FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why is ‘public sector’ a slur?
Why is ‘public sector’ a slur?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! " All of which goes on in the private sector as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well." What examples do you have | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have" I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) " You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? " I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s." That's it! It will take years and is taking years, to modernise. Unions as I mentioned above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s. That's it! It will take years and is taking years, to modernise. Unions as I mentioned above" There was no great level of union membership in my previous career (maybe 10% of the workforce, at a guess), and the above went on there as well, as I stated. The private sector is not the bastion of efficiency that some pretend it is. Ultimately people are people, and they act the same regardless of where they work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s. That's it! It will take years and is taking years, to modernise. Unions as I mentioned above There was no great level of union membership in my previous career (maybe 10% of the workforce, at a guess), and the above went on there as well, as I stated. The private sector is not the bastion of efficiency that some pretend it is. Ultimately people are people, and they act the same regardless of where they work. " Difference is, tax £'s are not paying for the unions and attitudes that made the UK the sick man of Europe, back in the day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s. That's it! It will take years and is taking years, to modernise. Unions as I mentioned above There was no great level of union membership in my previous career (maybe 10% of the workforce, at a guess), and the above went on there as well, as I stated. The private sector is not the bastion of efficiency that some pretend it is. Ultimately people are people, and they act the same regardless of where they work. Difference is, tax £'s are not paying for the unions and attitudes that made the UK the sick man of Europe, back in the day. " But that’s not the subject - I’d like to know why people use ‘public sector’ as a slur. Typically lower paid than the private sector equivalent, and constantly under attack for ‘gold plated pensions’ (which are largely a thing of the past), called ‘lazy’ and so on. Unions can’t be the answer because a) it makes no sense, and b) unions aren’t restricted to the public sector. I suspect it’s jealousy (of a mythical work ethic/environment that doesn’t exist, plus exaggerated/imagined perks). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! All of which goes on in the private sector as well. What examples do you have I work in the private sector, both in my present company and my previous industry (engineering). I can assure you that ‘meetings about meetings’ and managers ‘failing upwards’ are not restricted to the public sector. Nor are sick days (you find this in any company with sick-pay) You work in a public sector area, that is now run by private sector, but still governed by the public sector, I thought? I work for a private company in an industry that’s been privatised since the mid 1990’s. That's it! It will take years and is taking years, to modernise. Unions as I mentioned above There was no great level of union membership in my previous career (maybe 10% of the workforce, at a guess), and the above went on there as well, as I stated. The private sector is not the bastion of efficiency that some pretend it is. Ultimately people are people, and they act the same regardless of where they work. Difference is, tax £'s are not paying for the unions and attitudes that made the UK the sick man of Europe, back in the day. But that’s not the subject - I’d like to know why people use ‘public sector’ as a slur. Typically lower paid than the private sector equivalent, and constantly under attack for ‘gold plated pensions’ (which are largely a thing of the past), called ‘lazy’ and so on. Unions can’t be the answer because a) it makes no sense, and b) unions aren’t restricted to the public sector. I suspect it’s jealousy (of a mythical work ethic/environment that doesn’t exist, plus exaggerated/imagined perks)." I would wager a decent amount on the honest answer being trade union reps and their attitudes. They conform to the militant, left wing stereotype that like to hold the country to ransom. I'm sure the majority of the public workforce are as diligent as the private sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that?" Having worked in all 3 sectors, Civil Service, Local Government and Private sector I can unequivocally state the following. Civil Service is full of incompetant layabouts who never finish a job. It's a haven for the inadequate with obscenely generous pensions. Local Government is blessed with corrupt, dishonest, arse lickers who grovel to Councillors rather that help a member of the public. The private sector is full of hard working, well motivated, honourable, intelligent, competent folks with each supporting each other for the greater good of the Company. If you believe all that, you are part of the problem; but you sadly are not alone.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? Having worked in all 3 sectors, Civil Service, Local Government and Private sector I can unequivocally state the following. Civil Service is full of incompetant layabouts who never finish a job. It's a haven for the inadequate with obscenely generous pensions. Local Government is blessed with corrupt, dishonest, arse lickers who grovel to Councillors rather that help a member of the public. The private sector is full of hard working, well motivated, honourable, intelligent, competent folks with each supporting each other for the greater good of the Company. If you believe all that, you are part of the problem; but you sadly are not alone. "I'm sure relatively few people will believe your resume, let alone the punchline  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One plant I worked on in engineering, the site manager and two of the foremen shared a surname. I thought that was unusual - found out early on that of course they were all brothers. Lo and behold another of their clan joined the firm a year later as a labourer. It took him a year before he became foreman as well (over trained engineers!). We also had a lad we called The Boomtown Rat. He didn’t like Mondays, and took them off regularly. It is what it is. " I have question, curiosity and all that and no need to answer 
Are you Scottish? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One plant I worked on in engineering, the site manager and two of the foremen shared a surname. I thought that was unusual - found out early on that of course they were all brothers. Lo and behold another of their clan joined the firm a year later as a labourer. It took him a year before he became foreman as well (over trained engineers!). We also had a lad we called The Boomtown Rat. He didn’t like Mondays, and took them off regularly. It is what it is. I have question, curiosity and all that and no need to answer
Are you Scottish?"No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that?" . It is all part of the "divide and rule" philosophy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On my first day. Welcome to the Civil Service said my boss’s boss. He then went on to tell me that when my alarm goes off in a morning I have two choices to make - either get up and go to work or don’t bother…either way you’ll get paid the same. Should you decide to go to work then there are two more choices - either do a days work or just be there… either way you’ll get paid the same. I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. There’s a job for life and a decent pension here, as long as you don’t do anything that constitutes gross misconduct you’ll never get sacked. Yes, this might have been a good few years ago but it was also in the days when people were expected to physically attend work… now that hybrid working is a thing I can only imagine how little actually gets done. Beans get counted and spreadsheets get produced. Meetings are held about meetings, rarely does anyone consider how to grow more beans, better quality beans or more efficient beans. Useless managers are regularly promoted to other departments to pass them on rather than manage their inefficiency. I can’t imagine why there’s a mocking tone at all! " That's pretty shocking. I assume being expected to take a certain amount of sick days is to continue to make it look like normal for everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some." "That's pretty shocking. I assume being expected to take a certain amount of sick days is to continue to make it look like normal for everyone." I've seen the same thing in a heavily unionised private industry company. The shop steward saw sick days as an entitlement for each worker, and was determined to make sure that everybody claimed their full allocation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation." Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better?" Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc " Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc " The unions and its leaders / reps as I mentioned above always seem to be able to tick the left wing, militant and angry box. that image will never be accepted by the vast majority of the country, to politicised and always willing to hold the country to ransom. They brought the country to its knees in the 70's and never seem to have a good understanding of the mood of the country or anything other than feathering their own nests. You are a proud left wing, drum banging supporter of these unions, so you wont understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. " I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc The unions and its leaders / reps as I mentioned above always seem to be able to tick the left wing, militant and angry box. that image will never be accepted by the vast majority of the country, to politicised and always willing to hold the country to ransom. They brought the country to its knees in the 70's and never seem to have a good understanding of the mood of the country or anything other than feathering their own nests. You are a proud left wing, drum banging supporter of these unions, so you wont understand " And yet recent strikes (and action short of strike) in various industries have actually been supported by the majority of the public, particularly in the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector." I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership." I have a way of reading things because I asked a question? 
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?"I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc" Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions?" I’m stating definitively that trade unions played an enormous role in getting them (among other things). What would have happened in a world without organised labour is anyone’s guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much." Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
"So you suspect people are misinformed by the media? Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed. Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? "No evidence needed. He started 'I think', which means it's an opinion piece | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore. "Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions?" Are you dipping into inter war years history again Mr Discretion?
The Trade Union movement played a massive role in securing all manner of workers rights and benefits that we now take for granted or accept as the de facto default for employment contracts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)?
No evidence needed. He started 'I think', which means it's an opinion piece "I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
"I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions? Are you dipping into inter war years history again Mr Discretion?
The Trade Union movement played a massive role in securing all manner of workers rights and benefits that we now take for granted or accept as the de facto default for employment contracts. "And we’ve seen what some organisations will try to get away with if they possibly can - even docking pay for toilet breaks in some cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch "More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with "Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable. Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light. As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch. "I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true. How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc. Next day in the papers - drivers wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages. "If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely? Don't the 2 go hand in hand? Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur. Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to. "I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions."Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you? Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed. That doesn't tell me you want to get it. Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It all comes down to people. Some are good and some are bad. Some are hard working and conscientious, and some are lazy skivers. The problem IMHO is the public sector are poor at looking after the former (and often lose them) and poor at dealing with the latter (so often retain them). " I think this paragraph in particular is excellent. One of the things that attracted people to the public sector (and retained them) was the ‘perks’ - sick pay, good pensions etc. In more recent years, healthcare plans or ‘cycle to work’ schemes that can save some cash. But as those are stripped away in the name of ‘efficiencies’, as some (not all) in the private sector cheer - where is the benefit in working in the public sector? Why wouldn’t someone go off and have the same perks (i.e none) but earn a larger salary doing the same job in the private sector? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions.
Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you?
Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed.
That doesn't tell me you want to get it.
Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them
"Well when I’ve given an example or two of how the media have misinformed the public on unions, you can’t blame me for saying the public are misinformed on unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions.
Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you?
Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed.
That doesn't tell me you want to get it.
Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them
Well when I’ve given an example or two of how the media have misinformed the public on unions, you can’t blame me for saying the public are misinformed on unions. "Well done. You picked out 2 examples. Do I need to pick out 2 where unions have had good press to counter it? Maybe that's part of the problem. You place too much emphasis on people believing only the bad articles in the press. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions.
Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you?
Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed.
That doesn't tell me you want to get it.
Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them
Well when I’ve given an example or two of how the media have misinformed the public on unions, you can’t blame me for saying the public are misinformed on unions.
Well done. You picked out 2 examples. Do I need to pick out 2 where unions have had good press to counter it?
Maybe that's part of the problem. You place too much emphasis on people believing only the bad articles in the press. "A bad article would be if a union was guilty of saving the job of staff who should have been sacked (which has definitely happened) or dodgy financial dealings (which has definitely happened) - what I’m referring to is lies/ignorance/deception. That’s not a ‘bad article’ - that’s propaganda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions.
Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you?
Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed.
That doesn't tell me you want to get it.
Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them
Well when I’ve given an example or two of how the media have misinformed the public on unions, you can’t blame me for saying the public are misinformed on unions.
Well done. You picked out 2 examples. Do I need to pick out 2 where unions have had good press to counter it?
Maybe that's part of the problem. You place too much emphasis on people believing only the bad articles in the press.
A bad article would be if a union was guilty of saving the job of staff who should have been sacked (which has definitely happened) or dodgy financial dealings (which has definitely happened) - what I’m referring to is lies/ignorance/deception. That’s not a ‘bad article’ - that’s propaganda. "Rather than accept the points made, you're more interested in trying to score some points. That's definitely the problem here. On this particular back and forth, I'm out  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Allow me to rephrase. Trade unions in the private sector do not negatively affect the electorate. I've been self employed most of my life, thats how I like it. I'll ask again, why are you personally more informed than everyone else? Because you've dealt with unions and no one else has? I'll tell you a not so secret. We have all dealt with unions, directly or indirectly. I don’t recall saying I’d dealt with unions and nobody else had. You do have a strange habit of reading things that aren’t there. I thought I explained reasonably simply why I felt unions were misrepresented - I have experience of seeing how actions are reported and how they compare to the actual decisions made by the membership. I have a way of reading things because I asked a question?
That's funny
What makes you think the electorate don't know how unions come to decisions?
I suspect some do. But due to the nature of media reporting (as I’ve already described) I suspect many don’t. Social media may be changing that, as we see an uptick in trade union support in recent years - though that may simply be anger at the incumbent govt.
So you suspect people are misinformed by the media?
Maybe, it should be your mission to make sure people are correctly informed.
Maybe if you informed everyone, there would be any dislike towards unions anymore.
Mick Lynch has been excellent on that topic in recent years.
I think you're misinformed on how the elclectorate view Mick Lynch
More favourably than the Tory ministers he’s been on TV debates with
Maybe so, that doesn't make him favourable.
Not even 50% of Labour (the party of the unions) supporters look at him in a favourable light.
As I said, I think you're misinformed on how the electorate view Mick Lynch.
I didn’t actually mention how the electorate view him though - I said he’s done a good job of informing people against misinformation. Which is true.
How many debates did we see where an MP brought up train driver’s wages in relation to the RMT strike? Lynch was eloquent and calm, explaining that the action wasn’t about driver wages, but cleaners, ticket office staff etc.
Next day in the papers - drivers wages.
If he had done a good job, he would be viewed favourably, surely?
Don't the 2 go hand in hand?
Anyway, you have some ideas on the supposed 'public sector' slur.
Tbh, I'm not sure why you asked in the first place. As someone else pointed out, You won't get it. Personally, I don't think you want to.
I absolutely do want to get it, because it makes no sense to me. I’m not sure why you keep leaping to conclusions.
Am I allowed to have an opinion? You are aware that's what it was, aren't you?
Your answer to people's suggestions that the unions are the issue is... People are wrong/misinformed.
That doesn't tell me you want to get it.
Your words on this thread and others will lead people to COME to conclusions, not JUMP to them
Well when I’ve given an example or two of how the media have misinformed the public on unions, you can’t blame me for saying the public are misinformed on unions.
Well done. You picked out 2 examples. Do I need to pick out 2 where unions have had good press to counter it?
Maybe that's part of the problem. You place too much emphasis on people believing only the bad articles in the press.
A bad article would be if a union was guilty of saving the job of staff who should have been sacked (which has definitely happened) or dodgy financial dealings (which has definitely happened) - what I’m referring to is lies/ignorance/deception. That’s not a ‘bad article’ - that’s propaganda.
Rather than accept the points made, you're more interested in trying to score some points.
That's definitely the problem here. On this particular back and forth, I'm out "If that’s how you see it then fair enough, you’re incorrect about point-scoring, but hey-ho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Fun Fella’s point on how informed the general public are (or misinformed) is a fair one. Clearly there are some people who are more engaged and widely read who understand some stuff better. The vast majority of people are agnostic at best. We know people believe headlines. We know people do not dig any deeper. We know social media has made that worse. And as per my earlier post, a large chunk of the working population grew up in the 80s/early 90s when there was a sea change around labour markets. The 70s were a shitshow (I am too young to know but so I have read and been told) and that created an environment ripe for neo-liberalism. I believe there was a dramatic fall in union membership in the 80s/90s in the private sector compared with the 60s/70s but this was not reflected in the public sector* or the privatised utilities. This has therefore led to a ever widening dynamic difference between the two. *union membership in the Civil Service has fallen quite a lot I think although it is heavier in operational lower graded jobs outside of Whitehall vs higher graded policy/strategy type roles inside of Whitehall. " It may well be a valid point but nothing is ever gonna be achieved by telling people they're wrong/misinformed/thick etc etc. And just because a view is valid, that doesn't automatically make it true. The only way to change perception is to actually engage and address. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Fun Fella’s point on how informed the general public are (or misinformed) is a fair one. Clearly there are some people who are more engaged and widely read who understand some stuff better. The vast majority of people are agnostic at best. We know people believe headlines. We know people do not dig any deeper. We know social media has made that worse. And as per my earlier post, a large chunk of the working population grew up in the 80s/early 90s when there was a sea change around labour markets. The 70s were a shitshow (I am too young to know but so I have read and been told) and that created an environment ripe for neo-liberalism. I believe there was a dramatic fall in union membership in the 80s/90s in the private sector compared with the 60s/70s but this was not reflected in the public sector* or the privatised utilities. This has therefore led to a ever widening dynamic difference between the two. *union membership in the Civil Service has fallen quite a lot I think although it is heavier in operational lower graded jobs outside of Whitehall vs higher graded policy/strategy type roles inside of Whitehall. It may well be a valid point but nothing is ever gonna be achieved by telling people they're wrong/misinformed/thick etc etc. And just because a view is valid, that doesn't automatically make it true. The only way to change perception is to actually engage and address. " Not sure FunFella accused anyone of being thick? Misinformed maybe but not thick. As for saying “wrong” well everyone thinks they are “right” which means someone else has to be “wrong” in any debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Fun Fella’s point on how informed the general public are (or misinformed) is a fair one. Clearly there are some people who are more engaged and widely read who understand some stuff better. The vast majority of people are agnostic at best. We know people believe headlines. We know people do not dig any deeper. We know social media has made that worse. And as per my earlier post, a large chunk of the working population grew up in the 80s/early 90s when there was a sea change around labour markets. The 70s were a shitshow (I am too young to know but so I have read and been told) and that created an environment ripe for neo-liberalism. I believe there was a dramatic fall in union membership in the 80s/90s in the private sector compared with the 60s/70s but this was not reflected in the public sector* or the privatised utilities. This has therefore led to a ever widening dynamic difference between the two. *union membership in the Civil Service has fallen quite a lot I think although it is heavier in operational lower graded jobs outside of Whitehall vs higher graded policy/strategy type roles inside of Whitehall. It may well be a valid point but nothing is ever gonna be achieved by telling people they're wrong/misinformed/thick etc etc. And just because a view is valid, that doesn't automatically make it true. The only way to change perception is to actually engage and address. Not sure FunFella accused anyone of being thick? Misinformed maybe but not thick. As for saying “wrong” well everyone thinks they are “right” which means someone else has to be “wrong” in any debate "He chose his words wisely this time
Besides, they are all interpreted to have the same undertone.
