On 13/02/2018 19:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?


You don't want a legal minimum then?
Then they could be paid less.

How about you dennis? Ever tried to bring up a family on a zero hours
contact?

Or is it one of those things you feel is good for others - but not
yourself.


Some people want zero hours contracts and many wouldn't have a job at
all without one.
They get benefits the same as unemployed people if there is no work.

Its the ones forced to be self employed that you should be concerned
about as they don't pay in so can't get some of the benefits.

The courts and the government are sorting that as uber has found out.

pamela wrote:

On 16:04 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I suggest you read the bit I was responding to. That's why I
don't just cut and paste the entire thread.

Below is your message that I replied to in its entirety. It
seems to have its own context. I replied to say health tourists
come here because their care will be free and are not drawn here
because the NHS is the best.

------------------------- START -------------------------
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Yes, there is this conceit here that the NHS is "the envy of
the world". Whereas in fact in countries I have lived in, no
one has ever heard of the NHS. Those overseas watching the 2012
Olympics must have been bemused.

So you didn't notice the part about no one abroad ever even having
heard of the NHS? Meaning those health tourists simply picked this
country at random?


Health tourists picked the NHS because for decades it never checked the
elgbility of those who used it.

I heard from friends in Asia how one trick they had been advised was to
visit to the UK whilst close to giving birth and let the NHS handle it.

I think the airlines would be a little concerned if this were a common
thing. One case I remember in the news.



Not only do you get higher standard of birthcare than in the 3rd world
but the baby is a British citizen and can bring in the rest of the
family.

Strewth. I sincerely hope this sort of loophole has been closed.

Strange how many bigots think we follow American law. Must be all
these American police programmes they watch. The "loophole" of children
born in this country automatically being British citizens was closed at
least forty years ago, possible fifty.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It surprises me but the majority of workers on zero hours contracts
like them, presumably for their flexibility.

You've been believing the Express again.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

On 15:15 13 Feb 2018, Martin wrote:

Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?

Even those with poor job security are no longer the victims of union
disruption. Often those who had the least good jobs were the most
affected by the disruption. They couldn't afford expensive
alternative transport, alternative heating or whatever the unions
were depriving them of.

I do believe there's a place for labour unions because commercial
companies can be very aggressive in their pursuit of profit and fail
to treat their workers as well as we might expect.

However, many unions accumulated significant power and then misused
it. They tested the patience of the authorities and public to the
very limit and then some more. Of course there was a pushback.

And those of us old enough will remember the strikes of the 50s and
60s. We also remember that every one knew that something needed doing,
but any suggestion of doing anything was met by that whistling through
the teeth and "You'll never get that through, Squire".

I think you are remembering a film comedy about trade unions rather than
real life.


What it took was for things to get really, really, bad. And for enough
people to say "**** *that* for a game of soldiers".


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I think you are remembering a film comedy about trade unions rather than
real life.

And there were plenty of those during that era, too. Why? Because it
was one of those things that everyone knew needed fixing, but couldn't
be. So we made fun of it because the issue struck a chord with people.
For exactly the same reason that we found Fawlty Towers funny.

Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a country that
needs to import so much manufactured goods. And has the real value of take
home pay falling. Just what a good Tory wanted.

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It surprises me but the majority of workers on zero hours contracts
like them, presumably for their flexibility.

You think? That the worker can work when he wants and not when he doesn't?
That is being self employed. Zero hours contracts more usually mean you
work when you are told to and don't when they don't need you.

Of course if working for pin money and just to get you out of the house,
might be just fine.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a
country that needs to import so much manufactured goods. And has
the real value of take home pay falling. Just what a good Tory
wanted.

British trade unions took their role of representing the labour
force too far and tried to be agents of social change. Instead of
teaming up with Trotskyists devoted to class struggle, British
unions should have taken a leaf out of the Germans' book and worked
co-operatively with owners and managers to improve industrial
efficiency for mutual benefit.

Tee-Hee. German industry actively seeked the cooperation of their unions.
All most UK ones wanted was a good fight that they won.

Rather like Bexiteers. Being 'in charge' is more important than success.


Too many British union leaders favoured militancy and actually
relished a rowdy confrontation. They were only too pleased to take
on the government.

Which it often was with various pay policies. Which only could be enforced
with large companies.

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a
country that needs to import so much manufactured goods.

Those industries abolished themselves, with the help of the unions.

