What mentality is that? Low paid workers (as most are) not wanting to carry the can for the bankers screwing up the economy because they, the public employes, are easy government employed targets?

Having been out of hospital for 8 weeks, all I saw on my orthopaedic ward was hard-working, understaffed, dedicated nurses. I have never seen morale so low either. I don't doubt what you say in your experience, but I've had 5 ops in the last 2 1/2 years and not once had I had a complaint about a nurse.

A few examples: 2 staff nurses for over 30 ladies. One staff nurse heavily pregnant and came in and was immediately sent home as she was sick. That left 1 staff nurse for a 13 hours shift and she even had time to come down to theatres with me. Second example: on my discharge the nurses put my prescription into pharmacy at 8am. By 2pm when no prescription was forthcoming, one particular staff nurse went down to pharmacy every half hour from 2pm till it was finally ready at 4.30pm. She didn't have to do that but did.

Imo its not the nurses who can't be bothered, they are let down by a system thats overloaded and bureaucracy thats in place.

Didn't he sing 'Smokestack Lightning'?

That's okay – I got bored ages ago of you being an apologist for what anyone with a grain of morality/ethics can see has been happening and can see is wrong.

But this is risable: "inflation means things cost more now." Just for one, the cost of housing has not gone up, over the last 30 years, by the rate of inflation.

They already do. When you opt into one of the pension schemes, you agree that some of your pay will be deferred and go into that scheme instead.



So if people want a decent retirement, they have to become wizards at playing the financial game, yes?

That, I'm afraid, is part of what's gone seriously wrong. People have to trust their lives to a bunch of gamblers.

Please link to the post where anyone has claimed this.

How very boring, generic and predictable of you

It depends when you start, really. Start one early enough (and keep it up) like you're advised to, then yes.

I'm sure you know, however, that there will always be some kind of safety net for people who have been physically unable to, though. I doubt ANY government would be so callous as to remove that.

You would expect me to agree with your post, but I just don't.

Contrary to what the some think on here, I'm not against unions. I'm just against the way most of them conduct themselves, especially when compared to places like Germany, where it works well. That's the frustrating bit - that the Germans can make it work, but we can't.

Unions are great where there are large numbers of workers in an organisation. I employ 10 people, all of whom do different things, with their package appropriately reflecting this, so it's not hard to sit down once or twice a year with everyone and discuss their wages (amongst other things, such as performance, training etc).

You can't however, do that when there are 500 of you. That's where unions can serve some purpose - it's a time saver for the management, as well as a trained negotiator fighting your corner if you're a worker. With respect to, say, factory workers, they're unlikely to be good negotiators, which is why is should - in theory - be good to be in a union, so all that is done for you. And were I in control of a company with so many employees, I wouldn't object to the workforce being unionised if the union stuck to the theory and worked WITH me, rather than trying to oppose me all the time for no reason other than - it seems - to justify their existence.

The problem, however - ignoring for one minute the perception that ALL management is unscrupulous - is that unions invariably fail to understand the situation the employer finds himself in. A fall in income ALWAYS means that costs need to come down; if your personal outgoings are £15,000 per year and you earn £20,000 (ignoring tax for the minute), you're OK.

BUT supposing you suddenly experience a fall in income to £14,000? Or even you suffer a fall to £17,000 but your outgoings increase to £18,000? You're then cash flow negative, and you have to make some savings. The problem we have, is that the general public - with respect to them - don't seem to get that this applies to businesses, and our country, as well as them individually. A company that turns over £2m per annum sounds good, but if their costs are £2.5m, then they either have to try and boost income or cut costs. They can't 'just pluck' half a million from somewhere any more than you personally can 'just pluck' a couple of grand from nowhere.

It is therefore the job of the unions to understand this, and reach a compromise; too often, we see unions tabling their objections and demands, then proposing strike action when they don't get it. Every so often you'll get a union leader out to make a name for himself, which again, sets the union cause back even further. Just as people dismiss management as being 'all the same', the same gets said of the unions FOR THIS REASON.

And yes, management SHOULD INDEED talk to the unions to allow this to happen, but first of all the unions need to demonstrate that they're worth talking to and reasonable to deal with, otherwise they will continue to be treated with the current level of disdain.

Well obviously, common sense tells you that each manager has control of his own department's budget, and will therefore know what he can and can't spend.

They're called MANAGERS for a reason.