Neat swerve once again.

What I said was this - the hypocrisy is the likes of McClusky speaking about equality and social justice from his ivory tower i.e £120k salary, plus nice car, plus final salary pension scheme all funded by members who will never enjoy such benefits. You really need to read what is written not what you want to it to say.

As I said I have no issue with how much anyone earns and I don't apologise for what I earn nor do I begrudge my bosses - two of which earned >800k last year.

Now where are we on you proving or retracting where you claimed I said nobody should get a pay rise because I hadn't had one? You see two can play this game!!

Why can MPs who represent the whole of the electorate manage on much lower salaries and still get criticised? These union leaders often take from the poorly paid to fund their fat cat life-styles. If they have conviction and members interests at heart they should not be accepting or demanding such pay. As you say, hypocrisy of the very worst kind.

Presumably because like anyone else, such as nurses, social workers, doctors they are open to criticism as we all are in our jobs. What their salaries has to do with this I have no idea. Should those nurses be immune from criticism because they earn less than an MP?



Given Union membership is voluntary has it crossed your mind that the members are happy to pay their subs knowing the people who run the organisation are well paid?

They don't "take" anything. Union membership is voluntary so therefore so are the subs the members pay. Anyone disagreeing with the pay the leadership receives can simply leave the Union.

If they don't they must believe the benefits of membership are worth the subs regardless of what salaries the union officials are paid.

The union leaders are also elected so just like MP's said they can be replaced if required so anyone who feels they aren't getting value for money can do something about it.

Anyone who takes whatever benefits the Unions secure for them yet then moans about the salaries paid to the officials would be the hypocrite.

But why do people who preach equality feel it necessary to have large salaries? Do they work harder for "their" members because they earn £120,000 than if they earned, say, £40,000? If so, why?

I wasn't aware they preach equality as such. More fairness as in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

I don't work any harder these days despite my salary being considerably larger than it was 10 years ago but I assume I am paid it because my experience and skills are considered worth it.

Presumably union officials who earn these salaries are also considered worth the money.

All you are doing here is recycling the bankrupt argument that if you are of a left wing view you ought to work for free.

After some digging, it appears the quoted figure was from an article dated rlNovember 2011rl, so please accept my apologies. Still doesn't alter the fact that this bunch of sociopaths managed to preside over the highest level of unemployment since the last time they were in charge of the nation

Nobody worse than the union leaders for pointing out how jobs could be saved if the bosses earned less - if we take your analogy then the experience and skills of the bosses and considered worth it? I bet if you asked McClusky to justify his salary and benefits he would point out his skills and experience.

Questioning the salary of bosses when you are the highest earner with the most benefits in the organisation is a touch hypocritical would you not agree?

No one is suggesting left wingers should not earn high salaries - just that they don't spout equality and a better spread of wealth from such a lofty position.

What about those who have lost their jobs/conditions due to the intervention of the union? Have they not got a right to question the value for money the are getting from some high paid officials?

Animal Farm springs to mind

Now that did raise a post Christmas smile! Something along the lines of "We are all equal,
just some are more equal than others", eh? And what was that famous ditty......"The working class can kiss my . I've got the Foreman's job at last!"

Anyhows, some excellent points in rlMs Platell'srl column which should give the Church of England some food for thought as this year draws to a close.

...because thats what is at the source of all poverty isn't it, people who would have enough money if only they didn't spend it all on christmas presents.

So doubtless you can now set down the cut-off pay rate at which someone should stop empathising with the wider workforce and daring to even think about a fairer society.

At the same time, you can also provide the evidence – which you have singularly failed to do previously – that society as a whole is not better off in social terms when the income gap is lower.*


* To clarifylower[/i – not non-existent.

Well, when people try to be responsible – saving for Christmas – they get shafted by the likes of Farepak, which took their money while knowing it would not be able to repay. Of course, it's still ultimately their fault for daring to want more than a satsuma and a walnut at Christmas.

There is no upper limit - as humans are natural instinct is to look after ourselves and I would suggest to 99.9% of people providing sufficiently for themselves is their primary consideration. Most of those who spout empathy - and I include you - do so from a position of comfort.

No one has provided any evidence that society is better of if the income gap is smaller - and again I include you. If it were the case capitalism would have vanished and been replaced by socialist/marxist/communist system. Sadly that has proved not to work. So where is our evidence that it does - and that doesn't include searching the internet for a rouge article that supports your view point.

So, you cannot answer the question?

You're the one stating that anyone who dares to empathise with others and even mention fairness should not do so once earning a certain amount of money.

This 'argument' has previously been shown (not by me) to be crass

I know that I have mentioned [iThe Spirit Level[/i more than once on here, so either you've missed it, forgotten it or decided to ignore it.

Feel free to refute the work that Wilkinson and Pickett did – using evidence – but stop trying to pretend that such evidence does not exist.