We are all in this together.

[FnG]magnolia;22385962 said:
I'm invoking Poe's Law and I'm out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but on who - the union leaders or the Daily Mail?

I'm paid a salary, a figure I'm aware of. I also get a letter every year which lists my total package, and my employer pays NI on top of that. There's quite a difference. By the time medical, health insurance, dental, pension, PRP are added to my basic salary it's near doubled.

That 100K contains a lot of padding, if it includes pension contributions etc.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and at the top of any organisation 100K total package gets you a monkey.
 
shock horror as people at the top of massive organisations with 10s of thousands of members get paid lots, its the same for any organisation/business
 
MrMoonX said:
shock horror as people at the top of massive organisations with 10s of thousands of members get paid lots, its the same for any organisation/business
Click to expand...

Surely it would be the number of staff not the number of members that matters? Or we will need to start paying librarians a lot more....
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Not really the Conserative way though is it, after-all Cameron and crew voted against the minimum wage when Labour bought it in :mad:
Click to expand...

And do you know why?

You probably think it's because the "evil Torries" want poor people to be as poor as possible but they did so because they thought it would have a negative effect on unemployment figures.

Let's say you can afford £20,000 to spend on cleaners, it may the case that due to minimum wage it means you can only afford to hire one on 12k a year whereas before you may have offered 10k to two people.

Another example where it doesn't work well is where people get paid for piece work (like strawberry pickers for example), the MW means that lazy workers still have to get paid a certain amount which isn't really fair on those that have worked hard enough to earn just over the amount.

It's very easy to assume the MW is an undeniably a good thing but it's not as black and white as that.
 
KNiVES said:
You may see it that way, but the reality is, unions need to strongarm the government in this way. How do you think we got women's rights, equal pay, minimum wage, racial desegregation and a whole host of common rights everyone takes for granted? It was the unions being complete blocks to the government.

Without the unions taking such drastic measures, governments would be completely unhindered in their ability to make working life for the common man that much harder and unfair. What the top leaders get in pay is largely irrelevant. The unions and their actions affect us all for the best, and most people are too stupid to see that.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Newsnight?
My point was that despite the Presenter putting it to him numerous times that they had deliberately scheduled it to happen during the worst possible time for Heathrow and the Olympics, he kept trying to sweep the question away to something else. Is it really that hard for them to just admit that they have chosen the date for that reason, instead of trying to pretend otherwise.

As for Unions... fine if its what the members want, but 7 out of 8 didn't vote to strike in this case, which is hardly a sound representation or real justification to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom