key workers

[twiddledumb]

There's also a recession coming, probably a big one. A lot of those non-key workers will be getting 0% or thereabouts of their salary in a few months time.

So, yeah. I don't really look upon them as the lucky ones.

A lot of them will go straight back to their jobs also. On top of that who says royal mail will not cut their workforce in a recession? Our jobs might be in line for the chop. The government should have gave everyone £1000 until the crisis ends. I mean look what the self employed are getting of the government ffs, a plumber, electrician, etc etc are getting big hand outs and they are richer than most professional jobs, I have never seen a poor tradesman and I deliver to lots of their houses on my round, they all have 4x4s and live in rich estates yet they get hand outs for sitting in the house, while low paid posties have to work, put our lives at risk and get swf from the government for doing it.

You are so out of touch of what happens outside your round, but then again, is it possible for you to be so out of touch?
Sorry to sound rude but come on ffs.

Yeah because the only thing I know is my round ffs. I have family members who are plumber (£60000 + a year), electricians (£45000+) a year, plasterers (£35000+ a year) they all have 4x4s and big houses and all are going to be claiming the full amount from the government for sitting at home playing on their Xbox.

Clearly you are another person that supports the government policies of,
1. giving tax payers money to non essential workers made to stay at home with the highest paid(richest) getting way more tax payers money then the lowest paid (poorest) workers.

2. key essential workers being told to ignore the stay at home and social distancing advice and significantly increase the risk of getting the virus by going to a packed delivery office or supermarket etc etc and interacting with loads of people every day and multiple potentially contaminated surfaces for no extra benefit or support from the government. or Royal mail in our case.

you and your friend Rico seem to be fine with that. Well I am not, I am not sure if you and Rico are trolling me or are a couple of idiots to be honest.

[Rumple]

Ron Hoek saying we live in a neoliberism capitalist world is correct but that goes totally against government bailouts, which is effectively what is happening right now.
NHS staff, bin men, postmen and all other "key workers" should not be paying tax right now as a curteous. Currently the playing field is tilted.

[tractorboy2]

I believe my last reply to Twiddledumb more than covers the points you've made. Other than the government do not have the authority to force the banks to do that. Nor should they. We live in a liberal capitalist democracy and if we want to keep it that way and we do considering Brexit is on the horizon, we will want to be able to attract free market investment.

The government DOES have the power to negate the problems this will cause by making these furlough payments. It also signals the governments faith in the British Economies resilience to bounce back.

Parliament just passed a law that makes it illegal for us to go outside unless we have a good reason. Of course they could freeze the debt, even a holiday on repayments would have been better than putting the cost on the taxpayer.

I don't share your optimism that this is a short recession with a v-shaped recovery, and a quick bounce back. I think the Tories have enacted policies that will take the UK into a depression. We're extremely exposed already because of the extremely poor recovery after 2008, largely due to the decade long Tory obsession with austerity. The UK is £1.8 Trillion in debt before this current recession even began. We're still running a £25.5 billion deficit, and that's been over 10 years since the last recession. And as you mentioned, with the backdrop of Brexit on the horizon. The UK is in an extremely perilous position.

I will say, I appreciate you believe they're trying to save people's jobs, and everybody is hoping that in a few months everything bounces back to normal. My point is, what if it doesn't and the economy is in a downturn for 12-18 months. These policies are unaffordable, especially when many of the jobs they are saving, are going to be lost anyways. You'd be better off, paying a much smaller maintenance benefit, closer to state pension value, and then stimulating the economy once the threat of covid-19 has passed.

At the moment, they're paying insane benefits to keep the status quo, when there can be no status quo. The market value of these jobs currently is zero, and this could remain the case for a long time.

There is a strong chance we are heading for recession but I believe the government has absolutely done the right thing to mitigate its depth. This will not last forever. We will come out of it. What the government has essentially done is placed a temporary pause button on the sectors of the economy effected. To do nothing and have wholesale bankruptcies and house repossessions would be far far worse and totally unnecessary. Especially considering they believe this will come in waves. It is likely we will return to a state of semi normality and then be placed back into restricted living. It is surely better that companies are able to keep trained staff on furlough ready to return to their positions when the time is right.

