Its interesting to see others opinions on this and attitudes to working. I see a general concensus on two issues:

1. There is no point doing overtime just for the sake of it.
2. Contractual hours do not neccessarily tie up with hours work (and for most people this is not always a problem).

In my case I am contracted 42.5 hours a week. I start aroud 8 and finish around 5. I say around as I do what is needed to do the job. Right now I’m doing my contractual hours as I’m not that busy, about 6 months ago I was doing between 80 and 100 hours a week. Thats the job but realistically its also not sustainable.

In terms of OT I have a rule. I work midweek OT at no cost. If I have to work W/end that is paid (Double time).

I also have another rule which I make at every interview. And that is that I will work whatever it takes to get the job done. It is however a two way thing, when times are quiet or I can fit in I have the morning off to ..take Dave to the vets, go to the dentist, meet a repair mechanic for the washing machine etc.

This has always served me well.

The only people I have a problem with are those that refuse to help and give that little bit extra when work demands. People who clockwatch and are off at 5 every day whether the job is done or not. Yes it may be your contractual right but its a piss poor attitude and you are letting the team down.

And lastly …yes it is about performance and results and not the hours worked.

Looks like i’m a leftie after all?

coffeeking +1

Should lazy workers not pulling their own weight be allowed to cling to a job ….or should they be sacked. Discuss.

[thread hijack] The black at Nant-y-Arian is ace. Part trail centre part natural trails but all surprisingly techy, 35k of brilliant riding! [thread hijack]

Treating MMGW as a possible theory rather than probable fact is…

… like treating creationism as a valid altrenative to the theory fo evolution and having a scientific debate with a scientist and religeous nutter!

[Grenade thrown …runs away]

So does it really make any difference if the economy flatlines?

We can all keep living as we do now? Of course if the population grows I supppose it follows that the economy needs to grow to support a greater population.

Not sure if thats right but it makes sense in my head!

Raising the tax threshold to £10k?

See the point abopve obviously the labour govt had the most surpluses of any govt yet it was still spectacularily bad. I think that is statement of politics not economics
Yes we have political views but lets not try and rewriete history to fit in with out views.

Thats an overly simplistic way of protraying the contrys finances as it completely ignores the context. Of course it was easy for the Labour party to build a surplus as the economy was on a good footing when they inherited it.

I really belive that was a missed golden opportunity. Had they invested wisely they could have improved public services at a sustainable rate and built a competitive and properous economy, rather than one bloated on a massive public sector delivering little value for money.

Sorry Binners but that is more Guardinista bull!

There is an argument to be made about growth in the economy but that isn’t easy. It is important that we mainatin a deficit cutting approach to ensure that we can continue to borrow at very low rates as this will ensure that we spend more of our money on investments and public services rather than servicing debt.

There are automatic stabilisers in the chancellors plan which have ensured that growth is not stiffled. It is however a very difficult balancing act and pushing for growth needs to be hand in hand with reducing the deficit. Our major trading partners are not growing so where is this growth going to come from anyway? With high levels of personel debt its unlikely to come internally?

I personally think we need to invest in infrastructure more which creates jobs and prosperity, but then I’m an engineer!

Ransos, once again you’ve fed us s snapshot of data without any context or meaning. What you can see is the deficut being stabilised after the last recession and the budget brought back into control.

Labour took over after the hard work had been done and brought it back into surplus. 10 years later GB succesfully plumeted the state finances off the scale!

Thats a great acheivement to turn round an economy so spectaculary for the worse.

No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.

Even more shocking is the vast quantities of public money being squandered on vanity schemes right up to the last minute.

Any party has to consider the needs of society as a whole if it is to be electable. So while the Tories might have a positive bias towards business and Labour towards the Unions this cannot be exclusively so otherwise they would be unelectable.

The Government of the day has an ethical duty to lead in a way which benefits the whole country and nit just their party members.

Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on – they’re not.

Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. …or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable?

Only difference is, everyone can join a union,….

Errr… there is no union that represents my interests. I could however join a party, as can anyone else be it Tory, Labour, Lib Dem. I find your argument lacking.

What do you need to build a wheel? Do you need a jig or can you improvise?

Ta

There is nothing out of the ordinary about the state of the public finances in historical terms.

You my friend are on that great, great african river ….

…

…

d’ Nile!

It appears that this thread has been hi-jacked by the STW left wing mafia, (eveyone else is probably working or driving trains!)

Indeed I have work to do so I shall retire. Enjoy your squabbling and general exchange of dogma!

JY – Come on when have I espoused my love for the free market. I see it as a useful tool to ensure that the contry has the right skills and people to fill the jobs it needs. Thats it a useful tool only. I do believe that an unfetted free market is unfeasible (and I believe Miss Flanders or Mr Peston at the BBC made a good point recently about free markets being distorted by human emotion and faliability).

