War on the public sector and unions

[unbeliever]

You haven't made anything clear

 

You claim to have a science background but just post streams of unsubstantiated statements peppered with political soundbites. You often don't post links to back up anything you say.

 

We could simply automate you and replace you with a kind of right wing soundboard and randomly trigger buttons on it to produce your posts. Seriously we could

 

Links?

This is my first hand experience. How could there be links?

If you're really interested, I work in the Physics department at the university as a research associate.

 

I see these useless and counter-productive people every day. I have to fight them whenever I want to get something even slightly out of the ordinary done.

The main union for people in my position, the AUT, emphatically rejected the principle of performance related pay not long ago. Not a particular implementation you understand, but the principle. Nutters! How can anybody in their right mind have a problem with the idea that when people work harder or smarter you reward them?

The unions make my job harder and effectively take pay that in the private sector would go to me and waste it keeping legions of useless wasters on the payroll. Trotskyist morons to a man.

Edited October 2, 2015 by unbeliever

[999tigger]

It would be ok if a government wasnt elected unless 50% of the public turned out to vote them in.

 

In answer to the OP and why? its because they can and its in the interests of their main sponsors, weakening union power gives then less opposition, just as the Unions would seek to strengthen their power if it was a Lavour government.

 

Oh and should Drs have the right to strike? Imo yes, especially if you are having a wage settlement that amounts to a 40% cut imposed upon you.

[I1L2T3]

Links?

This is my first hand experience. How could there be links?

If you're really interested, I work in the Physics department at the university as a research associate.

 

I see these useless and counter-productive people every day. I have to fight them whenever I want to get something even slightly out of the ordinary done.

The main union for people in my position, the AUT, emphatically rejected the principle of performance related pay not long ago. Not a particular implementation you understand, but the principle. Nutters! How can anybody in their right mind have a problem with the idea that when people work harder or smarter you reward them?

The unions make my job harder and effectively take pay that in the private sector would go to me and waste it keeping legions of useless wasters on the payroll. Trotskyist morons to a man.

 

You are making assertions about vast swathes of public sector workers being unproductive.

 

At least post some evidence to back yourself up, if you can find any.

 

Not anecdotes. Evidence.

 

Or I will start coding your replacement.

[RonJeremy]

You are making assertions about vast swathes of public sector workers being unproductive.

 

At least post some evidence to back yourself up, if you can find any.

 

Not anecdotes. Evidence.

 

Or I will start coding your replacement.

 

Most people who work in the private sector who have to deal with public sector employees in their work will attest that they are unproductive and borderline obstructive. The public sector seems to be run for the benefit of the employees rather than the public. Talk about tail wagging the dog.

[ricgem2002]

Most people who work in the private sector who have to deal with public sector employees in their work will attest that they are unproductive and borderline obstructive. The public sector seems to be run for the benefit of the employees rather than the public. Talk about tail wagging the dog.

 

but how many private sector employees are really public sector employees in all but name ? given in Sheffield alone how many private companies run council services ( paid for by tax payers)

[I1L2T3]

Most people who work in the private sector who have to deal with public sector employees in their work will attest that they are unproductive and borderline obstructive. The public sector seems to be run for the benefit of the employees rather than the public. Talk about tail wagging the dog.

 

Just silly ranting Ron.

 

Most workers unproductive?

 

Most workers obstructive?

 

Not true is it?

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 23:24 ----------

 

but how many private sector employees are really public sector employees in all but name ? given in Sheffield alone how many private companies run council services ( paid for by tax payers)

 

My wife works in the public sector in one of the Sheffield hospitals.

 

5 or 6 days a week, on call as well.

 

She is very far from unproductive.

[RonJeremy]

but how many private sector employees are really public sector employees in all but name ? given in Sheffield alone how many private companies run council services ( paid for by tax payers)

 

No idea. Don't work with any of those.

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 23:32 ----------

 

Just silly ranting Ron.

 

Most workers unproductive?

 

Most workers obstructive?

 

Not true is it?

 

---------- Post added 02-10-2015 at 23:24 ----------

 

 

My wife works in the public sector in one of the Sheffield hospitals.

 

5 or 6 days a week, on call as well.

 

She is very far from unproductive.

 

I'm sure she tells you she works very hard indeed and she is much too tired to do that thing you like. You know the one she used to do for you.

[El Cid]

No idea. Don't work with any of those.

 

I drive a council minibus, we have private minibuses working alongside us; there cannot be much difference in cost, otherwise it would not be this way.

[unbeliever]

I drive a council minibus, we have private minibuses working alongside us; there cannot be much difference in cost, otherwise it would not be this way.

 

That's speculation. Not a fact.

Still I don't have any facts myself to counter it. I can't prove it's not true, but that doesn't make it true.

 

It's clear that you're doing something practically useful for the state.

