bang right! the staff are getting short changed too after VLS staff are being asked to cover the job's of the people who've left with no plans to replace them which is heaping more pressure and stress on the staff, and the uni is now looking into setting up a redundancy commitee for the first time ever after stating that it has always had a no redundancy policy, so to me he ( the VC ) while saving £35 million is not exactly looking after his staff is he?

then after all this the staff's pensions (which will be a fraction of his pension) are getting attacked after them paying into it for years and years. is this fair? i personally don't think so.

Unfortunately fair isn't always one of the decision criteria. I really feel for the people who are under threat of having their pensions eroded, regardless of their current standing vis-a-vis the private sector on pensions and other terms. I am fortunate enough to be on a final salary pension scheme in the private sector at the moment, and whilst I fully expect this to close in the next couple of years (it's been closed to new entrants for 8 years or so), I don't expect the company to bankrupt itself, therefore costing me my current income as well as any future pension, by trying to maintain this current pension provision at the levels I currently have.

Sometimes it's about getting the best possible outcome for everyone not just yourself, regardless of how difficult this may be to accept.

That is fine and right, but often the temporary downturn like we see now, is used as a way of bringing long term commitments down. Then in 5 or 10 years time, we see companies making big profits and paying big dividends.

Pensions are a long term investment, the only reason a company wouldnt be able to pay them as promised is because they are either a) poorly run and negotiated contracts they couldnt honour and capitalism demands they suffer or b) they are having a temporary blip which leavees them unable to meet their obligations.

If the answer is A) then they should be taken for everything they can, It isnt up to the people they owe money to, to prop up a failing poorly run business. If it is B) then the problem is temporary and so should be the solution.

On the subject of top peoples high pay. It has indeed got way out of control as no one needs these huge incomes and they do cause so much upset. Much of the flak is going in the direction of the bankers and while some of this is valid much is not valid.

Yes there were/are villains in banking but they are in the minority and to lump all bankers is plain wrong. So before we throw out the baby with the bathwater we should consider the following:

The Financial Services sector (FS) made a total tax contribution of 53.4 Billion GBP in 2010 equal to 11.2% of total government tax receipts ie; the largest sector. In 2007 this was 13.9% and we are already missing the drop in tax receipts.

Thye FS sector employs 1 million workers (3.5%) of the total workforce generating 24.5 Billion in total employment tax. It has lost 91,00 workers from 2009-2010.

The average salary was 71,236 contributing 40,451 in tax. The banks are thebiggest tax payers in the FS sector & largest employer and largest payer of employment tax

The new 50% income tax will increase the FS sectors tax contribution even further.

Moving to the pay of CEO's of public companies. Well putting it bluntly unless you are a shareholder (owner) it has nothing to do with you. The shareholders have the opportunity to have their say regarding pay and how they attract the best top people but it has nothing to do with the rest of us.

Where we should be some influence is on the pay awarded to the top executives of the state funded sector. eg BBC & quangos etc.

Only the private sector creates wealth and we need the private sector to produce the profits to pay the taxes needed by govenment to run the country including paying for the public sector. So yes we much get rid of the cowboys but we must not put this important sector at a disadavantage to the rest of the world.

Smokey, the scenario most applicable in my case is A, however I completely fail to see what "taking them for all I can" will do to support my longer term prospects with this company, who happen to be one of the top 3 global companies in every market sector they operate in.

Where is the benefit in taking any organisation for all I can in the longer term? There is a finite amount of money to go around, the choice people face is how much they want/need and where it will come from. Financially crippling the company in my case (or the country in the case of the public sector workers) is not a long term solution.

Largely agree. It is the pay of a few of the top level executives that raises most hackles. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that all bankers are deserving of this criticism.



Quite so. However, banks do cross, or blur, that line between public and private at times. I think recent events suggest that some regulation of their conduct is not inappropriate.

Ill remember that I have no stake in the running of public companies next time one asks for a government subsidy, a tax break, or a bailout. The next time a high-tech company says we need to subsidies the roll-out of superfast broadband we can just say, why? You are a public company we have no say in what you do! Next time the CBI propose tax cuts or cuts to employment legislation we can comfortably ignore what he is saying, we have no stake in either their success or failure.

The next time Vodafone wants to avoid £8b in tax, its not our problem, no new enterprise zones, no trade missions to inhumane middle east countries to lobby for arms companies.

Yes but the difference is that in the election if people don't vote, they will still have a representative. They may not have their voice heard but, as long as voting is not compulsory that is a matter for them.

It is a different thing altogether to have a business or the whole country brought to a halt by a vote in favour of doing so of a small percentage of the voting population which is an even smaller percentage of the actual workforce.

By that logic it would be impossible to have a strike without having a national referendum on it.

It depends on whether or not the problem is long term or not. If it is a long term problem then your long term prospects aren’t particularly bright anyway, if it is a short-term problem then you have no need to make a long term sacrifice.

What is more likely is that the money saved from minimising your enumeration will not be needed to safeguard the company but to give to shareholders.

When the public sector work forces were created,particularly the direct labour ,public works dept's.It was done to stop the private firms getting together and naming their own price I.E this is the lowest we will tender.It was also decided to give these people a fair deal ,decent pension scheme,sick pay,paid leave,not just holiday stamps,protective work clothing etc.Something they were not getting at Slap it on and MakeHaste LDT,or Joe bloggs and co.All these attacks On the public sector all went on in the famous novel "The Rgged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressel.It was written about 1905 it could have been written last year