Anyone ?

What branch of engineering? What Grade? Graduate? Chartered etc

I am just intending this blog to be a general descussion on engineering and engineers in general. Do people think engineers are well paid, under paid? I am Not looking for anyone to quote any figures or anything. An awful lot of work is going abroad, Will this have a knock on effect on the earning potential we have as engineers?

I hear wire eroder operators get paid a bit ;-)

And what about IT people ?

There won't be any engineers left soon. The government is shutting down anything remotely to do with engineering. Ask Tony Blair why his government would not give Stone Manganese Bronze a £5 million bridging loan to tide them through a bad patch? One of only 5 companies in the world which could make large ships propellors (and the best one). Or why he wouldn't give the contract for Britian's new aircraft carrier and assault ships to a home shipyard? He gave the contract to the French. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Used to do a lot of work in Stone Manganese when they were making props. Used to love watching then make the moulds by hand in the pits dug into the floor!
They are now made in China and finished off here in Birkenhead. Still supply bits to them

Agh that was casting the old way!

I've been in IT for over 15yrs... No complaints at all (touch wood)

there has been more manufacturing jobs lost during the 13 yeras of this goverment than what was lost during Magy Thatchers years in government. cut open Blair, Brown and the gang and all you will see is EU

The pillocks actually think that the be all and end all is the services industry. That's what happens when you get governments full of people who have not had to live in the real world. Someone needs to have a look at their C.V.s. Now they are putting people in charge of things who haven't got a clue either. No C.A.A. top execs have any idea of the air travel industry, the defence people know nothing about defence. The N.H.S. hierarchy have never worked in the medical professions and haven't a clue, you could go on for ever. This is what happens when you let consultant firms run the the show. We're goosed let's face it.

I'd imagine that because two thirds of a company's operating costs are typically employee related (wages etc). The cost of labour is a very big factor. Consider a company in a County that doesn't pay sick pay, has less (or none) paid annual leave, ia less concerened about the cost of health and safety and most importantly pays a lot less; all these factors would bring the labour cost right down.

Most smaller engineers, like where you work Nigel don't do a massive amount of foreign trading and rely on local business. Events such as the close of MG Rover, GEC and Cammel Laird all had a huge knock on effect to their suppliers when they shut.

Unions are another factor and did influence the speed in which the uk motor industry could automate and remain competitive in the 70's. This was a contributing factor to the closure or relocation of many of the home motor manufacturers. This stuff pre-dated Thatcherism.

I'd like to hope that one of the key strengths of Uk manufacturing is the quality and specialist skill. If you want mass produced crap then Britain aint the place.

Look at all the money wasted in local govenments, the expenses scandal etc.

Whilst I generally don't disagree with your post, I think we have the Japanese to thank for giving us a kick up the backside. Up to the Japanese getting serious in the UK car market, many of our cars (and French and other cars) were rubbish in many respects, the metal rusted too easily, suspension joints were routinely changed at many MOTs, oil seals were almost unnecessary for the difference they made and clutch changes were routine.

The Japanese didn't sit on their bums, relax and gloat like the UK has a tendency to do, they have continued to improve the quality.

Whilst historically the UK management had too little involvement in decisions, I think now as you stated above, they have too much influence compared to their knowledge. Consultants often try and pin down to absolute figures with no engineering experience, so if you tell them it is going to take 35 minutes to change the brakes - they want every brake-change to take 35 minutes with total disregard to reality. This is because they want to transfer responsibility (ie blame, a word they always say doesn't exist!!!) downwards to the little man that can't argue back.

We need management, we need the workforce and we need unions to protect the little man (and sometimes the bigger men). The unions are very weak at the moment, many companies/managers are abusing the workforce. How many times are workers shouted at, sworn at or belittled, this is harassment which is illegal. How many people are working extra time for no pay - which is illegal, there is nothing wrong with good-will and flexibilty, as long as its voluntary and not coerced.

I have mixed feelings on unions. Whilst I agree with you that the workforce in many large organisations do need collective bargining, advice, protection and many other of the services that the unions offer; it is a well known fact that British industry has suffered at the hands of them.

It's not easy to find the balance between protection and miltancy. There have been several examples of unions providing too much protection, this has caused the employing organisations to suffer as they can't remain competitive. This can ultimately lead to a loss of customers and ultimately bankrupcy (as with the UK car industry in the 70's).

Personally I've viewed union membership as a sort of insurance, for me it would cost over £20 per month and I just don't see £20 a month's worth of benefits from the fee. Should I have a matter that I can't resolve with my employer, then I'd pay for my own legal advice. The situation is differnet for my girlfriend as the union does offer several benefits that are well worthwhile for the teaching profession.

