PCS strikes: 'We are being pushed right into a corner' (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
PCS strikes: 'We are being pushed right into a corner'
1:10pm Wednesday 20th March 2013 in News By Kathryn Snowdon, Reporter
PCS strikes: 'We are being pushed right into a corner'
Public Sector Workers who say they feel "attacked" by governmental cuts took to the picket lines across South West Hertfordshire today.
Prison, job centre and tax representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) were on strike this morning, hours ahead of George Osborne’s annual Budget.
James Meller, Branch Secretary for the Department of Work and Pensions Watford Branch, said: "Workers feel their conditions of service are being attacked.
"Our pay has been frozen and we are receiving less money, doing more work with less staff."
Mr Meller added: "We feel we are being pushed right into a corner."
An employee at the Job Centre for 20 years, Mr Meller said the government has not consulted with the unions and they want to open negotiations.
"We are more than over due a pay rise. Members of staff are in spiralling debts because everything has gone up while our wages haven’t."
Jon Walford, PCS representative and administration officer at HMRC Watford, said, while the primary dispute is about their pay, which has been frozen for the past four years, they are also concerned about the closer of the enquiry centre network across the country.
There are 281 HMRC enquiry centres across the country, employing approximately 1300 people.
Mr Walford, an employee at HMRC Watford for 28 years, said the centre is a valuable service and, if it closes, people will not have anywhere else to go, instead they will be forced to use the website and telephone services.
David Johnson, another admin officer at HMRC Watford, added: "The government’s plan is to put people onto a telephone network which is already bursting at the seams."
Staff at the Mount Prison in Bovingdon were also on strike.
Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, a PCS representative at the Category C prison, said public sector cuts were making conditions unsafe for staff and worse for prisoners.
Mr Dhindsa said the government wants to change their working conditions, making them worse, and family-friendly hours are going.
Mr Dhindsa added: "The prison service has been cutting the budget for the last five years and there is not much flesh left on the bone. We are coming to the situation now where inside it is not really safe and the conditions for prisoners are getting worse."
Comments(40)
captain lard
says...
2:44pm Wed 20 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Would you be so kind as to provide examples and numbers of these jobs that are not required.
There are too many civil and public servants.
Those we do not need doing jobs we do not need to be done must be culled from the workforce. The public sector wage bill is something we must cut severely.
Could you also clarify what constitutes 'severely' and provide details of the percentage cut from the budget for the current financial cycle and the proposed cut in budget for the next financial cycle and relate it to what you believe it should be.
thanks
MarsLander
says...
3:00pm Wed 20 Mar 13
I would estimate cuts of 20-50% to staff levels would be quite possible, depending on department, after a thorough study, which would help a great deal to bring government spending under control. We should all wish for that.
Every civil servant needs to look at their job and ask themselves "Is what I do efficient? Is what I do necessary? Does this role need the hours that I am paid to do it?".
Alternatively, we can get highly-paid consultants in to do this for you and then make the cuts.
My experience is a fair number of civil servants are not very good at their jobs. Some, the most inefficient could be let go with no noticeable effects whatsoever on output.
captain lard
says...
3:11pm Wed 20 Mar 13
You can't beat an educated debate!
PS How many funded union officials are there in Hertfordshire?
The Rover
says...
3:45pm Wed 20 Mar 13
captain lard
says...
4:04pm Wed 20 Mar 13
The Rover wrote:If that is aimed at me, what have my pay and working conditions got to do with it, and as I suspect you don't know what my job is, how do you know thousands of people would appreciate it?
If he has worked at a Job Centre for 20 years he should appreciate more than most just how hard it is to find a job. If you dont like your pay and working conditions then leave! There are thousands of people who would really appreciate your job.
Also, if he has worked at a job centre for 20 years I'm sure he can advise on the sort of people who habitually 'sign on' (generally and no offence to those who find themselves there through no fault of their own) and will no doubt confirm they wouldn't want a public sector job as it would probably leave them with less money in their pocket.
captain lard
says...
4:26pm Wed 20 Mar 13
captain lard wrote:Apologies Rover, the first part of the story didn't show up on my phone properly, so ignore the first paragraph of mine, but the 2nd part stands.
The Rover wrote:If that is aimed at me, what have my pay and working conditions got to do with it, and as I suspect you don't know what my job is, how do you know thousands of people would appreciate it?
If he has worked at a Job Centre for 20 years he should appreciate more than most just how hard it is to find a job. If you dont like your pay and working conditions then leave! There are thousands of people who would really appreciate your job.
Also, if he has worked at a job centre for 20 years I'm sure he can advise on the sort of people who habitually 'sign on' (generally and no offence to those who find themselves there through no fault of their own) and will no doubt confirm they wouldn't want a public sector job as it would probably leave them with less money in their pocket.
MarsLander
says...
5:56pm Wed 20 Mar 13
captain lard wrote:I have knowledge of what I am talking about but I cannot tell you exactly who can be made redundant, that could only be fairly done through a consultation exercise.
So basically you don't know, you can't back up your argument with fact and like many others just jump on the bandwagon to slash the public sector.
You can't beat an educated debate!
PS How many funded union officials are there in Hertfordshire?
Wouldn't you agree?
Out of interest, what would your estimates be?
I can't tell you how many paid union reps there are nowadays but I knew one years ago, an old soak called Clive. He worked out of Watford and never did any "real work".
As far as I am concerned, even one is too many, the public should not pay a penny for union reps, it should be funded by the unions solely.
I am all for an informed debate, let's get the survey done and remove the unnecessary posts. That would be the best way forward, an intelligent approach.
BTW, a few years ago a Labour minister said he thought 50% of the civil service could go with no noticeable effects, or words to that effect. I think he was not far from the truth.
Cut and cut again until we have a customer-focused civil service that runs as efficiently as private industry. One that's worth the money we pay for it and would be happy to continue paying for.
captain lard
says...
6:26pm Wed 20 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:So you don't know. A consultation has been ongoing since the austerity farce began.
captain lard wrote:I have knowledge of what I am talking about but I cannot tell you exactly who can be made redundant, that could only be fairly done through a consultation exercise.
So basically you don't know, you can't back up your argument with fact and like many others just jump on the bandwagon to slash the public sector.
You can't beat an educated debate!
PS How many funded union officials are there in Hertfordshire?
Wouldn't you agree?
Out of interest, what would your estimates be?
I can't tell you how many paid union reps there are nowadays but I knew one years ago, an old soak called Clive. He worked out of Watford and never did any "real work".
As far as I am concerned, even one is too many, the public should not pay a penny for union reps, it should be funded by the unions solely.
I am all for an informed debate, let's get the survey done and remove the unnecessary posts. That would be the best way forward, an intelligent approach.
BTW, a few years ago a Labour minister said he thought 50% of the civil service could go with no noticeable effects, or words to that effect. I think he was not far from the truth.
Cut and cut again until we have a customer-focused civil service that runs as efficiently as private industry. One that's worth the money we pay for it and would be happy to continue paying for.
Yes I agree all departments should at some point justify their existence, but that is different to enforced cuts.
My estimate of what?
So your opinion on union reps is based on an old soak called Clive. 'Breaking news, we are no longer in the 70's'
Informed debate, I'm up for that, but the problem is the informed bit.
Labour Minister, how ironic considering it was Labour who increased the amount of workers in the public sector. However at the point it was said (presuming it was pre austerity) I would agree there were too many positions and too many people being carried. This, I would suggest has been targeted as a priority once each department was told its required budget savings.
Ah, the old private sector chestnut. Remind me what sector the banks are in.
MarsLander
says...
6:41pm Wed 20 Mar 13
We should do that job and staff it adequately with competent people.
Anyone else can get off the payroll.
BTW I was asking for your estimate on what percentage of staff cuts would be possible without affecting service.
It sounds like you knew Clive back in the 70's, but that can't be true because civil servants all retire early and if you were working back then you would be retired by now on a nice little index-linked pension, beyond the reach of us mere mortals.
Don't use the banks as an example of how good civil servants are. The two are not related and just because one group of workers has huge problems doesn't make another bunch any better.
BTW, what do you mean by "Austerity Farce"? Just because civil servants don't create wealth doesn't mean the country shouldn't live within its means.
LSC
says...
7:32pm Wed 20 Mar 13
Welcome to the real world.
captain lard
says...
