Civil Servants To Stage 48-Hour Walkout

[Pragmatopian]

I recently read some economic forecasts which predict that the Polish economy will overtake the German one in about 2025. I have my doubts about this but undoubtedly Poland, with its strategic location in Central Europe, has been growing quickly even in the current economic downturn.

 

If you’re talking in terms of total GDP there would need to be a massive shift to meet that prediction. Poland is by far the largest economy in Central and Eastern Europe, but its GDP is less than a quarter of Germany's and its GDP per capita is about half of Germany's. The infrastructure is still pretty bad in most of the country, although there are some major projects going on at the moment. Whilst corruption is not as rampant in Poland as it is in Romania, Bulgaria and the Balkan states it's still a big issue.

 

Certainly there is a much greater capacity for growth in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe over the next fifteen years, but I expect that growth will slow as countries approach the EU median values for GDP per capita. In some CEE countries it is already happening: for example the Czech Republic has now surpassed the GDP per capita of Portugal and isn’t far off that of Italy.

 

I’m going to predict that by 2025 the economic convergence of Europe will be almost complete, and the case for the United States of Europe will become compelling...

 

 

[manshimajin]

At the end of the day isn't it relatively simple? Governments have straightforward decisions to make:

 

1. In an economic downturn the capacity to raise revenue decreases.
   
2. Taxes can be increased - ultimately potentially reducing income and slowing economic recovery.
   
3. An attempt can be made to maintain services to the public and save PS jobs by reducing costs - including PS salaries, or
   
4. Public servants can maintain/increase salaries and this can be paid for by reducing the number of PS jobs and/or the levels of service to the public.
   

IMO striking/work to rules indicates that individual public servants prefer point 4 above and would rather have job losses (presumably for others not themselves) and service cuts than experience individual salary cuts.

 

There is an issue IMO on the Island that politicians have not as yet shown a willingness to address their own salaries and benefits which makes their 'leadership' position weak to non-existent.

 

There is also an issue where salary reduction is part of a government's policy as to whether salary reductions should be the same percentage at all levels or scaled according to level of income.

[Right-Wing]

I'm afraid I just think unions are wrong full stop, and if I came to power (god help everyone) I'd make them illegal.

 

I've worked in the private sector all my life, and the private sector exists for one reason, and one reason only. Profit. Black & Decker don't make electric screwdrivers because they want to make your life easier, they make them because they can make profit from selling them. The life assurance companies don't sell life policies because they love you and want to protect you and your family, they do it to make a profit. A union cannot make sense in that environment. My employer didn't employ me so that they could pay me a salary and I could have a comfortable life, they did it because they figured they could make more profit by taking on more people.

 

If they had a bad few years and didn't make money, they have two choices. Reduce costs, which is quite often achieved by reducing the wages bill, either through redundancies or pay freezes, or alternatively they could choose to carry on making loses until they go bust. I don't believe in the concept of the union marching in and saying that the work force don't accept the pay freeze or redundancies. If you don't agree with the decisions of the management, leave.

 

And by the way I'm a worker, not management!

 

The Timex example was exactly such a case. The management needed to reduce costs. The unions didn't agree and took everyone out on strike. As a result of the union, everyone lost their jobs, not just a handful. Who won? I think you'll find the management did, as indeed they have to, because otherwise we'd all be stuffed.

 

- Management are employed to make difficult decisions and ensure the company makes a profit

- The company makes a profit and employees more people, and increases salaries

- We take the wages home, buy a computer and spout off opinions on Manx Forums

 

Job done. Unless you prefer the communist model, which I don't!

[Right-Wing]

Sorry manshimajin your post came in while I was typing my rant:-). I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, in fact I agree with you.

 

I appreciate that my rant is all about the private sector, and the original thread is really about civil servants, but I have no experience of that. I just can't abide unions giving the impressions that they are protecting the workers. Luckily I've never worked for a company that recognised unions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm afraid I just think unions are wrong full stop, and if I came to power (god help everyone) I'd make them illegal.

You wouldn't last long.

 

I've worked in the private sector all my life, and the private sector exists for one reason, and one reason only. Profit. Black & Decker don't make electric screwdrivers because they want to make your life easier, they make them because they can make profit from selling them. The life assurance companies don't sell life policies because they love you and want to protect you and your family, they do it to make a profit. A union cannot make sense in that environment. My employer didn't employ me so that they could pay me a salary and I could have a comfortable life, they did it because they figured they could make more profit by taking on more people.

It is precisely the fact that businesses exist to make profit that the problem arises. The interests of the worker and the employer are opposed. One has the primary interest in maximising their wealth and return through a business their own and the others prime interest is sustain themselves and maximise their wages in order to get by. Workers wages, for example, are a necessary expense that any employer would like to reduce as much as possible except where it affects turnover and worker motivation. Nobody else is going to grant workers an increase in salary unless it is in the contract or has been negotiated. A lot of times the only resort is to club together with other workers to fight for such an increase, or prevent erosion to working conditions, etc. It's an 'us and them' system.