Not expected you to know the real reason - lack of investment. The British
disease. Given how other countries with a similar or better standard of
living still manage to make such things.

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
Even assuming that the foreign car manufacturers who have
revitalised the British car industry that the left wing unions
destroyed in the 70s stay here,

I'd suggest you do a little reading about the UK motor industry of the 70s.
Rather than take what the Express says as gospel.

I was in Coventry at the time and shared a house with a couple of car
workers. Now tell us what your specialist knowledge is based on.
--
bert

In article , Huge
writes
On 2018-02-13, pamela wrote:
On 14:16 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
Terry Casey wrote:
Even assuming that the foreign car manufacturers who have
revitalised the British car industry that the left wing unions
destroyed in the 70s stay here,

I'd suggest you do a little reading about the UK motor industry of
the 70s. Rather than take what the Express says as gospel.

As I recall, management were often blamed for the poor running of
British car manufacturing.

And rightly so.

Along with the unions, workers and Government.

Which demonstrates that capitalism works - a poor company goes bust, and
nationalisation doesn't change anything.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
I'd suggest you do a little reading about the UK motor industry of
the 70s. Rather than take what the Express says as gospel.

As I recall, management were often blamed for the poor running of
British car manufacturing.

Depends on what level of management. At the top, they were more interested
in instant profit than investing for the future. Easy enough to to prove
by looking at how much investment in the German car industry of the time,
versus the UK.

While there must be some germ of truth in that, it seemed to me they
got blamed because there were fewer of them than assembly line workers
and their scapegoating kept an easy peace once it had been
eastablished.

The UK car industry of the 70s was making cars that were often outdated or
quirky and poorly designed and equiped. And even more to the point,
underdeveloped.
Because the unions obstructed any change to improve things.
Leaving the selling garage (in theory) to sort out any
problems, but more likely the customer. When the Japanese came along with
cars which were reliable from the off, they had a captive market just
waiting for cars the average driver wanted.

The early Japanese cars were rot boxes, worse than anything in the UK.
Add to that a prediliction for left wingers to rewrite history in their
academic papers and we end up with blameless workers.

More of this black and white nonsense?

You mean truth versus lies
However I doubt very much if management were quite so much at fault.

In a lot of cases they treated the workforce like cattle.

Which cases would those be?
--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 12/02/2018 23:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
In those decades, the trade unions would do anything to gain
advantage for their members at any cost whatosever to the rest of
the country.
Perhaps you'd define the job of a trade union? To make life best for
you?
Or perhaps the employers?

Countless strikes in monopoly public sector services designed to
cause the public maximum discomfort attest to that.
Takes two sides to cause a strike.

No it doesn't.
People can strike for any reason they like and it may have nothing to
do with their employer as was seen in previous strikes where some
unions called out members in other industries.

Wildcat strikes proliferated in the 60s/70s
The law attempts to stop this but there is still the option of
"unofficial" strikes.



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Takes two sides to cause a strike.

No it doesn't.
People can strike for any reason they like and it may have nothing to do
with their employer as was seen in previous strikes where some unions
called out members in other industries.

Right. So you'd walk out from work and not get paid on a whim then?
In the 60s you could claim benefits when on strike.
Or
does that only apply to others?

As regards one union supporting another, would you extend any such ban to
another company supporting one which was in some form of dispute?
Nonsense. Other competitors jumped in and took advantage. Do you thing
Rotes would refrain from selling cars when BL were on strike?
Black
lists and so on?


The law attempts to stop this but there is still the option of
"unofficial" strikes.

Sound to me like you want is totalitarianism. Where it suits you.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You know as well as I do that workers were intimidated by union
activists.

No I definitely don't. Perhaps you are the sort who could be intimidated
easily. By one of a few. Against many.

As I have said I shared a house in Coventry with a couple of car
workers.
It's one of those things blown up out of all proportion by the right wing
meja, to give the likes of you a nice warm feeling.

And the basis of your expert knowledge is?
--
bert

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
pamela wrote:

On 16:04 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I suggest you read the bit I was responding to. That's why I
don't just cut and paste the entire thread.

Below is your message that I replied to in its entirety. It
seems to have its own context. I replied to say health tourists
come here because their care will be free and are not drawn here
because the NHS is the best.

------------------------- START -------------------------
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

Yes, there is this conceit here that the NHS is "the envy of
the world". Whereas in fact in countries I have lived in, no
one has ever heard of the NHS. Those overseas watching the 2012
Olympics must have been bemused.

