Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask what you would cut if you were David Cameron?

323 replies

Seeingthebeautyineveryminute · 10/05/2015 19:12

Can't for the life of me see how £12 billion savings are going to be made. I fear it will be cuts to already diminished support and services (as opposed to increased taxation). If you were David Cameron what would you do?

OP posts:
PeachyPants · 10/05/2015 22:09

DamnBamboo that comment was in response to your incredulity that someone may struggle to work because of difficulty in caring for sick children. That poster wasn't getting any salary.

JassyRadlett · 10/05/2015 22:11

It's neither hear nor there what the private sector offer though is it. The taxpayer isn't paying for it.

It depends on the quality of people you want working in the public sector. Most people I know who hire in the public sector have said they are having big difficulties recruiting and retaining talent in recent years, I haven't heard similar in my field from private sector colleagues.

Public and privste sector aren't always analogous, but very often there are transferable skills and in recent years the public sector benefits have become less attractive relative to the overall private sector offer.

goshhhhhh · 10/05/2015 22:11

're no one in public sector gets paid more than pm.....why should public sector be a vocation. They manage multi millions £ organisations & if you are not competitive with private sector you will not get top people. It is v easy to lose your job nowadays & it is one of the few jobs where it is easy to be prosecuted for a bad decision - even that of a member of your team. It is also not comparable because a pm's earnings is largely based on future earnings....a kind of golden doorway to millions.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:12

DamnBamboo that comment was in response to your incredulity that someone may struggle to work because of difficulty in caring for sick children

Everyone is entitled to unpaid leave to care for sick children. Everyone!

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 10/05/2015 22:13

I did go back at 24 weeks in a rolling year because I wasn't going to be able to afford the rent if I didn't. I think everybody involved would agree that I was in no way ready to have gone back and one or two things may not have happened had I waited until I was well. I would be careful about assuming that just because someone has gone back at that point they are taking the piss.

JassyRadlett · 10/05/2015 22:14

Everyone is entitled to unpaid leave to care for sick children. Everyone!

Yep. Entitlement and what actually happens in practice can be quite different - retribution for taking up entitlements can be quite subtle but very damaging.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:14

No, she wasn't working and claiming tax credits instead, just in case her kids might get sick!
There's something wrong there!
I have four kids! Imagine if I did that.

Tonberry · 10/05/2015 22:15

There are conditions attached to public sector sick pay, it's not simply a case of "I've got a hurty foot, I'll take six months off and get paid for it". After a certain amount of absence you trigger concern procedures, where I worked this was triggered after five days of sickness either consecutively or over the course of a rolling twelve month period. If your absence is short term, e.g., five days off then back to work, the process would involve a formal discussion of concern that will be held on file, any further absences may then trigger disciplinary procedures. If your an sense is more long term then the process involves a manager ringing you every few days to ask how it's going and when you will be back. Home visits are made to discuss this in more detail. After three months you have a medical (either over the phone or face to face depending on the circumstances) and your GP is contacted to provide a report on your health. This information goes to a decision maker who decodes whether to continue paying sick pay, whether to cut the sick pay to 50%, whether to stop sick pay and begin unpaid leave, whether to order a return to work (and disciplinary procedures if you do not), or whether to terminate your employment. The decision maker is not medically trained.

Would also like to point out that some, not all but some, public departments are on the bones of their arse in terms of funding, staffing, and resources so sweeping cuts to them would do more harm than good.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:16

Entitlement and what actually happens in practice can be quite different - retribution for taking up entitlements can be quite subtle but very damaging

But that's true for any aspect of employement law isn't it. There will always be shit employers, that's true. It's not reasonable to somehow suggest that taxpayer should fit a bill for your choice because you might have an unreasonable employer who makes your life difficult in case you need to take time off in case your kids are sick.

PeachyPants · 10/05/2015 22:16

Everyone is entitled to a short period of leave maybe half a day or a day to arrange alternative childcare, if you don't have local support that isn't practical, child minders and nurseries won't look after sick children. My friend got told she go to an agency that provides babysitters who'll step in when you're child is sick (at a high price) but I don't think it's reasonable to dump a poorly toddler with a complete stranger.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:17

I don't care what conditions are attached to public sector sick pay. Under any circumstances, six month full pay is far far too much.
From what it sounds like, it's more generous sometimes too.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:18

If an employee has completed one year's service with an employer, they are entitled to 18 weeks unpaid parental leave for each child born or adopted. The leave can start once the child is born or placed for adoption, or as soon as the employee has completed a year's service, whichever is later

LividofLondinium · 10/05/2015 22:19

I would not touch the "man in the street" until I'd done all I could to get money from the people who can well afford it. So, I'd...