Imagine a company like RM had to let everyone go and then re-hire an entire new workforce. It just doesn't make sense to do that. We work in an industry that doesn't really need much training either. For more specialist roles that would be incredibly disruptive for a country that wants to get back on its feet as quickly as possible.

On your last point I believe they'd love it , minimum wage , do what they want etc.

[Ren Hoëk]

On your last point I believe they'd love it , minimum wage , do what they want etc.

Ha you're probably right there but it certainly wouldn't be in the nations interest. Which is what the government is trying to protect.

Ron Hoek saying we live in a neoliberism capitalist world is correct but that goes totally against government bailouts, which is effectively what is happening right now.
NHS staff, bin men, postmen and all other "key workers" should not be paying tax right now as a curteous. Currently the playing field is tilted.

You are right, but we are going through a moment in time that needs aggressive government intervention to mitigate the damage. Id like to think that once this is all said and done key workers will be given a kick back. I wont hold my breath. The playing field isn't tilted though, as nothing has changed for us. We are still earning the same as last week, the same as the week before. Others not receiving this furlough doesn't mean we will get it. It just means they get less and we still don't get it. With all the issues that would then follow.

[Ren Hoëk]

There's also a recession coming, probably a big one. A lot of those non-key workers will be getting 0% or thereabouts of their salary in a few months time.

So, yeah. I don't really look upon them as the lucky ones.

A lot of them will go straight back to their jobs also. On top of that who says royal mail will not cut their workforce in a recession? Our jobs might be in line for the chop. The government should have gave everyone £1000 until the crisis ends. I mean look what the self employed are getting of the government ffs, a plumber, electrician, etc etc are getting big hand outs and they are richer than most professional jobs, I have never seen a poor tradesman and I deliver to lots of their houses on my round, they all have 4x4s and live in rich estates yet they get hand outs for sitting in the house, while low paid posties have to work, put our lives at risk and get swf from the government for doing it.

You are so out of touch of what happens outside your round, but then again, is it possible for you to be so out of touch?
Sorry to sound rude but come on ffs.

Yeah because the only thing I know is my round ffs. I have family members who are plumber (£60000 + a year), electricians (£45000+) a year, plasterers (£35000+ a year) they all have 4x4s and big houses and all are going to be claiming the full amount from the government for sitting at home playing on their Xbox.

Clearly you are another person that supports the government policies of,
1. giving tax payers money to non essential workers made to stay at home with the highest paid(richest) getting way more tax payers money then the lowest paid (poorest) workers.

2. key essential workers being told to ignore the stay at home and social distancing advice and significantly increase the risk of getting the virus by going to a packed delivery office or supermarket etc etc and interacting with loads of people every day and multiple potentially contaminated surfaces for no extra benefit or support from the government. or Royal mail in our case.

you and your friend Rico seem to be fine with that. Well I am not, I am not sure if you and Rico are trolling me or are a couple of idiots to be honest.

Every thing you write just adds to the diagnoses that you are a deeply jealous person. You hope for people to have less because you cant have more. It's spiteful.
You're second point is valid but it has nothing to do with what is happening with other people. That is our fight to have and taking from others wont change a thing.

When people talk about UBI's you are the type of person which means it would never work. You would be too concerned that you were working harder than the next guy. Or working at all compared to someone who's not. Sad really.

[Tman]

I have family members who are plumber (£60000 + a year), electricians (£45000+) a year, plasterers (£35000+ a year).

What are the sparkies and spreads on then, short time working?
Love the old principle though "why should they get more than me?" as seen in this thread, and that's from employees who work for a unionised company with long-established benefits of paid sick, leave and HR services. Can't have it both ways.

[twiddledumb]

@Ren Hoëk

"Every thing you write just adds to the diagnoses that you are a deeply jealous person. "

That's what the super rich and their idiot gullible stooges like you tell the poor when they are robbing them.

[twiddledumb]

I have family members who are plumber (£60000 + a year), electricians (£45000+) a year, plasterers (£35000+ a year).

