DOO on Northern and general discussion on future staffing arrangements

[Moonshot]

I believe they are having real terms freezes imposed , which means their pay rises are limited to 1% which is a little less than inflation .

and look at how many marches and protests have taken place . as well as teachers striking in rows over pay and pensions . they arent just sitting back and taking it . But with essential services like teaching and the NHS they understand they cant bring these services to their knees either .

Everybody claims railway staff have got it dead easy in terms of getting decent payrises but before you came to the role many benefits like bank holidays being optional where "sold" so that payrises could still go ahead . So its not like railway staff have earned payrises for nothing they have had to sell long recognized benefits for them .

Im glad you mentioned the NHS ......who this week announced a gap of £ 2 billion in their funding requirements.

Now do we finance that with tax rises, or efficiency gains ?

 

[muz379]

I say Raise the tax on alcohol , tobacco, gambling and fast food , both companies and consumers . any deficit make up by stopping the NHS buying stupid decorative rocks to go outside a hospital but I think more than 2 bil could be found from increasing those .

The maths of it is if we where to increase income tax we would all have to pay about an extra £6.50 a month . you and I and the average earner could afford that no problem .

 

[Moonshot]

I say Raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco and fast food , both companies and consumers . any deficit make up by stopping the NHS buying stupid decorative rocks to go outside a hospital but I think more than 2 bil could be found from increasing those .

The maths of it is if we where to increase income tax we would all have to pay about an extra £6.50 a month . you and I and the average earner could afford that no problem .

Nice reply.....so we all smoke less, drink less, and eat less burgers....which in turn should make us all a bit more healthy and less of a burden on the state. Of course we exercise choice on whether we smoke, drink or eat burgers etc...paying income tax however is rather less of a choice. Train drivers with Northern are now hitting the 40% tax barrier.....which makes it less of an incentive to work overtime if needed - effectively they are coming in on there rest days to hand over 40p in the pound to the state. Of course that wouldnt be an issue IF every single one of us just paid a flat rate of 20% which would seem fair to me. In fact we could go even further and rationalise income tax and national insurance into one simple payment of say 30%.

 

[muz379]

Nice reply.....so we all smoke less, drink less, and eat less burgers....which in turn should make us all a bit more healthy and less of a burden on the state. Of course we exercise choice on whether we smoke, drink or eat burgers etc...paying income tax however is rather less of a choice. Train drivers with Northern are now hitting the 40% tax barrier.....which makes it less of an incentive to work overtime if needed - effectively they are coming in on there rest days to hand over 40p in the pound to the state. Of course that wouldnt be an issue IF every single one of us just paid a flat rate of 20% which would seem fair to me. In fact we could go even further and rationalise income tax and national insurance into one simple payment of say 30%.

Or at least if we want to smoke drink and eat burgers we are contributing towards the system that is going to be fixing us up . stuff like the schemes that give a free bike to people that have been out of work are also good for this , gives them a cost free and healthy way of getting to work .

The drivers giving 40p in every pound to the tax man are still getting 60p form every pound for themselves . Not to mention that they could put this money in their pensions as a tax break and would then benefit from it in the future which is one of the purposes of having a higher rate of tax to encourage well off people to save for their future so they dont rely on the state when they retire

I dont agree with a flat tax . But do think the boundaries for higher and middle need to be made a little bit higher . the higher freshold wouldnt be until 60k , and I would reintroduce the 50% rate at a figure say around 200k . and then around 500k a 55% threshold as well .

Someone that earns 500k (which is not unheard of in city law firms and at the bar) can completely afford to contribute a higher proportion of their earnings than the likes of you and me on our guards salary who might be able to pay out 30% of our wage . but someone on the minimum wage job working at the barriers wouldnt be able to afford to pay 30% of their wage to the tax man .I would introduce the living wage as a minimum wage and have the personal allowance put up to 14k so that nobody earning 14 k or less would pay any income tax . The progressive tax system is here to stay because it works .

