Happy Keith:
‘…HGV/LGV driver’s premiums for such policies are flippin’ monster … so …it won’t be happening …’
‘… the unions actually working against … passing on the real costs of decent income protection cover …’
Fully agreed and about time the playing-field - being less than level for LGV drivers - was mitigated within state support rather than the premium risk being solely the driver’s responsibility to insure against when the UK/EU state is more than content to ‘de-skill’ the job allowing cheap hourly rates to be competed for with immigrant bean-stealers
I’ve been quoted over £300 p/m for a Loss of Income policy based loosely on 47,000 professional miles p/a - and many of us are grateful to pull 40 tons through city centres on minimum wedge
I’m mitigating it instead by potentially renting out a room in my new place if I crock myself and find ‘loss-of-earnings’ crippling me Or I could get a job in the office on the same money and do squat miles for a far cheaper premium
Such a high premium cost can’t fail to add up to anything other than rip-off - but all the Lib/Lab/Con politicians do is take it away from and give it away to Brussels and ‘our’ new, eg., Bulgarian & Romanian friends for new fountain projects and free UK NHS benefits, etc, etc
Happy Keith:
‘…HGV/LGV driver’s premiums for such policies are flippin’ monster … so …it won’t be happening …’
‘… the unions actually working against … passing on the real costs of decent income protection cover …’
Fully agreed and about time the playing-field - being less than level for LGV drivers - was mitigated within state support rather than the premium risk being solely the driver’s responsibility to insure against when the UK/EU state is more than content to ‘de-skill’ the job allowing cheap hourly rates to be competed for with immigrant bean-stealers
I’ve been quoted over £300 p/m for a Loss of Income policy based loosely on 47,000 professional miles p/a - and many of us are grateful to pull 40 tons through city centres on minimum wedge
I’m mitigating it instead by potentially renting out a room in my new place if I crock myself and find ‘loss-of-earnings’ crippling me Or I could get a job in the office on the same money and do squat miles for a far cheaper premium
Such a high premium cost can’t fail to add up to anything other than rip-off - but all the Lib/Lab/Con politicians do is take it away from and give it away to Brussels and ‘our’ new, eg., Bulgarian & Romanian friends for new fountain projects and free UK NHS benefits, etc, etc
Our EU contributions are certainly a factor in the amount of taxation going into the government and the totally zb level of cover provided to workers under the state sickness schemes.
As for those private insurance premiums the value for money provided by private cover is far better than the zb levels of cover provided by the state and a cheap policy could prove to be disastrous in the long term.The whole issue of affordability of private income protection is a combination of the unions still blindy following the bs idea of socialism together with weakness in regards to wage bargaining.With the employers and government then taking full advantage of that in the form of erosion of wages compared to decent private health insurance premiums while the government continuously cuts back on the already zb levels of cover provided by the zb socialist state funded provision both in regards to the NHS and income protection cover.
In all cases that’s mostly the fault of the unions for allowing themselves to be sidetracked by the bs socialist cause,and then showing weakness and appeasement in the face of continuous attacks by government on union rights to strike together with lack of unity amongst the rank and file,resulting in a crash in wage levels in real terms,while concentrating their efforts on the wrong issues like employers sick pay and/or the state funded benefits system.
The result being,as I’ve said,in the case of sickness,firstly that just gives the employer more incentive to get rid of sick employees even quicker.Then resulting in the unfortunate employee in question being subject to all the vagaries of the zb state funded so called ‘sickness benefits’ system.Which as I’ve said effectively means either being thrown to the mercy of the JSA regime unless that unfortunate employee is paralysed from the neck down in which case they ‘might’ qualify for the zb levels of all the sate sicknes benefits.In all cases being classed by most as scroungers.Unlike the case of pilots or train drivers for example who earn enough to provide themselves with decent income protection cover which is why you won’t see many sick train drivers or airline pilots thrown to the mercy of their local JSA office in the event of being put off sick.They’ll more likely be found enjoying their early retirement on grounds of ill health just like MP’s.
Why would anyone claiming sickness visit a JSA office?
If state sick pay and associated benefits are so crap, how can so many live quite well on nothing else but benefits?
del949:
Why would anyone claiming sickness visit a JSA office?
