Even Dick Turpin wore a mask

[santa claus]

People are going to have to wake up to the fact that you have got to look after yourself and your own in this modern global economy.

Whoa, that's quite a few points you're making there. Keeping to the topic of the thread, I've pulled the above quote.

You see, the people concerned ARE trying to look after themselves. They have taken a job to provide for their family, taken a lower than average wage because part of their remuneration package IS their pension and then contributed into that pension scheme in some cases for over 30 years. So all their foresight and pre-planning has been trashed.

It is wrong imho to do this to people who are engaging in the system especially when taxpayers are having to shore up useless bankers and pay for incorrectly claimed MP's expenses.

Or perhaps, it's as he tells me......he has tried but the people above him basically do nothing and in the end he realises the futility of his actions and gives up.

Oh and I don't know badass from jesus, so your implication is a bit off the mark

Possibly. Oh, and I didn't actually think you knew badass, it was just a bit of fun

[SeriousSam]

Santa Claus - I’ll accept your point that there will have been those that went into the public sector for the very reason that at the time it offered long term stability for them and their family. Though as has been pointed out already public sector pay in no way lags behind that in the private sector any more, and in fact exceeds it in some areas. So their playing the martyr card in that respect is somewhat disingenuous. Yes it isn’t exactly fair that they are having part of their contract rewritten, but in the wider context would it have been fair for them to be in such a privileged position while the rest of us suffer, especially considering who foots the bill. In all of this though the real bitter pill, and injustice, is that the “public sector” idiots* that in part put us in this position walk away with bumper pensions intact.

* Gordon Brown and his tax and spend cronies

In addition, I should have worded my point slightly different to explain what I meant about “looking after yourself”. It is not just about making a decision in regards to providing for your future it is also about retaining as much control as you can over your own finances. The concept of a “job for life” went out with the advent of the global economy during the 1980’s as we could no longer control our public and private finances in isolation. Consequently acquiescing control over your future to either the government or a company was no longer a sensible decision. Yes there would be those who would not have been in a position to do much about this from a pension or even job perspective so they deserve some sympathy in that respect. However, everyone has a choice about how they spend or indeed save their wages or salary. We have record levels of private debt and what do we have to show for it?

1. Rising obesity due to over consumption and sedentary lifestyles
2. Overworked health service due in part to excessive consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs
3. Vast swathes of land set aside for landfill waste with our convenience and disposable obsession
4. Houses full of things bought to satisfy a short term need that in no way provide long term happiness

Actions have consequences and for too long we have been living, and in fact believing, as if they don’t. So if you spend beyond your means and don’t put money aside for the unexpected, including economic downturns and the potential changes that brings, then you only have yourself to blame. This may sound a bit harsh, and probably is in some cases as I’m sure that some people have tried their best to be prudent etc. but to be honest I’ve had enough of the “self absolution” that is increasingly pervading this country.

[Kata]

Then surely a qualification is a qualification regardless of where it was awarded?

Hahahahahaha....! Sorry, that's very funny...

Oh, and to correct a mistake from one of santa's earlier posts, Air Traffic Control is privatised, not public. Sadly...

[santa claus]

So if you spend beyond your means and don’t put money aside for the unexpected, including economic downturns and the potential changes that brings, then you only have yourself to blame.

I doubt that any of the grunts on a public service wage could have "put enough money aside" for economic downturns of the scale we are witnessing. But these people have responsibly saved up for their retirement and reneging on long-standing agreement is imo unfair.

Oh, and to correct a mistake from one of santa's earlier posts, Air Traffic Control is privatised, not public. Sadly...

Aww shucks, I knew that . As a man of few words I was simply trying to illustrate for the context of the thread that a public sector strike will affect us all. In this case, public sector Customs at airports might strike and privatised Air Traffic Control union members won't cross the picket line. The effect is the same.

[TheAnimus]

I doubt that any of the grunts on a public service wage could have "put enough money aside" for economic downturns of the scale we are witnessing. But these people have responsibly saved up for their retirement and reneging on long-standing agreement is imo unfair.

Welcome to the grown up world!

Its an agreement, not a contract, not an obligation. Its an agreement that is also considerably un-justifiably above market rates.