So you didn't notice the part about no one abroad ever even having
heard of the NHS? Meaning those health tourists simply picked this
country at random?


Health tourists picked the NHS because for decades it never checked the
elgbility of those who used it.

I heard from friends in Asia how one trick they had been advised was to
visit to the UK whilst close to giving birth and let the NHS handle it.

I think the airlines would be a little concerned if this were a common
thing. One case I remember in the news.


Would that be the one which cost the NHS £500,000

Not only do you get higher standard of birthcare than in the 3rd world
but the baby is a British citizen and can bring in the rest of the
family.

Strewth. I sincerely hope this sort of loophole has been closed.

Strange how many bigots think we follow American law. Must be all
these American police programmes they watch. The "loophole" of children
born in this country automatically being British citizens was closed at
least forty years ago, possible fifty.



--
bert

In article , Martin
writes
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:28 +0000, (Roger Hayter) wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, there is this conceit here that the NHS is "the envy of the
world". Whereas in fact in countries I have lived in, no one has ever
heard of the NHS. Those overseas watching the 2012 Olympics must have
been bemused.

Ah - right. So those stories in the Mail etc about health tourists are
pure fantasy?

Largely. Most cases involve people who are already illegally here, so
don't have much of choice.

The Daily Mail is mostly fantasy,
So give us some examples of their fantasies, say from today's not months
ago.
but not quite up to Daily Express which is
all fantasy. They probably think the Mirror Group take over is just fake news
propagated by communists.

--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
Yes - I don't think it was coincidence that the ASLEF,
miners' and power workers' disputes always targetted their
ultimate customers - the general public - during the coldest
months of the year.

Err, if you are going to have a dispute, best to have it when the effects
are minimal? Really?

Fine but spare us the **** about being in the public's best interest.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 14:14 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
Terry Casey wrote:
Yes - I don't think it was coincidence that the ASLEF,
miners' and power workers' disputes always targetted their
ultimate customers - the general public - during the coldest
months of the year.

Err, if you are going to have a dispute, best to have it when the
effects are minimal? Really?


The poor public were always suffering the maximum discomfort the self-
centred unions could arrrange.

That's why the long-suffering public voted to end this nonsense and got
Thatcher in. Now the UK is practically strike-free and citizens can
enjoy their daily life without being the targets of unions.
Except for those dependent on Southern Rail. Again strike supposedly in
the interests of public safety. Nothing of the sort.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Even those with poor job security are no longer the victims of union
disruption.

I take it you have never worked for a living?

Well maybe she wasn't a tax avoiding pseudo freelancer at the BBC.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a
country that needs to import so much manufactured goods.

Those industries abolished themselves, with the help of the unions.

Not expected you to know the real reason - lack of investment. The British
disease.
The term sick man of Europe did not refer to lack of investment.
(With apologies for non-PC non-gender neutral terminology but I am
quoting from the 70s)
Given how other countries with a similar or better standard of
living still manage to make such things.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a
country that needs to import so much manufactured goods. And has
the real value of take home pay falling. Just what a good Tory
wanted.

British trade unions took their role of representing the labour
force too far and tried to be agents of social change. Instead of
teaming up with Trotskyists devoted to class struggle, British
unions should have taken a leaf out of the Germans' book and worked
co-operatively with owners and managers to improve industrial
efficiency for mutual benefit.

Tee-Hee. German industry actively seeked the cooperation of their unions.
All most UK ones wanted was a good fight that they won.

Which is what has been said - all the unions wanted was a fight.
Rather like Bexiteers. Being 'in charge' is more important than success.


Too many British union leaders favoured militancy and actually
relished a rowdy confrontation. They were only too pleased to take
on the government.

Which it often was with various pay policies. Which only could be enforced
with large companies.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?


You don't want a legal minimum then?
Then they could be paid less.

How about you dennis? Ever tried to bring up a family on a zero hours
contact?

Have you?
Or is it one of those things you feel is good for others - but not
yourself.


--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 19:11 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?


You don't want a legal minimum then?
Then they could be paid less.

How about you dennis? Ever tried to bring up a family on a zero hours
contact?

Or is it one of those things you feel is good for others - but not
yourself.

It surprises me but the majority of workers on zero hours contracts
like them, presumably for their flexibility.

I think they're horrible and would never want to work under such an
arrangement but many find they're happy with it.