7:36pm Wed 20 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:As it happens I was still in short trousers in the 70's. % I would say some departments could still lose a bit but others have already passed the point of service being affected. Have you actually looked at the average public sector pension? As rover said, if you don't like your pay and conditions leave. I'm sure you could take up one of the many public sector roles. I never said how good the public sector was, it was you who introduced the private sector as a comparison, which incidentally I work in. Austerity farce, exactly that, the innocent paying the price for the guilty.
There is a job to be done by the civil and public service.
We should do that job and staff it adequately with competent people.
Anyone else can get off the payroll.
BTW I was asking for your estimate on what percentage of staff cuts would be possible without affecting service.
It sounds like you knew Clive back in the 70's, but that can't be true because civil servants all retire early and if you were working back then you would be retired by now on a nice little index-linked pension, beyond the reach of us mere mortals.
Don't use the banks as an example of how good civil servants are. The two are not related and just because one group of workers has huge problems doesn't make another bunch any better.
BTW, what do you mean by "Austerity Farce"? Just because civil servants don't create wealth doesn't mean the country shouldn't live within its means.
MarsLander
says...
7:47pm Wed 20 Mar 13
If I was hard up and couldn't make ends meet, in huge debt, I would look at my spending and tailor it to my circumstances. I expect the government and councils to do the same.
I would stop wasting my money on unnecessary things, like windmills, 20's plenty and foreign aid.
Instead I would look at things and think "Do I need it? Can I afford it?"
captain lard
says...
8:33pm Wed 20 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Austerity is inevitable, but it doesn't make it less farcical. How much does your bank charge? How much profit does your energy supplier make off you? etc etc.
What do you propose instead of austerity?
If I was hard up and couldn't make ends meet, in huge debt, I would look at my spending and tailor it to my circumstances. I expect the government and councils to do the same.
I would stop wasting my money on unnecessary things, like windmills, 20's plenty and foreign aid.
Instead I would look at things and think "Do I need it? Can I afford it?"
I am fundamentally a capitalist and believe that restricting free trade and profit would be counter productive, but can you honestly say the balance is fair.
As for not wasting money, I haven't got enough time to tackle that one, but there are billions that could be saved before hitting the budgets of already badly hit departments, but that is a discussion that should be had over a beer, not on a website. As is always the case, the easy target is hit first, whether that be drivers, small business or the public sector. The country is in a seriously bad place and everyone needs to accept that, but have a good look where the hammer falls.
Traveller Tom McD
says...
9:27am Thu 21 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
9:37am Thu 21 Mar 13
You make good points about service being poor, I am sure you are right, but that is often down to poor management and staff, not numbers of staff.
We can't afford this bloated civil service, it must be cut for the country to survive. The wealth earners can't afford to pay for this size of government machine, it's as simple as that. More to the point, even if they could, why should they? People don't pay £50 for a loaf of bread even though some could afford to, instead they expect a quality product at a reasonable price. So it should be with the civil service.
stuegs
says...
11:03am Thu 21 Mar 13
To start with, putting 20% of the public sector out of work is a ridiculous 'solution'. It would be completely counter productive. The key to regrowth is more jobs you plank. The ultimate goal should b to get everyone into fulltime employment.
The public sector could be streamlined, sure, but the private sector is hardly in the position to offer that advice!!
The whole point of the demo is to protest about the change of conditions, the goal posts have been moved.
Public sector workers have received pay cuts, pensions cuts, increase in hours, etc. Would you not fight if these changes had been made to your employment contract? Private sector workers can just wait for their commission, or company car, or christmas bonus, or discount card, etc
Its all relative.
stuegs
says...
11:03am Thu 21 Mar 13
To start with, putting 20% of the public sector out of work is a ridiculous 'solution'. It would be completely counter productive. The key to regrowth is more jobs you plank. The ultimate goal should b to get everyone into fulltime employment.
The public sector could be streamlined, sure, but the private sector is hardly in the position to offer that advice!!
The whole point of the demo is to protest about the change of conditions, the goal posts have been moved.
Public sector workers have received pay cuts, pensions cuts, increase in hours, etc. Would you not fight if these changes had been made to your employment contract? Private sector workers can just wait for their commission, or company car, or christmas bonus, or discount card, etc
Its all relative.
MarsLander
says...
12:30pm Thu 21 Mar 13
you're absolutely right. Whilst it is unlikely we will ever reach full employment, it is something we must aim for. How to achieve this is where we differ.
