Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

You quoted one post out of context without bothering to also post the conversation that went on before, that it was in response too. But sure why would you, when the point of your post was to join the pile on?

You (and others) have jumped to conclusions about what way I voted in previous pay campaigns based on this latest one. How lazy of you. The amusing thing is - I am one of the few, if not the only management grade here who has argued that a better deal is needed for lower paid staff - and yet you presume I would have been one of those "old timers" who would have voted for suspending increments in the past. Really?

While all over the first half of the thread others were whinging that COs getting some extra help in the face of the costs of living, that will hit them hardest, would make them feel "devalued"? Would make it harder to recruit at management levels? But yet, I'm this awful person who is demeaning and degenerating people, that nobody would want to work with. And its fine for others to demean and degenerate me, with "you should leave" or "only five years left and you're gone!" Well, sorry to disappoint, but it couldn't be further from the truth. I work with a great team of people, and we get on very well. Only twice in almost 35 years have I ever had any problem getting along with work colleagues, and they were people who were supervising me, not the other way around.

I won't be asking anyone how they will vote. I never have, in any campaign (or election, for that matter). Anyone who chooses to tell me they're voting for it will be told the same as what I've said here, if they want to discuss it. That i think it's a crap deal, and better is deserved. That COs on the lower half of the scale will be lucky if they come out of this deal with much more into the hand, then the Government are expected to be giving in Social Welfare increases. That is the value their employer - and some of their colleagues here - put on them and their work.

If you don't like my opinion, or my style of posting, like I have told all before you - put me on ignore.

You certainly spend a lot of time on threads asking when your next pay increase is for someone who says money isn't important to them.

When it was pointed out to you that people were saving significantly from reduced commuting and not having to buy lunches while WFH, your complaint was that YOU were not saving money by the reduced commuting and YOU were not saving money because you always cycled and took a packed lunch!!

Money not important to you? Pull the other one. You think I am richer than you and since then it is tearing you up inside, with you resorting to reposting the same gif from a month ago. A month, and still it is bothering you.

Yeh we all know of Officers in our depts like a certain poster on here would argue that black was white. You know the bitter type who blame everyone and anything for their lack of progress. The ones who make the coffee break a toxic place to be.

This deal is to the end of 2023.

It's not a pay cut. That's a an incredibly untruthful way to push your argument.

No you can't equate inflation and the price rises to a pay cut.

I equate an actual pay cut to a pay cut. If we were being cut 6.5 percent I'd be up in arms and call it a pay cut. But the fact that are being guaranteed a rise on our current salaries of 6.5 percent means we are getting a pay rise.

Inflation and price rising is different.

If for example a can of coke goes up by 20 cent. I don't buy it and walk out of the shop and think "Jaysus my pay has just been cut".