Quote: batleyrhino "Tigertot, is there a link to the proposals so I could take a look at them and decide for myself if I think it would work? I'm not against Unions, they can be a very powerful tool for protecting those who are unable to protect themselves, however I do have a (possibly misguided) view that the Unions have become self serving, politically motiviated vehicles for the individuals leading them, and have lost touch with the prinicple they exist for. I suppose you could say the same about the current and last few governments that this country has had too...'" That's hardly surprising given the example set by Chief Executives & Boards of Directors. Talk about self-serving hypocrites!!! For those in any doubt I suggest you look at this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15827683

Quote: batleyrhino "Tigertot, is there a link to the proposals so I could take a look at them and decide for myself if I think it would work? I'm not against Unions, they can be a very powerful tool for protecting those who are unable to protect themselves, however I do have a (possibly misguided) view that the Unions have become self serving, politically motiviated vehicles for the individuals leading them, and have lost touch with the prinicple they exist for. I suppose you could say the same about the current and last few governments that this country has had too...'" That's hardly surprising given the example set by Chief Executives & Boards of Directors. Talk about self-serving hypocrites!!! For those in any doubt I suggest you look at this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15827683

Slightly off topic, but I saw some of the news yesterday talking about Top Bosses pay & bonuses and I was dismayed at the poor standard of journalism / balanced view that was given. They even trotted out a hair dresser who seemed to think that 'working in a bank was not that hard' when talking about the head or Barclays, and seemed to think their jobs were equivalent because she was standing up all day. Many people don't seem to realise that the job market is precisely that, a market. You aren't paid in proportion to how unpleasant the job is to do, its generally in proportion to how skilled you are at teh things that matter, and how many other people there are with a similar skillset (or the ability to attain that skill level).

One interesting piece was that people didn't think Top Bosses should earn as much as footballers. Whilst I do think that both are paid obscene amounts of money I can see how they are equivalent. Both sets of people are in a position they are because they have shown talent that few others have. They are also lucky enough that their talent enables a wider organisation to generate huge revenues. Its these reasons why they are paid so much, becuase even though they are paid obscene amounts of money, they generate many times that through doing the job.

If you answer phones in an office, or cut hair, or clean bins, it may not be that pleasant, but your contribution to that company does not have so much impact on the profit of that company as someone in a higher position.

I see two separate yet intertwined issues in the point you raise above OF. It is clear that the high pay levels of some executives is clearly damaging to the morale of their workforces, and is counter produtive to growth, this is without raising the issue of their value in terms of the work the executives are actually doing. The system that allows people to entirely self regulate their pay is a flawed one.

The second issue, is the one which I intended to focus on, and this is one which in my mind exposes the Unions for what they really are. A union is in place to protect all of its members, not a certain section. When a union insists on unrealistic pay (or pension) settlements, it is inevitably not protecting those who will lose their jobs as a result, and therefore fundamentally missing the point of it's own existance.

The irony that those who lead some of the unions are now equally as culpable for the current situation as some of the government with which they bicker is not lost on me...

A problem widely discussed on TV yesterday was that renumeration for CEO's of FTSE 250 companies bears no relation to company performance any more. Any hairdressers or footballer not doing their job very well would soon see their income drop. Companies whose profits and turnover fall, or share value drops, often continue to richly reward the top people who have overseen this.

Back to the picket line - I remember being on a 3 day strike a few years back now, when we took a local vote whether to support a national dispute. All involved (about 10 I think) supported the action. One reneged, and went into work. It caused a lot of bad feeling, that individual was largely ignored afterwards. So don't only think of the short term benefit or loss, consider possible longer term consequences.

Quote: batleyrhino "Tigertot, is there a link to the proposals so I could take a look at them and decide for myself if I think it would work? I'm not against Unions, they can be a very powerful tool for protecting those who are unable to protect themselves, however I do have a (possibly misguided) view that the Unions have become self serving, politically motiviated vehicles for the individuals leading them, and have lost touch with the prinicple they exist for. I suppose you could say the same about the current and last few governments that this country has had too...'" I found this link: recourse.org.uk/ucu-warns-of-ind ... d-through/ I haven't followed the other links through so do not know whether it will give you what you are after. UCU did set out its case several months ago, I read what they put forward & thought it a reasonable argument. I voted yes for action short of a strike, no for a strike. Both votes came out yes. I have continued to work 50 hours a week since, it is simply not possible to work to rule without it significantly affecting those I manage, the university (who are generally a fantastic employer) or the students we are here to support. Undoubtedly there are some within unions who do see it as a political battle & an opportuntiy to bring down the capatilist state. But they are a massive minority. Very few work in HE to get rich. Our VC who runs an organisation with a half billion pounds turnover, made £35m profit last year, has >40,000 staff & students - the second biggest in the UK, only earns c£250k. Now I happen to think no-one should or needs to earn any more than that, but the vast majority of people here earn relatively low wages but accept that for job security, good holidays & a decent pension.