It is quite easy to justify the membership fee, what would be your salary and terms of conditions at work if Unions did not exist.

Everybody looks at gains in return for their Union membership, what you also have to look at is potential losses for no-Unions, these can be far greater than any potential gains!

Many of the national organisations have upped the games they play with Unions, it costs a lot of money for the Unions to play these games, but it is a small investment for the company to weaken the Unions by reducing the number of members.

Added to this was a big campaign to make Unions a dirty word, this was Government and Business led, again a small investment by them to get their own way.

Classic examples of this are many of the smaller high street chains, where there is almost zero membership of Unions, the staff are treated exceedingly badly (bullying by managers, health and safety totally ignored, inadequate training, blame culture etc etc) and are on minimum wage. The staff moan loads, but still won't join Unions.

There is one major employer on the Wirral who is gradually reducing the hours people work, despite a massive backlog of work in many departments. When posts are becoming vacant, the new job is advertised with one day a week less hours. whilst this may be achievable for the odd post here and there, as a bulk strategy it is doomed to failure, increased stress and a never-ending spiral of destruction. At the same time, managers have less responsibility and more pay.

I am not as left wing as some of my posts may suggest, but when the right wing has the upper hand and abusing their power, the moderates have to swing to the left to compensate.

I believe that a person should have the choice of union membership; "closed shop" is outdated. The comment I make is only my personal opinion, that I "myself" choose not to be a member because I personally don't see the benefits it offers to me.

There a number of reasons why I am not a member and these include, my position in the organisation I work for, the influence I have and the job I do. There are many people that work with and for me that feel different and I respect that, in that it is their choice to be a member or not.

Remember one time, the mis 70's, when I couldn't get a job unless I was in the Union. I couldn't join the Union unless I had a job. Snookered.
I've seen Unions do good stuff and I've seen Unions do shoit stuff. I just regret the fact that Birkenhead now has no dockers, hardly any light industry, next to no heavy industry and lots of people looking for gainful employment. I blame the Unions to a great extent. All the Militant Tendency, Socialist Workers Party and all that crap got a grip of them and we now reaping that muddled thinking. Commons Sense should be the order of the day, from Unions and from bosses. In 50 years working, in the Military with no Unions and as a civvy with Unions, I found most bosses reasonable and all Unions hard to please, just my experience of it all. Examples I could provide by the armful.

If anyone has any doubt about the importance the trade union movement has played, in conditions of employment and life in general we enjoy, a simple bit of historical research is all that's required. Of all the benefits that are enjoyed today by the workers of this country, H&S, paid holidays,sick leave,etc, etc and i could go on and on, all the benefits have been hard won by unions and the workers of this country sticking together, none of these benefits have been handed to anyone on a plate. More often than not big business and bosses have in fact opposed more changes to pay and workers conditions. As DD said in a earlier post, without strong union representation these conditions are being eroded by certain employers because of lack of union protection. In my view human nature hasn't changed that much and the quickest way to return the the poor standards of employment of the early 1900s is to do away with union representation.

I see it from both sides as I have permanent members of staff and contractors that work for me. The permanent staff are heavily protected by their contracts of employment, service, unions and employment rights; whilst the contractors I could pretty much finish up tomorrow if the need arised.

The contractors get paid more per hour, but get no sick pay, annual leave, pension, protection or anything else that comes with being employed directly. Whilst their hourly rate is higher, in effect their costs are similar to the organisation as there is no liability/pension/leave pay to cover with contracting staff.


But why contract if that's the case? I suppose the people that do have faith in their skills and ability to find other work and that they are prepared to move about to where the work is. It was a term that Herbert Hoover called "rugged individualism". This way of work isn't for everyone though and it will depend a lot on the sector that you work in and the lifestyle that you lead.

Many many examples floating around of what appeared (by poor media reporting) to be militant unions asking for pay rise much greater than inflation -

Companies whose workers are reported of having things like 10% pay rises and still going on strike - the truth being that it was 10% over 5 years (1.9% per year), the pay rise was significantly under inflation plus the lock-in for 5 years when inflation was expected to rise.

Pay rises of 5% - the truth, it was a staged pay rise which gave an in-year pay rise of less than inflation.

6% pay rise - the truth, it should have been backdated 2 years but wasn't (breaking an earlier promise) giving an effective less than inflation pay rise.

A worker sacked for having nookie in a cupboard at work - the truth being that the manager who also got caught wasn't sacked.