If state sick pay and associated benefits are so crap, how can so many live quite well on nothing else but benefits?
Blimey del that post just proves how out of touch the union movement is with the real world.So really think that state provision covers someones own occupation and income levels .When the typical scenario,under the bs socialist status quo,would be a firm with a full sick pay agreement in force ( justifiably under employment legislation ) terminates an employee’s contract of employment on grounds of ill health and capability which could be in regards to many types of health issues which don’t qualify for the zb level of so called sickness benefits under the conditions of the all work test.Bearing in mind as I’ve said that test effectively requires virtually total paralysis to pass it.The employee is then shifted from short term sick pay onto JSA in this case remembering we’re talking about a former truck driver now having to look for alternative employment.
In all cases those so called state benefits,even for those who qualify for them,are just an unreliable state controlled rationed provision that can be stopped at any time being not subject to contract law unlike private provision.
Now compare all that with that scenario of the airline pilot removed from flying duties for example who takes early retirement based on private income protection provision that’s based on an amount which reflects the actual wages lost and own occupation.Without any need to pass any bs all work test and thereby being forced onto the JSA which applies to the average truck driver.As I’ve said socialism stinks and the union movement needs to totally cut it’s ties with that zb system and concentrate on the real issues which is wages sufficient to provide decent private health and income protection cover and economic growth within in the capitalist system.Just like pilots and train drivers it’s no surprise that such cover would cost relatively a lot in the case of drivers bearing in mind all the different health issues that can put drivers out of work.The job of the unions should be to reflect that in wage demands not leave drivers at the mercy,as I’ve said,of the incapacity and JSA benefits regime.
del949:
Why would anyone claiming sickness visit a JSA office?
If state sick pay and associated benefits are so crap, how can so many live quite well on nothing else but benefits?
Blimey del that post just proves how out of touch the union movement is with the real world.So do you really think that state provision covers someones own occupation and income levels .When the typical scenario,under the bs socialist status quo,would be a firm with a full sick pay agreement in force ( justifiably under employment legislation ) terminates an employee’s contract of employment on grounds of ill health and capability which could be in regards to many types of health issues which don’t qualify for the zb level of so called sickness benefits under the conditions of the all work test.Bearing in mind as I’ve said that test effectively requires virtually total paralysis to pass it.The employee is then shifted from short term sick pay onto JSA in this case remembering we’re talking about a former truck driver now having to look for alternative employment.
In all cases those so called state benefits,even for those who qualify for them,are just an unreliable state controlled rationed provision that can be stopped at any time being not subject to contract law unlike private provision.
Now compare all that with that scenario of the airline pilot removed from flying duties for example who takes early retirement based on private income protection provision that’s based on an amount which reflects the actual wages lost and own occupation.Without any need to pass any bs all work test and thereby being forced onto the JSA which applies to the average truck driver.As I’ve said socialism stinks and the union movement needs to totally cut it’s ties with that zb system and concentrate on the real issues which is wages sufficient to provide decent private health and income protection cover and economic growth within in the capitalist system.Just like pilots and train drivers it’s no surprise that such cover would cost relatively a lot in the case of drivers bearing in mind all the different health issues that can put drivers out of work.The job of the unions should be to reflect that in wage demands not leave drivers at the mercy,as I’ve said,of the incapacity and JSA benefits regime.
Sorry Carryfast, but you are wrapped up with your own political claims and beliefs that you miss the obvious.
Millions are living on benefit in Britain now, and living fairly comfortably. The benefits are there to be claimed by everyone.
This is not union smoke and mirrors but is a fact.
The main difference between the ’ professional’ claimants and the out of work trucker is simply down to knowledge of the system.
Whilst you are so busy praising the benefits of private income insurance perhaps you could also enlighten those who are tempted,just how many exclusions and limits there are in most policies, mostly on a par with the discredited mortgage protection insurance policies.
Comparing truck drivers to airline pilots is stretching things a bit far.
Bearing in mind as I’ve said that test effectively requires virtually total paralysis to pass it.
This is simply untrue! Any of us can look around and see people on long term benefits who are plainly not incapacitated to the degree you claim.
del949:
Sorry Carryfast, but you are wrapped up with your own political claims and beliefs that you miss the obvious.
