"Ding Dong The Dinosaur is Dead" ?

Actually there are very few state owned businesses now,most are privatised or sourced out, Railways, Post Office…

And yet the number of public-employees continues to rise! In fact there are far more public-employees that is often realised; the Railways are still heavily subsidised despite being ‘privatised’. Out-sourcing an essential service does not mean that the taxpayer does not pay the bills; it may be a commercial company that operates the service so it may not be government ‘owned’ but if the whole cost is met by the taxpayer then it is still effectively public-sector.

The public-sector in the United Kingdom is still vast: the NHS is huge, the MOD still has one of the biggest defence budgets on Earth, then there is Education, Law and Order (Police, Courts, Prisons), Government, Local Government, Fire and Rescue, Coastguard and (the soon to be privatised) Search and Rescue. I could go on but you get the point.

Also do not forget that anybody providing services to any of these public-services is also, during that time, being paid entirely by the taxpayer; if a firm of painters decorates a hospital ward they are working for, and being paid by, the taxpayer. The same is true of a plumber, electrician, accountant, lawyer, contract-cleaner or taxi-driver; while they are working for the government the taxpayer is paying their wages (and therefore that proportion of their income tax).

Personally, I have many reservations about privatisation and private-finance-initiatives but that is perhaps for a different thread.

Yes, but all their income comes from tax so the tax they pay from their income…..comes from tax!

But regardless of who the paymaster is they are still providing services that everyone needs.
Actually there are very few state owned businesses now,most are privatised or sourced out,Railways,Post Office,Electric,Gas,water,BT, all taken out of the public domain.The NHS is probably the last big nationalised institute.

And you can see exactly where that argument will take you…..!!:eek: I’ll hop on board for the ride!!

Yes, but all their income comes from tax so the tax they pay from their income…..comes from tax!

In essence that’s right but of course those who work for the state still contribute revenue for the exchequer through their taxes.

The other problem that Britain has, in common with many other ‘developed’ countries is that too many people work for the state; and state employees don’t (usually) produce any ‘income’ for the state. Even if you are not a public-employee often a significant proportion of you business is derived from the state. The only workers that actually produce any income for the state are those that export goods or services or those that sell goods or services to those that export (or a proportion thereof).

In these circumstances public-employees striking for better pay, conditions or to keep jobs that are not needed, just passes-on the costs of these via taxes to other public-employees and eventually to those workers that actually produce some income for the government; and there are far fewer of these workers to generate that income. It also has a knock-on effect increasing the cost and, therefore the prices, that all other workers have to pay; it erodes the buying-power of their wages.

If these income generating workers strike for better pay, conditions or to keep jobs that are not needed then that affects their competitiveness and the work will go to their competitors in the global market.

We may want to look at a particular job in isolation but the reality is that every job in the country, and in reality the world, is interconnected; if our job costs our employer more then that cost will need to be passed-on to another worker somewhere….and that worker may be you.

Relatively-depends on what your costs are in the country you live in.You could earn a million pounds a week but if it costs you 1 million and 50 pounds just to exist thats still a low wage and of course vice versa if you earn a pound a week but only need 20 pence to survive then you are a rich person in that country.

True, but we all live in the same world. Goods, services and money pass through national borders and so our prosperity is more interconnected to those in other countries than we think. Britain imports a lot (more than we export); our consumer goods, our cars, our energy and our food all, for the most part come from abroad.

The forum seems to be having a wobbly so hope this posts ok.

does their sense of ‘fairness’ extend to the workers in Bangladesh that make their clothes, or the miners in China that mine the graphite for their iPhone batteries? Do we really want them to be treated with respect and with protection for their working conditions? British workers may be struggling but ‘struggling’ is a relative concept.

On a personal level the answer is YES ,but obviously i can’t speak for others.

Unfortunately for the British worker, while he may think that his wages are low or his conditions bad, they are not (relatively); and he must also compete for work with those forced (or prepared) to work for far lower wages than him. No amount of industrial action will solve this problem.

Relatively-depends on what your costs are in the country you live in.You could earn a million pounds a week but if it costs you 1 million and 50 pounds just to exist thats still a low wage and of course vice versa if you earn a pound a week but only need 20 pence to survive then you are a rich person in that country.

I agree it should not be an ‘us-and-them’ situation in the United Kingdom; more a sort of ‘us-and-us’.

‘Fairness’ tends to be a concept that is only ever applied upwards!

While it may not be ‘fair’ that some British workers are being exploited by their management, or government, does their sense of ‘fairness’ extend to the workers in Bangladesh that make their clothes, or the miners in China that mine the graphite for their iPhone batteries? Do we really want them to be treated with respect and with protection for their working conditions? British workers may be struggling but ‘struggling’ is a relative concept.

Unfortunately for the British worker, while he may think that his wages are low or his conditions bad, they are not (relatively); and he must also compete for work with those forced (or prepared) to work for far lower wages than him. No amount of industrial action will solve this problem.

I agree it should not be an ‘us-and-them’ situation in the United Kingdom; more a sort of ‘us-and-us’.