Workers being told they can't have pay rises - the truth managers/shareholders got over double inflation.

It is very easy for the media to make the Unions look bad with sensationalist reporting.

All the above cases (figures are approximate from memory) were fought by the Unions and strike action brought as a last ditch resort. Do you really think workers like getting no pay and bad press, strikes are things that nobody takes lightly, it creates enormous hardship.

Can you imagine how the Cammel Laird workers lived with no income throughout the strike periods - how long can you live without pay? Do you think they wanted to live like that?

Too many others are apathetic and/or believe the headlines.

I challenge anyone to give me a valid reason not to join a Union unless they are plain masochistic or effectively self-employed.

Full marks to members of Unions, they are subsidising the non-members.

Of course DD there has always been bias reporting in this country against unions and the sad thing is people believe it.
I was in fact one of those Cammel laird workers who lost many, many weeks and sometimes months of pay, and do you know something, according to the press it was always the union fault, never the management fault ever. So your right it wasn't easy being without wages and the decision to take strike action wasn't taken lightly, but I'm sure there are people who think that when you are on strike you still receive your full wage.
I can also recall as a Union representative going to meetings the length and breadth of this country to meet MPs and also going to Parliament to meet MPs to try and get work for the yard, not only would it have benefited the workers but the management and directors if successful, how were we repaid, by stopping our wages. Anyway, as we all know now, there was a bigger plan to be hatched.

The press will always want to write stories because it sells newspapers, but the employers get their fair share of publicity. I see Wirral Council mentioned far more in our local papers than Unison (its majority membership). It's not just the belief of the press that think that unions damaged industry in the 70s & 80s.

My experiences of unions don't come from papers, but from working directly with them and watching their activities in the workplace for many years. The examples that stick in my mind are directly concerned with how they've represented their members.

Union reps not interested in working with their members if it concerns their own promotional prospects, attempting some senseless arguement just because someone was unsuccessful at interview, very bad behavoir on picket lines, examples too many to mention. Locally, I haven't seen them have much success at anything becuase large organisations will always tend to be relatively fair, follow process and operate within the law.

Nevertheless, I'm freinds with very many union reps who tell me stories of good things that they've done for their members, but isn't that what opionion is? Some people are for, some against.

Going back to Nigel's question regarding wages, well that's another interesting one....In the small business sector I could quite simply ask my boss for more money. Work in somewhere larger then "you've reached the top of your pay grade, there are no more spinal points to progress".

One thing that suprises a lot of people is the openess of grading knowledge in the civil service. Everybody knows what pay grade everyone else is on, it is completely different in many private sector organisations where you may have no idea of the grade/salary of your colleagues.

I personally believe that the easiest way to get paid more money is to look for another job on a higher salary.

Sorry Neil, I have yet to find a large organisation that doesn't openly break the law. I would name a few apart from the obvious slander etc. I mentioned one case earlier on where working hours are arbitrarily being cut despite backlogs without any proper assessment of the requirements. I know of cases where no training has been given despite the hazardous nature of the work. I have seen some dreadful cases were COSHH has been ignored, dangerous chemicals in unmarked and sometimes unsuitable containers etc.

Only in the last week a company that deals with Lithium on the Wirral has been successfully prosecuted.

ICI at Runcorn has an appalling Health and Safety record, with numerous fines, warnings etc.

The Civil Service has introduced a number of measures in the last ten years to make individuals pay less visible and predictable.

I realise not all companies are like that - but I find few that aren't. The more managers, the less management.

Money and jobs are short at the moment, its an employers market, they can take bigger risks without getting grassed up.

I really pity the current generation who have been indoctrinated in thinking that Unions are bad and will not invest in themselves. If you have problems with your Union it is a lot easier and safer to sort out than an employer. Yes you get rogue representatives in Unions, but generally certain layers of the Unions have a lot of good people.

In the last 20 years I have only come across one militant trade-unionist, but have come across 4 management *rs* lickers who were looking after their own promotion (which usually they never got), this is out of a total of about 60 representatives.

I don't appreciate the "like it or lump it" approach, how about just doing things properly and fairly.

Whilst I believe that campaigning for better pay and conditions is a good thing, total revenue - total cost = profit.

Locally we've seen a number of industries either go bankrupt (C. Laird) or move abroad (Bidston Steel, Champion). Don't get me wrong, I fully support health and safety policies with good working conditions, but all these things cost money.

Whilst I'm certain that unions did good things for their employees in Lairds and the like, there is now nothing more to protect; the industry is gone (I was tempted to say "the gates are shut", but thats not the case if you want home furnishings at champions business park!)