There is an important difference in jobs in the public sector and jobs in the private sector.
Jobs in the private sector create wealth.
Jobs in the public sector cost money.
We should therefore have a balanced economy with as many jobs in the private sector as possible whilst having as few jobs in the public sector as possible. That is basic sound economics, i.e. how not to go bankrupt.
Growth needs to come from real jobs, not government job creation/retention schemes.
Putting 20% of the public sector out of work would be a good start to recovery for this country. It would be hard for those losing their jobs, agreed, but would create greater wealth among those in private industry and also in the required public service jobs. This would lead to more growth in real jobs, offering opportunities to those seeking work. It would create greater wealth for the whole country, allowing the creation of real jobs.
The government doesn't have a gold mine to pay for the civil servants. Instead it borrows the equivalent of a gold mine every few days and taxes us highly on top. Neither are desirable nor sustainable.
One day, we, and maybe our children and their children will have to pay back those loans, with interest. That's a scary thought and if that can be stopped by public and civil servants being turfed out of jobs that are not necessary, then I am all for that.
Your ridiculous is, I am afraid, my common sense. One of us is wrong and I can only say I would rather follow my path to recovery than yours. I can afford my path to recovery, I cannot afford yours and do not look forward to either myself nor my country becoming bankrupt.
As for changes in terms and conditions for civil servants. So long as they are fair, I see no objection to them. The civil servants have had it too good for too long in many respects. For example, their pensions need to be brought down to the same level as everyone else's in the private sector.
Your experience of everyone in the private sector having bonuses, company cars, commission, discount card, christmas bonuses (you forgot to mention expense accounts) will come as a welcome surprise to the majority of private sector workers who will be wondering whatever happened to their share of this wonderful world you have imagined. If you ever join the private sector you may get an almighty shock at the conditions you encounter.
As a matter of interest, if private companies are so wonderful, why have you not moved to private industry, particularly as you are disillusioned with what is happening to your government terms and conditions?
garston tony
says...
1:09pm Thu 21 Mar 13
However there had been a massive boom in public sector workers numbers and whilst being forced to make cuts and changes due to financial hardship isnt the best circumstances in which to be doing it cuts do need to be made.
I'm not necessarily commenting on these particular workers but in general terms.
In an ideal world the government could afford to provide all the services everyone could ever desire. But even in the best of times its never an ideal world and I think its justified for government and local authority to look at what services they provide and ask if they need to provide them and if so if they can provide the service more efficiently.
MarsLander
says...
1:20pm Thu 21 Mar 13
stuegs
says...
1:55pm Thu 21 Mar 13
When is it ever 'fair' to cut someones already low wage, give them less tools to do the same job and make them work longer for less money??
The irony of all this is that the problems caused by the private sector are being paid for by the public sector. And so many of the corporations that are thriving dont pay their taxes in this country anyway. Manufacturing is done cheaper abroad and their is no real incentive for businesses to help support the economy. The private sector is much more broken than the public sector.
And why do i work in the public sector?? Because i wanted to have a more interesting career and actually do something useful! I wanted better stories to tell my grand kids than whether or not i hit last months sales target!
Andrew Turpie
says...
1:56pm Thu 21 Mar 13
Attentions are now diverted from those responsible for creating the carnage.
MarsLander
says...
2:08pm Thu 21 Mar 13
It's cheaper to have people on the dole than to give them a wage for doing a job that isn't necessary. That's a sad fact of life. Therefore that is good for the country whilst it is in debt. It reduces the debt compared to employing them.
It can be fair to change someones terms and conditions depending on what you are comparing it to. Everyone has freedom of movement in this country so if the government job sucks you can leave and go elsewhere and get better rewards. There's nothing stopping you and indeed many more motivated public employees do just that.
Regardless of where the problems came from, and there is a lot of blame to be laid at Labour's door for increasing the number of government workers so hugely, we now are in a hole and must get ourselves out of it. The trick is to stop digging deeper.
I hope you are having a more interesting career. Most civil servants don't have an interesting career, it's normally, like for many others, just a job with excellent job security and perks.
I have never had a sales target to hit in my life. As I said before, your image of life in the private sector is sorely in need of a reality check.
