I KNOW I’m going to make myself unpopular with several teachers, but who do they (and Howard Roberts, general secretary for Kirklees NUT) think they are? (Examiner 22 April, ‘NUT in legal threat over ‘no pay’ rule’).
Bob, the builder’s labourer, Sally the care home worker, Fiona the supermarket cashier, or even Jack who does a paper round, do not expect to be paid if they don’t turn up for work.
The fact that it is not their fault does not entitle them to seek redress from the public purse, unless they were on official school business.
The responsibility for protecting our income rests between us and whichever company we select for our holiday insurance.
We the taxpayers cannot be expected to pay both for them and for their cover teachers in their absence.
I’m really sorry for anyone caught out by the ash cloud, but it wasn’t my fault you were abroad at the time so why am I, (and all you readers) expected to pay?
No work, no pay
WHY should anyone receive pay for being unable to work?
I, and a lot of other people, have worked in the private sector for nearly 40 years and there has only been one rule: no work – no pay (except holiday pay) no matter what the circumstances.
Why should public sector workers be treated different to the private sector workers? We work hard too.
This is one of the reasons why public spending is so high.
Public sector workers receive good salaries and pensions and the different sectors have to employ temporary staff to cover these people off work, effectively having to pay double to get the work done.
The private sector wouldn’t last very long if it had to do this.
There should be one rule for all workers. No work – no pay. This should then stop the public sector system being abused.
Why, as a taxpayer, should I have to contribute to paying someone who cannot work?
Nobody pays me if I am off work for any reason.
Don’t pay council workers
WHY does the public sector of the work force in Britain think it is their right to get paid for doing nothing.
I sympathise with anyone caught up in the disruption caused by the volcanic ash, but why should any employer, no matter who, pay its employees if they fail to return to work after their two-week Easter holiday abroad unless it’s due to illness.
Most hard working people got a long weekend. Do the workers who stayed at home get extra pay for doing extra work to cover for their colleagues? I think not.
If their union wants to fight for their lost pay then they should open talks with the insurance companies as they seem to blame God for an awful lot of things nowadays.
As much as I disagree with Kirklees Council decisions I find myself agreeing with them on this one.
It’s time they stopped bailing public sector workers out when unforeseen things happen.
That’s how it is in the big bad world now.
Try working for a private company and see how much your employers value your selfless commitment them.
Can’t believe it!
I COULD not believe what I read in the Examiner that a teacher expects Kirklees to pay her for being off work because she was held up abroad by the ash cloud.
What is more unbelievable is that the union may take legal action on her behalf.
Absolutely incredible. One minute they are complaining about the nanny state and next minute they want nannying.
What next? They will want paying for the holiday as well.
Slow drivers down
JOHN Avison may consider speed reduction measures in Meltham Road to be an unnecessary aggravation to careful drivers, (Examiner April 22, ‘Welcoming safe drivers’).
In order to reduce accidents maybe it is necessary so it becomes impossible for young bucks to show off by zooming along the road.
Maybe he could spare a thought for those who live on this road who, on at least three occasions in the recent past, have had their cars damaged or written off, not to mention the trauma of dealing with a badly injured person.
It’s all very well thinking that insurance pays for it, but it rarely compensates for the loss or inconvenience caused.
THE Examiner has published a reasonable and balanced article on traffic accidents instead of the usual simplistic “speed kills” (‘Welcoming safe drivers’ April 22).
The only dangerous things about Meltham Road are parking and the ridiculously low 30mph limit, particularly between Big Valley and Netherton, presumably put in place to placate whingeing residents and local councillors.
All this does is lead to drivers treating the limit on the whole stretch with contempt and the inexperienced ones come to grief.
As John Avison implies, you can’t legislate for the idiots.
If you try, all you get is thousands of frustrated safe drivers – the latest example being 20mph and speed humps in Meltham.
My guess is that Netherton centre will be next.
One possible measure would be to increase the camber on the corner at Big Valley, raise the kerb level and forbid parking.
Then at least vehicles which lose control would stay upright and on the road.
Of course, this would mean residents having to park somewhere safe yet further from home, but as with everywhere else it seems they’d rather suffer continual damage while complaining about other people’s driving.
Roads are top priority
IN the run up to the local council elections, the Examiner interviewed the five party leaders and not one mentioned the one local issue that’s dominated the Examiner pages in the past i.e. the neglected, crumbling and atrocious road surfaces in the Kirklees area.
I invite the five party leaders to answer the following questions:
1) Did Kirklees Council spend on it’s roads in 2009/2010 £26.2 million of £51 million?
2) With major A roads and bus routes crumbling, i.e. the junction of Leeds Road/Hillhouse Lane, Wakefield Road/Somerset Road to name two, why are minor roads being resurfaced to a very high standard?
3) The average cost to repair a pothole in 2007/2008 was £69, now the figure for 2009/2010 has escalated to £586. Why?
4) Could the details of the five year capital plan for Kirklees roads be published?
Dearer fuel than EU
REGARDING your article in the Examiner Debate Over Motoring Costs and, in particular, referring to Prof Bamford’s statement: “The cost of fuel in the UK is now almost the same as it is in the rest of the European Union. There was a time when the UK was more expensive.”
Well, I’d like to take this opportunity to complain about what I thought could be misleading general information and counter such by putting the record straight, at least as far as the price of vehicle fuel in one of the European Union countries at the present time.
I was extremely lucky and very happy to return along with my wife and grandchild on one of the first aircraft out of Alicante last Wednesday after an enforced extended stay due to the volcanic dust problems.
On the way to the airport in our hired rental car I stopped at a service station to fill the car with diesel in order to honour the rental contract and even though the service station was on a motorway I paid just 1.093 Euros per litre.
The exchange rate for cash with no commission being paid during my two weeks stay varied between 1.125/1.135 Euros per pound and even considering the low rate of sterling to the euro at the present time, this made the equivalent price of the diesel to be around £0.97 per litre.
I make that at least 20% less paid for the fuel compared to the UK and hardly Prof Bamford’s “almost the same price” and “there was a time when the UK was more expensive.”
l Political letters will appear in tomorrow’s Mailbag.