What are the sparkies and spreads on then, short time working?
Love the old principle though "why should they get more than me?" as seen in this thread, and that's from employees who work for a unionised company with long-established benefits of paid sick, leave and HR services. Can't have it both ways.

All employees should have what posties have as a minimum and I fight for that as a Labour party activist, and you need to answer the question, why should the highest earners get more bailout money than the lowest earners? and why should front line workers get worse than sweet fa, because we still need to pay tax literally funding the people getting the free money up to £2500 a month, which is a lot more than most posties earn, while delivering the crap they ordered from the internet using the money we are giving them.

Why are the posties on this forum defending the bailout finding it hard to see how unfair and unjust this bailout is to low paid non essential workers and especially to key workers risking their health to fund it?

[Murdoch]

You are right, but we are going through a moment in time that needs aggressive government intervention to mitigate the damage. Id like to think that once this is all said and done key workers will be given a kick back. I wont hold my breath. The playing field isn't tilted though, as nothing has changed for us. We are still earning the same as last week, the same as the week before. Others not receiving this furlough doesn't mean we will get it. It just means they get less and we still don't get it. With all the issues that would then follow.

The thing about neoliberalism, is that it cannot solve any complex problems, infact the market panics and protects the money at the earliest sign of trouble (if it's not causing the trouble in the first place). Whenever the s**t hits the fan its the state that always has to come in and pick up the pieces, and the normal rules go out the window. Exceptional circumstances are blamed, but there's nothing exceptional about it, the markets are setup in a manner that makes financial crashes guaranteed. However, at least this current bailout is preferable to the one in 2008, because it mostly goes into the hands of working people. The last one simply rewarded the banks for their risky investments, we "socialised their loses", didn't solve the "too big to fail" issue, and then said carry on as you wish, but do it with a bit more liquidity this time, which was provided mostly by printing money (quantitative easing).

The Neoliberal ideology should have died in 08. It has to die after this. The profit motive alone is not a way to deal with issues such as pandemics, climate change, antibiotic resistance, superbugs, mass extinctions, ecological collapse.

That's the thing that irritates me the most about this bailout, it's just another attempt to keep things as they are and to protect the status quo, but if you look at it objectively... the system requires drastic change.

[Fdeezy]

why should the highest earners get more bailout money than the lowest earners? and why should front line workers get worse than swa, because we still need to pay tax literally funding the people getting the free money up to £2500 a month

Why should the lowest earners receive the same as the highest earners?

[Rumple]

why should the highest earners get more bailout money than the lowest earners? and why should front line workers get worse than swa, because we still need to pay tax literally funding the people getting the free money up to £2500 a month

Why should the lowest earners receive the same as the highest earners?

Key word there, "earners". They are not earning it.

[Fdeezy]

Key word there, "earners". They are not earning it.

Boring response really. That all you got?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Key word there, "earners". They are not earning it.

Boring response really. That all you got?

Its on a par with yours. Argue the points not the charcter

[Fdeezy]

It seems a common sense approach to pay more to people who were previously earning more. They had been used to earning a certain amount and their outgoings will most likely reflect that fact. They were paying a wedge more in tax too - why shouldn't they get a bit more of that back? Surely that's more fair than paying twiddledumb's plumber mate the same as the person a few streets over who works 16 hours at minimum wage?

I dunno, maybe I'm just a capitalist pig. A bad one, mind. Always skint.

[Murdoch]

It seems a common sense approach to pay more to people who were previously earning more. They had been used to earning a certain amount and their outgoings will most likely reflect that fact. They were paying a wedge more in tax too - why shouldn't they get a bit more of that back? Surely that's more fair than paying twiddledumb's plumber mate the same as the person a few streets over who works 16 hours at minimum wage?

I dunno, maybe I'm just a capitalist pig. A bad one, mind. Always skint.

A common sense approach, would be for people to not be loaded with so much debt that they can't even cover a couple of months without earnings.

I could easily cover 6-12 months of outgoings. This really needs to change going forward. People should be encouraged to live within their means, have savings for emergencies, and not max out their monthly credit limit on mortgages, holidays, cars etc, to the point they are living pay-cheque to pay-cheque.