The years of discontent, 2022/23

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yes. Regardless of the consequences to those at the bottom who will have to pay for it all. We get that this is your position. You've made it crystal clear. It's why you're taking some heat.

"Taking some heat"

 

Not sure about that mate. There are some conflicting viewpoints going about. There seem to be more agree with me than don't though. 

And I'm afraid a tired bore like Marshy thinking he has managed to gotcha a trade unionist out of his principles because he made a wee jokey moan about trains doesn't pass as any sort of heat either. 

Your soundbite laden "those at the bottom" spiel isn't going to convince me to turn in my card either mate. You aren't actually saying anything, and despite your claims of misrepresenting what you say, you are doing a pretty good job of twisting my thoughts beyond all recognition. 

[BTFD]

Interesting to see Oaksoft claiming that we could have ended poverty in the Eighties if we'd all only worked together. We used to have a poster who regularly (and gleefully) claimed poverty didn't exist in the Western world, but I don't quite recall what their username was. Nope, it's gone.

Anyway, good to see that any discussion of wages and public services are still to avoid the massive elephant in the room that the wealthy and corporations have been on a decades-long crusade to contribute less to society. Sort it out between yourselves, plebs.

[MacDonald Jardine]

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

At this moment in  time when there's clearly limited funds for pay rises and that money is needed by those at the bottom? Yes. Absolutely.

It's where the entire ethos of "broader shoulders" comes from - a position you've apparently supported right up until the picosecond that you realised you might be one of those who had to sacrifice to help those at the bottom.

What does that have to do with what that nonsense you claimed I'd said about employee benefits?

What counts as "higher wages"?

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

The only people agreeing with you also don't care or understand that the poorest will be paying for these middle and high earner pay rises. That's not much of an accolade.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The people at the bottom will pay for all of this. That is a fact. Accept it, don't accept it. It's your choice. Just don't say you weren't told. It's telling that you think that me explaining who is going to pay for this is "saying nothing". That's on you.

No room for compromise in the world of oaksoft.... I mean, its not like if you choose to vote Labour to get fairer social policies you have to accept that they will continue to fund trident to the enormous detriment of the public purse, for example.....

Nope. If you are a trade unionist you are taking food off the tables of the poor 

[welshbairn]

Meanwhile, the average pay for FTSE 100 CEOs has jumped by 39% to £3.4m. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by welshbairn

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

The house Tories are absolutely beeling. You love to see it.

[BTFD]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Meanwhile, the average pay for FTSE 100 CEOs has jumped by 39% to £3.4m. 

Yes, but they're worth more than you. That's a fact - The Market has proclaimed it to be so. Praise be to The Market. Accept it and move on.

Poverty is a problem for the middle-classes to decide whether or not they want to help with, at least until fuel bills stabilise again, whereupon it will go back to not existing.

[Deanburn Dave]

20 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Anyway, good to see that any discussion of wages and public services are still to avoid the massive elephant in the room that the wealthy and corporations have been on a decades-long crusade to contribute less to society. 

The media moguls push their stories about benefit cheats, asylum seekers, gold plated public service pensions etc to take the spotlight off these greedy b*****ds.  

[MacDonald Jardine]

20 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Anyone earning above the median wage by definition has "broader shoulders".

£40k is considerably above the median wage in Scotland and anyone on that figure and above should be showing pay restraint at this moment in time to allow those at the bottom to receive the help they absolutely must have.

And  anyone slightly below by definition has broader shoulders than those on the lowest wages.

Should they get less too?

I also trust you'll let us know when it's acceptable for public sector workers earning above the median to request a pay rise.

[invergowrie arab]

59 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

We've been brought up to expect that most functioning adults have a reasonable understanding of how everything in society ties in together and works. As you enter adulthood it becomes crystal clear that most haven't a clue about anything.

You red dotted a post stating council tax doesn't touch the sides of LA budgets.

I dont care about the dot I'm just curious about where you think LAs derive their income from?

[ParsJake]

32 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Interesting to see Oaksoft claiming that we could have ended poverty in the Eighties if we'd all only worked together. We used to have a poster who regularly (and gleefully) claimed poverty didn't exist in the Western world, but I don't quite recall what their username was. Nope, it's gone.