I respect that high earners are hugely beneficial to the economy because they are the ones that buy brand new cars and fly away on luxurious holidays which incur a hell of a lot of vat , fuel and road tax and flight duties . If they can already afford to do this with the 45% tax rate we have in place an extra 5% isnt going to cripple them and would actually encourage them to spend it as some sort of pretax break expense rather than stockpiling money in the bang . And by spending it they will then be giving a hell of a lot of vat to the treasury . I would also take a lot of lower priced properties out of the stamp duty system alltogether . And start the system off at 1mil where it currently starts at 250k . But the stamp duty on properties at 1 mil + would be higher than currently . If you can afford to shell out 1 million most likely cash for a property then you can afford to pay a bit more stamp duty .

 

[Moonshot]

Or at least if we want to smoke drink and eat burgers we are contributing towards the system that is going to be fixing us up . stuff like the schemes that give a free bike to people that have been out of work are also good for this , gives them a cost free and healthy way of getting to work .

The drivers giving 40p in every pound to the tax man are still getting 60p form every pound for themselves . Not to mention that they could put this money in their pensions as a tax break and would then benefit from it in the future which is one of the purposes of having a higher rate of tax to encourage well off people to save for their future so they dont rely on the state when they retire

I dont agree with a flat tax . But do think the boundaries for higher and middle need to be made a little bit higher . the higher freshold wouldnt be until 60k , and I would reintroduce the 50% rate at a figure say around 200k . and then around 500k a 55% threshold as well .

Someone that earns 500k (which is not unheard of in city law firms and at the bar) can completely afford to contribute a higher proportion of their earnings than the likes of you and me on our guards salary who might be able to pay out 30% of our wage . but someone on the minimum wage job working at the barriers wouldnt be able to afford to pay 30% of their wage to the tax man .I would introduce the living wage as a minimum wage and have the personal allowance put up to 14k so that nobody earning 14 k or less would pay any income tax . The progressive tax system is here to stay because it works .

I respect that high earners are hugely beneficial to the economy because they are the ones that buy brand new cars and fly away on luxurious holidays which incur a hell of a lot of vat , fuel and road tax and flight duties . If they can already afford to do this with the 45% tax rate we have in place an extra 5% isnt going to cripple them and would actually encourage them to spend it as some sort of pretax break expense rather than stockpiling money in the bang . And by spending it they will then be giving a hell of a lot of vat to the treasury . I would also take a lot of lower priced properties out of the stamp duty system alltogether . And start the system off at 1mil where it currently starts at 250k . But the stamp duty on properties at 1 mil + would be higher than currently . If you can afford to shell out 1 million most likely cash for a property then you can afford to pay a bit more stamp duty .

So there you go then......all these minimum wage workers have an incentive to get off benefits ( which costs the state ) and into a job which doesnt deduct anything for tax at that level. In fact we go a little further than that .....we have a system of working tax credits which help out as well.

Do you think it was right that the Government limited the amount of benefit anyone could claim to a max of £25 k a year? ( Which is nearly identical to a guards basic salary )

 

[muz379]

So there you go then......all these minimum wage workers have an incentive to get off benefits ( which costs the state ) and into a job which doesnt deduct anything for tax at that level. In fact we go a little further than that .....we have a system of working tax credits which help out as well.

Do you think it was right that the Government limited the amount of benefit anyone could claim to a max of £25 k a year? ( Which is nearly identical to a guards basic salary )

I dont get what you are saying , currently we dont pay people a wage that is good enough for it to be worthwhile them going to work . Currently you could be working a minimum wage job but paying income tax which I also dont think is right . If the living wage where to be implemented and the personal allowance set at 14 k people would have something to actually go to work for .

Tbh in most cases I think the 25k max is about right assuming that the rent and council tax are paid for the person claiming the benefits if it is a family , but you are always going to have special cases where somebody needs round the clock care and this costs more than 25k a year .