Millions are living on benefit in Britain now, and living fairly comfortably. The benefits are there to be claimed by everyone.
This is not union smoke and mirrors but is a fact.
The main difference between the ’ professional’ claimants and the out of work trucker is simply down to knowledge of the system.
Whilst you are so busy praising the benefits of private income insurance perhaps you could also enlighten those who are tempted,just how many exclusions and limits there are in most policies, mostly on a par with the discredited mortgage protection insurance policies.
Comparing truck drivers to airline pilots is stretching things a bit far.
Bearing in mind as I’ve said that test effectively requires virtually total paralysis to pass it.
This is simply untrue! Any of us can look around and see people on long term benefits who are plainly not incapacitated to the degree you claim.
Trust me obviously unlike you I’ve been there done it and got the T shirt.If you really think that the Incapacity Benefit system can match private income protection insurance in any way you’re having a laugh.The fact is it’s easy to fail the all work test while at the same time being declared medically unfit to carry out the occupation of a truck driver.In which case without private income protection cover you’re zb’d and on JSA looking for alternative employment.Let alone the difference in benefit levels.No surprise though that the union movement regards truck drivers as the poor relation compared to train drivers or pilots or Labour MP’s or their own leadership for that matter.Unless you’re saying all those would be in the same Jobcentre queue in the event of being put off through sickness.
del949:
how long do you have to be off sick before you are told to take the all work test?
Firstly we’re obviously talking about the scenario of a driver having been sacked on grounds of a serious health issue involving a long period/s off work or one that involves excessive risk to the employee to carry on doing the job and it’s equally obvious that full sick pay will just provide an incentive to make that decision sooner than might have otherwise been the case.
The Work Cabability Assessment has to take place within 13 weeks of the start of the claim for ESA the whole system being geared towards pushing people like drivers into unsuited employment,probably also lower paid,roles.All to save the employers the money required to pay for a decent policy that covers just their own occupation paid at close enough to their original earnings linked to the RPI.Up to and including early retirement with a lump sum pay off if needed in the event of no foreseeable return to the occupation.
This is all serious basic stuff that the unions are,mostly,so far,on another planet in regards to.At least unless,as I said,your face fits in regard to being in one of the more important thought of occupations like train driver or airline pilot.In which case you can bet that the relevant unions will have a decent recommended block policy in place,with a decent private income protection provider,with wage rates negotiated to match to pay for it.
In order to get a fair deal in the workplace you have to be able to negotiate. Unfortunately present day “Industrial Relations” and “Anti-Union legislation” was set up specifically to prevent it.
The only way to overturn this situation is for the “Workforce”, their representatives and elected “Legislators”/ MP’s to be strong enough to challenge the status-quo and get it changed.
Do as the Finance, Banking, Manufacturing and Service Industries do and voice your dissatisfaction through the “Union” movement.
Join a “Union”.
What have you got to lose but your chains?
Solly:
In order to get a fair deal in the workplace you have to be able to negotiate. Unfortunately present day “Industrial Relations” and “Anti-Union legislation” was set up specifically to prevent it.
The only way to overturn this situation is for the “Workforce”, their representatives and elected “Legislators”/ MP’s to be strong enough to challenge the status-quo and get it changed.
Do as the Finance, Banking, Manufacturing and Service Industries do and voice your dissatisfaction through the “Union” movement.
Join a “Union”.
What have you got to lose but your chains?
The problem in this case being that their ‘elected’ ‘Legislators’/MP’s have historically been people like Wilson,Callaghan,Healey,Blair and Miliband and the aptly named Balls etc etc.With friends like them who needed/needs enemies like Thatcher.As I’ve said elsewhere the unions now need to evolve and adapt to an environment in which all government,including the so called Labour Party,is hostile and run by the CBI for the CBI.Something along the lines of unions turning into agency cooperatives in which they turn the idea of free market forces against the employers.Because no one with any sense would work for any employer if the coperative ( ex union ) agencies are offering better terms and conditions and a lot more in wages than those employers are.
"The only way to overturn this situation is for the “Workforce”, their representatives and elected “Legislators”/ MP’s to be strong enough to challenge the status-quo and get it changed.