[Billy Jean King]

What a bin fire (pun fully intended) the last few pages are. LA workers get their first half decent pay rise in years and we see a few in total meltdown. Here's a thought but the rise was negotiated and hence would not have been made if it wasn't costed as affordable. Pay rises for staff are budgeted for and Council Tax will rise by as much as Councils think they can get away with whether their staff get a rise or not. At the end of the day Councils are run by elected members and they are no different to any other politicians in that they won't approve something they think might see them ousted at the next election.
Really not getting why anyone thinks public sector workers should just "sook it up" because their rise come from the public purse, bizarre way to look at life. A worker is a worker regardless of who actually employs them.

[welshbairn]

35 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Interesting to see Oaksoft claiming that we could have ended poverty in the Eighties if we'd all only worked together. We used to have a poster who regularly (and gleefully) claimed poverty didn't exist in the Western world, but I don't quite recall what their username was. Nope, it's gone.

Anyway, good to see that any discussion of wages and public services are still to avoid the massive elephant in the room that the wealthy and corporations have been on a decades-long crusade to contribute less to society. Sort it out between yourselves, plebs.

What happened to the Oaky who claimed life on benefits was cushy and if people on minimum wage zero hours contracts weren't happy about it they should simply start their own businesses? He's gone full woke sjw imo.

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:

What a bin fire (pun fully intended) the last few pages are. LA workers get their first half decent pay rise in years and we see a few in total meltdown. Here's a thought but the rise was negotiated and hence would not have been made it it wasn't costed as affordable. Pay rises for staff are budgeted for and Council Tax will rise by as much as Councils think they can get away with whether their staff get a rise or not. At the end of the day Councils are run by elected members and they are no different to any other politicians in that they won't approve something they think might see them ousted at the next election.
Really not getting why anyone thinks public sector workers should just "sook it up" because their rise come from the public purse, bizarre way to look at life. A worker is a worker regardless of who actually employs them.

Maybe because the government have said they’ll have to make some “difficult decisions” about where they’ll find the money to pay for all this?  Pay rises of this level won’t be budgeted for or no difficult decisions would have to be made.

What do you think those difficult decisions will involve?  It certainly won’t involve them going to the non-existent stash of money they have hidden away.  It will have to come from other services.

[Billy Jean King]

What happened to the Oaky who claimed life on benefits was cushy and if people on minimum wage zero hours contracts weren't happy about it they should simply start their own businesses? He's gone full woke sjw imo.

Gone from raging Tory to full on Communist basically. Or as is more likely retired early and has nothing much to fill his days so has become a full time online contrarian.

[Billy Jean King]

Maybe because the government have said they’ll have to make some “difficult decisions” about where they’ll find the money to pay for all this?  Pay rises of this level won’t be budgeted for or no difficult decisions would have to be made.
What do you think those difficult decisions will involve?  It certainly won’t involve them going to the non-existent stash of money they have hidden away.  It will have to come from other services.

That's their job to make the big decisions. It's certainly not their employees place just to sook it up. People have to live, they need to put food on the table. If bin collection go on an extra weekly cycle or parking charges go up then so be it. It seems we are all in it together (broad shoulders as Oaky called it I think) only applies when it doesn't directly affect anyone.

[DA Baracus]

Surely if folk don't get pay rises then they'll be spending less in general, meaning the economy won't do as well, leading to job losses...

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

Retrain bin men as train drivers imo. 

[welshbairn]

Truss has talked about massive new borrowing on very long term bonds to fund tax cuts, I'm sure some some of that can be diverted to the Councils and railways. Or why not another round of good old fashioned quantitative easing?

[Left Back]

5 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

That's their job to make the big decisions. It's certainly not their employees place just to sook it up. People have to live, they need to put food on the table. If bin collection go on an extra weekly cycle or parking charges go up then so be it. It seems we are all in it together (broad shoulders as Oaky called it I think) only applies when it doesn't directly affect anyone.
 

It doesn’t mean we’re all in it together.  Rising costs for things, pretty much anything, affects the less well off more than those on higher wages so your simple answer to raise charges for things isn’t as fair as you try and make out.