I still say the only way to change perception, if you really want to, is to engage and address. Something which unfortunately we see little of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Fun Fella’s point on how informed the general public are (or misinformed) is a fair one. Clearly there are some people who are more engaged and widely read who understand some stuff better. The vast majority of people are agnostic at best. We know people believe headlines. We know people do not dig any deeper. We know social media has made that worse. And as per my earlier post, a large chunk of the working population grew up in the 80s/early 90s when there was a sea change around labour markets. The 70s were a shitshow (I am too young to know but so I have read and been told) and that created an environment ripe for neo-liberalism. I believe there was a dramatic fall in union membership in the 80s/90s in the private sector compared with the 60s/70s but this was not reflected in the public sector* or the privatised utilities. This has therefore led to a ever widening dynamic difference between the two. *union membership in the Civil Service has fallen quite a lot I think although it is heavier in operational lower graded jobs outside of Whitehall vs higher graded policy/strategy type roles inside of Whitehall. It may well be a valid point but nothing is ever gonna be achieved by telling people they're wrong/misinformed/thick etc etc. And just because a view is valid, that doesn't automatically make it true. The only way to change perception is to actually engage and address. Not sure FunFella accused anyone of being thick? Misinformed maybe but not thick. As for saying “wrong” well everyone thinks they are “right” which means someone else has to be “wrong” in any debate "Absolutely- it’s possible (indeed desirable) to inform people when they’re being lied to/misinformed. That doesn’t mean they’re thick. It means someone isn’t being straight with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Fun Fella’s point on how informed the general public are (or misinformed) is a fair one. Clearly there are some people who are more engaged and widely read who understand some stuff better. The vast majority of people are agnostic at best. We know people believe headlines. We know people do not dig any deeper. We know social media has made that worse. And as per my earlier post, a large chunk of the working population grew up in the 80s/early 90s when there was a sea change around labour markets. The 70s were a shitshow (I am too young to know but so I have read and been told) and that created an environment ripe for neo-liberalism. I believe there was a dramatic fall in union membership in the 80s/90s in the private sector compared with the 60s/70s but this was not reflected in the public sector* or the privatised utilities. This has therefore led to a ever widening dynamic difference between the two. *union membership in the Civil Service has fallen quite a lot I think although it is heavier in operational lower graded jobs outside of Whitehall vs higher graded policy/strategy type roles inside of Whitehall. It may well be a valid point but nothing is ever gonna be achieved by telling people they're wrong/misinformed/thick etc etc. And just because a view is valid, that doesn't automatically make it true. The only way to change perception is to actually engage and address. Not sure FunFella accused anyone of being thick? Misinformed maybe but not thick. As for saying “wrong” well everyone thinks they are “right” which means someone else has to be “wrong” in any debate
He chose his words wisely this time
Besides, they are all interpreted to have the same undertone.
I still say the only way to change perception, if you really want to, is to engage and address. Something which unfortunately we see little of."Certainly not by anyone on this site! We all for the most part shout into the wind  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a slur as such. But public sector for me don't know how lucky they have it often. They complained about payfreezes and had strikes over it. Sadly often the private sector don't strike. They can't. They just get laid off. This is what happened in theno8 financial crash. Hundreds kf thousands lost their homes and nearly 4m lost their jobs. And apparently pay freezes for the public sector were a horrible thing to happen. Many of these jobs are absolutely safe I'm bad times. Often they get guaranteed pay increases year on year with bands. And yet still complain it doesn't match inflation. Yet in the private sector. You usually don't get any pay rise without asking and at best it usually just matches the inflation rate. Overtime for working late and nights and Sundays...I bet retail jobs wish they got that. Lovely pensions Superior benefits to almost every other private sector job Job security. It's never enough for them " So you mean that (for most of what you said) the public sector still gets what the private sector lost. The reduction in employment benefits in the private sector is commensurate with the fall in unionisation (in larger firms, clearly doesn’t apply to SMEs). The job for life thing is a fair comment but kind of goes with the territory. We will always need a civil service, hospital workers, benefits processors etc (poor examples but you get the gist). We won’t always need some of the jobs in the private sector (ie consumers don’t but your product, bye bye job). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a slur as such. But public sector for me don't know how lucky they have it often. They complained about payfreezes and had strikes over it. Sadly often the private sector don't strike. They can't. They just get laid off. This is what happened in theno8 financial crash. Hundreds kf thousands lost their homes and nearly 4m lost their jobs. And apparently pay freezes for the public sector were a horrible thing to happen. Many of these jobs are absolutely safe I'm bad times. Often they get guaranteed pay increases year on year with bands. And yet still complain it doesn't match inflation. Yet in the private sector. You usually don't get any pay rise without asking and at best it usually just matches the inflation rate. Overtime for working late and nights and Sundays...I bet retail jobs wish they got that. Lovely pensions Superior benefits to almost every other private sector job Job security. It's never enough for them So you mean that (for most of what you said) the public sector still gets what the private sector lost. The reduction in employment benefits in the private sector is commensurate with the fall in unionisation (in larger firms, clearly doesn’t apply to SMEs). The job for life thing is a fair comment but kind of goes with the territory. We will always need a civil service, hospital workers, benefits processors etc (poor examples but you get the gist). We won’t always need some of the jobs in the private sector (ie consumers don’t but your product, bye bye job)." Would you like to expand on the benefits and de unionisation? Link to some graphs of benefits and union membership? For me obviously nursing and drs will be separate as they will be necessary. I don't think civil servants need to be I their jobs for life. It's why many governments have recently complained of civil servants refusing to do their work. I have seen this at house parties in London. My cousin worked for difid. They purposefully would refuse the enact requests by mps and then laugh about it. I think if you work for the government it should be a rolling 2 -5 year contract. Up for review based on how well you've performed, otherwise it leads to a stagnant culture of no new ideas, no new thinking, and actively working against people you don't like. Same with the police force. My father's best friend received his police pension. Retired. Then came back and worked for the police again. It doesn't allow fkr new blood to come in. And it's jobs for the boys type mentality. Agree on private sector, we moved from primary and secondary for tertiary and quaternary. So the private sector is again having to re skill and re deploy and move on. Sometimes for less money. No chance of that happening in tbenpublic sector. You become obsolete there. Don't worry. We will find you a new job somewhere else. And if we have to make you redundant it will be a SWEET package. Given the work from home environment now they have cultured. Move jobs away from London. Put them up north. The same cousin as above has been to her office 5 times in 3 years. There no need for her to earn a 6 figure salary down there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? Having worked in all 3 sectors, Civil Service, Local Government and Private sector I can unequivocally state the following. Civil Service is full of incompetant layabouts who never finish a job. It's a haven for the inadequate with obscenely generous pensions. Local Government is blessed with corrupt, dishonest, arse lickers who grovel to Councillors rather that help a member of the public. The private sector is full of hard working, well motivated, honourable, intelligent, competent folks with each supporting each other for the greater good of the Company. If you believe all that, you are part of the problem; but you sadly are not alone.
I'm sure relatively few people will believe your resume, let alone the punchline "I did work in all 3 sectors; and yes, it is not true what I said about them but sometimes it felt like people outside the organisations believed that. I once gave a recruitment talk to University undergraduates. One guy, sitting with his feet up on the chairs, arrogantly said ."The Civil Service is universally viewed as a haven for the inadequate." I replied "I suggest you apply for a job with them. If you don't get it, you will know you are less than inadequate." 
