Strike Action

[The_DADDY]

I just want to say, keep it going lads...

This thread has suddenly turned hilarious 😂 

[The_DADDY]

Funny guy.. .

He's not wrong though 

Caution....He drops plenty of F and B bombs. Normally I wouldn't link to a video like this but like I say, he's not wrong.

 

https://fb.watch/hrySIONJff/

Edited December 16, 2022 by The_DADDY

[Delbow]

Just been reading this article about how having to move 1350 HMRC compliance officers to Covid schemes lost the revenue £9,000,000,000 over two years. This means that compliance officers are excellent value for money. Assuming a generous amount for on-costs plus salary, you're looking at around £35k p.a. per officer, multiplied by 1350 gives you an annual spend of £47,250,000 to pull in £4,500,000,000 per year. 

 

So even with my rubbish maths I can see that employing a thousand or more extra enforcement officers would help us fund public services properly, including wages high enough to retain staff (who we've paid a lot to recruit and train, remember).

 

The only reason I can think of for the government not doing this is that they don't want to, so repeatedly saying 'there's no money' isn't good enough.

[harvey19]

On GBnews at 8pm last night the y detailed the money spent on diversity, equality and inclusion officers and publications.

Also it was pointed out that staff went these courses in work time.

There was also a nurse on who is suing the NHS because of the nature of some of the courses.

It was suggested that nurses pay rises could be funded by using the money spent in these areas.

How can any organisation be allowed to spend its money in this way when they are failing in some of their basic areas ?

[Delbow]

39 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

On GBnews at 8pm last night the y detailed the money spent on diversity, equality and inclusion officers and publications.

Also it was pointed out that staff went these courses in work time.

There was also a nurse on who is suing the NHS because of the nature of some of the courses.

It was suggested that nurses pay rises could be funded by using the money spent in these areas.

How can any organisation be allowed to spend its money in this way when they are failing in some of their basic areas ?

Of course it was "suggested" by GB News, that's what they exist for. The idea that the pay rise could be funded through axing a bit of training is laughable. Why are you watching that nonsense?

[harvey19]

56 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Of course it was "suggested" by GB News, that's what they exist for. The idea that the pay rise could be funded through axing a bit of training is laughable. Why are you watching that nonsense?

It was tongue in cheek that the savings could fund a pay rise.

The amount of money spent on such schemes was considerable.

Try watching the 6pm GB news where Michelle Dewberry has guests on to discuss topical subjects.

[Delbow]

36 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

It was tongue in cheek that the savings could fund a pay rise.

The amount of money spent on such schemes was considerable.

Try watching the 6pm GB news where Michelle Dewberry has guests on to discuss topical subjects.

Judging by the much worse and evidenced treatment of Black people in psychiatric inpatient services over decades, they still need that training.

[L00b]

48 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

It was tongue in cheek that the savings could fund a pay rise.

The amount of money spent on such schemes was considerable.

Try watching the 6pm GB news where Michelle Dewberry has guests on to discuss topical subjects.

They didn’t run a comparative study with the cost of any such “diversity, equality and inclusion” training for the Met Police, by any chance, did they?

 

No?

 

Colour me surprised 😏

[L00b]

17 hours ago, Delbow said:

I'm afraid this is what happens when toy governments are more focused on winning the culture war and baiting the 'wokerati' than doing their actual jobs.

 

Re: the 19% claim, it's possibly a) an attempt to regain some of the pay erosion of the last 10 years on top of inflation, b) naivety on the part of the RCN, given that they haven't been on strike for ages, or c) it allows the government to pay closer to inflation while looking like they haven't had to cave in. Or a combination of all three.

I read somewhere recently, that they had never been strike before?

 

Lest we forget:

 

 

[Delbow]

4 minutes ago, L00b said:

I read somewhere recently, that they had never been strike before?

 

Lest we forget:

 

 

That's grim, thanks for sharing. 

 

A settlement of the trains dispute seems possible in the new year. The way the RMT are standing their ground suggests they have the upper hand and are waiting for the government to give ground.