|
Post by HTC on Aug 16, 2024 16:03:21 GMT
it was a system that worked well for anyone in a PAYE type job, particularly once the option of 'partial furlough' became available a few months in. At that point, (anecdotally at least), most companies seemed to take a view that having everyone in 2 or 3 days a week, rather than some people in 5 days a week, and others doing absolutely nothing was the best option.
The people it didn't work for were those who were actually self-employed, but had set themselves up as limited companies. Normally, that way of doing things allows the 'limited company' to pay lower tax than a self-employed worker, hence lots of people choosing to operate in that way. However, that method of doing things came back to bite them on the arse during covid, as the fact they'd paid tax through the company, rather than as self-employed meant they qualified for far less support than people who were either employed elsewhere or had always paid full tax as self employed people.
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Aug 16, 2024 17:41:42 GMT
We had our daughter at home from school the whole time whilst both working from home and trying to keep her on track with home schooling, whilst our neighbours on both sides were furloughed and spent months basically partying and sunbathing. I remember the suggestion on here at the time, might have been the same poster too, that public sector workers should only be paid 80% too to 'share the pain' despite working 100% of our hours. Absolutely bonkers. EDIT: Just checked; same poster. I was merely suggesting it,not to share the pain,but to give some balance and help to those self employed and non paid private workers. Many public sector workers saved lots through not having to travel to work,lunch out etc. But lost out through having to heat their homes at times of day when they'd have been in and office and having to us their own electricity for lighting, powering laptops, printers, charging work phones, etc....
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 16, 2024 19:37:01 GMT
Not even the JSO gang actually believe in what they're saying. And people aren't stupid and know it's totally unrealistic. And of course, I bring back that old chestnut about people 'walking the walk'. The JSO gang demonstrably do not... I've never understood their talking point. If they basically demonstrated to "reduce oil" or "reduce and replace oil with cleaner energies" then I'm in. But you can't argue JSO when you're using oil. It's just bollocks. What they're actually saying is "people, but not me, should JSO". No they're not. And this is the same argument used against socialists who want a different system but use the capitalist system because, er, there isn't another one. You either live with what you have and try to change it where you can or you accept it. But living within the existing isn't hypocritical except in a very purest sense that doesn't have any regard to reality. Your argument against anyone seeking to reduce carbon tends to be that if they're not making all the right choices all the time, they're hypocrites. Which is true as far as it goes, but doesn't acknowledge that it remains better to do something than to do nothing. Clearly if you're doing nothing and banging on about it, you are massive hypocrite, but, in crude terms, it is better to vegetarian then it is to be an omnivore even if it is better to be vegan than it is to be a vegetarian (in the context of climate change). I've never said "make all the right choices or you're a hypocrite". You're misrepresenting my position. My argument has always been "protest, but do everything that's reasonable to set an example if you're going to do so". If you're protesting about global warming but you're flying all over the world on none-essential journeys, or using a car for leisure then I'm sorry you really are a hypocrite who wants other people to make the sacrifice necessary but aren't willing to make those sacrifices yourself. Strikes me as an irrefutable fact. You said it yourself above, sometimes you do what you can because there is no choice but to exist within a system. But many of those JSO protestors don't exercise their choice, for example not to use oil based products wherever they can. Seems a no brainer to me that. If I was going to parrot left, right and centre, about animal rights I'd totally accept that I really ought to give up dairy and seafood. And if I cared enough about the issue then I would do. I don't, so I haven't, so I don't incessantly pound people about animal welfare. It just seems pretty basic manners to walk the walk on issues you're protesting about to at least a demonstrably reasonable extent.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 16, 2024 19:48:16 GMT
No they're not. And this is the same argument used against socialists who want a different system but use the capitalist system because, er, there isn't another one. You either live with what you have and try to change it where you can or you accept it. But living within the existing isn't hypocritical except in a very purest sense that doesn't have any regard to reality. Your argument against anyone seeking to reduce carbon tends to be that if they're not making all the right choices all the time, they're hypocrites. Which is true as far as it goes, but doesn't acknowledge that it remains better to do something than to do nothing. Clearly if you're doing nothing and banging on about it, you are massive hypocrite, but, in crude terms, it is better to vegetarian then it is to be an omnivore even if it is better to be vegan than it is to be a vegetarian (in the context of climate change). I've never said "make all the right choices or you're a hypocrite". You're misrepresenting my position. My argument has always been "protest, but do everything that's reasonable to set an example if you're going to do so". If you're protesting about global warming but you're flying all over the world on none-essential journeys, or using a car for leisure then I'm sorry you really are a hypocrite who wants other people to make the sacrifice necessary but aren't willing to make those sacrifices yourself. Strikes me as an irrefutable fact. You said it yourself above, sometimes you do what you can because there is no choice but to exist within a system. But many of those JSO protestors don't exercise their choice, for example not to use oil based products wherever they can. Seems a no brainer to me that. If I was going to parrot left, right and centre, about animal rights I'd totally accept that I really ought to give up dairy and seafood. And if I cared enough about the issue then I would do. I don't, so I haven't, so I don't incessantly pound people about animal welfare. It just seems pretty basic manners to walk the walk on issues you're protesting about to at least a demonstrably reasonable extent. I don't disagree with that, broadly, but I'm not sure you can really know what those protesters do and don't do. Still, I'm prepared to accept I've perhaps misread your views on that previously. Wasn't intentional misrepresentation on my part - apologies.