It's not really suitable for a main wage earner but it is good for a
supplementary income.

https://www.cipd.co.uk/about/media/p...215-zero-hours
Friend of mine is a supply teacher. He has a zero hour contract with the
local authority. Then any school which finds they need him at 08:30 can
ring him and all the legals are in place.
--
bert

In article , "dennis@home"
writes
On 13/02/2018 19:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?


You don't want a legal minimum then?
Then they could be paid less.
How about you dennis? Ever tried to bring up a family on a zero
hours
contact?
Or is it one of those things you feel is good for others - but not
yourself.


Some people want zero hours contracts and many wouldn't have a job at
all without one.
They get benefits the same as unemployed people if there is no work.

Its the ones forced to be self employed that you should be concerned
about as they don't pay in so can't get some of the benefits.

The courts and the government are sorting that as uber has found out.



The courts went some way last year when they determined that holiday pay
should include average overtime worked not just contracted hours.
Similarly they could determine that other benefits e.g. maternity pay
should be based on actual rather than contractual hours.
--
bert

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:

I remember the 1970's when people were bullied into joining trades
unions.

I feel very sorry for all the wimps on here who were bullied into joining
a trade union. But then, of course, it never applied to them, as that
would mean admitting they were inadequates. Only ever to others - as
reported by the Mail.

I suppose sources of info which didn't support Hitler might point out
that a lot more people have been bullied into *not* joining trade
unions.


Would that include the source of info which campaigned for the vote for
women? There was a lot of support for Hitler in the UK in the early 30s.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Well, you could cited the other statistics in that article - many earn
£56k, and the average is £90k.

Given a GP might need to live reasonably close to their work, is 90k that
excessive for a job which needs a lot of expensive training? About double
that of a tube train driver?

Which show how overpaid tube train drivers are. Could/should be replaced
with robots. Much more reliable, don't go on strike and don't throw
sickies.
I've a feeling many of the old farts on here have no idea the percentage
of a salary that goes on housing these days, compared to when they were a
younger person.

Corbyn economics here. Just pay ourselves loadsamoney and all the
problems will go away.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 14:00 13 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Well, you could cited the other statistics in that article - many
earn £56k, and the average is £90k.

Given a GP might need to live reasonably close to their work, is
90k that excessive for a job which needs a lot of expensive
training? About double that of a tube train driver?

I've a feeling many of the old farts on here have no idea the
percentage of a salary that goes on housing these days, compared
to when they were a younger person.


A self-employed partner in a GP practice (which is what we might
normally mean when we say GP) earns an average of £106,000. Salaried
GPs will get less.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-britis...st-paid-world/

For some GPs to earn a lot more than that means many earn a lot less.
I suppose these might be part time GPs.
Time we got rid of GP practices. They are a failing business model
failing to provide the service required and thus throwing the load onto
A&E departments in hospital trusts for which they are not paid.
Many new GPs do not wish to buy into a practice but would rather have
the flexibility of being employees. So let the NHS Trusts set up
practices and employ GPs to provide primary care offering them better
career paths with training and development opportunities.
Right. That's that sorted :-)
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 12:20 13 Feb 2018, Max Demian wrote:

On 12/02/2018 20:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
Andrew wrote:

On 11/02/2018 23:20, Max Demian wrote:
The pension terms (both contributions and
benefits) have been altered many times over the years,

Nope.

The NHS superannuation scheme has a 1/80th accrual rate
and a retirement age of 60 and a tax-free lump sum of
3x first years pension. All this for a 6% employee
contribution, and GPs, despite being 'self-employed' are
full members of this scheme. Eat your heart out ARW if
you have to make your own provision.

Had, you mean, not has. And you fail to mention the employer's
contribution which was quite large. And, interestingly, GPs have
to pay the employer's contribution out of their gross
remuneration, as self-employed. And even all that is subject to
a maximum pension pot of 1.2M which is equivalent to a relatively
moderate final salary.

Relative to what? Should yield at least 35K (indexed), even if all
put in an annuity.

An pension of £35K indexed sounds mighty comfy to me. Pehaps he's
saying such a pension is a pittance compared to the considerable
amounts they were earning. It can't be said that their union, the
BMA, didn't skillfully agree a corker of a pay deal some years ago
making our GPs rich beyond their wildest hopes. Unfortunately this
has become their expectation.
Or alternatively and extremely unskilled negotiation by the last Labour
government.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
I was in Coventry at the time and shared a house with a couple of car
workers. Now tell us what your specialist knowledge is based on.