 

And unions make very much sense in this environment, because the interests in the system are not simply those of the employer and their need to make profit.

Don't forget that employers have in the past and continue to keep wages low by recognising how low other companies pay their workers.

 

If they had a bad few years and didn't make money, they have two choices. Reduce costs, which is quite often achieved by reducing the wages bill, either through redundancies or pay freezes, or alternatively they could choose to carry on making loses until they go bust. I don't believe in the concept of the union marching in and saying that the work force don't accept the pay freeze or redundancies. If you don't agree with the decisions of the management, leave.

Are you aware of the fact that companies are often more inclined to make stoppages or cuts on wages than make cuts elsewhere? Ultimately, the workers have to look out for themselves. A small salary decrease or stoppage could have serious implications for them. They should not look at the situation from employer's perspective.

If postive changes to the worker's situation can be extracted only through threat or pressure then that is often what must be done.

 

If the company cannot pay its staff properly then the company may suffer. It may go bust. But that would be the price of the company simply being unprofitable and having those bad years. What seems to not be emphasised enough is that the workers are the ones who are doing the work. If they aren't getting a good deal then fuck those who seem to think they are entitled to make decisions in it and those who own it.

 

The Timex example was exactly such a case. The management needed to reduce costs. The unions didn't agree and took everyone out on strike. As a result of the union, everyone lost their jobs, not just a handful. Who won? I think you'll find the management did, as indeed they have to, because otherwise we'd all be stuffed.

 

- Management are employed to make difficult decisions and ensure the company makes a profit

- The company makes a profit and employees more people, and increases salaries

- We take the wages home, buy a computer and spout off opinions on Manx Forums

 

Job done. Unless you prefer the communist model, which I don't!

Doesn't work that way. For starters I have seen no goods arguments for why managers are required and there aren't any good arguments justifying their authority. And when the company makes a profit there is requirement for the employer to increases salaries. Sometimes wages are increased to match inflation but the workers doesn't get any proportional share as profits increase.

You seem to be arguing under the mistaken idea that people are a priveleged to be employer.

 

I'd prefer communism to the system we live in today. I'd think it is worth giving a try giving the rather awful system we have today. But I am not communism and communism need not be set up to end some or all capitalist practices.

[manshimajin]

I'd prefer communism to the system we live in today. I'd think it is worth giving a try giving the rather awful system we have today. But I am not communism and communism need not be set up to end some or all capitalist practices.

LDV sorry to say but if you mean traditional communism you'd probably be one of the first against the wall (or to the salt mines) as you would be unable to prevent yourself from speaking your mind - a capital offence in the traditional communist states.

 

There is no reason why the interests of everyone in a business cannot be in alignment in the capitalist system but as RW says the focus has to be on bottom line results - through doing the right things in the right way.

 

The problem IMO at present is that, for whatever reason one may wish to debate, we are where we are and something has to be done either to maintain public services by reducing costs or to keep paying public servants at current levels by cutting staff numbers and service levels. In any case if you cut services then you cut staffing as some of the staff are not required. Marching up and down a road carrying placards does not resolve the problem - money vs. jobs/service.

 

Where things go wrong IMO is if the pain is confined to the weakest as seems to be happening in the banks at present. A lack of moral leadership qualities at CEO and Board levels (and of elementary succession planning).

 

Right Wing - thanks.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV sorry to say but if you mean traditional communism you'd probably be one of the first against the wall (or to the salt mines) as you would be unable to prevent yourself from speaking your mind - a capital offence in the traditional communist states.

I don't know what you mean. Communism has never really been tried.

 

There is no reason why the interests of everyone in a business cannot be in alignment in the capitalist system but as RW says the focus has to be on bottom line results - through doing the right things in the right way.

I think you MAY me under the wrong impression of what capitalism is. How can the interests of everyone be in alignment, recognising that the interests are opposed in respect of the reasons why the business exists and why people work there? What is the mechanism for this alignment to come about?

 

What you consider the right things and the right way is your view dependent on your own allegiances. This situation is simpler with the private sector. Workers in a company have absolutely no good reason to care about the interests of the company at all. It's not their problem. Get what you can need and should have, even if it means fighting for it, and if the company goes bust or does worse for itself then tough.

Though with the private sector it obviously becomes more complicated because the sector exists to provides all manner of essential services. But the livelihood of people it paramount. People need to have their wage and ought to have job security. I do recognise that something has to give. If services can be provided to the same standards but with reduced staff then arrange redundancies, but on the basis that those people are supported with the same salary as when employer UNTIL they find a new job. That seems fair. But I don't accept this current mode of thinking where people forget why the economy is messed up and why the current economy system clearly can't deliver job security, but when treats the worker's new situation as some fait accompli that they should recognise and be content with.