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Aug 16, 2024 19:53:40 GMT
Far too much reasonable and considered debate…are you trying to put tvor off this board?🥳💥😱🤣
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 16, 2024 19:54:36 GMT
I've never said "make all the right choices or you're a hypocrite". You're misrepresenting my position. My argument has always been "protest, but do everything that's reasonable to set an example if you're going to do so". If you're protesting about global warming but you're flying all over the world on none-essential journeys, or using a car for leisure then I'm sorry you really are a hypocrite who wants other people to make the sacrifice necessary but aren't willing to make those sacrifices yourself. Strikes me as an irrefutable fact. You said it yourself above, sometimes you do what you can because there is no choice but to exist within a system. But many of those JSO protestors don't exercise their choice, for example not to use oil based products wherever they can. Seems a no brainer to me that. If I was going to parrot left, right and centre, about animal rights I'd totally accept that I really ought to give up dairy and seafood. And if I cared enough about the issue then I would do. I don't, so I haven't, so I don't incessantly pound people about animal welfare. It just seems pretty basic manners to walk the walk on issues you're protesting about to at least a demonstrably reasonable extent. I don't disagree with that, broadly, but I'm not sure you can really know what those protesters do and don't do. Still, I'm prepared to accept I've perhaps misread your views on that previously. Wasn't intentional misrepresentation on my part - apologies. Quite possible also that I haven't been clear.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 16, 2024 19:55:28 GMT
Far too much reasonable and considered debate…are you trying to put tvor off this board?🥳💥😱🤣 ... for a left wing echo chamber you mean?
|
|
|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Aug 16, 2024 20:59:55 GMT
Not sure where you get the idea the public sector had months off fully paid where the private sector didn't. Every public sector worker I know was working throughout. Some of them were as frontline as you want to get as well. For information, as far back 18months ago the train drivers' strikes were estimated to have cost the country 1billion quid (you can add 15-25m quid per day since then) and it was said at that time that it would have been cheaper to have addressed the pay demand. Which communist said this? Huw Merriman, Rail Minister for the Conservative government at the time. I was putting on a paper suit, goggles, gloves, mask and an apron on a regular basis. I've no idea where this idea that Civil Servants did nothing during lockdown comes from?
|
|
|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Aug 16, 2024 21:08:43 GMT
Wife and I both public sector (wife front-line). Both worked full time. Wife probably did more because a lockdown dictated that her job got more difficult. Stop talking nonsense. We had our daughter at home from school the whole time whilst both working from home and trying to keep her on track with home schooling, whilst our neighbours on both sides were furloughed and spent months basically partying and sunbathing. I remember the suggestion on here at the time, might have been the same poster too, that public sector workers should only be paid 80% too to 'share the pain' despite working 100% of our hours. Absolutely bonkers. EDIT: Just checked; same poster. My wife was on mat leave at the tim. We had a new born, a 6 year old with SEN that was regressing and an 8 yr old that we had to home school. I was off out dealing with stuff, trying to work from home, and on occasion would have to make some really sensitive calls on my car to make sure no one could hear what I was saying, as I'm sure my wife and sons didn't need to hear about murderers and rapists! Well worth 80% of my salary!