I think I am as well. We're not the problem.

 

The problem is the legion of useless people the public sector employs who buzz around admin offices generating work for us and for others, whilst doing nothing of real value themselves.

I'm glad you feel the unions are in your corner. I don't feel the same, but I respect and value your right to collective representation.

The problem is that Unite (who represent a lot of public sector people in both our areas) and the UCU (formerly the AUT) who represent still more in my area, defend not only you but also these vast numbers of useless and counter-productive people as well.

 

I think it would help if there were more, smaller and more specialised unions.

We should have a special union for the administrators, so I can be clear who the enemy are.

 

I honestly do have first hand experience of dealing with these useless and obstructive people on a daily basis. It's hard to define though. And I must concede it's hard to prove.

One of the most insidious things is that a lot of time, effort and resources are wasted doing things in the name of efficiency.

 

An example I've given before on this forum is of procurement. In the name of efficiency a small discount has been negotiated with certain companies in return for exclusivity. These companies still charge more than, for example, Amazon for almost anything I would like to spend my budget on; and the exclusivity arrangement means that either I have to pay the higher prices or wait literally weeks and spend many man hours arranging an exemption. Either way, the taxpayers are not getting good value because they either have to pay the higher price, or pay for the extra man hours. This farce has been enforced in the name of efficiency because all that the headline figures show is that a 10% discount was achieved. This is a very socialist mindset as a capitalist would never have traded their right to take advantage of competition in the market for a 10% imaginary discount, as they would immediately see the folly of it.

 

The unions approve of this kind of thing and defend it once it's in place because it always saves capital from budgets at the expense of requiring more admin staff. The fact is that the extra admin staff cost far more than even the imaginary capital saving, but the unions don't care because more staff is more money and influence for them.

 

It's incredibly obvious to me that efficient public services arise from providing those public services with the absolute bare minimum number of staff. This is what is in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The best interests of the public sector unions are served by the public sector employing the maximum possible number of staff.

 

Want to know why your taxes are so high, and public services still seem barely adequate? Look no further than the TUC.

 

Cue the neo-Keynesian rubbish about how employing people to do nothing and get in everybody else's way is somehow a good thing....

Edited October 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[Funky_Gibbon]

That's speculation. Not a fact.

Still I don't have any facts myself to counter it. I can't prove it's not true, but that doesn't make it true.

 

It's clear that you're doing something practically useful for the state.

I think I am as well. We're not the problem.

 

The problem is the legion of useless people the public sector employs who buzz around admin offices generating work for us and for others, which doing nothing of value themselves.

I'm glad you feel the unions is in your corner. I don't feel the same, but I respect and value your right to collective representation.

The problem is that Unite (who represent a lot of public sector people in both our areas) and the UCU (formerly the AUT) who represent still more in my area, defend not only you but also these vast numbers of useless and counter-productive people as well.

 

I think it would help if there were more, smaller and more specialised unions.

We should have a special union for the administrators, so I can be clear who the enemy are.

 

I honestly do have first hand experience of dealing with these useless and obstructive people on a daily basis. It's hard to define though. And I must concede it's hard to prove.

One of the most insidious things is that a lot of time, effort and resources are wasted doing things in the name of efficiency.

 

An example I've given before on this forum is of procurement. In the name of efficiency a small discount has been negotiated with certain companies in return for exclusivity. These companies still charge more than, for example, Amazon for almost anything I would like to spend my budget on; and the exclusivity arrangement means that either I have to pay the higher prices or wait literally weeks and spend many man hours arranging an exemption. Either way, the taxpayers are not getting good value because they either have to pay the higher price, or pay for the extra man hours. This farce has been enforced in the name of efficiency because all that the headline figures show is that a 10% discount was achieved. This is a very socialist mindset as a capitalist would never have traded their right to take advantage of competition in the market for a 10% imaginary discount, as they would immediately see the folly of it.

 

The unions approve of this kind of thing and defend it once it's in place because it always saves capital from budgets at the expense of requiring more admin staff. The fact is that the extra admin staff cost far more than even the imaginary capital saving, but the unions don't care because more staff is more money and influence for them.

 

It's incredibly obvious to me that efficient public services arise from providing those public services with the absolute bare minimum number of staff. This is what is in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The best interests of the public sector unions are served by the public sector employing the maximum possible number of staff.

 

Want to know why your taxes are so high, and public services still seem barely adequate? Look no further than the TUC.

 

Cue the neo-Keynesian rubbish about how employing people to do nothing and get in everybody else's way is somehow a good thing....

 

You start off your rant by saying someone is speculating but you can't provide any evidence to the contrary and then follow it with a long list of what are nothing more than opinions for which you don't have any evidence either or apparently even a passing knowledge of what you're moaning about.

 

Starting the day with a laugh thanks.