I'm a scarce commodity at the moment, my pay reflects this, putting me well inside the top 1% despite been 24. I've been dicked on my discretionary remuneration EVERY year, but at the end of the day all it is what the market dictates as the bare minimum to keep me they will ever pay me, if I don't like it, and I want to earn more, what should I do down tools? Or should I make myself more valuable to my employers? Or go out on my own?

Civil servants are not badly paid, you can see that during the boom years of brown, when there where a shortage of skilled workers for these kinds of rolls, they didn't have problems getting applicants.

Now how anyone can say that a golden goodbye should be MORE than 3 years salary, when they're walking away with a final year salary pension too....

They then want more money out of my tax paying pocket?

<EDIT by Saracen - watch your language and read our rules on swearing, with or without asterisks.>

[santa claus]

I'm a scarce commodity at the moment, my pay reflects this, putting me well inside the top 1% despite been 24.

I'm pleased for you. But there are those who aren't quite so well off and are probably undervalued.

<Deleted by Admin>

Or, as is their democratic right, they can strike for a better deal. And shouting doesn't necessarily mean anyone will hear.

[TheAnimus]

No its not their democratic right....

Don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on the civil service. I think that the BA guys are morons of the highest order, but they will get their comeuppance, the company is going to go under pretty soon and they will all be out of a job. Greed and no respect for their customers, I wish they would simply get 'reset' and someone from Africa who never even had a chance given one. Its the complete injustice of manipulating the market that discuss me. With this its even worse because there is no competitor for the rolls. It is no different to some of the fat cat MPs saying their "worth" more than 60K a year despite never having a job where their rate is fairly determined.

Think of it this way, there are two firms making toys, one is larger than the other, at 60% of the population employed, the other has only 40%. Would it be the democratic right for them to vote for the company to be anti-competitive and manipulate the competitor out of business, then jack up the price of the goods? This is ilegal with good reason.

So is it fair for the labour to band together and what is simply extortion by any other name, money from their employer?

This is not the 19th century. People are meant to be economically mobile, not trapped in a job for life.

The civil servants are paid out of our pockets and have no modernised with the times, we live longer (defined benefit pensions are just not available to 99% of public sector, they are simply too expensive without a defined 'termination') rolls like theirs are more easily staffed thanks to higher standards of education and breakdown of class boundaries.

So the notion of people bulling together to get their way at the expense of others who are weaker is not my idea of democracy, far from it. Talk to someone who is a teacher and not in any of the unions, my friend was threatened directly with physical violence "your getting the rewards of our hard work" mentality.

Can someone please justify why any of these guys actually deserve a discretionary payout of this size?

[kalniel]

[The honourable gentlemen could initiate a change in their employment]

I did, actually But it doesn't change the issue that the employers aren't handling this at all well - as I said before, the terms were generous, but that's was part of the reason we took the job. If you're jealous of the terms then resign your current job and get a civil service one

If they think it's unaffordable or the nature of the job/market is changing then they can simply draw up new contracts for job openings and redundancies if they can't afford to employ the current workforce. Or if employment is cheaper than redundancies then they should continue to employ them It's only become an issue because of mass planned lay offs and the timing of the attempted changes to the terms.

[kalniel]

Can someone please justify why any of these guys actually deserve a discretionary payout of this size?

Because that's what was offered when they signed up and took the job, and it compensates for pay rises that are below the private sector rates. The former is all the justification that should be needed. No employer should offer terms which they can't afford to honour.

[TheAnimus]

These aren't cast iron garented payouts, that is what they where paying then, if people had retired then, they would have got it then.

I know my words are often the ramblings of a dislexic, but I want to stress the use of the tense.

They never said that would be the deal forever, they never said it was set in stone, they have nothing that they need to honer. The deal they are still given is in my mind far to generous compared to what the public sector pay (which is an un-questionably fairer way of determining fair pay, after all how can you value anything other than to Mark to Market).

[Saracen]

Can people pay a bit more attention to our swearing rules please. You lot ought to know better by now, and that includes quoting it.

Animus, please rephrase that bit, and then people can edit their quotes, or the thread starts to make little sense.

[kalniel]

These aren't cast iron garented payouts, that is what they where paying then, if people had retired then, they would have got it then.

I know my words are often the ramblings of a dislexic, but I want to stress the use of the tense.

