW. Not many of them will be able to walk into another job any time soon. Especially, if like me. they are on the other side of fifty. I for one am pleased that they got a decent severance deal because they are going to need it![/p][/quote]I actually don't agree with this. Well, I agree with the sentiment, but can see that the reality is somewhat different. Only a fool would concede that nurses are paid a fair wage, IMHO. Does that mean the current nurse's salary is indicative of our net value of them? No. I for one would happily subscribe to a scheme that would [bold]guarantee[/bold] that what I paid directly increased the salary of those in the caring profession. Show me a scheme where I pay - for argument's sake - £10 a month, and that money goes directly into the pocket of nursing staff and the like, and I will be more than happy to join in. If any enterprising bod can think of a way of actually making this happen, I'm in. What I [bold]won't[/bold] subscribe to is some vague promise that increased taxes will somehow relate to increased spending in the NHS, and by extension, maybe nurses won't have to live on toast Perhaps the most poignant security word yet: help-life Georgem

5:53pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
its not rubbish Alimantado what happens when theres to many claims, you have the same thing happen like whats happening to private pensions, the out going money becomes greater than the in coming money.you get companys going under and the burden pass on to the state, but even the state can only take so much, theres your pyramid again.
You forget, Southy, that economic policy is set out, and more importantly, executed, by human beings and not an endless supply of robots programmed to satisfy political ideals
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: its not rubbish Alimantado what happens when theres to many claims, you have the same thing happen like whats happening to private pensions, the out going money becomes greater than the in coming money.you get companys going under and the burden pass on to the state, but even the state can only take so much, theres your pyramid again.[/p][/quote]You forget, Southy, that economic policy is set out, and more importantly, executed, by human beings and not an endless supply of robots programmed to satisfy political ideals Georgem

6:36pm Fri 1 May 09

westsaxon says...

It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again.
It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again. westsaxon

6:38pm Fri 1 May 09

Georgem says...

westsaxon wrote:
It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again.
It's good to see our democratic government not stepping in and saying "you can't make that commercial decision on my watch", eh
[quote][p][bold]westsaxon[/bold] wrote: It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again.[/p][/quote]It's good to see our democratic government not stepping in and saying "you can't make that commercial decision on my watch", eh Georgem

6:47pm Fri 1 May 09

westsaxon says...

Georgem wrote:
westsaxon wrote: It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again.
It's good to see our democratic government not stepping in and saying "you can't make that commercial decision on my watch", eh
democratic government? Haven't you ever heard of the Lothian question? Yes or no? Can you tell me how that's democratic?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westsaxon[/bold] wrote: It's good to see our Scotish led UK government standing up for English jobs again. Well done Mr G Brown for helping out the English again.[/p][/quote]It's good to see our democratic government not stepping in and saying "you can't make that commercial decision on my watch", eh[/p][/quote]democratic government? Haven't you ever heard of the Lothian question? Yes or no? Can you tell me how that's democratic? westsaxon

7:03pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while.
georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while. southy

7:37pm Fri 1 May 09

Dr Alimantado says...

southy wrote:
georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while.
Southy, the job centre is just an out of date step in the process that pikeys have to go through to get their unemployment benefit (maybe a sweeping generalisation but you get my drift)

There are not many employers that would advertise in the Job Centre because they would get inundated with people that are probably unemployable and are happy to be unemployable...have you seen Trainspotting? The whizz interview is exaggerated but nonetheless based on reality.

I know about 5 people in the last month or two that have switched jobs so your assertion is rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while.[/p][/quote]Southy, the job centre is just an out of date step in the process that pikeys have to go through to get their unemployment benefit (maybe a sweeping generalisation but you get my drift) There are not many employers that would advertise in the Job Centre because they would get inundated with people that are probably unemployable and are happy to be unemployable...have you seen Trainspotting? The whizz interview is exaggerated but nonetheless based on reality. I know about 5 people in the last month or two that have switched jobs so your assertion is rubbish. Dr Alimantado

8:51pm Fri 1 May 09

southy says...