Why have these companies moved abroad? Because they are cheaper to operate over there. Wages don't cost as much, health and safety not as strict, taxes not as bad, government legislation not as strict, less paid leave etc. All this means less cost to the customer. Unions are powerless to stop the lost business, if a customer can get the product cheaper elsewhere they usually will. The consumer is king.

Governments have tried to implement legislation to protect industry (restricting imports of certain products etc), but the success of this is questionable. Consider Nissan's penetration into the UK market.

The u-turn on offshore telephone banking was an interesting one, customers pissed off that the person on the other end of the phone can speak english, but can't spell surnames. Banks brought the uk call centres back because it was loosing them customers.

I often thought the American market was more loyal to only "buy American", but consider GMC filing for chapter 11 last year due to its massive liability.

The mining strike was an interesting example at it became cheaper to import coal than to get it out of uk ground, but the CEGB was the largest customer. The government could have done more to help redeploy and train miners once the pits closed.

The worst example to me has been the recent behavior of the banks, lending people money with no means to pay it back. They then have to be bailed out to the tune of 20% of our GDP. I believe it's the fault of the government, not doing enough to regulate it.

There will always be a need to buy local, I can't have my red stripe shipped in from China every time I want a beer :-)

The Unions are too politicised, instead of fighting for workers rights they fight for ideological supremacy (Socialism/Communism), which has been found wanting. Getting involved in the Union is also now being found to be a good career, you can get to be an MP or you can get be a big wig in the Union itself, or, as has been previously noted, it can enhance you career in your job. Anything rather than actually work to improve your fellow workers lot. The old Unions were funded by Moscow as well and seem to have kept the old ideology going. It's all very well asking bosses to move with the times but the Unions have got to do the same or go the way of the dinosaurs.

Could someone actually say that their union fee is being spent wisely? Political donations, paying to send reps to conferences, member's expenses etc etc.

Will we need unions with the internet as advice, information, publicity and organising campaigns becomes easier to obtain? Take the recent protests on Facebook for example, there isn't a need anymore to pay someone to organise them.

For industry in this country to compete with other countries industries, they must be allowed to do so on an equal footing.
Two of the industries you previously mentioned, shipbuilding and mining were not allowed to do so. Proven fact that Mrs Thatcher had no inclination whatsoever to have these industries survive. She appointed 2 chairman with the mandate to close down shipbuilding and the mining industry. At that time ships were being made cheaper abroad, not quicker and certainly not better, the main manufacturer of ships at that time and in direct competition to British shipbuilders were Japan and Korea, Korea being the more competitive of the two. Fact was, the safety in their ship yards was non existent and conditions and pay very poor. On saying that the Korean and Japanese ship yards only had to tender on a material only basis, all other costs were picked up by the government. Similar with coal. Only Mrs Thatcher and her government at the time seen this situation as a way of breaking what she seen as powerful unions, but it wasn't powerful unions she wanted to see the back of, it was unionism full stop.

Rather then back these industries for the short term for the sake of future generations, she let them go to the wall with the propaganda and lies that, it was the British worker that was at fault and the mines were running dry of coal and couldn't be got out of the ground at a profit. How wrong she has been proven, there are mines operating today by workers cooperatives at a profit and they can't get the coal out of the ground quick enough to meet demand.

There may well be some truth in the fact that some goods can be brought in from abroad cheaper, but at what cost. I am certainly not happy receiving goods from abroad knowing what conditions the people of India, China, Korea etc, etc have to work in.

Problems with british shipbuilding pre-dated Margaret Thatcher by about 20 years (ship building recession of 1958). This was a contributing factor to the nationalisation of Lairds in 1977, two years before Thatcher came to power. World shipbuilding began to improve around 1961, but Britain stagnated.

The Thatcher government continued to pour money into British shipbuilding up until about the second term in 1983. Saying that they didn't help is untrue. A number of other stuggling industries including the motor (BLMC) were nationalised around a similar time to ship building.

Some mines were profitable and survied the pit closures, it was never the intention to shut these. It was the unions that resisted calls for the increased automation in mines because of fear of job cuts.

Automation has seen the loss of a number of jobs, but what are we expected to do, keep producing things with carving knives because it keeps people employed? I agree that one area that the government can help in is re-deployment and funding training.

There are a huge number of resons why businesses fail, but the majority will either be through lost sales or increased costs, but how long are we expected to fund decling industries through tax payer's money?

You may briefly think about the conditions that a worker has gone through to make your shoes, television or clothes, but I bet you'll still use and buy them, thus keeping these people in their bad conditions.