Close the tax loopholes allowing the likes of Amazon et al to avoid paying what they should. I don't give a shit that they threaten to leave the UK, call their bluff.

No 2nd home expenses for MPs. Either they get no accomodation allowances when they come to Westminster, or they all share a halls of residence/hostel type building. Get rid of their subsidised bar too.

I'm gobsmacked by the landlord tax loophole too that someone mentioned. I'd stop that.

In other words, cut from the top, not screw the people at the bottom. And I say that as someone not in receipt of benefits.

PeachyPants · 10/05/2015 22:20

But that unpaid parental leave has to be agreed with the employer and booked months in advance at a mutually convenient time you can't just take it because your child has woken up with chicken pox.

Tonberry · 10/05/2015 22:20

I suspectand I hope I am wrongthat food banks have become popular as people realise they can get food for free

Shock

They've become "popular" because, thanks to the punitive nature of some of the cuts, people are struggling to feed their families. 900,000 used food banks in the last year. I doubt they were there for the thrill of free beans.

JassyRadlett · 10/05/2015 22:22

There will always be shit employers, that's true. It's not reasonable to somehow suggest that taxpayer should fit a bill for your choice because you might have an unreasonable employer who makes your life difficult in case you need to take time off in case your kids are sick.

Taxpayers foot the bill for all sorts of unreasonable employer behaviour, including poverty wages and tax avoidance.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:23

It really doesn't peachy!

If you have no childcare or are supporting someone with an illness, you can take it.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:24

Taxpayers foot the bill for all sorts of unreasonable employer behaviour, including poverty wages and tax avoidance

Not really a like for like comparison now is it.

It is ridiculous not to work in case your kids get sick, and in case you have an unreasonable employer. In whose world is this o.k?

Feminine · 10/05/2015 22:28

You are not given time off for sick children in any job l know of.
Where is the mythical place l can leave them.
I have nobody nearby that can. I live in a rural village minus a car...
I did apply for a very low level job here (village) l inquired what would happen if one of the kids were sick.
I was told l'd have to find cover.
This was a school ffs

PeachyPants · 10/05/2015 22:28

Either you're misinformed DamnBamboo or several NHS trusts and big corporations' HR departments are lying to their employees about the legal position of parental leave. This is one issue that I'd be very happy to be proved wrong on though so if any MNers with employment law or HR knowledge can clarify that you've got it right I'd be made up.

expatinscotland · 10/05/2015 22:29

All subsidised booze in Parliament, they don't need a fucking bar much less a taxpayer-subsidised one. The House of Lords getting paid anything over £1000/month - they can claim tax credits. Any housing allowance over what an MOD employee of the highest rank is paid. HS2. Trident.

Basically nothing which will happen.

Tonberry · 10/05/2015 22:29

Public sector workers are often paid far less than the equivalent private sector workers. They usually get no bonuses, no perks, and are constantly scrutinised - we used to have to justify to a manager if we spent longer than four minutes on a toilet break. If we wanted pens and paper we had to buy them ourselves, someone once went to Barclays and was given a free pen, they decided to be cheeky and ask for a box of them for work so we spent months using Barclays pens. If you wanted your desk cleaned you had to bring in your own flash wipes.

Agree with PP that it shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:30

I could be peachy but it's not something that any employer I've ever had, has made an issue of.

If you have a sick child and nowhere else to put them, you simply can't show up to work. If you can prove your child is sick (happened to a colleague of mine) absence in this instance is not grounds for dismissal. I do hope someone comes along to clarify.

Feminine · 10/05/2015 22:32

My daughter needs special management when she has a fever.
As she gets older, the problem will probably get better, and l will feel more comfortable/confident leaving her.
I don't sit on my arse all day.
I volunteer.
My husband works, so our tax credits are not sky high anyway.
I am aware that the system is changing, my youngest will be older then.

DamnBamboo · 10/05/2015 22:35

Look fem your choices are your choices! You don't need to justify your position to anyone. Just don't expect everyone to agree wit you.
You currently get tax credits through not working, I have no beef with this.
However, unless your daughter is sick regularly, then not holding down a job for this reason alone seems strange!