I don't know last week it was the public workers striking now this week we've got a [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-16045680trade union agreeing to a 50% pay cut to keep the employer in business.[/url

Where will it end with all these self-ed commie bastads?

Hello Sal, you still here?

Public sector are just as greedy as the bankers, not seeing the bigger picture, although i feel for the guys having to take a pay cut at least they understand when something is unsustainable and i applaud their common sense.

Totally agree. I read it all the time about those public sector workers getting multi-million pound bonuses and costing the country hundreds of billions of pounds.

Are you being facetious? Granted the financial scales are different but the mentality isn't.

Time for re-calibration mate

Public sector workers are being brought back to reality and it's long overdue.

To an extent but HMG have capitulated big time on the pensions.

I suspect he's taking the almighty out of you.

But go on - why aren't you a member of a union? You do know, don't you, that union membership is generally a productive thing for people?

Generally a productive thing? Well, that's me convinced, where do I sign up?

Seriously, though, what does "generally a productive thing" actually mean?

I'm not a member of a union, the company i work for is covered by Unison even though it's private sector.

People in my company have gone on strike even though the basic wage at the bottom is 28k, that to me is enough for what they do and the qualifications they hold, in fact i went on record saying personally i think it's more than they're worth considering what nurses are paid. They wanted more money is the reason they went on strike, not better pensions or working conditions just pure greed in my eyes.

I'm on considerably more yet i've gone on record again saying i get paid more than i'm worth (i genuinely believe this) if push came to shove and the company was dying would i take a pay cut? yes i would, would i take a hit on my pension or working conditions? yes i would.

The majority of public sector workers are overpaid and are simply not value for money.
I have a lot of respect for firefighters (this is the opening statement to appease the inevitable poop storm i'll get for attacking firefighters) but they have 2nd jobs because they have so much time off, when they are at work they can have a whole shift sat in the station doing nothing, is that value for money?
Retirement at 55?

The Union are defending these positions and i get they have to look after their members but come on play the game, be realistic. They've turned in to a movement that used to be about creating a fairer more just enviroment for workers(i can buy in to that) in to protecting lazy f---ers and moaning about greed yet at the same time trying to squeeze every last penny out the employers they can.

The Clarkson incident was the final straw for me, their complete over reaction to his comments and then asking for him to be (wait for it) SACKED, aren't they about protecting workers? didn't they see the irony there?

Minty don't get me wrong i love the theory of how the union [ushould [/ube, pretty much how i love the theory of communism BUT in real life neither are viable and both are corrupt.

Trades unions members, in general, have higher pay and better conditions.

They do but at what cost? Let me think what happened to the great British unionised businesses - coal mining, British Leyland, etc - oh yes, they more or less ceased to be. All those union members no longer have jobs or union membership. Short-term selfishness cost them.

So, what are you saying here ...?



What did they strike over? You do know, don't you, that not every strike is over pay? And since you appear so derisory, can we assume that you have never ever taken the benefits of things won by trades unions? We could start with the eight-hour day – presumably you quite happily work more than that and believe everyone else should too?



So that was what they struck over, was it? And even if that was the case, do you really, really think that Bob effing Diamond is seriously worth millions every year?



That was nice of you. At least we know you'd turn down any benefit won by a trades union.



So, nothing whatsoever at all like the bosses ...



Offer to give up some of your pay then. obviously your family won't suffer.



Wjat is the going rate for a road sweeper, a bin man, a nurse, a teacher, a copper, a lollipop lady, a dinnerlady, a social worker etc etc etc etc etc?



Well indeed. It should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell that you can run up ladders, fight fires and carry people around at, say, 65, shouldn't it?



They are. You're not. See above.



Nasty, selfish, pig ignorant bull. Seriously. Give up reading the gutter press and try to activate your brain.

Boy oh boy – what a fabulously sweeping comment. Perhaps you'd like to come out with me and actually meet and talk to some nurses and teaching assistants and PCSOs and cleaners and porters and tell them all this.