There was a EU mandate that 2 major ship yards in the UK where to go to the wall. The 2 yards that where selectd where Swan Hunters and Cammell Lairds. This came to light during Frank Fields fight to get access to the intervention fund that the EU where using to keep the east german yards open. This was after Lairds had been sold {given to Barrow& Furnace} and then earmark for closure by them 2 years prior to the final ssk submarine been completed by Lairds.

The Thatcher government certainly didn't pour money into British shipbuilders, what money was put in was never enough to help us compete with other parts of the world, as i said before were heavily subsidised by their governments to win orders and keep their workers in employment, what money was invested in BS was used for paying off past debts and not for modification and the up keep of British yards. This is were government and senior management failed the shipbuilding industry in this country. This is where you may say the ship yard workers have to modernise also, this is true, i was involved in some of the negotiations at the time, if you could call it that, what was proposed wasn't open to negotiation, it was more like rammed down your throat. All it was doing was paving the way for what was to come, closure and/or privatisation, When Sir Robert Atkinson was made chairman his sole mandate was to get rid of shipbuilding in this country, orders from maggie. This is well documented and i even seen the programme myself, when he was interviewed on TV.

Automation and modernisation of pits had absolutely nothing to do with the 1984 miners strike. This was completely Thatchers ideology and pay back time for what happened to the Ted Heath government. She had one thing on her mind and nothing else, to break trade unionism in this country and especially the miners union which at that time was the strongest. Right from gaining power she was stock piling coal and even bringing it in from abroad, she even changed the method of transporting the stuff in case other unions refused to move it. I'm not saying the miners union were angles in all of this, but i wont accept there was any more meaningful reason for it. It was pay back time and self preservation of a government and ideology.

I do buy British when i can and yes i do look, obviously its not always possible or practicable to do so, but i don't buy anything if i know it comes from those countries who still employ slave labour.

I can say 10+ years Civil Engineering brings in good money. If you're willing to do the work, it can be well paid. I don't know of a single mate with a engineering discipline job that isn't well off.

The British Industry should never be in competition with countries whose workers are paid next to nothing.

There are always wheels within wheels, Nissan had a lot of negotiating and agreements with the government before they impacted this country.

The government had a policy to support ICL (computer industry), even AFTER ICL was sold abroad.

The quality of Japanese ships and their engineering exceeded what Cammel Lairds could do - but as has been said, there were a lot more workers killed and maimed in the process.

Shoving money in India's direction has caused more poverty not less. This has come about because wages rose, process of food etc rose, but those people that weren't employed by foreign investment had the same old wage and could afford the food. The other governments should have protected India from this affect.

@Bandycoot - totally agree - the unions should stay within their bounds, I am annoyed when they have sub-groups such as gay, black, one-eyed etc - to a union a worker should be just a worker. They also should get involved in foreign politics. But it is up to the membership to censure their union - the union is not a separate entity like a company - it is the membership - the members have control - if you don't like something - put a letter in the union rag-mag and let others know what is going on and get it stopped.

We never play by the same rules - the government were not allowed to subsidise certain competitive industries, but other countries do it through the back door, by subsidising the power producing industries (electricity supply), who then provide cheaper power to industry - subsidising by stealth.

Foreign call centres should near enough be banned, very few produce adequate service (let alone good service), we have bodies that are supposed to protect the consumer - they should be able to fine companies with poor call centre service.

We should never have been in the EU, there are no advantages other than MP's promotion prospects. There are many disadvantages.

Health and Safety saves money not costs money - what is the cost of a death or major injury, what are the costs of fines. Oh I forgot, an industry can expect a factory inspector about once every 100 years now. Even food shops have very little hygiene checks, I think its about once every five years on average. The government has been saving pitifully small amounts of money by getting rid of these safeguards - or tying them down at the office to do paperwork.

To quote John Lennon "I've got blisters on my fingers" and the keyboard needs a rest ....

I'm all debated out too. If I write anymore tonight I'd probably give myself a headache.

Been some really useful points discussed and I think if we took it much further, we'd probably best get the BBC in to make ourselves some money with a tv program.

Neil.

thanks Neil, been interesting to say the least.

A lot of what you guys have been discussing has gone straight over my head but I just wanted to say how refreshing it was to read a debate that has stayed on track and not developed into a slanging match.

Ahhh, you didn't see the PMs .... just joking

This has been a difficult one belive me! And I sent no PM's - Promise. But was tempted!