People are people, there are good and bad in all sectors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a slur as such. But public sector for me don't know how lucky they have it often. They complained about payfreezes and had strikes over it. Sadly often the private sector don't strike. They can't. They just get laid off. This is what happened in theno8 financial crash. Hundreds kf thousands lost their homes and nearly 4m lost their jobs. And apparently pay freezes for the public sector were a horrible thing to happen. Many of these jobs are absolutely safe I'm bad times. Often they get guaranteed pay increases year on year with bands. And yet still complain it doesn't match inflation. Yet in the private sector. You usually don't get any pay rise without asking and at best it usually just matches the inflation rate. Overtime for working late and nights and Sundays...I bet retail jobs wish they got that. Lovely pensions Superior benefits to almost every other private sector job Job security. It's never enough for them So you mean that (for most of what you said) the public sector still gets what the private sector lost. The reduction in employment benefits in the private sector is commensurate with the fall in unionisation (in larger firms, clearly doesn’t apply to SMEs). The job for life thing is a fair comment but kind of goes with the territory. We will always need a civil service, hospital workers, benefits processors etc (poor examples but you get the gist). We won’t always need some of the jobs in the private sector (ie consumers don’t but your product, bye bye job). Would you like to expand on the benefits and de unionisation? Link to some graphs of benefits and union membership? For me obviously nursing and drs will be separate as they will be necessary. I don't think civil servants need to be I their jobs for life. It's why many governments have recently complained of civil servants refusing to do their work. I have seen this at house parties in London. My cousin worked for difid. They purposefully would refuse the enact requests by mps and then laugh about it. I think if you work for the government it should be a rolling 2 -5 year contract. Up for review based on how well you've performed, otherwise it leads to a stagnant culture of no new ideas, no new thinking, and actively working against people you don't like. Same with the police force. My father's best friend received his police pension. Retired. Then came back and worked for the police again. It doesn't allow fkr new blood to come in. And it's jobs for the boys type mentality. Agree on private sector, we moved from primary and secondary for tertiary and quaternary. So the private sector is again having to re skill and re deploy and move on. Sometimes for less money. No chance of that happening in tbenpublic sector. You become obsolete there. Don't worry. We will find you a new job somewhere else. And if we have to make you redundant it will be a SWEET package. Given the work from home environment now they have cultured. Move jobs away from London. Put them up north. The same cousin as above has been to her office 5 times in 3 years. There no need for her to earn a 6 figure salary down there. " I’m not going to spend time doing research to find graphs and stuff. You can if you feel the need to disprove the point or at least provide actual stats. I am pretty confident that union membership in the private sector has dramatically fallen from the high period of 60/70s. I seem to recall that union membership in private sector was c.60% back then and is now something like c.17%. I may be wrong on figures but confident on the trend. Now this will also reflect a change in the economy from a manufacturing base to a service based economy (because factories/shop floor were more heavily unionised). Most of your post, while true (or fairly true) comes across more as jealousy the public sector still have and the private sector don’t have. You could argue workers should all have the same (levelling up not down). I say this as someone who has never been in a union or has ever felt, in my chosen career field, that I needed to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector." "I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much." "Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)?" Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No evidence needed. He started 'I think', which means it's an opinion piece" "I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions" I think you'll find that I have a track record of just once saying "you've provided no evidence", and then being described as 'demanding evidence' by the same person in almost every subsequent thread. It's a shame the 'no bullying' party of the forum rules doesn't ever get implemented. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion." That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly? So far we have lots of people saying it’s unions (when private sector industries can also be unionised) and some jealous sounding talk about conditions and pensions (which largely don’t exist anymore). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc" "Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions?" "I’m stating definitively that trade unions played an enormous role in getting them (among other things). What would have happened in a world without organised labour is anyone’s guess." I agree, trade unions were involved. How could they not be if it's about improving workers conditions? But were they the driving force, or did they just jump on to support the ideas when there was enough momentum? As an example, let's look at home working. CoViD forced employers to offer home working, and now that it's 'over', the workers are just refusing to go back to the office. This is a huge benefit to workers, but it didn't come about through trade union action, it came about because people wanted it, and were willing to move companies to get it. My feeling is that all of your examples above would have happened anyway. I don't doubt that trade unions have helped, and in some cases hastened change, but I don't believe that they are the sole source of workers rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No evidence needed. He started 'I think', which means it's an opinion piece I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions I think you'll find that I have a track record of just once saying "you've provided no evidence", and then being described as 'demanding evidence' by the same person in almost every subsequent thread. It's a shame the 'no bullying' party of the forum rules doesn't ever get implemented." If you feel bullied then I apologise. My intent was not to make you feel that but was to highlight that in one of the Nazi threads you accused my of lecturing because I provided so much information and then later demanded I provide proof (Hitler’s speeches and such) while not providing any info/evidence yourself to support your claims. I thought I was being a bit tongue in cheek by winding you up about it. However, you seem upset so I am sorry if it made you feel that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion." "That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly?" I'm going to say that it is evidence. The first post in this thread asks why people disparage 'public sector' employment. If a single phase always gets mentioned whenever the subject arises, I'd say that it was an important part of many people's thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have any of those things if it weren't for trade unions? I’m stating definitively that trade unions played an enormous role in getting them (among other things). What would have happened in a world without organised labour is anyone’s guess. I agree, trade unions were involved. How could they not be if it's about improving workers conditions? But were they the driving force, or did they just jump on to support the ideas when there was enough momentum? As an example, let's look at home working. CoViD forced employers to offer home working, and now that it's 'over', the workers are just refusing to go back to the office. This is a huge benefit to workers, but it didn't come about through trade union action, it came about because people wanted it, and were willing to move companies to get it. My feeling is that all of your examples above would have happened anyway. I don't doubt that trade unions have helped, and in some cases hastened change, but I don't believe that they are the sole source of workers rights." Chicken and Egg right? During the 20th century, with the catalyst of the Russian Revolution, the demand for better pay and conditions was certainly on the rise. This in turn gave birth to the trade union movement as an organising method to harness and direct those calls for better conditions and pay. You don’t have one without the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions" "I think you'll find that I have a track record of just once saying "you've provided no evidence", and then being described as 'demanding evidence' by the same person in almost every subsequent thread. It's a shame the 'no bullying' party of the forum rules doesn't ever get implemented." "If you feel bullied then I apologise. My intent was not to make you feel that but was to highlight that in one of the Nazi threads you accused my of lecturing because I provided so much information and then later demanded I provide proof (Hitler’s speeches and such) while not providing any info/evidence yourself to support your claims. I thought I was being a bit tongue in cheek by winding you up about it. However, you seem upset so I am sorry if it made you feel that way" In several threads now you have posted jibes that reference back to that one time that you feel that you 'won'. It's the sign of an insecure personality, that you keep needing to reinforce your superiority over others. The line between 'friendly banter' and 'toxic masculinity is very thin. Attempting to push the boundaries of banter on an internet forum with people that you don't really know is unlikely to win you any friends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions I think you'll find that I have a track record of just once saying "you've provided no evidence", and then being described as 'demanding evidence' by the same person in almost every subsequent thread. It's a shame the 'no bullying' party of the forum rules doesn't ever get implemented. If you feel bullied then I apologise. My intent was not to make you feel that but was to highlight that in one of the Nazi threads you accused my of lecturing because I provided so much information and then later demanded I provide proof (Hitler’s speeches and such) while not providing any info/evidence yourself to support your claims. I thought I was being a bit tongue in cheek by winding you up about it. However, you seem upset so I am sorry if it made you feel that way In several threads now you have posted jibes that reference back to that one time that you feel that you 'won'. It's the sign of an insecure personality, that you keep needing to reinforce your superiority over others. The line between 'friendly banter' and 'toxic masculinity is very thin. Attempting to push the boundaries of banter on an internet forum with people that you don't really know is unlikely to win you any friends." Or you could have graciously accepted the apology  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or you could have graciously accepted the apology" Oh I see. You get to harp back on previous threads for weeks on end, but once you've apologised then no one is allowed to mention it again. I understand now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was pulling his leg but then he has a track record of demanding evidence from other people to support their opinions I think you'll find that I have a track record of just once saying "you've provided no evidence", and then being described as 'demanding evidence' by the same person in almost every subsequent thread. It's a shame the 'no bullying' party of the forum rules doesn't ever get implemented. If you feel bullied then I apologise. My intent was not to make you feel that but was to highlight that in one of the Nazi threads you accused my of lecturing because I provided so much information and then later demanded I provide proof (Hitler’s speeches and such) while not providing any info/evidence yourself to support your claims. I thought I was being a bit tongue in cheek by winding you up about it. However, you seem upset so I am sorry if it made you feel that way In several threads now you have posted jibes that reference back to that one time that you feel that you 'won'. It's the sign of an insecure personality, that you keep needing to reinforce your superiority over others. The line between 'friendly banter' and 'toxic masculinity is very thin. Attempting to push the boundaries of banter on an internet forum with people that you don't really know is unlikely to win you any friends. Or you could have graciously accepted the apology "Oh and you having little pops at me in different threads such as “the lady doth protest too much” is ok then? Except I shrugged it off. Hmmmm? Pot Kettle Black? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a slur as such. But public sector for me don't know how lucky they have it often. They complained about payfreezes and had strikes over it. Sadly often the private sector don't strike. They can't. They just get laid off. This is what happened in theno8 financial crash. Hundreds kf thousands lost their homes and nearly 4m lost their jobs. And apparently pay freezes for the public sector were a horrible thing to happen. Many of these jobs are absolutely safe I'm bad times. Often they get guaranteed pay increases year on year with bands. And yet still complain it doesn't match inflation. Yet in the private sector. You usually don't get any pay rise without asking and at best it usually just matches the inflation rate. Overtime for working late and nights and Sundays...I bet retail jobs wish they got that. Lovely pensions Superior benefits to almost every other private sector job Job security. It's never enough for them So you mean that (for most of what you said) the public sector still gets what the private sector lost. The reduction in employment benefits in the private sector is commensurate with the fall in unionisation (in larger firms, clearly doesn’t apply to SMEs). The job for life thing is a fair comment but kind of goes with the territory. We will always need a civil service, hospital workers, benefits processors etc (poor examples but you get the gist). We won’t always need some of the jobs in the private sector (ie consumers don’t but your product, bye bye job). Would you like to expand on the benefits and de unionisation? Link to some graphs of benefits and union membership? For me obviously nursing and drs will be separate as they will be necessary. I don't think civil servants need to be I their jobs for life. It's why many governments have recently complained of civil servants refusing to do their work. I have seen this at house parties in London. My cousin worked for difid. They purposefully would refuse the enact requests by mps and then laugh about it. I think if you work for the government it should be a rolling 2 -5 year contract. Up for review based on how well you've performed, otherwise it leads to a stagnant culture of no new ideas, no new thinking, and actively working against people you don't like. Same with the police force. My father's best friend received his police pension. Retired. Then came back and worked for the police again. It doesn't allow fkr new blood to come in. And it's jobs for the boys type mentality. Agree on private sector, we moved from primary and secondary for tertiary and quaternary. So the private sector is again having to re skill and re deploy and move on. Sometimes for less money. No chance of that happening in tbenpublic sector. You become obsolete there. Don't worry. We will find you a new job somewhere else. And if we have to make you redundant it will be a SWEET package. Given the work from home environment now they have cultured. Move jobs away from London. Put them up north. The same cousin as above has been to her office 5 times in 3 years. There no need for her to earn a 6 figure salary down there. I’m not going to spend time doing research to find graphs and stuff. You can if you feel the need to disprove the point or at least provide actual stats. I am pretty confident that union membership in the private sector has dramatically fallen from the high period of 60/70s. I seem to recall that union membership in private sector was c.60% back then and is now something like c.17%. I may be wrong on figures but confident on the trend. Now this will also reflect a change in the economy from a manufacturing base to a service based economy (because factories/shop floor were more heavily unionised). Most of your post, while true (or fairly true) comes across more as jealousy the public sector still have and the private sector don’t have. You could argue workers should all have the same (levelling up not down). I say this as someone who has never been in a union or has ever felt, in my chosen career field, that I needed to." No jealousy. I make a good living. I am just full aware of what I see and how people act. My mother spent 20 years working for a bank and then in the public sector. She was appalled by how bad the public sector are and how wasteful. Not only that but the nepotism that unfolds within it. I've seen for myself after graduation that several people whose parents worked in the public sector got jobs immediately in the public sector. My own mother said she'd get me a well paid job. But I'd rather live in leeds than Rhyl in North Wales. From everything I hear, it's a place that's about 30 years behind the private sector, where the wages are over inflated and the work inefficient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a long time ago when I was a student but I worked for the HMRC ( inland revenue in those days ) for a few months and it was explained to me , by a colleague, that I was " entitiled" to a set number of days paid sick leave in the year and that I should therefore take them whether sick or not since it was akin to paid holidays. I thought it absurd at the time . Hopefully such practices don't exist nowadays " They still do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a slur as such. But public sector for me don't know how lucky they have it often. They complained about payfreezes and had strikes over it. Sadly often the private sector don't strike. They can't. They just get laid off. This is what happened in theno8 financial crash. Hundreds kf thousands lost their homes and nearly 4m lost their jobs. And apparently pay freezes for the public sector were a horrible thing to happen. Many of these jobs are absolutely safe I'm bad times. Often they get guaranteed pay increases year on year with bands. And yet still complain it doesn't match inflation. Yet in the private sector. You usually don't get any pay rise without asking and at best it usually just matches the inflation rate. Overtime for working late and nights and Sundays...I bet retail jobs wish they got that. Lovely pensions Superior benefits to almost every other private sector job Job security. It's never enough for them So you mean that (for most of what you said) the public sector still gets what the private sector lost. The reduction in employment benefits in the private sector is commensurate with the fall in unionisation (in larger firms, clearly doesn’t apply to SMEs). The job for life thing is a fair comment but kind of goes with the territory. We will always need a civil service, hospital workers, benefits processors etc (poor examples but you get the gist). We won’t always need some of the jobs in the private sector (ie consumers don’t but your product, bye bye job). Would you like to expand on the benefits and de unionisation? Link to some graphs of benefits and union membership? For me obviously nursing and drs will be separate as they will be necessary. I don't think civil servants need to be I their jobs for life. It's why many governments have recently complained of civil servants refusing to do their work. I have seen this at house parties in London. My cousin worked for difid. They purposefully would refuse the enact requests by mps and then laugh about it. I think if you work for the government it should be a rolling 2 -5 year contract. Up for review based on how well you've performed, otherwise it leads to a stagnant culture of no new ideas, no new thinking, and actively working against people you don't like. Same with the police force. My father's best friend received his police pension. Retired. Then came back and worked for the police again. It doesn't allow fkr new blood to come in. And it's jobs for the boys type mentality. Agree on private sector, we moved from primary and secondary for tertiary and quaternary. So the private sector is again having to re skill and re deploy and move on. Sometimes for less money. No chance of that happening in tbenpublic sector. You become obsolete there. Don't worry. We will find you a new job somewhere else. And if we have to make you redundant it will be a SWEET package. Given the work from home environment now they have cultured. Move jobs away from London. Put them up north. The same cousin as above has been to her office 5 times in 3 years. There no need for her to earn a 6 figure salary down there. I’m not going to spend time doing research to find graphs and stuff. You can if you feel the need to disprove the point or at least provide actual stats. I am pretty confident that union membership in the private sector has dramatically fallen from the high period of 60/70s. I seem to recall that union membership in private sector was c.60% back then and is now something like c.17%. I may be wrong on figures but confident on the trend. Now this will also reflect a change in the economy from a manufacturing base to a service based economy (because factories/shop floor were more heavily unionised). Most of your post, while true (or fairly true) comes across more as jealousy the public sector still have and the private sector don’t have. You could argue workers should all have the same (levelling up not down). I say this as someone who has never been in a union or has ever felt, in my chosen career field, that I needed to. No jealousy. I make a good living. I am just full aware of what I see and how people act. My mother spent 20 years working for a bank and then in the public sector. She was appalled by how bad the public sector are and how wasteful. Not only that but the nepotism that unfolds within it. I've seen for myself after graduation that several people whose parents worked in the public sector got jobs immediately in the public sector. My own mother said she'd get me a well paid job. But I'd rather live in leeds than Rhyl in North Wales. From everything I hear, it's a place that's about 30 years behind the private sector, where the wages are over inflated and the work inefficient. " I would say...it depends. Some of the more “operational” parts of the Civil Service are dusty. The Whitehall Depts not so. Indeed, much of the digitisation of public services has not only been seen as an exemplar by foreign govts (who come to study what was done and how) but they’ve been pushing the envelope in technology delivery (especially secure cloud hosting). I think the Civil Service is so large, and the Public Sector even larger, that sweeping generalisations do not really apply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion. That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly? So far we have lots of people saying it’s unions (when private sector industries can also be unionised) and some jealous sounding talk about conditions and pensions (which largely don’t exist anymore). " If you can’t accept the consensus, which is overwhelmingly “it’s the unions”, where are you going with this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I then got told how sick pay worked and that I was expected to take 8 days a year sick but to be strategic how I did it. I’ll keep an eye on your sick record and tell you if you’re due some. That's pretty shocking. I assume being expected to take a certain amount of sick days is to continue to make it look like normal for everyone. I've seen the same thing in a heavily unionised private industry company. The shop steward saw sick days as an entitlement for each worker, and was determined to make sure that everybody claimed their full allocation." Quite shocking to say the least | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc The unions and its leaders / reps as I mentioned above always seem to be able to tick the left wing, militant and angry box. that image will never be accepted by the vast majority of the country, to politicised and always willing to hold the country to ransom. They brought the country to its knees in the 70's and never seem to have a good understanding of the mood of the country or anything other than feathering their own nests. You are a proud left wing, drum banging supporter of these unions, so you wont understand And yet recent strikes (and action short of strike) in various industries have actually been supported by the majority of the public, particularly in the NHS. " Nurses had never gone on strike before. The doctors -within the last two decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. Also it tells me that the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions, but that’s another conversation. Trade unions in the private sector do not affect the electorate. They do in the public sector. Why do you think the public are largely misguided/misinformed about trade unions but you know better? Because I’ve worked in trade unionised industry for 20 years, whilst also seeing how they’re reported in the news. Years ago, we rejected a pay deal of 5.1%. it was in the evening standard that night - Greedy, selfish, overpaid blah blah blah. The problem wasn’t the pay, it was conditions. We eventually accepted a much better deal with a pay rise (IIRC) 1% above inflation, perhaps 2-2.5% or something. Of course that went unreported. And trade unions in the private sector most definitely affect the electorate. I’m assuming you (unless of course self-employed) enjoy paid holiday, days off, parental leave, improved h&s in the workplace etc etc The unions and its leaders / reps as I mentioned above always seem to be able to tick the left wing, militant and angry box. that image will never be accepted by the vast majority of the country, to politicised and always willing to hold the country to ransom. They brought the country to its knees in the 70's and never seem to have a good understanding of the mood of the country or anything other than feathering their own nests. You are a proud left wing, drum banging supporter of these unions, so you wont understand And yet recent strikes (and action short of strike) in various industries have actually been supported by the majority of the public, particularly in the NHS. Nurses had never gone on strike before. The doctors -within the last two decades." New type of nurse and doctor on the coal face, do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion. That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly? So far we have lots of people saying it’s unions (when private sector industries can also be unionised) and some jealous sounding talk about conditions and pensions (which largely don’t exist anymore). If you can’t accept the consensus, which is overwhelmingly “it’s the unions”, where are you going with this?" As said previously, I don't think he wants to get it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion. That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly? So far we have lots of people saying it’s unions (when private sector industries can also be unionised) and some jealous sounding talk about conditions and pensions (which largely don’t exist anymore). If you can’t accept the consensus, which is overwhelmingly “it’s the unions”, where are you going with this?" 3 or 4 people on a swingers forum is hardly a consensus. And once again for the cheap seats, there are unions in private industry too - so it makes no sense to blame unions for the perception of public sector workers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So if the problem is trade unions (or at least the perception of trade unions), then why is the public sector itself looked down upon? Unions aren’t exclusive to the public sector. I don't think the problem is just unions. I think the problem is the whole 'job for life' mentality. Many people are minded to join the civil service because it's a safe choice, with no personal risk for them. Those sort of people don't tend to achieve much. Can you provide some evidence to support that claim? Or even an anecdote (that is believable)? Just my opinion, hence me using the words "I think". But as evidence, consider how every time the civil service is mentioned in any context, someone will soon say "job for life" in a disparaging fashion. That’s not exactly evidence though - which is the crux of this thread. It’s about the notion that the public sector is full of lazy, feckless unionised grabbers who hold the country to ransom - that the public sector is somehow ethically inferior to the private - based upon what, exactly? So far we have lots of people saying it’s unions (when private sector industries can also be unionised) and some jealous sounding talk about conditions and pensions (which largely don’t exist anymore). If you can’t accept the consensus, which is overwhelmingly “it’s the unions”, where are you going with this? 3 or 4 people on a swingers forum is hardly a consensus. And once again for the cheap seats, there are unions in private industry too - so it makes no sense to blame unions for the perception of public sector workers." Perfect example of union speak that turns the majority off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In short, you may well blame the unions for the perception of the public sector - but as we’ve established, unions not limited to the public sector and not all public sector workplaces are unionised. So yes, you may well think it’s valid to say ‘I think the public sector have the unions to blame for their perception as lazy/feckless/greedy etc’ - but it does reveal your own inherent bias and ignorance of actual facts. " I didn't say any of the above. Union reps and leaders are in my opinion, the problem. Like your post, they twist reality and sound like 1979. I stated very early on, public workers will be no different to any other group of workers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that?" What's your take on it? If I may ask | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask" Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. " I was made redundant 3 times from different public sector jobs. Private sector offered me a promotion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. I was made redundant 3 times from different public sector jobs. Private sector offered me a promotion. "Sounds like you didn't like taking time off sick, if I have followed the thred correctly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. I was made redundant 3 times from different public sector jobs. Private sector offered me a promotion.