[hboy]

It's only a matter of time before England becomes Poland 2 anyway.

 

Just like the IoM became England2 around 1994.

[manshimajin]

Certainly there is a much greater capacity for growth in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe over the next fifteen years, but I expect that growth will slow as countries approach the EU median values for GDP per capita. In some CEE countries it is already happening: for example the Czech Republic has now surpassed the GDP per capita of Portugal and isn’t far off that of Italy.

 

I’m going to predict that by 2025 the economic convergence of Europe will be almost complete, and the case for the United States of Europe will become compelling...

I think you and I both have doubts about the economists' views.

 

However having worked in Poland for a number of years I think that its strategic location in Central Europe, well educated young workforce, push to learn English, stock of returning workers, low wage structure pro temp etc will allow it to take advantage of future economic growth in its region and, if people can overcome historic dislikes, in Russia too. Certainly the infrastructure needs to be improved but this is happening and there needs to be less political interference in businesses. Clearly it is a country on a quite different scale to the Czech Republic which is doing very well. Poland has a lot more catching up to do to recover from the impacts left by WWII and the Communist regime, though the unemployement rates in both countries are now pretty similar (in the 8-9% range) and both are below EU average. Poland's potential in manufacturing and agriculture in particular are enormous.

 

Your timetable for convergence looks about right - certainly in the 2020s, though I do wonder about some Southern European countries. It will be fascinating to see how the UK responds to this. The USE probably makes more emotional, security and economic sense to 'continental' Europeans and the Irish than it does to the British. Could the UK end up having to create a different relationship with the EU in 20 years time?

[manxy]

It's only a matter of time before England becomes Poland 2 anyway.

 

Just like the IoM became England2 around 1994.

True enough hboy, true enough.

Who knows why decisions are made that follow the English line, maybe it's easier or just common-sense to do so, but it does seem we follow their ways, rightly or wrongly over a period of time.

[manxy]

Just a quick reference regards the Polish; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

 

Personally, I'm happy to be in a job although I'm not terribly fond of the workings of some of the managerial decisions we get from time to time. This is probably commonplace throughout the island and as a CS, it somehow sort of gets accepted anyway.

 

With reference a walkout, I would find it unethical and morally wrong to leave my patients for anyone's point of view and if there's a walkout, then I'm standing firm and if it means that I suffer whatever consequences, then so be it.

 

I'd still like more money (who doesn't?) and if anyone says different, then please pass on whatever you can spare to any charity of your choosing, or send it to me and I'm sure I'll put it to good use.

I'm off to my bed now, so take it easy and enjoy your day off tomorrow today.

[hboy]

Just a quick reference regards the Polish; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

 

 

Just a quick reference regards the ENGLISH; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

[manxy]

Just a quick reference regards the Polish; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

 

 

Just a quick reference regards the ENGLISH; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

lol hboy and bravo to your post and I doubt if it can be topped and you got me chuckling like mad here

[Alias]

I can understand the need for unions in the private sector (where profit is the motive, albeit unions can create highly inefficient and unstable industries), but are they as appropriate for the public sector? Surely working conditions of government workers and other similar issues should be voting issues, as quality of service and staffing levels are.

 

Government must (by its nature) do things 'by the book', and I fail to believe the good benefits and securities are solely due to the Moffats and co.

[Albert Tatlock]

Just a quick reference regards the ENGLISH; I don't blame them for coming over here, there or everywhere as the ones that I know of, certainly do a hard days work and I'd do the same thing in their position.

 

Maybe they are a risk to peoples likelihoods in that they appear to work so hard that peoples jobs are on a dodgy footing, but in this day and age, jobs are getting scarcer and if people take the view and position of taking it easy and looking for a skive here and there, I'm sure a respective employer will take advantage of any loophole to get the better, faster, leaner employee.

Trouble is, now it's gone well past the 'skill availability point' - when we have a lot of very capable on the dole, numerous others not/never registered unemployed but looking and using up savings, as well as others previously registered unemployed but now forced off the dole to do other often menial work as they have to apply for any reasonable work and prove they are doing so 3 times a week. At the time of the last census (2006) for example, we had 400 registered unemployed, but 830 on the census saying they were looking for work. If we have 1000 plus looking for work registered as unemployed, you can bet the 'real unemployment figure' is actually far higher than that.

 

The government are thinking solely in terms of unemployment numbers - and pissing off a lot of locals as a result. Mark my words, this will bite several MHKs in the ass at the next election if they don't change things further and soon, as changes in work permit provision (turning the tap on and off) usually take at least a year to permeate through the employment situation.