Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Rolf F wrote:I know someone who is an accountant (not in that London) - no idea what he earns but it must be getting on for £100k if not more. He works a good 80 hour week. The question is why on earth would a company pay one person that salary and run them ragged when two people for half the money could have a far higher standard of living and certainly be more effective.
It does irritate when people like, in this case Rick, go on about the high number of hours they work as though somehow it is anything other than idiocy on the part of their employers (and maybe themselves for being dumb enough to put themselves in this position). 37 hours a week is not "f@ck all" and if you think it is then the problem is at your end - 37 hours is about the right amount of time to work and if you are doing more than that then if you have any sense you'll be looking for ways to stop it. And if you can't stop it then you made a crap career choice. Sorry!
I just said it was a lifestyle choice. Chill.
My job is an annoying one where I have to do long hours, but I spend a lot of time waiting for people to pick up the phone (ergo, have time to be on here).
Most of my friends in London all works similar hours 50-60. Our mates in Whitehall always ***** & moan they have to kill 2-3 hours before we can meet them after work.
I never said it's not a choice. But, certainly for central London career job, 37hrs per week isn't normal.
I'm chilled Rick and I do see where you are coming from even if I struggle to understand why you do it but ultimately but ultimately if you are doing stupid hours you're being taken advantage of. None of your companies would go bust if you weren't allowed to work 50-60 hours. They'd just take on more staff at lower rates and maybe the London world would be a little nicer. That said, so many wanting to do this that there is of course no pressure on the companies to sort it out.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
That's interesting - and way more than my Public Sector organisation pays on average (for often higher degree educated staff). I wonder how that number is actually generated.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Rolf F wrote:I know someone who is an accountant (not in that London) - no idea what he earns but it must be getting on for £100k if not more. He works a good 80 hour week. The question is why on earth would a company pay one person that salary and run them ragged when two people for half the money could have a far higher standard of living and certainly be more effective.
It does irritate when people like, in this case Rick, go on about the high number of hours they work as though somehow it is anything other than idiocy on the part of their employers (and maybe themselves for being dumb enough to put themselves in this position). 37 hours a week is not "f@ck all" and if you think it is then the problem is at your end - 37 hours is about the right amount of time to work and if you are doing more than that then if you have any sense you'll be looking for ways to stop it. And if you can't stop it then you made a crap career choice. Sorry!
I just said it was a lifestyle choice. Chill.
My job is an annoying one where I have to do long hours, but I spend a lot of time waiting for people to pick up the phone (ergo, have time to be on here).
Most of my friends in London all works similar hours 50-60. Our mates in Whitehall always ***** & moan they have to kill 2-3 hours before we can meet them after work.
I never said it's not a choice. But, certainly for central London career job, 37hrs per week isn't normal.
I'm chilled Rick and I do see where you are coming from even if I struggle to understand why you do it but ultimately but ultimately if you are doing stupid hours you're being taken advantage of. None of your companies would go bust if you weren't allowed to work 50-60 hours. They'd just take on more staff at lower rates and maybe the London world would be a little nicer. That said, so many wanting to do this that there is of course no pressure on the companies to sort it out.
In the private sector in London it is a lifestyle choice - work the basic hours and earn £40k or work an extra 10-20 hours and double your salary0 -
Rolf F wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
That's interesting - and way more than my Public Sector organisation pays on average (for often higher degree educated staff). I wonder how that number is actually generated.
from the data they capture from jobs posted on their website. It is pretty generic but it will still be a biased sample0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
That's interesting - and way more than my Public Sector organisation pays on average (for often higher degree educated staff). I wonder how that number is actually generated.
from the data they capture from jobs posted on their website. It is pretty generic but it will still be a biased sample
Presumably they don't advertise the low paid jobs.
I'm a teacher with over 20 years' experience and 5 years of higher education. I get paid less than that "average".0 -
Rolf F wrote:
I'm chilled Rick and I do see where you are coming from even if I struggle to understand why you do it but ultimately but ultimately if you are doing stupid hours you're being taken advantage of. None of your companies would go bust if you weren't allowed to work 50-60 hours. They'd just take on more staff at lower rates and maybe the London world would be a little nicer. That said, so many wanting to do this that there is of course no pressure on the companies to sort it out.
Honestly, there are some tasks that can't be done as efficiently when you spread them between people.
And then you enter the realms of competition, whereby there's always someone who will work those hours, either for your firm or a rival, and if that's a more efficient way to do the work (which, for example, it is in my business), then that's the way it'll be.
In my business, if you make it, you can earn the big bucks. It's grafting (and not hugely competitive pay...) in the meantime, and if you don't do it, someone else will. But i'll take the hit in my time now so, hopefully, in the future, i'll have the bucks to provide for a family and to have the flexibility to take time when I want to.