Car workers with an in depth knowledge of their industry?
How could they? Always on strike and being intimidated by activists?

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
Yes - I don't think it was coincidence that the ASLEF,
miners' and power workers' disputes always targetted their
ultimate customers - the general public - during the coldest
months of the year.

Err, if you are going to have a dispute, best to have it when the effects
are minimal? Really?

Fine but spare us the **** about being in the public's best interest.

Err, what do you actually think the job of a union is, bert? To look after
the interests of those who actually pay for it, or you?

--
*Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/02/2018 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Quite. And having effectively curtailed unions by abolishing the
industries they were once strong in, we have ended up with a
country that needs to import so much manufactured goods.

Those industries abolished themselves, with the help of the unions.

Not expected you to know the real reason - lack of investment. The British
disease. Given how other countries with a similar or better standard of
living still manage to make such things.


Its hardly surprising people didn't invest in the car industry..
if they built a new paint shop that only needed half the men to do the
job the unions still insisted on having the original number and wanted
more pay for doing an easier job.

Roland Perry posted
In message , at 20:43:32 on
Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter remarked:
I think the OECD figures inadequately account for skill levels in the
two sectors. At best they are speculative, and I don't think OECD is a
pro-nationalisation organisation.

The OECD is not political at all. It merely aggregates statistics
supplied by member states. And very professionally too.

See, for example, this OECD press release. Not political at all ...

"Governments should make better use of energy taxation to address
climate change"
14/02/2018 - Taxes are effective at cutting harmful emissions from
energy use, but governments could make better use of them. Greater
reliance on energy taxation is needed to strengthen efforts to tackle
the principal source of both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution,
according to a new OECD report.
New data shows that energy taxes remain poorly aligned with the negative
side effects of energy use. Taxes provide only limited incentives to
reduce energy use, improve energy efficiency and drive a shift towards
less harmful forms of energy. Emissions trading systems, which are not
discussed in this publication, but are included in the OECDs
Effective Carbon Rates, are having little impact on this broad picture.
€œComparing taxes between 2012 and 2015 yields a disconcerting result,€�
said OECD Secretary-General Angel GurrÃ*a. €œEfforts have been made, or
are underway, in several jurisdictions to apply the €˜polluter-pays
principle, but on the whole progress towards the more effective use of
taxes to cut harmful emissions is slow and piecemeal. Governments should
do more and better.€�
Meaningful tax rate increases have largely been limited to the road
sector. Fuel tax reforms in some large low-to-middle income economies
have increased the share of emissions taxed above climate costs from 46%
in 2012 to 50% in 2015. Encouragingly, some countries are removing lower
tax rates on diesel compared to gasoline. However, fuel tax rates remain
well below the levels needed to cover non-climate external costs in
nearly all countries.
€œThe damage to climate and air quality resulting from fossil fuel
combustion can be contained, but the longer action is delayed the more
difficult and expensive it becomes to tackle this challenge,€� Mr
Gurria said. €œAligning energy prices with the costs of climate change
and air pollution is a core element of cost-effective policy, and vast
improvements are urgently needed. While in some cases compensation for
higher energy costs faced by households or firms may be deemed
necessary, especially to those more vulnerable, lower tax rates or
exemptions are not the way to provide it €“ targeted transfers should
be favoured.€�

http://www.oecd.org/tax/governments-...of-energy-taxa
tion-to-address-climate-change.htm

--
Jack

On 15/02/2018 00:48, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:09:33 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/02/18 09:53, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I mean whar is the point of breaking out items when they represent less
tnam 30% of the total, at all?

Because for a couple of years, councils are allowed to increase adult
social care by more than their other services, but if they do they're
required to breakdown the increases separately on the bill.

Oh. So it's a case of Bureaucratic Bull**** Baffles Brains, is it?

Like the time I got a ticket for 'parking in a prescribed parking place'

I got a ticket for parking in a resident bay to visit a resident.
Apparently it was the wrong resident bay (although they were all marked
"residents").

Obviously you should have looked for a bay marked "visitors", or asked
your host which was his place. Did the proper resident complain?

--
Max Demian

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Its hardly surprising people didn't invest in the car industry..
if they built a new paint shop that only needed half the men to do the
job the unions still insisted on having the original number and wanted
more pay for doing an easier job.

Very true. Goes totally against the Tory mantra of sacking as many workers
as possible. After all, they are born to be in charge?

