What, if anything, would public sector mass walk-outs acheive?

Well yes, precisely. In my particular sector it is possible to work for a private company, often for a lot more money, but to do so is to leave all professional ethics at the door. That is something I am not prepared to do, and neither are my colleagues.

it's not just about how workers are treated though is it? it's about and ideology.

i believe that everybody deserves a decent education, healthcare and other services regardless of how wealthy they are.

i provide one of those services/opportunities and i provide it equally to everybody regarless of ability to pay. if i went to the private sector then i would be providing it for wealthy people who arguably need what i provide less while poorer people would go without. that's not why i went into this field of work.

and i'm sorry if some people think that we 'can't afford' to have principles or ethics anymore... i personally think that a society should be judged on how we treat our weakest members.

But to emphasise once again, this is not the fault of the vast majority of public sector staff. We have to work within the rules we have. We all know the rules are total shite, which is why so many of us are utterly utterly peed off. Especially when joe public doesn't care that so many public sector staff are having pay cuts and losing their jobs in the shadow of such blatant inefficiencies.

Oh yes, I forgot about the end of financial year Big Spend. SHocking waste of money.

I am resigned to it being beyond the IQ of most public sector senior managers to sort out. They don't want to address obvious things like this because it is more complicated than slashing budgets and freezing posts. Most senior managers have such a poor grasp of the financial side of things - hence the stupid end of year spending sprees etc. And it would require sector wide cooperation - ha ha.

If some bright spark sorted out that mess, there'd be a tidy saving.

It's such a ham-fisted approach to just say, right, what services will we cut.

No sorry, strike that. It does not cost loads more in staff time because we end up picking up the pieces for free in our unpaid overtime.

I totally agree pointylug. These companies see a public sector body and think money bags - I reckon they add on a good margin. One of the beauties of working in a specialist team is that procurement haven't got around to interfering, so we get to choose our own suppliers for stuff we need that's out of the ordinary. As ever though there's a flip side. We all know that cheapest is not always best, quite the opposite, yet we come under huge pressure to choose the cheapest tender for goods/services even though we know they will deliver crap. A total false economy that ends up costing loads more in staff time supervising to the nth degree and rectifying mistakes.

The public sector has it wrong on so many levels that are totally out of the control of most of the staff.

It does really annoy me, gaelic. The private sector loves a good public sector contract. Easy money.

The fact of the matter remains, I think we'd all be more accepting of this 'situation' but for the simple fact the less well off are paying for a debacle created by the wealthy- who have barely suffered at all.

I would be far more willing to accept some of these potentially disastrous cuts if:
a) the banks were forced to ditch the bonuses (another record year!)
b) tax avoiders were chased and caught, loopholes shut.
c) Nokia paid its tax bill.

Bugger 'all in this together'. We're not all idiots.

As for 'wanting to fly business class but having to fly economy'- yes, but what about 'dying of cancer on a waiting list versus getting timely and effective treatment'?

I wonder how many of the "preferred suppliers" are Tory party donors or were NL party donors

The justification we are given is that the opposite is true. That the organisation can, in theory, be more easily fleeced access preferential rates if we all order from the same companies.

STop teh ridiculous practice of councils restricting themselves to certain companies when it comes to purchasing equipment.

That would save a fortune.

As it is, councils spend silly money on computers, furniture, stationery, books because they cannot look about for the cheapest price.

I think the Unions need to protect their members terms and conditions and to fight the the Tory cuts.

Tax the rich not screw the poor

I think the unions need to realise that the current situation where the Government is borrowing so much money to finance services is unsustainable and needs to addressed. This requires a contraction in the size and cost of the public sector.

gaelicsheep, I think although I may be wrong that NG2 is a Tory which probably colours his views about the public sector and what the governments priorities should be.

My apologies if I am wrong.

So NiceGuy, are you saying that it's OK to exploit our public sector workers into an early gravem because we can't afford to treat them better? That doesn't really address the argument that nowanewme put very succinctly. At the moment the Govt and the public want to have their cake and eat it. We've seen on this thread that nobody cares that even the "economy class" services we have now are at the expense of the mental and physical health of those providing them. As long as the service is delivered, to hell with the wellbeing of the one dedicated member of staff who's spending each and every day running to stay still.

NG2, I earn between £40K and £50k a year depending on commision levels, my partner earns £44k+.

I would happily pay an extra 5-8% in tax if it stopped the butchery of our social services. Most decent people would feel the same (provided they can afford it).

I would stress that i have no mortgage as it is paid off.

Dave and Gideon dosent realise that we are not all a lot of tax avoiding scum like them and their rich cronies.

Oh Newwave....how do you work that one out then?

Trident is expected to cost £15-£20billion to build. This is the total price and not the annual cost but lets suspend reality for one moment, just for you.

Last year, banking bonuses were I think about £7billion in total. Lets for a moment assume you introduce a 100% tax and noone emigrates to Switzerland as a result...

Well so far, neither of them really make a dent in the annual deficit of £160-£170billion.

So you'd be dependent upon your new taxes (upon the rich naturally in your world) to make up the other £150billion.

Now given the entire income tax take in 2010 was around £140billion, i think your figures don't really add up. There simply just are not enough rich people around.

I've always found it highly ironic (not to mention spittingly awful) that our dear Chancellor of the Exchequer is a tax avoider himself.

One rule for them......

NG2, we can well afford our public services,what we cant afford is Trident and tax avoiders (Like Gideon with his trust fund and Nokia)

Tax bankers bonuses to the hilt, bring in a Tobin tax.

We can afford it if but it would mean the Tories hitting their mates tax dodges so that wont happen

NG2, we can well afford our public services,what we cant afford is Trident and tax avoiders (Like Gideon with his trust fund and Nokia)

Tax bankers bonuses to the hilt, bring in a Tobin tax.

We can afford it if but it would mean the Tories hitting their mates tax dodges so that wont happen

The difficulty is, any and every cut proposed is opposed.

No one ever says, ah yes, that probably is a luxury in these times.

Any debate is stiffled, as much by the left as the right.

Niceguy2 but those are the decisions that need to be made. Like scaryteacher says, we need an adult discussion on. What services we can and cant afford. Real choices need to be made about what is important and what we have to accept can no longer be done. The situation, as is, is that we are still trying to do everything and that everything is getting done badly!

GReedychops. What di you mean 'back in power' They never been out of power. What's the news story here?