its not rubbish Dr Alimantado your 5 people had not lost there jobs they swop so they did not lose any thing they just waited till there was a job for them to go to before leaving there other job. who knows they might be moving into a company that might go under or laft a company that might go under.and if a company employs more than (i think its 50 people) they aft to reg it with the job centre that there was a vacancy even lo its been filled. or they dont want it advertize in the job centre. but like i said this recession is far from over theres a long way to go. who knows by this time next year you could be out off a job and signing on or looking for work that is not there. the signs are there you just got to be able to read them.
its not rubbish Dr Alimantado your 5 people had not lost there jobs they swop so they did not lose any thing they just waited till there was a job for them to go to before leaving there other job. who knows they might be moving into a company that might go under or laft a company that might go under.and if a company employs more than (i think its 50 people) they aft to reg it with the job centre that there was a vacancy even lo its been filled. or they dont want it advertize in the job centre. but like i said this recession is far from over theres a long way to go. who knows by this time next year you could be out off a job and signing on or looking for work that is not there. the signs are there you just got to be able to read them. southy

10:25am Sat 2 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while.
I wouldn't use the job centre as a yardstick, Southy. Even in boom times, their contribution to employment is negligible. And I don't see that the opinion of job centre staff is the fundament on which you can base this amount of doom and gloom, either. There are still plenty of jobs around, granted things are tough, but you talk as if nobody is employing any more and that's simply not the case. Far from it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: georgem you need to go down the job centre and ask them how many jobs there are. they will tell you what its ready like how many are signing each week, and they are not expecting it to get better only to get worse. there are about 70 people to one job thats going on offer. you lose your job there is very little hope you getting another for a long while.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't use the job centre as a yardstick, Southy. Even in boom times, their contribution to employment is negligible. And I don't see that the opinion of job centre staff is the fundament on which you can base this amount of doom and gloom, either. There are still plenty of jobs around, granted things are tough, but you talk as if nobody is employing any more and that's simply not the case. Far from it. Georgem

10:34am Sat 2 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
its not rubbish Dr Alimantado your 5 people had not lost there jobs they swop so they did not lose any thing they just waited till there was a job for them to go to before leaving there other job. who knows they might be moving into a company that might go under or laft a company that might go under.and if a company employs more than (i think its 50 people) they aft to reg it with the job centre that there was a vacancy even lo its been filled. or they dont want it advertize in the job centre. but like i said this recession is far from over theres a long way to go. who knows by this time next year you could be out off a job and signing on or looking for work that is not there. the signs are there you just got to be able to read them.
What difference does it make why those people swapped jobs? Fact is, there was a job for them to go to. This is at odds with your assertion that basically nobody is employing any more. And "who knows, they might be moving to a company that's going under" is pure speculation, Southy, not an argument. And speculation that can always be applied, recession or not.

My employer is still recruiting at a fair rate, for example. We - a well-known high street retailer - are still very much in growth, and we're not alone. A new guy joined my team only last week, and we're looking for several more. And, for the record, despite employing hundreds of people, these positions did not have to be registered with the job centre. That's nonsense. If your assertion there was true, job centres would have to be phenomenally larger than they are now. When was the last time you were in a job centre? When have you ever seen, for example, "Chief International Executive wanted" in there? The vast majority of jobs never see the job centre, there's no requirement for them to, despite what you say. And please stop using "who knows" as evidence. It's demeaning
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: its not rubbish Dr Alimantado your 5 people had not lost there jobs they swop so they did not lose any thing they just waited till there was a job for them to go to before leaving there other job. who knows they might be moving into a company that might go under or laft a company that might go under.and if a company employs more than (i think its 50 people) they aft to reg it with the job centre that there was a vacancy even lo its been filled. or they dont want it advertize in the job centre. but like i said this recession is far from over theres a long way to go. who knows by this time next year you could be out off a job and signing on or looking for work that is not there. the signs are there you just got to be able to read them. [/p][/quote]What difference does it make [italic]why[/italic] those people swapped jobs? Fact is, there was a job for them to go to. This is at odds with your assertion that basically nobody is employing any more. And "who knows, they might be moving to a company that's going under" is pure speculation, Southy, not an argument. And speculation that can always be applied, recession or not. My employer is still recruiting at a fair rate, for example. We - a well-known high street retailer - are still very much in growth, and we're not alone. A new guy joined my team only last week, and we're looking for several more. And, for the record, despite employing hundreds of people, these positions did not have to be registered with the job centre. That's nonsense. If your assertion there was true, job centres would have to be phenomenally larger than they are now. When was the last time you were in a job centre? When have you ever seen, for example, "Chief International Executive wanted" in there? The vast majority of jobs never see the job centre, there's no requirement for them to, despite what you say. And please stop using "who knows" as evidence. It's demeaning Georgem

11:49am Sat 2 May 09

southy says...

Georgem it matters alot, if there was no job to go to they would not off left now would they. there boss might off even warned them that they will be making cuts, before hand.
your company lucky for every one thats still taking on there another 3 thats not and are making cuts. with luck your company will make it though only time will tale, look at what happening to one off the largest sports chains JPS is fighting to stay open.
Georgem it matters alot, if there was no job to go to they would not off left now would they. there boss might off even warned them that they will be making cuts, before hand. your company lucky for every one thats still taking on there another 3 thats not and are making cuts. with luck your company will make it though only time will tale, look at what happening to one off the largest sports chains JPS is fighting to stay open. southy

2:57pm Sat 2 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem it matters alot, if there was no job to go to they would not off left now would they. there boss might off even warned them that they will be making cuts, before hand.
your company lucky for every one thats still taking on there another 3 thats not and are making cuts. with luck your company will make it though only time will tale, look at what happening to one off the largest sports chains JPS is fighting to stay open.
More speculation. "Might have" is not "would have". Fact is, employment still exists. That people are losing their jobs does not change that.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Georgem it matters alot, if there was no job to go to they would not off left now would they. there boss might off even warned them that they will be making cuts, before hand. your company lucky for every one thats still taking on there another 3 thats not and are making cuts. with luck your company will make it though only time will tale, look at what happening to one off the largest sports chains JPS is fighting to stay open.[/p][/quote]More speculation. "Might have" is not "would have". Fact is, employment still exists. That people are losing their jobs does not change that. Georgem

3:41pm Sat 2 May 09

southy says...

now your getting it, that is the facts unemployment is rising thats due to the fact there are no jobs or very few jobs out there to be got and what jobs there are, are getting less and less.
now your getting it, that is the facts unemployment is rising thats due to the fact there are no jobs or very few jobs out there to be got and what jobs there are, are getting less and less. southy

5:35pm Sat 2 May 09

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
now your getting it, that is the facts unemployment is rising thats due to the fact there are no jobs or very few jobs out there to be got and what jobs there are, are getting less and less.
Fail, Southy. I've asked you before to drop this stupid patronising tactic. I am not "now getting it" at all, I have - if you can be bothered to actually read what I've written, rather than scan it for straw man opportunities - never said there isn't rising unemployment. You have stated that there are virtually no jobs, and that's simply not the case. You have also, I might add, stated quite clearly that companies over a certain size are obliged to advertise jobs with the job centre, and that is simply not true. Can you provide your sources for these "facts"? Or will that get in the way of you painting a picture of utter and irretrievable economic collapse?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: now your getting it, that is the facts unemployment is rising thats due to the fact there are no jobs or very few jobs out there to be got and what jobs there are, are getting less and less.[/p][/quote]Fail, Southy. I've asked you before to drop this stupid patronising tactic. I am not "now getting it" at all, I have - if you can be bothered to actually read what I've written, rather than scan it for straw man opportunities - never said there isn't rising unemployment. You have stated that there are virtually no jobs, and that's simply not the case. You have also, I might add, stated quite clearly that companies over a certain size are obliged to advertise jobs with the job centre, and that is simply not true. Can you provide your sources for these "facts"? Or will that get in the way of you painting a picture of utter and irretrievable economic collapse? Georgem

2:54pm Tue 5 May 09

greystonesben says...

2 things...

My first point is: Southy you have really proven that you dont know or understand a lot about the current economic plight with your above posts. It reeks of you re-hashing something you overhead a bloke called John say down the pub!

You have been taken in by the media hype surrounding the credit crunch and it's people like you that the Daily Mail and Sun want buying their papers!

My second point is. OF not OFF!!! You seem to have no understanding of when to use 'of' or 'off' and default to 'off' most of the time. The context in which you use 'off' is also inapropriate too. If you are going to use it in the correct context, please use 'of' not 'off' if you cannot cope with knowing which instance to use 'of' and 'of' change your default to 'of' because you use it in this way a hell of a lot more than you would use 'off' for its correct use.
2 things... My first point is: Southy you have really proven that you dont know or understand a lot about the current economic plight with your above posts. It reeks of you re-hashing something you overhead a bloke called John say down the pub! You have been taken in by the media hype surrounding the credit crunch and it's people like you that the Daily Mail and Sun want buying their papers! My second point is. OF not OFF!!! You seem to have no understanding of when to use 'of' or 'off' and default to 'off' most of the time. The context in which you use 'off' is also inapropriate too. If you are going to use it in the correct context, please use 'of' not 'off' if you cannot cope with knowing which instance to use 'of' and 'of' change your default to 'of' because you use it in this way a hell of a lot more than you would use 'off' for its correct use. greystonesben

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree