Cuts – Union knee jerk response or last line of defence against the Torries?

You dont know the first thing about logic do you ….that is rhetorical by the way 😆

"Much of what I said about public services explained how on Merseyside we had managed to deliver a better service despite extensive government budget cuts and less staff, and this was a model that other parts of public service could follow.

"Many other public organisations are already claiming they cannot make similar reductions, and my concern that these services may be treated as special cases, led me to use inappropriate language.

"I am passionate in defending our service and in hindsight I used language which I now regret.

"I apologise if any staff are upset by my comments."

He apologised for the wording, not for the belief – indeed he reinforces it with his comment that they managed to deliver a better service for less money.

"The greatest contribution Mr McGuirk could make to public services would be to hand his notice in and save Merseyside fire and rescue his £200,000 plus annual salary.
This salary would pay at least six firefighters and would be much better spent that way. Merseyside firefighters are working longer hours to make up for the shortages Mr McGuirk has created there.

so how long are the firefighters working, are they overworked?

iirc there are some on teh forum wonder what they think of his comments

I cannot see how that proves cuts are

the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

Are you suggesting that all industries should cut their staff to cut the deficit as an aid to economic recovery? Unemployment is the answer to this situation. Does that not reduce govt revenue and increase govt spending?

Whats your alternative Junky?

Higher Taxes now, Higher Taxes later, or Higher taxes for your kids?

Remember, "industries" don't run a deficit, they make a profit – they already realise that if you employ more people than you really need to do a job then you go bust – be it a small company, a multinational organisation, or a government, the principle is the same!

Have you not seen the Elfinfesto?

Company makes £X million a year, has £5 million wage budget.

1 boss, £1m py
employs 2 MD's/CEO's whatever, £500,000 ea py
10 managers, £100,000 each
100 workers. £20,000 each.

So the company consists of 113 people. The average wage is £44,248 each. So, if you paid each of the 100 workers £40,000 each, the managers £60,000 each and the two MD's £100,00 each leaving £200,000 for the boss. £200k is plenty for anyone to live on, no? But each worker would then have more economic power to buy their own house and stuff. And their value to the company is higher. It's a much fairer system, and people can still have decent lifestyles. What's wrong with that? Apart from the boss no longer being unnecessarily wealthy? But he/she won't have to moan about paying so much tax, because they'll be paying less. The workers will be paying a higher percentage. Win-win!

z-11 why do you insist on calling me Junky – is it a term of endearment or do you feel the need to insult me with every reply?

Elfinsafety – doesn't your example rather assume that all workers are equally capable of running the company as the "boss" and that all bosses will work for the same as workers?

As the fire brigade example shows, one person with the right skills / experience / ideas can have a disproportionate impact on an organisation – the fact that other fire brigade bosses haven't managed to improve performance and cut costs to the same level may provide some additional support for this conclusion.

Unsurprisingly, the delta of the performance gap between "average worker" and "boss" is typically recognised through a pay differential albeit some of the outlier figures e.g. Bob Diamond on £100m can't really be justified by any reasonable person.

Looking at industry – bosses aren't all equal as evidenced by Steve Jobs running Apple in a way that's transformed a previously failing company – there are similar examples in the public sector as well where a highly paid boss makes (or breaks) an organisation.

Declaration of interest – I'm not a highly paid boss.

oh, sorry – what would you prefer, Yardie?

Why do you feel the need to abbreviate Zulu-Eleven?

Z-11 is not my name, so I'm going to be all precious and act like a teenage girl complaining that you have to respect my full name, wahhhh wahhh wahhhh boo hoo hoo! 😥

oh, sorry – what would you prefer, Yardie?

Why do you feel the need to abbreviate Zulu-Eleven?

Z-11 is not my name, so I'm going to be all precious and act like a teenage girl complaining that you have to respect my full[/]i name, wahhhh wahhh wahhhh boo hoo hoo!

Owned with bombers! 🙂

Elfinsafety – doesn't your example rather assume that all workers are equally capable of running the company as the "boss" and that all bosses will work for the same as workers?

No it doesn't. The managers and bosses get paid more. There's just not the massive (often unjustifiable) disparity in salaries between top and bottom.

Flashy; don't shit-stir.

indeed he reinforces it with his comment that they managed to deliver a better service for less money.

"He said: "Front line is fire engines and fire stations, not fire fighters. There is no need to close a fire station, we haven't touched a single fire station.

"We provide a far better service with those 850 [firemen]; more with less"…Mr McGuirk said his take-no-prisoners approach should be adopted by the National Health Service: "I would suggest if you did that in the NHS, you've not got a problem."

So, by extension, the "front line" in the NHS is hospital buildings and the machines that go ping, as opposed to experienced pairs of Mark 1 eyeballs… Is he thus suggesting that we manage with fewer clinical staff?

I suspect the bloke was attempting to justify his ludicrous salary to the Reform audience. No doubt it was music to their ears.

Better delete that so I don't get sacked lol

I don't recall anyone arguing that there should be no cutbacks at all anywhere ever, or that the public sector is perfect – just that the cuts don't need to be so severe or so rushed.

Also the current vilification of the public sector as the cause of all woes is a smokescreen, as well as an insult to the many people who work hard to provide decent services for us.

tron – Member

Ernie Lynch said one thing, which was not logical.

All I did was point out that your comment unions should not be involved in the parliamentary process and only be involved the workplace was : "in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists."

And yes too damn right …….. it is completely illogical that someone like you should share the same position as the ultra-leftists.

It is also completely illogical you should resent trade unions using the parliamentary road to change insisting that they should only concentrate at the shop-floor level where the only effective tool is industrial action, and then, complain about trade union militancy !

In fact it is so completely illogical that I don't actually believe you.

Far from you having, quote : "no problem with organised labour per se" I suspect that you do in fact have a big problem with organised labour. You simply threw in that comment so you would sound more reasonable and open-minded – as you launched into your anti-trade union diatribe.

I suspect you would rather trade unions did absolutely nothing to represent their members interests – either in parliament or the shop-floor.

.

BTW tron, you never actually explained why you have "a problem with them getting involved in politics, funding political parties".

Personally I can't see any problem……… If you don't want to support a candidate or party which is funded by a trade union, well don't vote for them then.

💡 you could perhaps instead vote for a party which in funded by tax-dodging multi-millionaires ? ……..but maybe you do that already

So where's the problem ? ……..I'm thinking along the lines that you probably resent other people having the freedom to vote for candidates or parties which are funded by trade unions. I'm thinking along the lines that you would probably prefer a 'restricted form of democracy'.

A form of democracy which works very well for those who you back, and not at all for those which you don't back.
A form of democracy which ironically, has has no place for those highly democratic institutions the trade unions, but a special place for unelected tax-dodging foreign press barons.

Am I right ?