 

[Moonshot]

I dont get what you are saying , currently we dont pay people a wage that is good enough for it to be worthwhile them going to work . Currently you could be working a minimum wage job but paying income tax which I also dont think is right . If the living wage where to be implemented and the personal allowance set at 14 k people would have something to actually go to work for .

Tbh in most cases I think the 25k max is about right assuming that the rent and council tax are paid for the person claiming the benefits if it is a family , but you are always going to have special cases where somebody needs round the clock care and this costs more than 25k a year .

Ok well im off to bed......but maybe you should consider whether at those levels, the welfare state is actually sustainable.....I could guarentee that some rail staff ( and others ) would be all over this thread like a rash sounding off about people with 10 kids and 3 houses knocked into 1 etc ....all paid for by the taxpayer !!

 

[muz379]

3 dads 12 kids 1 mum 12 bedroom house jeremy kyle tax payter funded circuss are very rare though . although the right wing media would have you believe a lot more people in this country are actually "benefits scroungers" than actually are There are some people out there that are just bone idle lazy dont want to work people . However they dont bother me too much because I wouldnt be happy living off £56 jsa a week . I spent more than £56 today alone . so leave them to it they are such a small drop in the ocean . Aside from the pensions welfare benefits paid to people in work are one of the biggest problems

My current problem with the taxation/benefits and minimum wage situation is this . A shelf stacker at my local tesco works 40 hours a week but at minimum wage so is still eligible for some working tax credits ,some council tax benefit and housing benefit because as a society we dont deem earnings from that job to be enough to live off . Meanwhile tesco and its shareholders are basking in record profits popping open the bubbly and celebrating good times . The way I see this situation is I as a taxpayer and you and every other taxpayer is paying the shortfall between the wages that this shelf stacker is getting paid and the wage they need to live off . While Tesco shareholders are counting their stacks of money going on nice holidays and buying nice cars . Profit itself isnt the problem I have , its when that profit is made at the expense of your employees and the taxpayer which many minimum wage employers are doing .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok well im off to bed......but maybe you should consider whether at those levels, the welfare state is actually sustainable.....I could guarentee that some rail staff ( and others ) would be all over this thread like a rash sounding off about people with 10 kids and 3 houses knocked into 1 etc ....all paid for by the taxpayer !!

At what levels , the personal allowance being at 14k isnt going to cost that much when you consider you wont be paying people the range of in work benefits they are currently claiming .

all im saying is make tesco pay people £8 an hour or whatever the living wage currently is . Dont make them pay any income tax on that , and let them get on with their life

Im not advocating more welfare spending im advocating less , Im advocating that tesco pay their employer the money they need to live instead of tesco paying some of it and the tax payer chipping in the rest which is what currently is happening .

I dont see what is not sustainable about lessening the in work welfare benefit bill

as for the 25 k like I said in many cases 25k is enough,maybe even too much if we are to encourage people back into work but the cap had to be set somewhere . But if someone has a kid that needs special medical care then obviously more than 25k will be needed .

 

[Starmill]

At what levels , the personal allowance being at 14k isnt going to cost that much when you consider you wont be paying people the range of in work benefits they are currently claiming .

all im saying is make tesco pay people £8 an hour or whatever the living wage currently is . Dont make them pay any income tax on that , and let them get on with their life

Im not advocating more welfare spending im advocating less , Im advocating that tesco pay their employer the money they need to live instead of tesco paying some of it and the tax payer chipping in the rest which is what currently is happening .

I dont see what is not sustainable about lessening the in work welfare benefit bill

as for the 25 k like I said in many cases 25k is enough,maybe even too much if we are to encourage people back into work but the cap had to be set somewhere . But if someone has a kid that needs special medical care then obviously more than 25k will be needed .

The above-inflation rises in the minimum wage will make a small start on this idea... I personally think that Personal Allowance should cover the entire minimum wage too - so if someone does a min wage job for a year their tax bill is £0. The Living Wage ideas though are trickier. For one I think setting it higher in London than elsewhere is going down a very bad road and also there's the risk of the influence of Tesco and other large retailers blocking it. They could also react by reducing employment if profits start to shrink because of it.