A better paint plant should result in higher quality and lower costs.
Increasing demand. Allowing those now spare to be re-deployed. As happens
in any decent industry who care about their workforce.

But doesn't win the footie game you seem to think such things are.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Handsome Jack wrote:

Roland Perry posted
In message , at 20:43:32 on
Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter remarked:
I think the OECD figures inadequately account for skill levels in the
two sectors. At best they are speculative, and I don't think OECD is a
pro-nationalisation organisation.

The OECD is not political at all. It merely aggregates statistics
supplied by member states. And very professionally too.

See, for example, this OECD press release. Not political at all ...

(snip global warming propoganda for brevity)


People in the UK tend to use the description "not political" to mean
"not the subject of a disagreement between the major Parliamentary
political parties". Hence the pleas for parties to work together for
objectives which are regarded as self-evidently desirable. The fact
that the objectives are desirable is clearly a highly political
conclusion, but since all the media agree on them many people fail to
see this. This frustrates those of us who disagree with said
objectives, but also demonstrates why we should not necessarily believe
OECD statistics. Just to get back on topic.



--

Roger Hayter

On 12/02/2018 20:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
And you fail to mention the employer's
contribution which was quite large. And, interestingly, GPs have to pay
the employer's contribution out of their gross remuneration, as
self-employed. And even all that is subject to a maximum pension pot of
1.2M which is equivalent to a relatively moderate final salary.


And who is the 'employer' ??. The rest of us. Taxpayers.

And the pension lifetime allowance unfairly penalises private
pensions compared to public servants where a nominal 20x factor
is used to arrive at a notional value, when it should be 40x
based on current 10-year gilt yields.

A head teacher on £100K (and there are a *lot* of them) will
get a pension of £50K and a tax-free lump sum of £150K. Or under
the 2011 changes they can forgo a small amount of pension and
push that lump sum up by another £100K.

To buy an RPI pension that pays £50K from age 60 you would need a fund
of over £2 million, but because a factor of only 20 is applied, the
head teacher avoids the LifeTime tax charge of ** 55% **. However,
anyone with a private pension fund of £2 million would have the
excess over and above £1 million (your figures are out of date!),
taxed at 55%, so in fact someone in the private sector wishing
to have a pension of £50K would need a fund of getting on for
£3 million. Remember, this is for one single head teacher, and there
are about 6,000 of them.

On 12/02/2018 23:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
This was a payment for providing a service.

He wasn't 'providing' a service, he was doing what all
money-grubbers do, he looked at all the juicy 'tick-box'
enhancements he could make (Offer dietary advice, kerching,
box ticked, rinse and repeat hundreds or thousands of times)
and that is how he artificially boosted his 'self employed'
income. Remember, this directly affects his NHS pension.

On 13/02/2018 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
a job which needs a lot of expensive training?

PAid for by the taxpayer, of course.

On 14/02/2018 22:35, bert wrote:
Which show how overpaid tube train drivers are. Could/should be replaced
with robots.

The Victoria line was designed to run driverless right from the start.
Naturally the unions prevented this from happening.

On 13/02/2018 13:15, pamela wrote:
On 09:31 13 Feb 2018, charles wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 20:14 12 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Andrew wrote:

On 11/02/2018 23:20, Max Demian wrote:
The pension terms (both contributions and benefits) have
been altered many times over the years,

Nope.

The NHS superannuation scheme has a 1/80th accrual rate and a
retirement age of 60 and a tax-free lump sum of 3x first years
pension. All this for a 6% employee contribution, and GPs,
despite being 'self-employed' are full members of this scheme.
Eat your heart out ARW if you have to make your own provision.

Had, you mean, not has. And you fail to mention the
employer's contribution which was quite large. And,
interestingly, GPs have to pay the employer's contribution out
of their gross remuneration, as self-employed. And even all
that is subject to a maximum pension pot of 1.2M which is
equivalent to a relatively moderate final salary.

It's hard for heart to feel sorry for GP's making pension
contributions when they were and may still be the best paid GPs
in the industrialised world. One received £700K last year.

out of which he paid for his premises, his practice nurses,
receptionists, etc.


It was his personal income (salary and benefits).


Assessing people for 'whiplash' injuries is a nice little earner.

My own GP, who retired about 2 years ago seems to be running a
consultancy that does this from his house. I regularly get asked
by strangers where 'xxxxx chambers' is. It was only when one
person showed me the letter he had from a claims company that
I noticed the actual house name, so then I knew who it was.