Another thing that hacks me off is the way foreign firms are allowed to take over British firms, not to keep them open but to gain access to the advanced technology and then set about shutting them down and transferring the technology and know how back to their own country, after a short honeymoon. The Steel industry is a case in point. As for the slave labourers, without their pittance coming in to buy their rice bowl they have nothing, which is ever the way of the ordinary working man.

Quite right Bandy, hacks me off also, all in the name of free enterprise and so called progress. The closing of a factory or a mill doesn't just stop there, it also closes communities and a the loss of generations of knowledge, never to be returned.

The slave labour question, disgusting it still goes on, and yet a catch 22 situation, if we don't buy, they go hungry, if we do buy we keep them repressed in a terrible situation. Similar of how it must have been here at one time. In this day and age the rest of the world should act and do something about it.

engineering wages on the wirral are cack, you'll be lucky to push £12p/h ltd or £10 paye. hence the reason why i work offshore or do the power station shutdowns

A frustration for me is companies that go into liquidation to cancel all their debits. I lost thousands of pounds on that one and it's something that myself and Nigel went through in an engineering outfit in the early 90's.

These places practically continue trading like nothing else has happen but it's the suppliers that loose out.

My advice is to never let customers run away with a bill if you're self employed and try to get them to pay for materials up front, wherever possible. There are useful tools you can buy like the "risk disk" that will help you assess a company's financial viability before you give credit.

For me, I bug my computer software so if they don't pay me it times out and renders itself useless. Bad payers go on proforma and have to pay up front. If they want the work doing they will find the money.

Also, a cheque is just a piece of paper until it is cleared so don't fall for "it's in the post".

Never do any work without a valid PO (preferably a document and not just an order no over the phone).

and finally you may as well do nothing at all than be a busy fool.

Well said Neil !

This is sadly a true fact of todays world.

and I wondered why Union membership would cost me £25 per month??



Their salaries are often boosted by healthy pensions and perks such as rent-free homes, a report claimed.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance labelled the 38 union bosses pocketing six-figure salaries hypocrites, given their lives of ‘well-paid luxury’.

Bob Crow, head of the transport union the RMT, takes home £105,679 a year.

The average Tube driver earns £40,000 a year and station staff £26,000 but Mr Crow wants his members to launch a ‘class war’ in the wake of a two-year public service pay freeze.

While the average civil servant earns £22,850 a year, Mark Serwotka, head of the PCS union which represents them, earns £111,112. The average teacher takes home £32,630 annually but NUT head NUT Christine Blower takes a salary of £124,483.

Derek Simpson of the Unite union lives in an £800,000 grace-and-favour house with his second wife while taking a salary of £120,328 from his members.

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It is hypocritical for firebrand trade union leaders to be calling for strikes and higher taxes while they themselves live a life of well-paid luxury. It is small wonder they aren’t worried about the tax burden or the national debt when they are so well-off.’

The Trade Unions Congress said it was the TPA that was the secret organisation. ‘Not a single penny of any union general secretary’s pay comes from the taxpayer. If the TPA really spoke for ordinary taxpayers, they would be asking hard questions about the directors of companies who have made themselves mega-rich through the privatisation of public services and PFI deals,’ it added.

And a spokesman for the PCS union said: ‘Mark’s salary is no secret. Our members are certainly made aware. This is not new information.’

The PCS Union has over 320,000 members which means its financial turnover is in excess of £38.5M a year, a salary of £0.11M for the head of a business of this scale is not untoward.

Derek Simpson will be paying a hefty tax bill for his £800,000 house, whilst it may be provided gratis, it is still an employment benefit.

Considering the PM's salary is £142,500 and his "membership" is 61 million people, I'd say that the salaries of unions is somewhat excessive.

They are similar salaries to local authority chief execs; having members isn't the same as the responsibility of being an employer although I do agree that running a large organisation does command a fair salary.

There are a lot of financial fringe benefits to being a PM, I would doubt his annual income is less then £0.25M and could easily be double that!

Yet another post on union bashing, whats the problem with union bosses being on those sort of salaries and any other benefits that go their way, are they, because they are Union leaders expected to be on the same wages of their members whilst bosses of the biggest companies can earn exorbitant amounts that is obscene and still tell their workers they must have a pay freeze. If any salaries should be examined they should start with heads of the big industries, followed by sportsmen, civil service, the entertainment business, the list is endless, oh and people in IT

I wouldn't say it's union bashing, more a constructive debate on salaries. Anyone earning over £100k and works for or with the public sector is likely to be questioned at some time by the press.