I can always quit. I don't complain. Nor am I macho about it; I know what the other side looks like. But in my own bubble, 37hrs Takes you someway into Thursday morning.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?
my point is the vast majority of PS workers do not earn these high salaries nor do they get mega pensions.
Avg PS wages in Bristol are 30k, in the NE 23k... London & SE distorts with avg around 60k.0 -
On an hourly rate basis it can't be too bad.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?
my point is the vast majority of PS workers do not earn these high salaries nor do they get mega pensions.
Avg PS wages in Bristol are 30k, in the NE 23k... London & SE distorts with avg around 60k.
And on average the pensions are better than the private sector equivalent, hence the £1.8 trillion liability for PS pensions - you still haven't explained how we are meant to pay it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The answer to that is simple - you will have to work harder and pay more tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
On an hourly rate basis it can't be too bad.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?
my point is the vast majority of PS workers do not earn these high salaries nor do they get mega pensions.
Avg PS wages in Bristol are 30k, in the NE 23k... London & SE distorts with avg around 60k.
And on average the pensions are better than the private sector equivalent, hence the £1.8 trillion liability for PS pensions - you still haven't explained how we are meant to pay it.
As an aside, I was made to do an e-learning course this morning about fraud, corruption and bribery (not just me, we all were) and Gvt estimates this costs us all £20bn. Don't worry, everyone, I'm keeping 'em peeled for any dodgy goings on.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
On an hourly rate basis it can't be too bad.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?
my point is the vast majority of PS workers do not earn these high salaries nor do they get mega pensions.
Avg PS wages in Bristol are 30k, in the NE 23k... London & SE distorts with avg around 60k.
And on average the pensions are better than the private sector equivalent, hence the £1.8 trillion liability for PS pensions - you still haven't explained how we are meant to pay it.
hourly basis? ???? what u on about?
i told you, you need to ask the Government, perhaps with amongst the lowest cancer survival rates in europe, the worst diets and a failing NHS, the gov is reckoning on falling life expectancy to help them out?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
That's interesting - and way more than my Public Sector organisation pays on average (for often higher degree educated staff). I wonder how that number is actually generated.
from the data they capture from jobs posted on their website. It is pretty generic but it will still be a biased sample
Actually, the site is a bucket of misleading crap and the jobs and salaries are not particularly public sector ones.
I noticed that the "Graduate/Trainee" section listed a top salary of £47.5k which seemed ridiculous so I looked it up. I didn't get as far as finding it but found one "Public Sector Job" being for SW6 Graduates - as a trainee recruitment consultant offering £20-40k but only £20k was salary the rest being commission and no apparent public sector link at all.
And here is a "Public Sector" construction job - https://www.totaljobs.com/job/public-se ... 2379047692 - any job that might involve the public sector is listed as public sector!Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Rolf F wrote:
I'm chilled Rick and I do see where you are coming from even if I struggle to understand why you do it but ultimately but ultimately if you are doing stupid hours you're being taken advantage of. None of your companies would go bust if you weren't allowed to work 50-60 hours. They'd just take on more staff at lower rates and maybe the London world would be a little nicer. That said, so many wanting to do this that there is of course no pressure on the companies to sort it out.
Honestly, there are some tasks that can't be done as efficiently when you spread them between people.
And then you enter the realms of competition, whereby there's always someone who will work those hours, either for your firm or a rival, and if that's a more efficient way to do the work (which, for example, it is in my business), then that's the way it'll be..
Do you really think that? I doubt it is actually true - difficult to prove but it just seems very unlikely. And so what if it was less efficient? You may gain in some ways by understaffing/overworking but you will certainly lose in others. If you can't run a business profitably with exploiting people then you shouldn't be running a business.
I sympathise with your circumstances though. My house cost £65k 18 years ago and it is a nice house; I've never needed a big salary. It's a different world now.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Pretty simple really - where average working hours in the public sector are shorter so their hourly pay will tend to be better than a private sector worker on the same total pay. Most peoples comments on her back up this point about working hours.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
On an hourly rate basis it can't be too bad.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It's not that far off the average for the public sector:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pfft no idea.
He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.
Fast track innit.
considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.
On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?
my point is the vast majority of PS workers do not earn these high salaries nor do they get mega pensions.
Avg PS wages in Bristol are 30k, in the NE 23k... London & SE distorts with avg around 60k.
And on average the pensions are better than the private sector equivalent, hence the £1.8 trillion liability for PS pensions - you still haven't explained how we are meant to pay it.
hourly basis? ???? what u on about?
i told you, you need to ask the Government, perhaps with amongst the lowest cancer survival rates in europe, the worst diets and a failing NHS, the gov is reckoning on falling life expectancy to help them out?
On your other point, I guess your poor diet is the nasty Tories fault as well? Do they sneak into your house at night and shovel lard down your throat?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
i didnt specifically blame the tories for the UKs poor diet, its been going down hill for years but i m glad you accept the tories are to blame for the clearly failing NHS and cancer survival rates..... as they say 2 outta 3 aint bad.....
as i said, when a Labour gov is in powr, all that goes wrong is their fault but with the tories, theres always someone else to blame0 -
I knew it...evening ugly ****ers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
On Corbyn.
Chatting to a urban planner/commercial property developer turned local councillor.
The success rate of momentum run councils is astonishingly low. She took me through the stats and it was quite eye opening.
Her theory was momentum tend to run councils who are exclusively labour/momentum, so even when they get good ideas, it all descends into petty squabbling which often kiboshes the execution. Apaz when the council is more mixed, it focuses the mind on getting a result.
(her experience was focused in grim parts of North London, so obviously can't comment on your Cotswalds Tory only council.)0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:when the council is more mixed, it focuses the mind on getting a result.
This would seem to be blindingly obvious and correlates with all the evidence that diverse boards achieve more than a bunch of old farts who all agree with each other.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:I knew it...evening ugly ****ers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2
Although the author seems to think The Young Ones was a fly on the wall documentary.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was quite a realistic depiction of student liferjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:I knew it...evening ugly ****ers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2
Although the author seems to think The Young Ones was a fly on the wall documentary.
Anyway, I'm off out to flaunt my Tory handsomeness."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
It was quite a realistic depiction of student liferjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:I knew it...evening ugly ****ers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2
Although the author seems to think The Young Ones was a fly on the wall documentary.
Anyway, I'm off out to flaunt my Tory handsomeness.
Now that you mention it, I do remember a flat mate who lost his key, so he smashed a hole through the adjacent partition to get in. Then there was the girl who destroyed the microwave by using it to dry out her underwired bra. Ah, so many suppressed memories.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So many good old memories from Uni. Just disappointed we never made it onto University Challengerjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It was quite a realistic depiction of student liferjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:I knew it...evening ugly ****ers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2
Although the author seems to think The Young Ones was a fly on the wall documentary.
Anyway, I'm off out to flaunt my Tory handsomeness.
Now that you mention it, I do remember a flat mate who lost his key, so he smashed a hole through the adjacent partition to get in. Then there was the girl who destroyed the microwave by using it to dry out her underwired bra. Ah, so many suppressed memories. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
this must stick in the craw.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html
Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!0 -
Yes, two years of nationalisation until a new private franchise kicks in. Hardly a serious challenge to centre right economic theory. It's not like it has never happened before. Always ends up with another private franchise fortunately. Isn't there already one signed and delivered for this? Even if Corbyn gets in I doubt it would stay in nationalised status if it's been signed on the dotted line.0
-
Not sure "fortunate" is a word i would use.
It makes money run as a nationalised railway, loses it when privatised, seems a simple solution for this particular line, if not the rest of the network, unless ideology gets in the way?0 -
I think you mean nationalisation?mamba80 wrote:this must stick in the craw.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html
Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!
Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Claim in the comments of the Guardian article that the current arrangement is actually making more money for the Government, as the rate of effective dividend from Stagecoach/Virgin, is higher than when it was successfully run by the Government.
All in all, definitely clearly highlights the stupidity of how privatisation works out, but it's pretty clear that it's not as simple as privatisation of profits and public sharing of losses.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I think you mean nationalisation?mamba80 wrote:this must stick in the craw.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html
Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!
Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership
:oops: yes i did!
well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......
Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that.0 -
So, one rail franchise out of 23 is having problems and that's meant to be a valid argument that we need to change the lot is it?mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think you mean nationalisation?mamba80 wrote:this must stick in the craw.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html
Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!
Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership
:oops: yes i did!
well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......
Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, but it does raise the question of what Virgin and Stagecoach are doing wrong.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
So, one rail franchise out of 23 is having problems and that's meant to be a valid argument that we need to change the lot is it?mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think you mean nationalisation?mamba80 wrote:this must stick in the craw.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95921.html
Possible privatisation...... who d have thought eh!
Please explain how a loss making franchise can magically become viable and successful by taking it into government ownership
:oops: yes i did!
well, it turned a profit from 2009 to 2013? and it failed to do earlier hence why it was nationalized and its failed again, according to Grayling.
Explain why privatisation magically makes a service profitable esp as it will have to pay dividends and award its directors eye watering but "competitive" salaries and bonuses.......
Look, somethings can be better run by private companies, others are better run by the state, the prob with both lab and tory is they both cant see that.
As i said, it should nt be either or but i d say the current way we do rails isnt working.
https://www.ft.com/content/db6a433c-f15 ... 7e26d1aca40