 

[ac6000cw]

Its not the we have always done it mentality that exists. It is the it is done this way for a very good reason that exists. Don't confuse the 2

I'm not, but to stay successful in business you have to constantly examine if the way you did things in the past is the best, most efficient, way to do them in the future. If you don't do that then a competitor will come along and do it for you - job gone....(and it can be hard to get it back).

 

[notadriver]

No - its easy role.



I particularly like the fact we can earn 5% on tickets.....I do like an incentive and in fact has been a feature of previous employment, though that was more based on share options......

Just out of curiosity do you think drivers are overpaid ? If so what should their salary be?

 

[Legzr1]

And this is one of the reasons the railway is in such a mess - it refuses to use available technologies simply because it is not the way it was done historically.

That argument leads to statements like 'a track circuit is an electrical device and is thus prone to failure'.
So if that is true why do we trust track circuit indications to be accurate?
Why do signallers in absolute block areas trust the telegraph to be accurate? It is an electrical device and thus is 'prone to failure'.
The lives of the people on the railway are trusted to complex arangements of electrical equipment all the time anyway, this simply takes that trend to its logical conclusion.


.

Looks like you haven't thought things through (again) and you're missing important points.

The electrical systems you've mentioned (and a multitude of electronic and electrical systems you haven't mentioned including in-cab equipment) all use a fail-safe system.

They fail 'right side'.

Care to explain a safe system of work where emergency detonator protection has been done away with (and your wish to see an end to guards is granted) and GSM-R fails (be it in-cab or line side equipment) ?

Maybe an analogy of drunken teenagers being handled by a first-aid trained lifeguard would help is understand...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why do trade unions get such a bad press then ?

Because they're good at their job - improving the lot of their members.

Non members think we should all join the race to the bottom rather than tackle issues head on.

This creates envy and resentment.

The right wing shout about it and their beloved right-wing press report it.

Then we get (supposed) railway staff spouting the right wing rhetoric of 'if you don't like your zero hours, zero terms and lousy paid job then go elsewhere'.

Victorian speak for a Victorian age - it has no place in this century (unless you're a member of the 5% owning 90% of the wealth club).

Greed breeds greed.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'm not, but to stay successful in business you have to constantly examine if the way you did things in the past is the best, most efficient, way to do them in the future. If you don't do that then a competitor will come along and do it for you - job gone....(and it can be hard to get it back).

If there was a safer more efficient way to do protection without Detonators then it would have happened years ago. Technology isn't everything. I remember years ago after they had just upgraded all the Cheadle Hulme to Crewe Line Signalling. The 2nd Night it was in operation a major fault and ALL the Signals controlled by Manchester South on that line went dark and we had to get talked past every signal as no one knew where any train on that line was except the Traincrew. Technology can fail on a major scale and a 20 min journey that night took 4 hours and my driver at the time still has a phobia about lineside phones lol

 

[wigwamman]

Hasn't Irish Rail largely adopted the above changes as a couple of recent journeys on their DMUs my ticket was checked by on train staff but they did not appear to have dispatch duties

I have no idea what Irish railways do sorry. I would imagine if DOO is in operation the Diesel units they have are all connectin walkthrough and have sdo ?. Plus I would imagine nearly if not all stations are manned ?.

I know on Northern Ireland services that they have quite new diesel units operated with a guard as the units are not walkthrough.