So this extends to ‘management’ and such workers as ‘bankers’ also?

That would depend on who is exploiting who.It is not a case of “who” but a case of fairness and good responsibility and protection by anyone for anyone against those treating others in a bad manner.
Managers themselves are also in need of protection if they are being abused but the old saying of the higher the tree you climb the thinner the branches.
It is not a them v us it is a right for people to be treated with decency ,respect with protections on working conditions and wages.

So this extends to ‘management’ and such workers as ‘bankers’ also?

Just to extend that logic a little…

…is it the ‘right’ of any worker to ‘look after their own interests’ even if they are not a union member?

Absolutely but you will find that an individual has little or no sway to a bad management,UNLESS they are very specialised and can’t be replaced in a hurry.The first thing a manager does is divide and conquer , greed and jealousy are a good way through.

For me the unions should be about looking after the interests of their members irrispective of whatever brand or flavour of government is in charge.

Just to extend that logic a little…

…is it the ‘right’ of any worker to ‘look after their own interests’ even if they are not a union member?

Just to shatter your illusions not many public sector workers get annual increments just for staying there, this arises because new staff tend to start at a low level rate and are given rises in line with experience until they reach the rate for their job, from then on the only rises will be due to promotion or negotiated rises, the garbage in certain right wing press is just that, garbage, I personally know a number of public sector workers who haven’t had a pay rise for 3 or even 4 years and they are not alone by a long, long way.

Only a Tory government can WASTE £billions on an unwanted, ineffective and failed reorganisation of our NHS, then say there isn’t enough money to pay nurses, yet there is plenty of money for the consultants, the private sector cherry picking.

It annoys me, lots of people do not get annual rises, so why should it be cut in stone that public sector workers should, same with the police and a job for life.. That should get as per the military, you earn the right to extend your service and have to meet fitness targets etc…. I too haven’t called anyone Sir since I left the RAF and that include a few with so call titles foisted on them by governments for simply doing their job.

OK John,

Haven’t called anyone “sir” since leaving school, was only trying to be polite.

Not quite sure were you get taxpayer funding from? incidentally trade unions are not exclusively tied to a political party, sure most unions are or have been linked to the Labour party, but in reality some unions are more likely to be allied to Tories rather than Labour.

For me the unions should be about looking after the interests of their members irrispective of whatever brand or flavour of government is in charge.

Re 56

Can you tell me why it is that trade unions receive funding from the taxpayer ? Surely that must, in some way, compromise not only their political stance but, also their independence ?

Silver Fox. My enemies as well as my friends call me John. Although if you want to be formal – of which, I approve, you can call me ‘Sir’.

Mr Green, substitute the word Tory for Union and I would agree 100% with your post, but that isn’t true is it, no more than your blinkered prejudiced approach to trade unions is.

There are very few employers who actually give a flying rodent’s rear end to the majority of their workforce, without the unions there would have been no progress or improvement in the lot of working people.

Frankly our current situation needs stronger unions, so many workers are being treated appallingly that there will be industrial unrest, then of course the Tories and sycophantic followers will be on their soap boxes accusing the unions of creating unrest, of belligerent and antisocial activity, of hurting the vulnerable by withdrawing labour, conveniently forgetting that these self same workers have seen their pay and conditions eroded, are treated and discussed with derision, are expected to do more and more with and for less and less.

Only a Tory government can WASTE £billions on an unwanted, ineffective and failed reorganisation of our NHS, then say there isn’t enough money to pay nurses, yet there is plenty of money for the consultants, the private sector cherry picking.

You voice your opposition to unions, this present parody of government sickens me with their disregard for the majority and pandering to the few, far from creating a recovery I feel that the problems have been compounded and any progress will be harder than ever.

Actually John ,if you read my piece again you will see i said about the bad bits in the past but i daresay you didn’t get to the last line.Yes unions were and i daresay some still are wrong ,you can add that to the list of bankers,politicians,fraudulent businesses ,corruption is everywhere .
The point i was trying to make was that actually unions have done and are doing good stuff everyday but as you are not interested you wont ever see it.
When the unions have gone and the H and S are reduced to an ineffectual nothing watch the amount of accidents increase,but then it will be too late.

Re 51

Trumper,

That piece of ‘eyewash’ masquerading as justification is on par with: ” The EU has manged to keep the peace in Europe for the last umpteen number of years”.

No mention of NATO as being correctly identified as responsible. Oh no ! The EU who don’t own a catapult never mind a tank !

I loathe unions for the reasons that Charlie gives in the following piece. Plus I loathe their despotism. Plus I loathe their descent into dictatorial control freakery. Plus I loathe the speed with which they moved away from the reasonably acceptable fundamental ideas of how life should be for the workers.

You make no mention of the endless corruption and electoral fraudulence that accompanied the collapse of belief in the unions as a strong moral force for good.

The day that any of us should rely upon a trade union for any guidance whatsoever, never mind moral guidance is the day when societies occupation of a moral vacuum will be complete.