What pisses me off is that the public sector is sufferning because of the behavoir of the banks and private sector. How much public money was used to bail out the banks? figures suggest that the overall cost could be up to £1.5 trillion.

I actually spent some time in the back office of one of the major high street banks in its hey-day a few year ago and saw first hand how they operated. Corrupt as fook.

Each personal advisor was a adwarded a comission for each product they sell, if that be a loan, credit card, mortgage, insurance etc. The counter tellers would only pass businesses onto certain personal advisors in the back office that they were mates with. This created a really bad atmosphere to work in.

Each personal advisor (PA) was under constant pressure from the branch manager to sell as many products as possible regardless if they were of any good to the customer. If the PA didn't meet their targets they'd be out.

Loans & credit cards were common product sales and the PAs themselves knew that the loan payment protection insurance wasn't worth the paper it was written on, but they still sold it as this was a major source of comission.

I actually saw ALL the details that they kept on me on their computer. The whole thing was geared up to assesing risk and the ability to quickly sell me other products should I be unfortunate enough to walk into a branch and meet a teller.

I don't have credit cards and choose to keep some savings should I need money in an emergency. This gives me a good risk rating on their computers. Everytime I come to the counter "do you want a credit card? you're entitled to a loan". This drives me mad and causes a scene in the bank everytime they ask me.

I shouldn't get annoyed with the teller tho as it's the way the bank is run, being comission focused. The blame rests with the government for not regulating them enough. Maybe they were scared to do it? There isn't an excuse now as everybody is feeling the pinch and bankers should be no exception.

The public sector has always been an easy target and yet when the unions try to protect our services and peoples jobs the propaganda machine in this country kicks in, the sad part about it is some people believe it and the union and its members become the bad guys. People should remember these services are our services and cuts cost jobs, it may well save taxpayers money in wages only to cost taxpayers money in benefits, so where is the point.
As for the banks, they are and should be held responsible for a lot of this mess and that's where the deficit should be clawed back from. They have been responsible for many years and its about time they were made to pay back all the monies they have cost the people of this country through mis selling,etc,etc.

I seem to remeber that Gordon Brown sucked up to the banks for years,all you heared year after year was the city, the city. Amazing what short memories some people have as to where a lot of the problems started.

Whatever Gordon Brown may have done, you need to go back a lot further than when he was on the scene, The banks for many years have only ever thought of profit and more profit, regardless of what cost to the economy and regardless to what effect it had on the people and their lives. As Neil said in an earlier post, bank workers were put under pressure to sell various financial services to the public, regardless of whether the customer was able to accommodate such services, the list is endless, credit cards handed out like confetti, the mis- selling of pensions, exorbitant bank charges, and not forgetting dodgy dealing in the city.

And the last goverment joined in by borrowing and more borrowing, they even dreamed up the PFI so as to keep a lot of the borrowing off book. We will be paying through the nose for a long time to come for those deals. Well actualy some peoples children will as some of use will be well dead long before the PFI debts are payed. If the Tory's had brought in the PFI system for building schools and hospitals there would have been murder but Blair and Brown sweet talked it through as the best thing since sliced bread.

And when new schools and hospitals were getting built we didn't hear any opposition MPs refuse or ask for them not to be built in their constituency. When did you see a Tory MP stand up and say, don't build that new hospital in my constituency, its putting us in debt, the people i represent can go without. There are some things we have to go into debt for and i would say schools and hospitals are acceptable. Victorian buildings may have been acceptable in your day for health care and education but not anymore, mind you in your day they were still fairly new,

Greed and competition know no limits. If you think about bank products and the behavoir of the likes of Northern Rock, the competition in the banking sector was huge. If an individual bank didn't offer a good deal, home owners could go to a competitor to get a better deal, price comparison websites and brokers allow people to easily compare a range of products across a number of lenders. Moneysupermaket was founded to do exactly this; provide brokers with information on mortgage deals.

Nothern Rock offered a 125% mortgage, this is madness and was one of the major factors in their downfall. 24% of their customers had this deal.

My point is that the government did pretty much fook all to regulate this behavoir. Businesses will typically slit their throats to offer a better deal that their competitors, that's fine if they want to risk their future but these failures have hit the public purse when the banks were nationalised.

There wasn't really an option, the government had to bail out the banks or risk the progressive collapse of the economy. The banks are relied on for savings and loans that keep the economy going.

As for Icelandic banks, it pissed me off that people were crying about losing ALL their investments. What monkies did they have managing it?? An investment strategy is all about managing risk, you don't put all your eggs in one basket! My employer reported loosing millions at the time of the collapse, but in real terms it was only about 1% of their total fund, Why? because they had spread the risk across a portfolio of investments.