 

[Moonshot]

3 dads 12 kids 1 mum 12 bedroom house jeremy kyle tax payter funded circuss are very rare though . although the right wing media would have you believe a lot more people in this country are actually "benefits scroungers" than actually are There are some people out there that are just bone idle lazy dont want to work people . However they dont bother me too much because I wouldnt be happy living off £56 jsa a week . I spent more than £56 today alone . so leave them to it they are such a small drop in the ocean . Aside from the pensions welfare benefits paid to people in work are one of the biggest problems

My current problem with the taxation/benefits and minimum wage situation is this . A shelf stacker at my local tesco works 40 hours a week but at minimum wage so is still eligible for some working tax credits ,some council tax benefit and housing benefit because as a society we dont deem earnings from that job to be enough to live off . Meanwhile tesco and its shareholders are basking in record profits popping open the bubbly and celebrating good times . The way I see this situation is I as a taxpayer and you and every other taxpayer is paying the shortfall between the wages that this shelf stacker is getting paid and the wage they need to live off . While Tesco shareholders are counting their stacks of money going on nice holidays and buying nice cars . Profit itself isnt the problem I have , its when that profit is made at the expense of your employees and the taxpayer which many minimum wage employers are doing .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


At what levels , the personal allowance being at 14k isnt going to cost that much when you consider you wont be paying people the range of in work benefits they are currently claiming .

all im saying is make tesco pay people £8 an hour or whatever the living wage currently is . Dont make them pay any income tax on that , and let them get on with their life

Im not advocating more welfare spending im advocating less , Im advocating that tesco pay their employer the money they need to live instead of tesco paying some of it and the tax payer chipping in the rest which is what currently is happening .

I dont see what is not sustainable about lessening the in work welfare benefit bill

as for the 25 k like I said in many cases 25k is enough,maybe even too much if we are to encourage people back into work but the cap had to be set somewhere . But if someone has a kid that needs special medical care then obviously more than 25k will be needed .

How many rail employees are shareholders? Certainly the likes of Stagecoach and First Group encouarge their staff to participate in share schemes. Lets also not forget that the biggest rail pension provider ( with assets of some £20 billion ) also has significant share holdings. Its hypocrisy at the highest level when rail unions scream about profits from the railway being used to pay dividends when a large number of their own members benefit themselves.

 

[muz379]

There you are going violently off topic again not making any comments on points I have made about min wage workers the likes of stm revenue staff . I can only assume you agree with me that we should pay everyone a fair wage to reduce the welfare bill

I didnt mention anything about railway workers . I think the pay and benefits are extremely good but we have the unions to thank for the part they have played in that

 

[Moonshot]

There you are going violently off topic again not making any comments on points I have made about min wage workers the likes of stm revenue staff . I can only assume you agree with me that we should pay everyone a fair wage to reduce the welfare bill

I didnt mention anything about railway workers . I think the pay and benefits are extremely good but we have the unions to thank for the part they have played in that

No I m not going violently off topic at all....you mentioned tesco shareholders in your post from which I quoted. Tesco shareholders dont really have any relation to the rail industry .....unlike Stagecoach and First Group etc.

I defo agree we should be reducing the welfare bill - its unsustainable. So then its just a question of what elements of welfare the state should not provide or at least reduce its spend on.......which if we were to start a thread solely on that topic, I rather think that the thread would become the Rail Forums biggest !!!!

 

[muz379]

The difference between tesco and the railway is that the tocs pay their staff a fair wage that they can afford to live off hence why you work for northern and not tesco .

If its not tesco shareholders then it is g4s or stm security shareholders they are interchangable .

Get this on straight I have no issue with profit and shareholders making money but only if they do so responsivly . Part of that responsibility is to pay your workers a fair wage
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for your point about what elements of the welfare bill we should reduce would you not agree that given the fact that in work benefits are the second biggest expenditure by the welfare state by a large margin we should look at ways to tackle that ?

 

[Moonshot]

The difference between tesco and the railway is that the tocs pay their staff a fair wage that they can afford to live off hence why you work for northern and not tesco .

If its not tesco shareholders then it is g4s or stm security shareholders they are interchangable .

Get this on straight I have no issue with profit and shareholders making money but only if they do so responsivly . Part of that responsibility is to pay your workers a fair wage
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for your point about what elements of the welfare bill we should reduce would you not agree that given the fact that in work benefits are the second biggest expenditure by the welfare state by a large margin we should look at ways to tackle that ?

The biggest one being state pensions?? Which, and correct me if I m wrong, are in fact something that we could also find in the private sector? Now if a l employee retired and had a fantastic pension to live on , is it right that they should also draw the state pension ?