Sounds like you didn't like taking time off sick, if I have followed the thred correctly "The civil service is not alone in offering paid sick pay. You could however take up to 5 days without a sick certificate. After that you needed proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. I was made redundant 3 times from different public sector jobs. Private sector offered me a promotion.
Sounds like you didn't like taking time off sick, if I have followed the thred correctly
The civil service is not alone in offering paid sick pay. You could however take up to 5 days without a sick certificate. After that you needed proof. "A few posters have said they were told to take time off sick in the public sector | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions." The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. No one else has mentioned perks, just you, so I think that may be just your opinion. I'm not convinced that anyone is jealous of public sector workers. I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy. Even though I realise that they do useful jobs, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile life to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. I was made redundant 3 times from different public sector jobs. Private sector offered me a promotion.
Sounds like you didn't like taking time off sick, if I have followed the thred correctly
The civil service is not alone in offering paid sick pay. You could however take up to 5 days without a sick certificate. After that you needed proof. "That’s standard in all companies, private or otherwise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm not convinced that anyone is jealous of public sector workers. I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy. Even though I realise that they do useful jobs, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile life to me." There’s myriad public sector jobs, not just pen -pushing-admin-type civil servants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. " That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector." "That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about." So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them." Perhaps if you could provide some proof of your blanket assumption then I’d be more inclined to take it into account. Since you’ve already said “I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy”, when in actual fact the public sector is incredibly varied across many sectors and types of work, you’ll forgive me for questioning your knowledge on the subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them." You should all listen to the Messiah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally I think the Unions cause a lot of the problems in the public sector, i feel a lot of people at the moment just want to get on and work but are forced to strike etc, yes the pay is less but a lot of people did not go into those professions for the money but if they have a full career the pension at the end is good. One of the other issues is in many private sector jobs, if you perform well your are generally rewarded with a bonus or pay rise but in the public sector if you do a good job or a bad job your package stays the same with an agreed national pay increase " No they aren't. I blame 13 years of Tory rule. Complete and utter chaos. Remember without unions you would be working 6/7 days per week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector." "That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about." "So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them." "Perhaps if you could provide some proof of your blanket assumption then I’d be more inclined to take it into account. Since you’ve already said “I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy”, when in actual fact the public sector is incredibly varied across many sectors and types of work, you’ll forgive me for questioning your knowledge on the subject." You started this thread by saying that you wanted to understand why people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. Several people have given you answers, and not once have you asked for clarification, or attempted to find out why they thought that way. In every case you have just stated that they are wrong, or ill informed. In my words above I said that the public sector is still very much a job for life. You called that a blanket assumption, and complained that I've given no proof. Well you've given no proof either, you just deny all other opinions. I said that the public sector was dull, and you replied with 'no it isn't'. The was no attempt to find out why I thought that way, or to educate me by providing examples of exciting public service. It's clear that when you don't understand someone else's opinion, you just reject it. That's not an approach that will ever allow you to grow as a person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them. You should all listen to the Messiah "He hasn’t posted much in this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them. Perhaps if you could provide some proof of your blanket assumption then I’d be more inclined to take it into account. Since you’ve already said “I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy”, when in actual fact the public sector is incredibly varied across many sectors and types of work, you’ll forgive me for questioning your knowledge on the subject. You started this thread by saying that you wanted to understand why people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. Several people have given you answers, and not once have you asked for clarification, or attempted to find out why they thought that way. In every case you have just stated that they are wrong, or ill informed. In my words above I said that the public sector is still very much a job for life. You called that a blanket assumption, and complained that I've given no proof. Well you've given no proof either, you just deny all other opinions. I said that the public sector was dull, and you replied with 'no it isn't'. The was no attempt to find out why I thought that way, or to educate me by providing examples of exciting public service. It's clear that when you don't understand someone else's opinion, you just reject it. That's not an approach that will ever allow you to grow as a person." When you say “public service” do you mean “public sector”? If we are going to look at roles that are more than admin “pen pushers” then we would need to first understand what you mean by “public sector”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'." Is that a cut n paste? What is the source? Not disputing but interested to know is making those assertions and based on what? Also, “public sector” is too broad a categorisation when then the other points in that list. It’s a bit like saying “private sector” and conflating money brokers in the city with plumbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'." Rather than making sweeping generalisations perhaps its worth carrying out some research. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ispayhigherinthepublicorprivatesector/2017-11-16 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900.amp Don't see any public sector workers getting bonuses or company cars. And yes pensions are good but not what they used to be. Final salary pensions no longer exist. Public sector workers such as teachers and nurses have more challenging working conditions than their private sector counterparts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'. Is that a cut n paste? What is the source? Not disputing but interested to know is making those assertions and based on what? Also, “public sector” is too broad a categorisation when then the other points in that list. It’s a bit like saying “private sector” and conflating money brokers in the city with plumbers." Not sure what happened there??? “...interested to know who is making...” “...categorisation when considering the other points...” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'. Is that a cut n paste? What is the source? Not disputing but interested to know is making those assertions and based on what? Also, “public sector” is too broad a categorisation when then the other points in that list. It’s a bit like saying “private sector” and conflating money brokers in the city with plumbers." Those are cut and paste from careers advice. They do cite some sources, due to their standing I decided to take them at face value as knowing what they're talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought, that those who envy the civil service salaries, easy working life, vast sick pay and holidays allowances and massive pensions, would try joining them rather than criticising them. Is there a reason they don't?" Agreed. Why don't these people become a public sector worker if it's that cushty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'. Rather than making sweeping generalisations perhaps its worth carrying out some research. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ispayhigherinthepublicorprivatesector/2017-11-16 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900.amp Don't see any public sector workers getting bonuses or company cars. And yes pensions are good but not what they used to be. Final salary pensions no longer exist. Public sector workers such as teachers and nurses have more challenging working conditions than their private sector counterparts. " I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. When you speak to someone about doing some research, at least read the link you're providing, and ideally, provide something that isn't 7 years out of date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'. Rather than making sweeping generalisations perhaps its worth carrying out some research. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ispayhigherinthepublicorprivatesector/2017-11-16 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900.amp Don't see any public sector workers getting bonuses or company cars. And yes pensions are good but not what they used to be. Final salary pensions no longer exist. Public sector workers such as teachers and nurses have more challenging working conditions than their private sector counterparts. I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. When you speak to someone about doing some research, at least read the link you're providing, and ideally, provide something that isn't 7 years out of date. " So...I copied and pasted your "advice" into Google. It's a jobs recruitment agency, not a government careers page. I also clicked on the link to the report you cited about pay....the report is from 2010! Lol. The Daily Mail page the link took me to: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html I think you may find you are out of date | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought, that those who envy the civil service salaries, easy working life, vast sick pay and holidays allowances and massive pensions, would try joining them rather than criticising them. Is there a reason they don't?" Indeed. That’s usually my advice to anyone who tells me that train drivers are vastly overpaid for their ‘simple’ job. Feel free to apply | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The public sector is still very much a job for life, and the pension is still better than the private sector. That sounds like exactly the sort of blanket assumption that I’m talking about. So F&F is right then, you don't want to learn why other people look down on the public sector, you just want to disagree with them. Perhaps if you could provide some proof of your blanket assumption then I’d be more inclined to take it into account. Since you’ve already said “I see that sort of job as pen-pushing, dull, bureaucracy”, when in actual fact the public sector is incredibly varied across many sectors and types of work, you’ll forgive me for questioning your knowledge on the subject. You started this thread by saying that you wanted to understand why people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. Several people have given you answers, and not once have you asked for clarification, or attempted to find out why they thought that way. In every case you have just stated that they are wrong, or ill informed. In my words above I said that the public sector is still very much a job for life. You called that a blanket assumption, and complained that I've given no proof. Well you've given no proof either, you just deny all other opinions. I said that the public sector was dull, and you replied with 'no it isn't'. The was no attempt to find out why I thought that way, or to educate me by providing examples of exciting public service. It's clear that when you don't understand someone else's opinion, you just reject it. That's not an approach that will ever allow you to grow as a person." I didn’t say the public sector isn’t dull - I said it’s not all admin/pen-pushing. If you’re going to tell me what I said, at least attempt to get it right. What does the public sector mean to you? Clearly you have a very narrow definition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'." Are those figures adjusted for age/experience/region? Do they take bonuses into account? What roles are the comparisons made between? What’s the source? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that?" I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way?" I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement." You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect." I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. " Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon." Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot. "You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon. "Indeed I did. And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
"I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
"You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"... You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too. This is not how things work
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When we speak of public sector benefits and the culture, here's some: Working atmosphere – the public sector is regarded by many as less demanding than the private sector. Work less, earn more – If you’re still not convinced about the benefits, then this may grab your interest: Public sector staff work nine years less and earn 30% more than private-sector employees throughout their lifetime. Pension scheme – Although there has been some controversy over pensions in recent years, having a guaranteed pensions scheme tied into your employment is a substantial perk. Benefits in the public sector are 14% higher than the comparable private sector. That can translate to lazy or smarter. It debunks the idea that public sector wages are generally less. And then there's the pension, tell us again its not 'gold-plated'. Rather than making sweeping generalisations perhaps its worth carrying out some research. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ispayhigherinthepublicorprivatesector/2017-11-16 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900.amp Don't see any public sector workers getting bonuses or company cars. And yes pensions are good but not what they used to be. Final salary pensions no longer exist. Public sector workers such as teachers and nurses have more challenging working conditions than their private sector counterparts. I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. When you speak to someone about doing some research, at least read the link you're providing, and ideally, provide something that isn't 7 years out of date. So...I copied and pasted your "advice" into Google. It's a jobs recruitment agency, not a government careers page. I also clicked on the link to the report you cited about pay....the report is from 2010! Lol. The Daily Mail page the link took me to: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html I think you may find you are out of date "I didn't offer any 'advice'. I've already said that because of that websites standing (run by a university) that I took it at face value. I never at any point said it was Governement career advice. Are you one of those who likes to tell people what they were really saying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have thought, that those who envy the civil service salaries, easy working life, vast sick pay and holidays allowances and massive pensions, would try joining them rather than criticising them. Is there a reason they don't? Indeed. That’s usually my advice to anyone who tells me that train drivers are vastly overpaid for their ‘simple’ job. Feel free to apply "Perhaps some the people who have commented are public servants who appreciate their cushy existence while offering first hand experience (which you will still dismiss) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"...
