We are all in this together.

aPjhH.jpg
 
What?, full accounts are published, not paid for by the taxpayer, entirely optional, actual wages significantly lower than publish (They include pension contributions in wages now?), finally - the actual wage is 100k (my manager earns close to that & he's got at least 7 levels above him in my organisation - private sector).

100k for the person at the top of an organisation is very low, the part I don't agree with is the pay increases.
 
[FnG]magnolia;22385899 said:
Nope.


e : they had PAY RISES :mad:

My word.
Click to expand...
I agree on that part, they should't be getting pay rises.

But 100k wage for being top of an organisation is low, compared to normal private sector businesses.

Moses said:
100k is fair... I mean, they do have to go and quaff champagne/act like ****s on news programmes.... it's hard work.
Click to expand...
I agree it's too high.

But it isn't even in the same league as the private or public sector for people at the top.

To be fair,

Unions have done more for the working man in the last 200 years than any other organisation, we have sick-pay, holiday, parental leave, normal working hours, the right to vote, votes for women - all as a result.

I don't agree with the actions of those taking high wages, but what I'm utterly sick of is the brain-dead constant union bashing we see in modern society.

If we didn't have any unions life would most certainly get worse for the working public of the UK quite quickly.
 
Last edited:
"We're all in this together"

Says a man who doesn't have a first clue of what actual work or living in austerity is actually like. (David Camoron *as in moron*)
 
elmarko1234 said:
I agree on that part, they should't be getting pay rises.

But 100k wage for being top of an organisation is low, compared to normal private sector businesses.

I agree it's too high.

But it isn't even in the same league as the private or public sector for people at the top.

To be fair,

Unions have done more for the working man in the last 200 years than any other organisation, we have sick-pay, holiday, parental leave, normal working hours, the right to vote, votes for women - all as a result.

I don't agree with the actions of those taking high wages, but what I'm utterly sick of is the brain-dead constant union bashing we see in modern society.

If we didn't have any unions life would most certainly get worse for the working public of the UK quite quickly.
Click to expand...


Pretty much spot on.
well said
 
Moses said:
It depends how you look at it - the CWU has 200 000 members, but being the head of that isn't the same as running an organisation with 200 000 employees.
Click to expand...
No it isn't the same I agree, but on the same note a salary of £100k (well, £65k) isn't the same salary as somebody who was head of an organisation with 200,000 members would get either.

As I said, it's the usual brand of union bashing we see in the Murdoch owned media, designed purely to rile hatred for unions - nothing more.

Top of the list, according to the report, was Michael Bradley, of the General Federation of Trade Unions, whose package totalled £203,416. His salary was £65,594, but other benefits, including pension payments, were worth £137,822 – boosted by a ‘loss of office’ payment of £30,000 when he retired at the end of December last year.
 
Last edited:
elmarko1234 said:
No it isn't the same I agree, but on the same note a salary of £100k (well, £65k) isn't the same salary as somebody who was head of an organisation with 200,000 members would get either.

As I said, it's the usual brand of union bashing we see in the Murdoch owned media, designed purely to rile hatred for unions - nothing more.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
Moses said:
It depends how you look at it - the CWU has 200 000 members, but being the head of that isn't the same as running an organisation with 200 000 employees.
Click to expand...

No, but it certainly entails a lot of responsibility and requires, one hopes, a good deal of skill, experience and intelligence. A relatively high salary helps attract qualified people to the position and provides a degree of protection from bribery.
 
I can see why getting 20% turnout in a ballot to strike on the day before the Olympics opens requiring a lot of 'skill, experience and intelligence'.
 
Duke said:
I can see why getting 20% turnout in a ballot to strike on the day before the Olympics opens requiring a lot of 'skill, experience and intelligence'.
Click to expand...
What percentage of the population actually voted for Cameron again?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom