advertisement


Key Workers get predictable kick in the teeth.

Dogberry said:
Give the guy some credit!
Click to expand...
I was not attempting to take any credit away from Eddie Dempsey at all, just pointing out that such sense is usually cut off by interviewers with an agenda to make unions look bad.

Dempsey speaks excellently to a truth that should be wider understood. That government spending is being diverted into private hands (that then squirrel as much of it away to hide it from public scrutiny as possible) and away from public services. The truth is that we live under an economic ideology that explicitly says that spending on public services is of itself a bad thing. Our government cannot come out and say that spending on public services is a bad thing publicly, which is why they hide behind a narrative of lies about taxation, maxing out the nations credit card, putting our children in debt and there is no money. There is money, more than enough, but it is being diverted to the Caymen Islands to keep it out of public services as a matter of political choice.

I am currently reading about the Iraq war in a book by Naomi Kline in which public services in Iraq were decimated by bombs and economic policy and replaced with private enterprise. In one example a contract to install air conditioning in public buildings (schools, offices etc) was won by a company affiliated to Dick Cheney. That company then sub contracted to another company, which sub contracted….which subcontracted etc etc until finally a company put in a fan in an office in Baghdad and the objective was met. It was said to the author that this is like handing a handful of ice cubes from hand to hand in a crowded room on a hot day and claiming that the few drops left at the end were to solve a water shortage.

Eddie Dempsey is 100% correct and what he is saying needs to be heard by more people, and more widely understood, but it won’t until we get more reporters asking the questions the interviewer asked and just as important, giving people like Dempsey the chance to answer.
 
Last edited:
ks.234 said:
I was not attempting to take any credit away from Eddie Dempsey at all, just pointing out that such sense is usually cut off by interviewers with an agenda to make unions look bad.

Dempsey speaks excellently to a truth that should be wider understood. That government spending is being diverted into private hands (that then squirrel as much of it away to hide it from public scrutiny as possible) and away from public services. The truth is that we live under an economic ideology that explicitly says that spending on public services is of itself a bad thing. Our government cannot come out and say that spending on public services is a bad thing, which is why they hide behind a narrative of lies about taxation, maxing out the nations credit card, putting our children in debt and there is no money. There is money, more than enough, but it is being diverted to the Caymen Islands to keep it out of public services as a matter of political choice.

I am currently reading about the Iraq war in a book by Naomi Kline in which public services in Iraq were decimated by bombs and economic policy and replaced with private enterprise. In one example a contract to install air conditioning in public buildings (schools, offices etc) was won by a company affiliated to Dick Cheney. That company then sub contracted to another company, which sub contracted….which subcontracted etc etc until finally a company put in a fan in an office in Baghdad and the objective was met. It was said to the author that this is like handing a handful of ice cubes form hand to hand in a crowded room on a hot day and claiming that the few drops left at the end were to solve a water shortage.

Eddie Dempsey is 100% correct and what he is saying needs to be heard by more people, and more widely understood, but it won’t until we get more reporters asking the questions the interviewer asked and just as important, giving people like Dempsey the chance to answer.
Click to expand...
To expand on my point a little further, when Sunak or someone is talking about borrowing as a debt that has to be passed onto our children and grandchildren, why does no interviewer ever ask, who does government borrow from?

Likewise, when government says there is no money, why does no interviewer ever ask, why not, where has it gone? The answer, as Dempsey points out, is the Caymen Islands or Jersey, but if we don’t ask the right questions, we won’t get the right answers
 
gintonic said:
in HE the offer is minimum of 3% at or above spinal point 20 (about £26k) - and 9% for those below it. The 9% will cover most of the admin teams.
Click to expand...

Not quite so according to our HR "The 3% applies only to spinal point 20 and above, spinal point 3 to 19 vary from 9% to 3.10%"
Offer would mean Sp20 with Outer London Weighting equates to £28,864, which doesn't go far in London. It was around 25k in 2014, just popped that figure through an inflation calculator and that would be 33k if it had kept pace with inflation.
Last month after the mortgage and bills went out, there was £30 left out of my take home pay ( and that's not allowing for food) - if it hadn't been for money coming through from the sale of my late Mum's flat we would be utterly f*cked.
 
mentalp said:
Not quite so according to our HR "The 3% applies only to spinal point 20 and above, spinal point 3 to 19 vary from 9% to 3.10%"
Offer would mean Sp20 with Outer London Weighting equates to £28,864, which doesn't go far in London. It was around 25k in 2014, just popped that figure through an inflation calculator and that would be 33k if it had kept pace with inflation.
Last month after the mortgage and bills went out, there was £30 left out of my take home pay ( and that's not allowing for food) - if it hadn't been for money coming through from the sale of my late Mum's flat we would be utterly f*cked.
Click to expand...
Yes, many years ago when I worked for the teacher’s union we had a 2% pay rise to those on certain points on the spine. All the documentation said that the 2% was payable, but tucked away in an appendix it said that the 2% “may” be payable. For most people the 2% quietly disappeared.
 
So the offer for LA pay scales gives an effective raise of about 9.8% for basic teaching assistants, 7.5% for school caretakers and about 4% for support staff higher up the grades. Teachers up the pay scales are getting 5% rather than 3%.

Which is brilliant, apart from the fact that school funding is only going up by 1.9% this year. Next year is tight at best unless energy costs plummet, the year after we are royally screwed.
 
gingermrkettle said:
So the offer for LA pay scales gives an effective raise of about 9.8% for basic teaching assistants, 7.5% for school caretakers and about 4% for support staff higher up the grades. Teachers up the pay scales are getting 5% rather than 3%.

Which is brilliant, apart from the fact that school funding is only going up by 1.9% this year. Next year is tight at best unless energy costs plummet, the year after we are royally screwed.
Click to expand...
Where will LA’s get the money from?
 
zarniwoop said:
25%. 10% just takes them back to where they were a year ago - the extra 15% is to encourage those in the NHS to stay and persuade others to consider it as a career worth pursuing where they won't be worked to a standstill, taken for granted, applauded during a health crisis and then forgotten about. Even 25% isn’t enough really.
Click to expand...
I’d also like to see doctors and nurses having tuition fees waived if they commit to working 10 years in the NHS.
 
Way below inflation pay rise massively rejected by ballot.
Ballot for industrial action to follow shortly.

Bring it on!

(It's what happens when Key Workers are kicked in the teeth...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top