Well of course. Hospital cleaners who have had their wages cut for years – and have been promised more of the same – and are having their pensions attacked too, should just bend over and be kicked. After all, what do they contribute to society? Their wages are just an act of charity. They;re workshy scum really, just begging off the state ... etc etc etc.

As opposed, of course, to a man who is primarily paid by the taxpayer to mess around in flash cars ...



And frankly this is just a seriously dumb comment. We're not talking about communism. We're talking about real people who do real jobs. You, apparently, consider them overpaid and worthless. Thank god you do something really productive in society, eh?

And I look forward to your announcement that you will give up all the benefits that you have now that have been won for you by unions. Because you wouldn't be a hypocrite, now would you?

Very good point. It's far better that, in the last 30 years, the wages of the majority have fallen. That's obviously a good thing. Clearly a massive help for the economy.

That's because the UK does not operate in isolation. Other countries compete more strongly than others in many areas and so wage wealth shifts - in many cases to very poor countries in Asia, S.America, Russia and latterly Africa. Now, that surely is a good thing - passing a share of wealth from the rich (lie you) to the poor? Or, does your love of the 'poor' not extend to the truly poor?

So since the government of this country decided that our national economy should be based primarily on the service sectors, including retail, you'd think they'd comprehend that people need a decent income in order to be able to keep that economy going, wouldn't you? Oh. Or perhaps neo-liberals are economic illiterates, eh?

Did anyone else watch the programme last night about Fred the Shred and HSBO?

And there'll still be idiots who don't think there was anything wrong with their behaviour.

Which government decided that?

The one that came to power in 1979.

When? Was it in their manifesto? Nothing to do with retailers and their customers then?

Is there a smiley for naive? Manifesto????

Do they? Got anything to back that claim up?



This sounds suspiciously like the claim about the cost of living rising against wages which you previously failed to offer any evidence for. Where does this claim come from?

Do they???

I'm a member of Unison (although probably not for much longer) and before that NALGO, and every dispute over the last 20 odd years that affected me that these unions were involved in, their members, after losing X days pay, ended up being told by these unions to go back to work for the deal that was originally offered.

Needless to say I didn't join in the strike last week because:
1) History tells us that Unison will eventually roll over and accept what the government want to do.
2) Our Unison shop steward failed to support us when the control room I worked in was threatened with closure, and he actually went in to the press and said it was a good idea. The only reason we still have jobs is because we fought for them ourselves.
3) I can't afford to lose a days pay.

I think you have over played your hand here - these workers have two choices, they all take a pay cut for two weeks or a number lose their jobs - tough in the real world.

The union have little choice but to go along with it - at least they will still get their dues from all members!!

On Mintball's idea that being a member of a union is a benefit - in certain circumstances I would agree; if you have a poor attendance record, poor productivity record etc the union will keep you in a job longer than you should stay. On job security I would suggest you would be better off in a non unionsed culture - on money companies will pay the minimum it costs to get the quality the want - having a union presence makes no difference. The widening gap between the top and the bottom demonstrates the union's impotence in these matters.

Unions pushing for unrealistic pay awards reduces an employers competitive advantage - I guarantee if you review companies with unionised and non unionised factories the unit cost of labour will be higher in unionised sites and when push comes to shoove we all know which site will go!!

Oh yes, all the fault of "the unions".
BL was on the way downhill from lousy decisions from Lord Stokes onwards.
The unions didn't help but they were not the primary cause of the demise.

The loss of virtually the entire coal-mining industry was considered by the Thatcher government to be a price worth paying to destroy the miners' unions.
That was a political decision, implemented illegally.
I despised Scargill as much as anyone did ... but let's be right about what was going on.

Without Unions, working conditions and pay would have remained at Victorian levels, or taken many, many years longer to be remedied.
Look at Germany and its highly-unionised workforce ... seems to work there doesn't it?
Let's not be stupidly short-sighted and blame the very existence of unions for our ills.