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:26:22 GMT
Bit surprised to see the government have handed the train drivers the large pay increase demanded without any need for the reforms requested. I wonder how this will affect other pay demands from others? Does everyone just get what they want now. Have much more sympathy for those at the lower pay scale but some of these pay awards for those on very decent wages already,particularly in the public sector, are surprising,as well as the train companies employees. Lots of people in the private sector and self employed still struggling along,many of whom had little support during covid,unlike the public sector who had many months off fully paid. All seems a bit of an uneven field? A lot of these so called reforms the DFT have been pushing for years will make things worse for passengers not better. It’s all about cutting frontline staff not improving services. The self employed were shafted during covid, I know I was someone who received paltry amounts because I had only properly gone back to freelancing the tax year the pandemic hit. Non qualifying years were factored into calculations. SEISS was not comparable to furlough. But that was the previous government, the one who spent more money fighting strikes than they would have done if they had just agreed to ASLEF and the RMT’s demands from the jump. And as Mozzer said furlough was for all employed workers, sector was irrelevant, and most public sector workers carried on working - including railway workers.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:33:16 GMT
Not sure where you get the idea the public sector had months off fully paid where the private sector didn't. Every public sector worker I know was working throughout. Some of them were as frontline as you want to get as well. For information, as far back 18months ago the train drivers' strikes were estimated to have cost the country 1billion quid (you can add 15-25m quid per day since then) and it was said at that time that it would have been cheaper to have addressed the pay demand. Which communist said this? Huw Merriman, Rail Minister for the Conservative government at the time. It may well have cost the country that money but you've not really addressed who's fault that was. Are you saying train drivers/employees are badly paid and badly needed a pay rise? Of course a strike/s cost the country,that's not the point. It's whether they are justified. There seem to be some on here who support EVERY single strike action regardless. Rail strikes are almost never about just pay. ASLEF do tend to be a bit more pay driven than the RMT but all that’s led to is them having decent pay. Isn’t that what we all want? Better pay and conditions. Unions help to achieve that. RMTs strikes have almost exclusively been around protecting jobs and frontline services for passengers. It’s the DFT who put these “reforms” (which actually make the service worse, not better) into pay disputes so that when they’re inevitably rejected they can say “greedy railway workers want more money”, when the truth is that outside of drivers most railway workers are paid ok, but far from enough to be considered well off. Usually around the average for salaried workers for the more senior non managerial grades while lower grades are barely above minimum wage. Non unionised agency workers are usually at minimum wage. If the railway was as lucrative an industry to work in as it’s perceived as I probably wouldn’t have left it. TLDR on this is that the strikes are justified and have won important battles. For example retaining ticket offices on lines where without which there would be no staff legally required to be at a lot of stations at all. Any time of day. Staffing isn’t nearly high enough, take away those ticket offices and it goes from not enough to zero.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:34:50 GMT
I was merely suggesting it,not to share the pain,but to give some balance and help to those self employed and non paid private workers. Many public sector workers saved lots through not having to travel to work,lunch out etc. Self employed people were still working. Mainly builders and tradesmen. Used to see their vans every day and were they furloughed. Self employed people didn’t get furlough. If a self employed person was working and claimed SEISS then they should be investigated for fraud. They won’t be though. Fraudulent SEISS claims pale into insignificance compared to the enormous corporate fraud that went off which was happily written off a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:36:46 GMT
You've not explained why they're not justified. If you think it's only about pay, then you're kidding yourself. Also, these are strikes in England, as the RMT and ASLEF issues were settled in Scotland and Wales by May last year. Government interference has scuppered the ASLEF agreement in England (RMT having pretty much sorted things at some point late last year). The average rail worker is on around 31-35k pa, depending who you believe. Even the top figure is hardly excessive, noting that averages conceal high and lows. The pay rises are variably 4.5-5% over the past 3 years. Not excessive given inflation over the same period, again, noting the latest year is above current inflation (the middle year being well below what it was). I don’t believe the RMT have ever balloted for strike action simply over pay. Certainly not for a very long time if they have. Every pay deal which was negotiated while I was a member went out to us all with the recommendation to vote to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:38:45 GMT
Self employed people were still working. Mainly builders and tradesmen. Used to see their vans every day and were they furloughed. I know builders who did REALLY well out of covid, never busier whilst claiming grants that the government was dishing out. My missus lost her self employed business as she got no help at all, but as a teaching assistant she was in school every day working daft hours.. My company furloughed 50% of the staff and the rest got a 20% and worked twice as much to cover those furloughed!! And I know people who set up their own businesses with their furlough money and have now been able to quit the jobs they had then in order to pursue their dreams. A cracking example to where when you give driven people money and time they’ll use it to further their goals.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 16, 2024 23:40:57 GMT
it was a system that worked well for anyone in a PAYE type job, particularly once the option of 'partial furlough' became available a few months in. At that point, (anecdotally at least), most companies seemed to take a view that having everyone in 2 or 3 days a week, rather than some people in 5 days a week, and others doing absolutely nothing was the best option. The people it didn't work for were those who were actually self-employed, but had set themselves up as limited companies. Normally, that way of doing things allows the 'limited company' to pay lower tax than a self-employed worker, hence lots of people choosing to operate in that way. However, that method of doing things came back to bite them on the arse during covid, as the fact they'd paid tax through the company, rather than as self-employed meant they qualified for far less support than people who were either employed elsewhere or had always paid full tax as self employed people. It also screwed over those of us who are/were self employed, pay taxes as a self employed person but had only recently either become self employed or returned to being self employed. The way the calculations were done was really unjustified.
|
|