Quote: batleyrhino "Tigertot, is there a link to the proposals so I could take a look at them and decide for myself if I think it would work? I'm not against Unions, they can be a very powerful tool for protecting those who are unable to protect themselves, however I do have a (possibly misguided) view that the Unions have become self serving, politically motiviated vehicles for the individuals leading them, and have lost touch with the prinicple they exist for. I suppose you could say the same about the current and last few governments that this country has had too...'" I found this link: recourse.org.uk/ucu-warns-of-ind ... d-through/ I haven't followed the other links through so do not know whether it will give you what you are after. UCU did set out its case several months ago, I read what they put forward & thought it a reasonable argument. I voted yes for action short of a strike, no for a strike. Both votes came out yes. I have continued to work 50 hours a week since, it is simply not possible to work to rule without it significantly affecting those I manage, the university (who are generally a fantastic employer) or the students we are here to support. Undoubtedly there are some within unions who do see it as a political battle & an opportuntiy to bring down the capatilist state. But they are a massive minority. Very few work in HE to get rich. Our VC who runs an organisation with a half billion pounds turnover, made £35m profit last year, has >40,000 staff & students - the second biggest in the UK, only earns c£250k. Now I happen to think no-one should or needs to earn any more than that, but the vast majority of people here earn relatively low wages but accept that for job security, good holidays & a decent pension.

Do NOT cross a picket line mate - although I understand your own personal situation - it just gives this pathetic excuse for a government the confidence to attack workers rights & working conditions, & WAGES.

History shows that privatisation & the Conservatives are only in it for themselves - keep united mate & PS JOIN a union because it is the only "Insurance Policy for Work" that you have & you never know when you might need its support !

Yes and no. It is a skill-dependent, but the market is rigged.

The skills valued for the CEO of a financial institution are the ability to manage a large corporation into short-term profit to produce share surges and executive bonusues. Even setting aside that *shouldn't* be the function of long-term capitalism, the fact that the profits were built on imaginary products, packaged and sold to pals with commission, then resold with more commission, along with Big4 Accountancy and Magic Circle Legal fees, then reinsured with more fees and commission, then sold to the patsy pension fund managers, at which points it becomes clear that they didn't really exist and the funds lose out and the average public and private pension investor loses out, and all this imaginary fee money is on the books of the banks, providing inflated salary and bonuses until, magically, it isn't and the books turn red because so much imaginary money has turned into real money in selected pockets, and the government has to step in at *another* massive cost to the taxpayer, and because there's still no effective regulation the banks rebuild another house of cards and repeat, with variations, to fade.

That's not a real market. It's a trick. Another part of the trick is in convincing governments that *everything* they do is so vital to the wider economy. Some of it is, some of it isn't. Some of it is positively dangerous.

The issue of executive pay and CEO skillsets is entirely different in a large business that you build up yourself, or one which actually makes real products that people want to buy. But the chief skills of the current wave of bankers are 1) to be clubbable 2) to work a con-game within that club. Traders also need to have a lot of stamina and to be brutally self-interested, but they're not uncommon skills and, in the latter case, perhaps not that desirable.

So, yes, that's more skills than a hairdresser, I suppose. But not as many as a legitimate businessman, or a Soros or Buffett taking calculated risks with their own money, or a surgeon, headmaster or engineer. Surcharge the f***ers. If it wasn't for them (and the fund managers) there wouldn't be any pension strikes because pensions wouldn't be screwed.

/rant

I think that's the real issue with some of the salaries and payments at the top levels of these companies. I am happy to accept that having your hand on the rudder of an organisation like a major international bank is a complex and stressful job (a big bank has a larger economy that many countries), and that their top executives are likely to earn salaries that would make Richie Ramrod's head spin. Fine, doesn't bother me. I am a little mystified as to how their salaries and bonuses cease to be linked to the performance of the ship they're supposed to be steering.

When it becomes a matter of public interest is when the banks are bailed out if they fail, at the taxpayer's expense. That doesn't happen with football either, so I have more interest in what top bankers are paid than I do in what top footballers are paid. Footballers belong alongside film stars and musicians. They're in the entertainment business and their financial success or failure has little impact on the rest of us. Banking carries a societal responsibility.

Many footballers, musicians & film stars are paid obscene amounts of money, which I strongly object to. But on a regular basis I see them perform their talent, or lack of it & feel qualified to comment whether they are worth it. I am yet to see any banker demonstrate his/her talent, I am merely told repeatedly that they must be paid huge sums due to their responsibility or they would take their talent elsewhere. No-one, no-one, needs the amounts of money being identified. If they are so selfish & greedy to not realise how inequitous it is, especially in the current climate, they have no place in society.

Where have I done that? I don't actually particulalry like him that much. What I was doing was demonstrating that someone can run a very successful huge business without obscene remuneration. I have no idea if he pays for his weekly flights, I would guess not. But that doesn't bother me, I am more bothered about the attitude that it is ok fly such relatively short distances on a regular basis. But he offsets the carbon so that's ok.

On the subject of the strikes we have all agreed that there should be the right to strike and the right not to strike. However should we really allow a business or indeed the whole country to be brought to a halt by a vote in favour of doing so by a minority of the workforce and population?

The UNISON ballot had a 29% turnout equating to only 23% of the workforce voting for the strike

GMB had a 33% turnout equating to 26% of the total workforce voting for the strike

UCATTS had 27% turnout meaning just 22% of the total workforce voted for to strike

UNITE had a 31% turnout equating to around 25% of the total workforce

These figures are hardly a ringing endorsement for strike action for what can only be regarded selfish action by a minority, when negotiations are still going on to change what were overgenerous and unsustainable pension terms even in the good times let alone in the current and forseeable future economic climate.

^ And have a look at turn outs for general elections, about the same.

Thats why the Governemtn haven't made a sound about the ballots, they know they'd be on a looser

I would question how well run a not-for-profit organisation that makes a £35M profit is.

All Universities seek to build up a surplus, for a rainy day as it were, but adding £35M a year to it suggests to me that either students or research funding bodies are getting short-changed somewhere...