 

[Manchester77]

Not everyone is able to afford to pay into a private pension though.

 

[Moonshot]

Not everyone is able to afford to pay into a private pension though.

I agree.....but thats not the issue here......I m simply asking whether the state should provide a pension to those who have a fantastic private pension?

 

[Manchester77]

I agree.....but thats not the issue here......I m simply asking whether the state should provide a pension to those who have a fantastic private pension?

It would obviously be a case by case basis however the way you made your posting it sounded like you were suggesting that everyone be put onto a private pension.

 

[muz379]

The biggest one being state pensions?? Which, and correct me if I m wrong, are in fact something that we could also find in the private sector? Now if a l employee retired and had a fantastic pension to live on , is it right that they should also draw the state pension ?

Not everyone is always able to afford a private pension . Next time you are at your depot go and ask the atm staff if they have a generous employer pension scheme like us . I do think peoples state pension should be reduced in line with the size of their pension pot to a point of getting no state pension if you do happen to have a massive pot . But I also dont think pensioners should pay imcome tax on money they have put away fpr the future . So whilst some pensioners might have a pension pot and full state pension they qill oay tax like the rest of us

But lets get this straight if you want to reduce the welfare bill by attacking pensioners and the unemployed you also have to tackle head on the problem of in work benefits which it has been suggested
account for as much as 20 % of the welfare bill

 

[Moonshot]

It would obviously be a case by case basis however the way you made your posting it sounded like you were suggesting that everyone be put onto a private pension.

isnt that whats happening already ?

So on a case by case basis as you state, that would indicate that at some point, there is a dividing line between who can draw state pension and who cant - based on the ability to provide for themselves with no recourse to state funds. Myself and Muz have already agreed that state spending is unsustainable, so the only question to be debated is where the state reduces its spend.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not everyone is always able to afford a private pension . Next time you are at your depot go and ask the atm staff if they have a generous employer pension scheme like us . I do think peoples state pension should be reduced in line with the size of their pension pot to a point of getting no state pension if you do happen to have a massive pot . But I also dont think pensioners should pay imcome tax on money they have put away fpr the future . So whilst some pensioners might have a pension pot and full state pension they qill oay tax like the rest of us

But lets get this straight if you want to reduce the welfare bill by attacking pensioners and the unemployed you also have to tackle head on the problem of in work benefits which it has been suggested
account for as much as 20 % of the welfare bill

So what is to stop ATM staff applying for a role where the company does provide a pension scheme?

 

[Manchester77]

isnt that whats happening already ?

So on a case by case basis as you state, that would indicate that at some point, there is a dividing line between who can draw state pension and who cant - based on the ability to provide for themselves with no recourse to state funds. Myself and Muz have already agreed that state spending is unsustainable, so the only question to be debated is where the state reduces its spend.

Yes another back door privatisation job we've seen during this government.

The NHS is unsustainable when you think of it purely in economic terms however both welfare and the health service serve a wider part of society in that they were set up in the era when politicians ran the country for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of their friends. But then again reducing welfare would comply with modern economic systems where poor people are kept poor allowing people with more money to flourish.

 

[muz379]

Pension spending is only going to grow as we currently stand because of the baby boom and an aging workforce . if you carry on paying people min wage they wont be able to pay into decent pensions and so end up welfare dependent their whole lives even though they have done the right thing amd gone to work . Which is why paying people a decent wage reduces welfare dependancy now and puts a dent in future pension spending as well

 

[Moonshot]

Pension spending is only going to grow as we currently stand because of the baby boom and an aging workforce . if you carry on paying people min wage they wont be able to pay into decent pensions and so end up welfare dependent their whole lives even though they have done the right thing amd gone to work . Which is why paying people a decent wage reduces welfare dependancy now and puts a dent in future pension spending as well

Which doesnt answer the question I posed - " What is there to stop anyone working for ATM applying for a role with a company that has a pension scheme"?