Do you have any friends outside the civil service? Ask them what's it's like. They may even explain it to you over an company-expenses-pai
d meal after they have driven you out into the country in their company car while taking a three-hour lunch break.
garston tony
says...
3:09pm Thu 21 Mar 13
In any case I understand that more jobs have been created in the private sector than lost in the public sector so far.
And I wasn’t saying it was fair to cut wages either, by cuts I meant in services provided and by extention cuts in numbers of people employed altogether. And no I don’t actually think its right that someone who was employed on the basis that they would get x amount pay and y benefits should have those terms reduced.
Just because the route of the financial problem lies with a section of the private sector doesn’t mean its right to have such a large public sector, nor does it mean it isnt right to be looking at the services the government provides and seeing if they are needed or can be done differently and at less expense. One of the reasons Germany hasn’t been affected nearly as much as we have is because in the good times its government instead of expanding and hiring looked at what it did and rationalised, streamlined, made more efficient what it did amongst making myriad other changes which meant when the crunch hit it was in much better shape to deal with it.
Unfortunately our current government is trying to do that, and its right in those efforts, but in difficult conditions. And lets not forget either that as much as the route cause of the problem may be the way banks behaved they were only allowed to do that because the labour government changed rules making it possible and also many ordinary people benefited from what banks were doing to i.e. getting mortgages and loans approved that shouldn’t have been. Maybe we've all got a little bit of responsibility for this mess hey.
garston tony
says...
3:11pm Thu 21 Mar 13
And as I hinted in my last mail, as well as bankers shouldn’t we also harang the ordinary joes who took advantage of the easy credit that was going around? Especially the mortgages that were being taken up that shouldn’t have been if financal prudence was followed.
stuegs
says...
5:18pm Thu 21 Mar 13
Andrew Turpie
says...
6:40pm Thu 21 Mar 13
Rewind back to the eighties, people would be standing shoulder to shoulder and fronting this out. The country is fragmented socially, financially and politically, the UK doesn't know if it's going for a sh1t or a haircut.
If we adopted this attitude during WW2, i dread to think were we would be now lol.
MarsLander
says...
6:55pm Thu 21 Mar 13
I would like to fund all the unemployed people in Watford to come and dig holes in my garden and then fill them in again, all for a healthy wage and benefits like a pension and sick pay. It's better for them than sitting around on benefits, nobody could disagree.
Unfortunately, I would be bankrupt before the week was out. As I don't need that work doing, and it has no real point, I have decided against employing any unemployed people to dig holes and fill them in again. I will now not become bankrupt through a foolish sense of public spiritedness. What's more, I will not borrow money to do this either.
Why should the government not follow the same common sense?
There are two and a half million people out of work at the moment. Would you put them all on the government payroll in your world? Digging holes, then filling them in again?
Back in the 80's it was different. I would like to think that people are a lot more educated now and less inclined to believe what the unions or ministers are telling them, thinking for themselves more.
People are also a lot better off financially, and that has changed attitudes
garston tony
says...
9:34am Fri 22 Mar 13
I'm not saying making people redundant is a nice thing to do, but in the wider context reducing the number of people employed by the state is the right thing to do. I've been out of work when I was younger for short periods of time and I know it’s a stressful situation, however if cuts are not made now then there will come a point where far harsher cuts are forced upon us.
Andrew, in WW2 we faced a common foe. Today it’s a situation where people, quite understandably, are wanting to fight for and protect their own little corner. But in doing that they are in essence saying someone else should take the pain be it another service or the tax payer or future generations. Don’t try to make out that those opposing the cuts etc. are clean on this, there are consequences to in action too.
Andrew Turpie
says...
9:43am Fri 22 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:With all due respect, as that's been said before, those views are too simplistic. You seem to have omitted these points.
Stuegs,
I would like to fund all the unemployed people in Watford to come and dig holes in my garden and then fill them in again, all for a healthy wage and benefits like a pension and sick pay. It's better for them than sitting around on benefits, nobody could disagree.
Unfortunately, I would be bankrupt before the week was out. As I don't need that work doing, and it has no real point, I have decided against employing any unemployed people to dig holes and fill them in again. I will now not become bankrupt through a foolish sense of public spiritedness. What's more, I will not borrow money to do this either.
Why should the government not follow the same common sense?
There are two and a half million people out of work at the moment. Would you put them all on the government payroll in your world? Digging holes, then filling them in again?