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too.
This is not how things work
"Oh I understand entirely, which is why I’ve pointed out the logical fallacy of the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them. "Really? What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then? "Who said anything about intentions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?"You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate” Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively. But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"...
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too.
This is not how things work
Oh I understand entirely, which is why I’ve pointed out the logical fallacy of the argument. "Let's square off where we are: You think that people mock public sector workers. Nobody on here has agreed with that, they have not said a person working in a public sector role is mocked. You have been given plenty of reasons why people think "the public sector" attracts a certain opinion, job for life, easy, rule bending such as taking sick as leave and the unions. In summary it is only you who thinks people mock public sector workers, why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"...
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too.
This is not how things work
Oh I understand entirely, which is why I’ve pointed out the logical fallacy of the argument.
Let's square off where we are:
You think that people mock public sector workers.
Nobody on here has agreed with that, they have not said a person working in a public sector role is mocked.
You have been given plenty of reasons why people think "the public sector" attracts a certain opinion, job for life, easy, rule bending such as taking sick as leave and the unions.
In summary it is only you who thinks people mock public sector workers, why is that?"You’ve not seen anyone here or elsewhere use the term ‘public sector’ in a mocking tone? Methinks you either haven’t read posts very well or or at least pretend not to have seen it. This thread was actually inspired after reading someone using the exact phrase in another post on this very forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?
You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate”
Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively.
But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership. "I haven't spoken on intentions. When was the last time the electorate were affected by a private strike? I'm not talking about your delivery arriving a day late. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"...
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too.
This is not how things work
Oh I understand entirely, which is why I’ve pointed out the logical fallacy of the argument.
Let's square off where we are:
You think that people mock public sector workers.
Nobody on here has agreed with that, they have not said a person working in a public sector role is mocked.
You have been given plenty of reasons why people think "the public sector" attracts a certain opinion, job for life, easy, rule bending such as taking sick as leave and the unions.
In summary it is only you who thinks people mock public sector workers, why is that?
You’ve not seen anyone here or elsewhere use the term ‘public sector’ in a mocking tone? Methinks you either haven’t read posts very well or or at least pretend not to have seen it.
This thread was actually inspired after reading someone using the exact phrase in another post on this very forum. "Can you point us to that thread? I've seen not one person in this thread mock workers, any workers that is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
You asked a question because you can't understand the "why"...
You are simply refusing to acknowledge the answers to a question you don't understand the answer too.
This is not how things work
Oh I understand entirely, which is why I’ve pointed out the logical fallacy of the argument.
Let's square off where we are:
You think that people mock public sector workers.
Nobody on here has agreed with that, they have not said a person working in a public sector role is mocked.
You have been given plenty of reasons why people think "the public sector" attracts a certain opinion, job for life, easy, rule bending such as taking sick as leave and the unions.
In summary it is only you who thinks people mock public sector workers, why is that?
You’ve not seen anyone here or elsewhere use the term ‘public sector’ in a mocking tone? Methinks you either haven’t read posts very well or or at least pretend not to have seen it.
This thread was actually inspired after reading someone using the exact phrase in another post on this very forum.
Can you point us to that thread?
I've seen not one person in this thread mock workers, any workers that is. "I will endeavour to look, but the search function on this site is so crap it may take some time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?
You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate”
Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively.
But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership.
I haven't spoken on intentions.
When was the last time the electorate were affected by a private strike? I'm not talking about your delivery arriving a day late. "Oh so you’re setting the boundary on what ‘affected’ is? I’m afraid thats it how debate works. Industrial action in some industries has more direct immediate impact than others, that’s natural - but all has an impact of some description. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?
You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate”
Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively.
But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership.
I haven't spoken on intentions.
When was the last time the electorate were affected by a private strike? I'm not talking about your delivery arriving a day late.
Oh so you’re setting the boundary on what ‘affected’ is?
I’m afraid thats it how debate works. Industrial action in some industries has more direct immediate impact than others, that’s natural - but all has an impact of some description. "I'm setting boundaries because we're speaking about perception. Which is worse? My amazon package was a day late... I lost money because I couldn't get to work... You percieve 'public sector' to be a slur, doesn't look like many others do, so yeah I'm setting boundaries. I'll say it again, don't ask questions if you are interested in answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?
You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate”
Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively.
But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership.
I haven't spoken on intentions.
When was the last time the electorate were affected by a private strike? I'm not talking about your delivery arriving a day late.
Oh so you’re setting the boundary on what ‘affected’ is?
I’m afraid thats it how debate works. Industrial action in some industries has more direct immediate impact than others, that’s natural - but all has an impact of some description.
I'm setting boundaries because we're speaking about perception.
Which is worse?
My amazon package was a day late...
I lost money because I couldn't get to work...
You percieve 'public sector' to be a slur, doesn't look like many others do, so yeah I'm setting boundaries.
I'll say it again, don't ask questions if you are interested in answers. "I’m interested in answers that make sense, and arguing those which don’t - due to what I’d assume is personal bias. Next time someone on here mentions ‘public sector workers’ in a demeaning fashion (and they will) I’ll be sure to point it out. (And keep hunting for the one that inspired this thread. Why we can’t have a useable forum is beyond me) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? I think you should look at your original question, mocking tone is key to the question as is public sector workers. You have been give perfectly acceptable answers to that question, and you have simply refused to accept any reply. Do you think a your question could have been asked in a more constructive way? I’ve been given perfectly acceptable opinions which I’ve challenged when they make no sense. Your suggestion, for example, that the unions are to blame - could make sense if unions existed only in the public sector and if all public sector roles were unionised. Since neither of those things are true, it’s an illogical statement. You don't get it, I said that right from the get go. You are a union member, if I remember a recruiter and active member. It doesn't give you that unbiased view. You go on to simply dismiss the general view of public sector unions, which is poor at best. Take it onboard or dismiss it, I know exactly what you will do, dismiss it! Like the unions do, they can't change their image because of the refusal to self reflect. I’m not a union member and haven’t been for some years, as it happens. Your point still makes no sense, surely you can see that? Unions exist in both private and public sectors, they exist for the same reason in both - to protect their membership - therefor the reason for people looking at the public sector with disdain *can’t* be trade unions. Folk law says, when the penny drops in Basildon, it will be heard on the moon. Hey, one of us is speaking from a logical position at least
Your opinion and bias is understandable, you don’t like trade unions. That’s perfectly acceptable. But unless your dislike is restricted solely to trade unions which work solely in the public sector (of which there are vanishingly few, if any) then your point is moot.
You asked why the mocking tone, you have the why in the answers above, the Indian space rover is listening on the south pole of the moon.
Indeed I did.
And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly.
Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions.