 

[muz379]

isnt that whats happening already ?

So on a case by case basis as you state, that would indicate that at some point, there is a dividing line between who can draw state pension and who cant - based on the ability to provide for themselves with no recourse to state funds. Myself and Muz have already agreed that state spending is unsustainable, so the only question to be debated is where the state reduces its spend.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So what is to stop ATM staff applying for a role where the company does provide a pension scheme?

Nothing is stopping them some have applied and been successful no doubt many more will but no doubt some have applied and havent been successful or havent bothered applying because they dont have the skills . But there is always going to be a need to fill these jobs on the bottom rung of the careers ladder . Im not saying an stm rpi should get paid the same as a train driver all I am saying is they deserve as a minimum a wage that enttles them to live from the work they do nothing

Lets put it this way are you happy as a taxpayer that some of your taxes are going to pay fpr those stm rpis to afford to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves and their families whilst the people that own stm take home a heck of a lof of money in profit ?

 

[Moonshot]

Yes another back door privatisation job we've seen during this government.

The NHS is unsustainable when you think of it purely in economic terms however both welfare and the health service serve a wider part of society in that they were set up in the era when politicians ran the country for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of their friends. But then again reducing welfare would comply with modern economic systems where poor people are kept poor allowing people with more money to flourish.

Indeed it is unsustainable in economic terms - and in fact earlier on this week the NHS stated there is a £2 bn funding gap looming. I m not doubting that having access to healthcare is a benefit to society as a whole, but when the state provider is limited by funding constraints , it is inevitable that it will be increasingly difficult to provide that. But of course there is also the choice of private healthcare , for which the benefit is linked to how much you want to pay for that. Rail employees have access to a scheme called Healthshield funded by payments at differing levels from their own salary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing is stopping them some have applied and been successful no doubt many more will but no doubt some have applied and havent been successful or havent bothered applying because they dont have the skills . But there is always going to be a need to fill these jobs on the bottom rung of the careers ladder . Im not saying an stm rpi should get paid the same as a train driver all I am saying is they deserve as a minimum a wage that enttles them to live from the work they do nothing

Lets put it this way are you happy as a taxpayer that some of your taxes are going to pay fpr those stm rpis to afford to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves and their families whilst the people that own stm take home a heck of a lof of money in profit ?

But my taxes are also used to fund the Police and Fire Services etc....you just seem to be fixed on a single point which you dont agree with, and as I have pointed out more than once , and you have agreed with me, there is nothing to stop STM employees applying for roles elsewhere. The only issue you appear to have is at what level per hour a minimum wage should apply.

 

[Manchester77]

Indeed it is unsustainable in economic terms - and in fact earlier on this week the NHS stated there is a £2 bn funding gap looming. I m not doubting that having access to healthcare is a benefit to society as a whole, but when the state provider is limited by funding constraints , it is inevitable that it will be increasingly difficult to provide that. But of course there is also the choice of private healthcare , for which the benefit is linked to how much you want to pay for that. Rail employees have access to a scheme called Healthshield funded by payments at differing levels from their own salary.

Yes but earlier this week the NHS was rated the best health service out of 11 big westernised countries. That didn't appear in the news but the funding gap did! I'm sorry you doubt having access to healthcare is a benefit to society? Are you joking, do you also doubt that having access to state funded education is a benefit to society? I don't understand how someone can say that people being able to have free check ups, cancer treatment, new knees, x-rays, emergency treatment and everything else the NHS provides is a bad thing? When the NHS was set up the numbers which initially used it were far higher than predicted because people who would have previously not gone to the doctor started going, that's also why the number of cases of things like TB increased because people didn't couldn't afford to go to the doctors. Just because it's difficult to pay for a service which befits everyone doesn't mean we should begin to cut and get rid of it. The £2bn gap is the DoHs fault due to their privatisation of bits of the NHS, £20m is wasted on pointless legal battles over the tendering processes, each tender costs money to produce and put out and then pick and then pay the private provider.