There need to be controls. What the unions achieved was setting process in place for establishing legal minimums in terms of H&S and welfare.

The simple truth is it is not and B&W as the left or right make it out to be.

Ransos …the point is during the boom years we spent at an unsustainable rate. I.e. we spent more than we earned. This only made the fall bigger and harder when it eventually came. GB’s famous no more boom and bust for a smokescreen of I’ll pretend there isn’t a problem, by the time Joe Public works this out I’ll be long gone!

TJ – The debt is real and dangerous. Whatever your ideology or politics the public sector has to be scaled back to s sustainable level. I’m not a right winger, banker or other such idealist. I can just see the writing on the wall.

This is all very silly is it not? Can we all take a reality check, now is not the time to be idelogical. The nation is broke and we need to fix that first.

The reason I belive unions are outdated is the fact that they don’t represent the working man, they represent their members. Far better for the unions to be marginalised and the working people to be represented by …umm I don’t know ….the Labour party? (or substitute party of your choice). That is what democracy is about.

(btw when I referred to the unions and industricl revolution I was referring to the movement which started in the industrial revolution and not a specific union).

Grum. I agree the pay divide is too large. The problem is however executive pay that is not justified by results or skills. The answer is to address this issue. It is not feasible to close the gap from the bottom, this is simply not affordable.

Ransos ….you really are a dinosaur. The world has moved on, its not about us and them anymore. Private sector unions work together as that is in the best interests of their members, i.e. to maintian jobs and growth.

The only reason public sector/essential service unions such as the RMT are so antagonistic is beacuse the company cannot simply be dissolved. Even more reason to shrink the public sector with extreme and idealogical idiocy like yours.

Grum, thats not true at all for the vast majority of us. The unions did great things in their time which was the industrial revolution. They ensured that not only pay but conditions, working hours and health and safety were improved for the benefit of all. That is an admirable achievement.

The problem with many unions and the RMT is probably the worst is that they have not modernised and evolved. It is still a class war against the oppressive goverment/employer/big business etc.

Unions can only remain relevent in a modern society if they work with business and government. They need to understand that for employees to maintain good wages, conditions and so forth that a company needs to be successful. There will be hard times where workers need to share some of the pain for the greater good of the company.

There also needs to be an undestanding of sustability which is sadly lacking from many left wing figures. Pensions, pay and conditions need to be sustainable for the long term and crucially not at the expense of others …i.e. the young/private sector.

What the RMT is doing is distorting the free market. This either pushes wages to an unsustainable level and/or provides inequality between workers with comparable skills and responsibilities. This is why there is so much hostility to the RMT on here and in the general public at large.

I think that all of the ‘I’m in chrage ot x lives’ etc …is absolute twaddle. Just becuase you have a certain responsibility that does not make a job either difficul or risky.

It is basically supply and demand. The more difficult jobs may pay more due to this but equally these jobs may be more fulfilling. Engineering is a typical case here but the relatively low pay does hinder the supply of high calibre candidates.

What is different is the market forces are distorted by the power of the unions. This is wrong.

Lets be honest you do not get it!

Performance is seperate to annual adjustments, it has to be. Performance/promotion pay is not linked to affordability (well in theory) annual adjustments are!

So you believe that public sector pay should be linked to the performance of the private sector (which governs the state’s finances?) How does that square with your notion that pay should be related to your value to your employer?

No.

What I said was that affordability for the public sector is linked to the nations finances, nothing to do with the private sector. I was merely noting that the private sector cycles are not always the same. For example construction was booming well into the recession but is unlikely to pick up for some time.

Do keep up.

And what about socially useful work that doesn’t generate a profit? The people who educate us, transport us and care for us?

How should their pay be worked out?

Affordability comes from the state of the nations finances. Many public sector workers did very well during the boom years. The only difference between public and private is the affordability cycles are not alwways matched.

I assume you will be telling business to aim for zero growth then?

Sorry? I don’t understand.

As I’ve said it basically comes down to affordability. A company doing well and growing strongly can afford RPI + +ve adjustments.

the unions customers are the members who [according to you] now have a good wage deal they dont deserve. Surely they have delivered to their customers and I assume you still advocate this.
perhaps the union bosses have earned a pay rise?

wrt to their members yes they have done well! If members wish to increase their renumeration I have no difficulty with this. I doub’t that members would wish their fees to go up however!

There shoudl basiaclly be two principles in assessing pay either collectively or individually.