Back in the 80's it was different. I would like to think that people are a lot more educated now and less inclined to believe what the unions or ministers are telling them, thinking for themselves more.
People are also a lot better off financially, and that has changed attitudes
1. A fraction over a third paid out in public service wages return back to the pot in NI and tax.
2. Two and a half million with no cash to spend will have a devastating effect on the private sector and retail, possibly creating more knock on job losses.
3. Two and a half million now using tax payers money for "free" health care and prescriptions at tax payers expense.
4. A percentage of the two and a half million will turn to crime to maintain a standard of living which will cost the tax payer extra.
5. A percentage of the two and a half million will become clinically depressed and move from job seekers to incapacity benefit which is more costly.
The last comment about peoples attitudes changing due to becoming more financially better off.
Is the selfish, I'm alright jack attitude that is prevalent in society today, called good progress?
LSC
says...
1:37pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Andrew Turpie
says...
1:49pm Fri 22 Mar 13
1) Treat politicians with complete disdain and contempt.
2) Give up on the media completely.
3) Understand the wealth of your nation and where it ends up.
4) appreciate that everything doesn't have a dollar value - it's the intangible things that sometimes have the most benefit but cannot be measured by bean counters.
5) Stop being sold on what we are conditioned to believe constitutes "success"
6) Give a little bit of each day - free of judgement to help those less fortunate. I am a hypocrite in this degree and must do better.
7) understand a decent society is built on a nation of greater good. It's too easy to say "I'm allright jack". The people that do so may not be so great in years to come but arrogance and ignorance hath no bounds. It's a tragedy that people fall for this. But they do - divide and conquer.
abbotshornet
says...
4:25pm Fri 22 Mar 13
What these strikers are saying is that they feel like they are being punished by the government for the financial mistakes of the banks and various governments.
Front-line workers are being put under increasing pressure to serve the general public in whatever way, whilst their numbers are being reduced, their pay is effectively worth less every month and conditions especially their pensions are being eroded.
I can confirm that there are still a lot of "bean counters" who could go, and they earn much higher pay than the "workers", but there does not seem to be the will from government departments to touch them. this is where real savings can be made.
Comparing Public Sector pensions with Private Sector: My public pension is NOT gold plated and looks rather poor in comparison to company pensions.
If only there were full time permanant positions out there for people with families, instead if you are lucky you may get one of the temporary part-time jobs that are increasingly all there is these days.
LSC
says...
4:20pm Sat 23 Mar 13
Yes, they are. But what to do about it? We don't have a time machine or any magic beans.
We could send all those governments and bankers to prison for what they did, and that would be fine by me.
But we would still be right where we are, and that is what we have to deal with. You can't just demand the wasted money back, it doesn't work like that.
MarsLander
says...
4:29pm Sat 23 Mar 13
The government is talking tough but is not acting tough. We have to CUT the deficit and CUT our debt. Failure to do so will mean ruination for this country.
We must look at what we are spending the money on and cut back non-essential services. This particularly means the civil and public services, but also benefits as well.
Subsidising mortgages seems like a waste of money, as does foreign aid, green energy, foreign wars (unless our interests are under threat) and a host of other things. I have no idea how much is spent but paying one penny out to benefit tourists seems one penny too many. If you can't afford to come to the UK, then don't, we should not be trying to pay for the whole world to move to our shores.
These are desperate timers and call for desperate measures.
MarsLander
says...
4:30pm Sat 23 Mar 13
KAren Smythe
says...
7:27pm Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC wrote:Boo hoo
I have always worked in the private sector. I have been made redundant 4 times. I have not had a pay rise in my current job for over 3 years. I have no pension.
Welcome to the real world.
MarsLander
says...
7:36pm Sun 24 Mar 13
once again, a mature thoughtful comment.
Why bother if you cannot contribute?
Mohandas
says...
11:18pm Mon 25 Mar 13
Let's face it the last government ( and others) did alot to hide the unemployment figures as shown by the creation of over 500 expensive quangos costing billions of taxpayers’ hard earned cash. No wonder ordinary workers in both the private and public sectors are feeling the heat.
MarsLander says...
1:19pm Wed 20 Mar 13
Those we do not need doing jobs we do not need to be done must be culled from the workforce. The public sector wage bill is something we must cut severely.