The banks are a major source of income for the government and perhaps they didn't want to piss them off, but I believe that there are two ways of making unpopular decisions:

1) Gradually pick away at it as Margaret did with the unions or
2) Wait for it all to turn to shit to provide you with an execuse to sort it all out and "get tough".

It's a shame the labour government chose the last option!

As far as mortgages go, not one government in recent times has stepped in and tried to protect the consumer from the greedy and sometimes corrupt financial services and lenders. This developed into many people losing their homes or a lifetime of struggle to pay for them. This has not nescersarily been down to people losing their employment but down to the financial services, Some of the deals on offer could only lead to disaster for the borrower.
On getting my mortgage in 1973 it was uncomplicated and simple, i went to a building society and asked if i could be considered for a mortgage. They asked a few simple questions, followed by proof. they then, based on the answers and proof told me exactly how much they were prepared to lend me, At that time i earned £33.59p per week, they didn't take any earnings of wives into account. On my earnings they were prepared to loan me no more than £4,100. The equation was simple, 10% deposit and you were not allowed to pay back more in a month than you earned in a week.
I actually had my eye on a house that i fancied at a cost of £4,295.00 and the building society told me to go away i couldn't afford it, none of this, well if you do this and you do that we will lend you it, it was a strict no, you can only go to the limits we have set. Not long after that in my opinion the corruption set in, a work colleague who was on exactly the same wage as me was allowed to borrow £9,995.oo. to buy a house, 100% mortgage with an endowment and taking his wife wage in to consideration. Also it was over a 30 year term. I know we are all responsible for our own actions but what chance does the man on the street have when they are dealing with what is bordering on corruption of the financial services who are on big fat bonuses, whatever the cost.

I have recently taken out a new mortgage to get another house and the advisor told me that I was putting to much of my own money down and that many lenders wouldn't be interested in only loaning me £33K!!

When I went to pay of my current mortgage the fuckers didn't want to except the cheque and said why don't you put the money in one of our high interest accounts. What a load of crap to say this to me!

Financial markets are funny things but at the end of the day somewhere along the line there is a risk and requires an appropriate risk management strategy. I would like to make some comments about things mentioned above, these are not justifying anything but are to to add some points for consideration.

125% mortgage - why not? As a rule of thumb, property (which generally is considered a safe investment for long term) doubles in value every ten years, so in a 25 year mortgage the equity will be 565% of the original value, this roughly equates to reaching 125% in 3.3 years. I would have thought this a reasonable risk, after all you would expect a better return than 25% in ten years in any investment product let alone 25 years.

Before the days of endowment mortgages, inflation was also high, sometimes above 10%. If you took out a repayment mortgage that stretched you, because they had constant repayments, every year you got a pay rise somewhere near inflation which meant every year the repayments effectively got easier. One of the main reasons that people are struggling now, is because we have low inflation!

There is no such thing as "no risk" where finance is involved.

If you take out a mortgage, the mortgage company agree to have the property as equity, that is what a mortgage is. If you cannot cope, you should have the choice of walking away from the property and the mortgage WITHOUT PENALTY, the mortgage company (by definition) have agreed that risk.

It is annoying that the financial companies have gradually transferred more and more risk to the consumer - and all governments have supported this. The companies are experts and the consumers are not, clearly the experts should take the higher level of risk.

125% is just a figure and it's the amount that you loan and the ability to pay it back that matters; although they don't offer these mortgages anymore, perhaps because of the messages they were sending out.

I think it's just too damm easy to get credit now. I went to Currys with £300 in my arse pocket to buy a new washing machine and they didn't want to take it. "Why pay now when you can pay next feb?" they said.

As Bert points out, credit was harder to come by 30/40 years ago apart from the odd mortgage and HP scheme.

I've been the victim of ID fraud, why? because the likes of Littlewoods and Telewest gave credit to some idiot too easily without carrying out adequate checks.

I had such fun with credit services when they tried to chase me for the money. My mate got me the last seven years of my CTAX bills from the Council (to prove I'd lived at my current address) and I sent those over in a buff envelope with a nice helping of cat shit as a present.

Similar thing happened to me a few years ago, i wanted a 3 piece suite and asked the salesman how much he would knock off for cash, he looked at me as if i was mad, he said i didn't have to pay anything for 12 months then i could have 4 years interest free credit, when i replied i didn't want credit i wanted to pay cash with some knocking off for cash, he said it would then cost them money and they were not interested, took my business else where.