If your in the same job you need to maintain your standard of living. Hence your looking for an increase of RPI. Thats the base line, however it is governed by affordability and hance your annual adjustment may be above or below RPI. As I’ve mentioned earlier this will generally be RPI with a negative adjustment in geneeral as the nation is heavilly indebted and the economy is not growing. I.E. wages need to be sustainable (not a concept readily recogised by the RMT).

The only other way you will get a raise is by promotion or doing more for less (i.e. working longer hours).

Its simply not sustainable to assumme that every year you will get an RPI + +ve adjustment every year (or indeed anything). That is the reality of the world.

Rubbish!

What I’m saying is that yes you go out and get a better deal for yourself but crucially the difference is how you go about this. If you can show that you add value (and in this respect where unions agree to update working practices it can be a good thing). So if you can do something more efficiently then its a win, win situation.

However in this case the union really is as bad as bankers. At the end of the day its about lining their pockets with no thoughts to the end user, i.e. customer.

Then you’re in a weaker market position than the tube drivers.

No its called a competitive market. Collective bargaining is nothing short of a cartel and I really cannot stand the stench of entitlement form unions.

You wan’t something extra? Well prove that your worth it, show how you can add value to your customer. All of this me first attitude is as bad as the bankers!

No I don’t recognise the benefits of collective bargaining!

Effectively it allows select groups of people to hold a city/coutry/industry to ransom for pay that is whey above the skills of their peers. I do not see anything remorely fair about that.

So if your a cleaner or librarian say you can strike but the impact is very low. However if you can bring the tube network to a stop you have huge leverage. They are not renumerated for their skills, rather their ability to wreak havoc on the capital.

Its all well saying their a decent sort ..they should be paid double …but where so you stop? The economy is not growing; wage inflation increases real inflation. The losers of the average person on the street.

We can’t all have pay rises. Anything of RPI + 0% is exceptionally good and better than the vast majority of the population. Like it or not the economy has been unsustainable for a number of years and our standard of living HAS to reduce. I believe that we ALL need to play our part in this.

Tube drivers are paid according to the terms they’ve negotiated, just like everyone else.

Unlike the rest of us who use our talent to find jobs that pay well! Collective pay negotiations are a relic of the past and allow unions to unfairly hold the coutry to ransom.

Time to move on and consign unions to the bin, they’ve had their time.

No i don’t think so. What were trying to get through is the concept of living sustainably. Hence the position that pensions need to be paid for at a constant proportion of GDP. This has nothing to do with debt or austerity …it is making the pension system sustainable otherwies there will be a much bigger problem in the future.

Junkyard – Your basically saying as a country we need to spend a greater proportion of our GDP on pensions, yes?

Its a dangerous game unless you croak it before your 65! The state pension is a minimum means to live so if you want to enjoy retirement start saving now. I think I can speak of a large proportion of society in saying I’ve had a pay freeze for about five years!

According to the IFS were looking at a decade of reduced living standards. Its no good saying its not fair were all (well most of us) in the same position. Accept this and accept that your retirement will be comfortable.

Its interesting reading the comments to the fact check in the Gurdian. It simply appears that many of the unions and public sector workers just do not ‘get it?’

dah62

It is unfair. Simple.

houses

Of course they’re affordable.

This is a neo-con Government reneging on contracts, responsibility and morality. It’s a descent into lawlessness and anything goes.

Ponkbutler

Reality check: this is about what sort of values we have and what sort of a society we are prepared to (re)build.

Pensions provisions in this country are inadequate apart from where the very wealthy are concerned. We should be bringing private sector pensions into line with public sector pensions, not justifying these cuts because the latter are now so woefully inadequate.

Quality of life and quality of society and community are worth sacrificing the baubles and trickets bought through low taxation.

There is a crucial difference in affordability and sustainabiility. If more of a poporion of GDP is spent on pensions then we will need to cut services in other areas.

Come on wake up and smell the coffee.

Maybe we can afford to maintain these pensions …but only at the expence of the rest of society.

Having been in AOSTA hospital in Italy for a week waiting for repatriation with aforementioned brroken leg I can only say thankyou for the NHS! Italian hospitals were like the NHS from the 60’s (like a carry on film, cue traction weights knocked over ….trying to communicate to the nurses that a no. 2 is urgently waiting in the que ….the most random and disgusting food combinations….)

Steppoing Hill was amazing!

Just ordered a Fenix HP11

http://www.focalprice.com/LFH75B/FENIX_HP11_5W_CREE_XPG_R5_7Mode_277LM_LED_Headlamp_Set_Black.html?utm_source=CS&utm_medium=GM_UK&utm_campaign=CS_GM_UK_LFH75B

More for fell running but I suspect that it will be better than the hope vision 1 which just weighs too much on the lid.