Jump to content

Postal strike


Egbert
 Share

Recommended Posts

Am I being naive if I ask whether sacking all the postal workers reduces the long-term pension liability and does away with the deficit? :?

 

No, a reasonable question. Sacked workers would still be entitled to a pension based on their service up to the time that they were sacked. So yes it might well reduce the long term liability but it wouldn't do away with the deficit. Liability and deficit are the subject of actuarial calculations based upon a number of assumptions one of which is life expectancy. With regards to Royal mail, as it is state owned, its pension scheme is underwritten by the taxpayer, which actually creates a privatisation problem.

 

I see - so if they want to make inroads into that, they need to sack anyone who's not been there long and replace them with temporary workers who have no pension rights. Golly, isn't that a coincidence? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would really like to sympathise with that view Vic but as I work in a private industry where the employer hasn't paid any contributions to my pension OR National Insurance since 1986 I find I can't, sorry. This is, I'm afraid, the real world. Can't find an emoticon that just shrugs so "SHRUG"
Did you know when you got the job that they wouldn't contribute to a pension? And how does any employer avoid NI?

 

They used to, but in 1986 they "flagged out" to the IOM so they could reduce their liabilities i.e. employer's pension and NI contributions. I had the choice of putting up with it or making myself unemployed. Hmm difficult decision that! :shock::shock::shock:

 

I'm not sure why your poor treatment as an employee should make you unsympathetic to other workers who are better able to stand up to bullying employers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why your poor treatment as an employee should make you unsympathetic to other workers who are better able to stand up to bullying employers.

 

Probably because we who live and work in the private sector realise that when times are hard we all have to share the pain.... Unfortunately the posties and their union leaders (on ?70,000 a tear etc) expect us the taxpayer to bail them out when they go on strkie and ruin everones Christmas etc?

 

I think not. As has been demonstrated, there were 130,000 people who applied for 30,000 temporary jobs so more than enough willing to do the strikers jobs....

 

This is the real world Vic, not 1976

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No,

 

they go and do the bloody job that we all pay them to do. As will transpire after this, the union leaders and the strikers will learn a harsh lesson in staffing levels when half of their customers walk away and don't come back.

 

Just like the fools that are working for BA now, go on strike in the middle of a recession, after poor company results; and you commit suicide....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't be so melodramatic...."slavery" is hardly a word that can be used for ANY employee in this country....

 

Go and see workers in Egypt where I just got back from.... the hotel waiters were up at 5 (they all live on the complex) in work for 6 and they work right through until 12 pm at night. 7 days a week and for crap money. Giving them even a small tip makes their day......

 

As I learnt the hard way Obs when on strike for a worthless cause many years ago.... strikes and or principles don't pay the bills of the strikers; only the union leaders have that luxury

 

Strikes never solve anything and only cost money to those involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't be so melodramatic...."slavery" is hardly a word that can be used for ANY employee in this country....

 

Go and see workers in Egypt where I just got back from.... the hotel waiters were up at 5 (they all live on the complex) in work for 6 and they work right through until 12 pm at night. 7 days a week and for crap money. Giving them even a small tip makes their day......

 

Perhaps they should join a union :wink:

I wouldn't mention the tips though, employers in this country use the tips to top up the minimum wage. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Employers have the "freedom" to withdraw jobs any time they like Baz: they just pack up and move to cheaper labour markets. :wink:

 

If you are BT or various other call centre based organisations. You try and get rid of a useless employee if you are a small business Obs.... they have more rights than you may think and all sorts of avenues for appeals etc. An employer doesn't have the option to sue a useless employee for gaining money by deception .... now that would be a step forward!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You try and get rid of a useless employee if you are a small business Obs.... they have more rights than you may think and all sorts of avenues for appeals etc.

 

Providing you have given them the statutory written warnings and follwed all the usualy 'proceedures' etc etc and have proof of their incompetence (uselessness) then you can quite easily get rid of them Baz.

 

After all it's hard enough for businesses to survive as it is without them being expected to run a 'job club' for idiots and lay-a-bouts. Although some employees think that's what they are there for :wink:

 

Personally the way I see it is if an employee is 'not fit for purpose' then why should they keep their job and get paid ... end of story !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and if a number of employees in a government owned business become surplus to requirements due to advances in technology or changed market conditions, their representatives shouldn't attempt to artificially preserve their headcount and then expect the taxpayer - who is generally a working person subject to the same pressures - to pick up the tab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and if a number of employees in a government owned business become surplus to requirements due to advances in technology or changed market conditions, their representatives shouldn't attempt to artificially preserve their headcount and then expect the taxpayer - who is generally a working person subject to the same pressures - to pick up the tab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had the "surplus to requirements" arguement in the NHS; where they shed staff in the name of efficiencies; then wondered why they were short staffed and employing agency staff at greater cost - you folk just don't get it - a public service is exactly that - a service - it's not in the buisiness of cutting corners or making a profit and btw; all those public sector workers you seem to want to sack, become an even bigger drain on your tax pounds when they're thrown on the dole. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are comparing apples with bananas Obs. Like it or not the Royal Mail is a business in a competitive market thanks to the EUSSR, the NHS isn't. :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if that is the case Obs; why is the NHS not like BUPA? Throw billions and billions more at it and you will have nice clean modern hospitals with 5 star food and proper TVs at the bedside and "housekeeping" staff to fetch you a cup of tea when you want......

 

With your idea of just keeping the money tap open, we could all have a personal nurse that comes and visits us at home every other day to make sure we are still OK :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cos we can't have the Plebs enjoying any perks in their conditions of employment can we - such perks are the province of MPs and Bankers. :shock:

 

Were the province of MPs Observer, were the province. :wink::)

 

My guess is that we will now herald in an era of wealthy or sponsored MPs...bit like many years ago...might prove to be a good thing, time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if that is the case Obs; why is the NHS not like BUPA? Throw billions and billions more at it and you will have nice clean modern hospitals with 5 star food and proper TVs at the bedside and "housekeeping" staff to fetch you a cup of tea when you want......

 

With your idea of just keeping the money tap open, we could all have a personal nurse that comes and visits us at home every other day to make sure we are still OK :lol:

 

Personally I think all general hospitals should be run by the private sector, indeed with the new choice system for treatment Spire type hospitals are often included in the list. At Halton, if you need your knee/hip joints changing it is done by a South African owned clinic, and people tell me the service is excellent...and of course free at the point of use for NHS patients.

 

With regards to extra money for the NHS it will go on higher salaries for management, funding the generous NHS pension scheme and creation of a lot more non jobs. The needs of patients are merely an excuse for asking for a bigger budget. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all those public sector workers you seem to want to sack, become an even bigger drain on your tax pounds when they're thrown on the dole.

 

Got it in one Obs. No doubt that the same people will then want the benefits cut of those sacked, claiming that they wont work for a living. :roll::roll: Maggie is not dead :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain industries (services), by their very nature will (or should) remain labour intensive: RM cos snail mail and parcel delivery remains, despite the advent of e-mail and they havn't yet invented a robot to do deliveries quite yet: NHS cos it's preferable imo to have, as near as possible, one to one care, with adequate support staff to ensure hygene and bio-safety. Now, if you employ the private sector principles, of cutting corners and profit and loss to such services, you end up with longer dole queues - with tax-payers being turned into tax-consumers. So, it would seem logical to me to pay these folk to work, rather than stay in bed. :shock: However, I will concede that such a course doesn't mean that one should accept inefficiency and a lack of value for money in service provision, that involves good management and worker relationships, has both ultimately have an interest in the success of their industry. The problem with RM, has been a lack of such a relationship and EU interference in what, imo should be a monopoly service to the public - affordable to all, irrespective of where you live. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obs...

 

How the hell can you say that the private sector cut corners for gods sake? That is the biggest pile of nonsense I have ever heard.

 

The NHS still have lots of people who die in hospitals because despite the massive amounts of my money they pile into it; they won't give them the correct drugs. IE, they cut corners to save money or the patient happenbs to live in the wrong area

 

Just because it is a private company, it doesn't mean they do the job any less efficiently, it just means they don't have stacks of bolshi workers run by even bolshier unions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...