They never said that would be the deal forever, they never said it was set in stone, they have nothing that they need to honer.

I could be wrong, but isn't there also a legally binding situation where you have reasonable expectation of something w.r.t remuneration?

The deal they are still given is in my mind far to generous compared to what the public sector pay (which is an un-questionably fairer way of determining fair pay, after all how can you value anything other than to Mark to Market).

You're assuming that there is only one model of remuneration - next thing you'll be saying that bonuses don't exist for the city

Different areas have different methods and weightings of remuneration, whether that's straight pay, bonuses, or benefits. While the terms differ, the overall remuneration is comparable otherwise people wouldn't be making the choices to go and work in these different fields.

[TheAnimus]

I could be wrong, but isn't there also a legally binding situation where you have reasonable expectation of something w.r.t remuneration?

Its very very hard to enforce, a friend of mine had a guaranteed bonus in excess of 200k in his contract. They made him redundant a week before the bonus was due to be paid, giving him a months basic... You can imagine he was a little bit upset with the person who drew up the contract, and his lawyer who read it.

The problem he had is you can hardly argue that £200k is reasonable and expected even when it was a contractual obligation if he had worked one extra week. I think they settled before it went to court thou.

You're assuming that there is only one model of remuneration - next thing you'll be saying that bonuses don't exist for the city

Different areas have different methods and weightings of remuneration, whether that's straight pay, bonuses, or benefits. While the terms differ, the overall remuneration is comparable otherwise people wouldn't be making the choices to go and work in these different fields.

This is little different to a traditional city bonus. By the time you hit your 3rd month on the job I would damn well expect everyone to know they will only pay the absolute minimum. For me this has meant despite the area of the business and technically a separate firm, making a record profit, with the most senior business people saying I and my team where pivotal in this, they reminded me that it was only 30% of the entity that employed me, and gave me too little bonus.

You have to be reasonable in how you expect these things, if I'd done exactly the same work the year before I would have earnt an extra 50k or so. Nice eh!

We as tax payers simply can not afford such generous payouts, 3 years is still obscene and eclipses what 99.5% of city workers get as a bonus even when compounding them over the time peroid.

Its discretionary, you can't bank on it, and 3 years is still far above what anyone else would get.

This is what gets me, you don't here me saying "i'm going to strike, oh poor me, oh this is unjust, how could they I never would have thought this would happen" when people play with what is not cast iron.

[kalniel]

We as tax payers simply can not afford such generous payouts, 3 years is still obscene and eclipses what 99.5% of city workers get as a bonus even when compounding them over the time peroid.

And 99.5% of city workers have a higher base pay as well I'd expect. I'm not saying that redundancy is going to be exactly equal to bonuses, but that it's a factor together with basic pay and other benefits, just like a bonus is a factor in considering accepting a particular basic pay in the city.

As for not affording it, then why was it offered in the first place?

Its discretionary, you can't bank on it, and 3 years is still far above what anyone else would get.

This is what gets me, you don't here me saying "i'm going to strike, oh poor me, oh this is unjust, how could they I never would have thought this would happen" when people play with what is not cast iron.

I've already made my point about striking some time ago. But also I've not seen any terms where it would be reduced to three years - it's two years at the most, and I didn't even qualify for that. But saying it's far above what anyone else would get is also demonstrably wrong: low salary over the time it takes to get two years redundancy + the redundancy pay is still going to be below the amount someone in the city is likely to earn over that exact same period and their redundancy.

[shaithis]

I've already made my point about striking some time ago. But also I've not seen any terms where it would be reduced to three years - it's two years at the most, and I didn't even qualify for that. But saying it's far above what anyone else would get is also demonstrably wrong: low salary over the time it takes to get two years redundancy + the redundancy pay is still going to be below the amount someone in the city is likely to earn over that exact same period and their redundancy.

You do not want to accept that all things are relative....

Ignore the absolute amounts.....just concentrate on the following:

3 YEARS PAY

That is what is obscene, no matter how you want to cut it, it is obscene.

[kalniel]

You do not want to accept that all things are relative....

Ignore the absolute amounts.....just concentrate on the following:

Ignore the isolated amounts... just concentrate on the total remuneration for the job.

All things are relative - you have to consider the relative total remunerations of jobs that offer lower basic pay/bonus and higher benefits as compensation.