I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate. You don't want to listen, that's your prerogative but I'd say don't ask for opinions if you're not actually interested in them.
Really?
What’s the intention of union action in the private sector vs the public, then?
Who said anything about intentions?
You said that “I told you previously when unions take action in the private sector, they tend not to affect the day to day lives of the electorate”
Could you expand upon that? Because I believe that industrial action impacts everyone not based upon public or private but based upon the service being provided. For example a public sector strike in some admin-based roles won’t affect my day to day life much at all. But a private sector strike in (for example) the energy/fuel sector could impact everyone massively.
But both sets of industrial action will have the same intention - to protect or improve the pay/conditions of their membership.
I haven't spoken on intentions.
When was the last time the electorate were affected by a private strike? I'm not talking about your delivery arriving a day late.
Oh so you’re setting the boundary on what ‘affected’ is?
I’m afraid thats it how debate works. Industrial action in some industries has more direct immediate impact than others, that’s natural - but all has an impact of some description.
I'm setting boundaries because we're speaking about perception.
Which is worse?
My amazon package was a day late...
I lost money because I couldn't get to work...
You percieve 'public sector' to be a slur, doesn't look like many others do, so yeah I'm setting boundaries.
I'll say it again, don't ask questions if you are interested in answers.
I’m interested in answers that make sense, and arguing those which don’t - due to what I’d assume is personal bias.
Next time someone on here mentions ‘public sector workers’ in a demeaning fashion (and they will) I’ll be sure to point it out. (And keep hunting for the one that inspired this thread. Why we can’t have a useable forum is beyond me)"The search function would only ever bring back brexit and the tories related threads, because everything turns out to be brexits and the tories fault. De facto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just found this through a search on this forum “In my opinion public sector workers complain cos they genuinely do think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence but, trust me, they wouldn't like the real world.” I wonder what the poster means by ‘the real world’? Do public sector employees not live in ‘the real world’? What world do they live in? Another gem here: “The salaries, and perks, at the top end of the public sector have rocketed in recent years. These are still public workers ripping off everyone” And finally from that quick browse: “Hate big government, hate the public sector, privatise as much as possible, cut gov administration jobs by 50%” " I asked for a link so I can look at context. Not some words that have zero. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just found this through a search on this forum “In my opinion public sector workers complain cos they genuinely do think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence but, trust me, they wouldn't like the real world.” I wonder what the poster means by ‘the real world’? Do public sector employees not live in ‘the real world’? What world do they live in? Another gem here: “The salaries, and perks, at the top end of the public sector have rocketed in recent years. These are still public workers ripping off everyone” And finally from that quick browse: “Hate big government, hate the public sector, privatise as much as possible, cut gov administration jobs by 50%” I asked for a link so I can look at context. Not some words that have zero. " I gave you some quotes from this very forum, and a link to an article discussing sector stereotypes. I’ll also keep searching for the post that inspired this thread, and point out anti-public sector bias in future when I see it. I’m the meantime, feel free to check Google as well if you fancy doing so. Now have a great day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just found this through a search on this forum “In my opinion public sector workers complain cos they genuinely do think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence but, trust me, they wouldn't like the real world.” I wonder what the poster means by ‘the real world’? Do public sector employees not live in ‘the real world’? What world do they live in? Another gem here: “The salaries, and perks, at the top end of the public sector have rocketed in recent years. These are still public workers ripping off everyone” And finally from that quick browse: “Hate big government, hate the public sector, privatise as much as possible, cut gov administration jobs by 50%” I asked for a link so I can look at context. Not some words that have zero. I gave you some quotes from this very forum, and a link to an article discussing sector stereotypes. I’ll also keep searching for the post that inspired this thread, and point out anti-public sector bias in future when I see it. I’m the meantime, feel free to check Google as well if you fancy doing so. Now have a great day "So you provide some out of context 'quotes' and want everyone to agree that 'public sector' is a slur? Hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just found this through a search on this forum “In my opinion public sector workers complain cos they genuinely do think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence but, trust me, they wouldn't like the real world.” I wonder what the poster means by ‘the real world’? Do public sector employees not live in ‘the real world’? What world do they live in? Another gem here: “The salaries, and perks, at the top end of the public sector have rocketed in recent years. These are still public workers ripping off everyone” And finally from that quick browse: “Hate big government, hate the public sector, privatise as much as possible, cut gov administration jobs by 50%” I asked for a link so I can look at context. Not some words that have zero. I gave you some quotes from this very forum, and a link to an article discussing sector stereotypes. I’ll also keep searching for the post that inspired this thread, and point out anti-public sector bias in future when I see it. I’m the meantime, feel free to check Google as well if you fancy doing so. Now have a great day
So you provide some out of context 'quotes' and want everyone to agree that 'public sector' is a slur?
Hilarious "Hey, I’ve provided you with the evidence you requested, including a detailed and referenced link. You can do with it what you please. I suspect you won’t read it, though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just found this through a search on this forum “In my opinion public sector workers complain cos they genuinely do think that the grass is greener on our side of the fence but, trust me, they wouldn't like the real world.” I wonder what the poster means by ‘the real world’? Do public sector employees not live in ‘the real world’? What world do they live in? Another gem here: “The salaries, and perks, at the top end of the public sector have rocketed in recent years. These are still public workers ripping off everyone” And finally from that quick browse: “Hate big government, hate the public sector, privatise as much as possible, cut gov administration jobs by 50%” I asked for a link so I can look at context. Not some words that have zero. I gave you some quotes from this very forum, and a link to an article discussing sector stereotypes. I’ll also keep searching for the post that inspired this thread, and point out anti-public sector bias in future when I see it. I’m the meantime, feel free to check Google as well if you fancy doing so. Now have a great day
So you provide some out of context 'quotes' and want everyone to agree that 'public sector' is a slur?
Hilarious
Hey, I’ve provided you with the evidence you requested, including a detailed and referenced link. You can do with it what you please.
I suspect you won’t read it, though. "I requested a link to the thread. You have not provided that. I will read that link when I get a minute but it's quite a long article, including citations, I imagine it'll take longer than a quick scan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions." Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad?" With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad? With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private. " If that was really true why are the blaming the government and not the companies they work for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, found it: from the General election thread “the man who trashed my final salary pension, but hey, I’m not fortunate to be working in the public sector am I” What do you think was meant by that? What is the tone of the comment? Balanced and fair? " I've found it.. Balanced and fair, no. One man went on a rant because he felt he had personally been affected by Brown whilst Brown was looking after the public sector. Not exactly representative. Is he right? I have no idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad? With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private. If that was really true why are the blaming the government and not the companies they work for?" It's both. The private companies just want good shareholder return and the government don't care. They are subsidising the railway companies to the tune of millions of pounds. Privatisation for public utilities does not work. Thatcher sold off the family silver. We should at least nationalise water, power and railway services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions." "Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad?" "With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private." I'm saying that public sector unions might be more militant than private sector ones, or at least might be seen that way. So the idea that someone might disparage the public sector because of their unions, while not have the same opinion of the private sector is valid. I'm not sure what point you are making by mentioning Amazon and railways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad? With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private. If that was really true why are the blaming the government and not the companies they work for? It's both. The private companies just want good shareholder return and the government don't care. They are subsidising the railway companies to the tune of millions of pounds. Privatisation for public utilities does not work. Thatcher sold off the family silver. We should at least nationalise water, power and railway services. " I agree we should privatise them. I only ever see people blaming governement and never the private companies during rail negotiations. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the mocking tone over public sector workers makes no sense to be blamed on unions, despite your insistence that it does - for the reasons I’ve outlined quite clearly. Which means there must be another reason than unions, which you’re unable to pinpoint or accept - preferring instead your simple but nonsensical choice to blame trades unions. Is it really impossible for you accept that the unions covering public sector workers might behave differently to those covering the private sector? Are you really incapable of understanding that some people might believe that public sector unions are not helpful, while private sectors unions are less bad? With respect, what a load of bollocks. Amazon have recognised unions and given into pay demands. Btw the railways are private companies so there is some blurred lines here. Railway workers contracts are with these private companies not the government. Which is a shame as railways, as well as water and power companies, should be in public ownership not private. " Public sector services are rarely mirrored and not something I can shop around for and have choice, even if we pay for them. The private sector services generally can be choice as a consumer and if the service is poor I can go elsewhere. The unions therefore monopolise that and use the end user as a pawn. Private sector strikes are aimed at the business, end users can get services elsewhere. It is that simple and saying one is the same as the other is naivety | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Often people talk about ‘public sector’ workers in a mocking tone. It happens in this very forum. Why is that? What's your take on it? If I may ask Honestly? I think it smacks of ignorance and possibly jealousy from those who still believe the public sector is chock-full of perks, jobs-for-life and gold-plated pensions. " Or perhaps they are closer to the truth than some would hope they would be. The benefits do seem more generous in the public sector compared to the average private company. So does job security seem better though I doubt anyone is 100% safe. I think some others here are correct in that unions in the public sector can affect the general public (negatively) far more than union's for private companies. Also if the workers of a private company mess up it affects that company which has to foot any costs. If workers in the public sector mess up its the tax payer that has to foot the bill. Perhaps neither side fully understands the other and the ignorance you mention is not restricted to private sector workers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