By doing this with “Elected Legislators/MP’s” who represent the “Workforce” through the “Union movement” they can then set the “Social, economic, political and workplace” agenda so that it is fairer. Pretty good idea methinks and not too difficult to understand.
"The only way to overturn this situation is for the “Workforce”, their representatives and elected “Legislators”/ MP’s to be strong enough to challenge the status-quo and get it changed.
By doing this with “Elected Legislators/MP’s” who represent the “Workforce” through the “Union movement” they can then set the “Social, economic, political and workplace” agenda so that it is fairer. Pretty good idea methinks and not too difficult to understand.
That actually describes the Labour Party’s founding principles.History proves that the flaw in that plan is that the Party was/is open to infiltration by the interests of the CBI not the unions.It’s time for the working classes to abandon the idea of anyone in government coming to the rescue and start sorting things out for themselves by sidelining what will always be the CBI run government and making it as irrelevant as the CBI has made the unions and Labour Party.
Solly:
I reiterate:"‘…The only way to overturn this situation is for the “Workforce”… to be strong enough to challenge the status-quo and get it changed…’
‘… It’s time for the working classes to abandon the idea of anyone in government coming to the rescue and start sorting things out for themselves …’
The flaw as I see it is that as long as society remains tribally loyal to old & tired and totally pro-EU parties, it has also been ‘diversified’ to hell and back.
That to me effectively means that ‘…the working classes…’ no longer exist as a unifiable entity
Other than national identity being something to stand-up for, the Big 3 (Lib/Lab/Con) will happily see the UK sunk in the mire of grey, expensive, unappetising, undemocratic & unrewarding Euro-soup.
Time for unions to see the bigger picture, methinks - and hence why my political levy doesn’t go to any Big 3 recipient
OK, so we all agree that the unions are not doing enough for the working man and also that the labour party has lost its way and has been taken over by the champagne socialist.
So, what to do?
Start a new union?
One that will still be toothless because of the current legal framework.
Start a new Labour party?
Does anyone really think that starting a new political party is going to viable?
OR, RADICAL THOUGHT…
join the existing labour party and unions and be active, shaping the way they are working from the inside instead of standing outside whining!
Join the labour party and mould their policies to what you want, but, you cannot do it from outside.
People like Milliband are only in their current positions because of VOTES, and every member has one of those.
If you want a militant labour party committed to the working man there is only one way to achieve it…enough members to vote for miltant leaders and militant policies, the same applies to the union movement.
I hear you say that Millband was only elected by the block votes of the unions, true, but that block vote could have been altered if enough union members had opposed it.
To do that there needs to be many members who are not sheep being herded along by the controlling few and are prepared to be active in forming policy etc.
In this regard I will agree with Carryfast, the current workforce are like a herd of cattle being driven to the slaughter, aware and frightened of what is to come but being too timid to try and alter it.
del949:
In this regard I will agree with Carryfast, the current workforce are like a herd of cattle being driven to the slaughter, aware and frightened of what is to come but being too timid to try and alter it.
I think it’s a bit more than that del.The analogy would be more like a herd of wild horses being driven into captivity or slaughter having been told that it’s in their best interests to get in the truck instead of running for the hills and/many if not most of the horses believing what they’ve been told and agreeing to walk into the truck.IE how many times have we heard the working class agreeing that Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the country and we wouldn’t want to go back to the dark days of the 1970’s or leave the EU or the global free market economy .Remembering of course those economic growth figures of the early 1970’s before we joined the EEC,and before large scale imports of manufactured goods became an issue and when he had strong unions.Regardless of the fact that we had a Tory government in at the time.Unlike what happened later under Callaghan’s so called Labour government and then ever since.
The early 70s was only a boom time for some workers.,I remember the inflation and miners holding the rest of us to ransom.Good riddance to that way of life.I worked with very old machine tools there was little or no investment in workplaces.Then containerisation came along and the rest was history.
Don’t join them idiots please. what i have found with two firms i worked for the union reps are always in the office ■■■ licking the managers,and when you have a problem and want to speak to somebody more senior at the union they say sorry speak to your rep, ■■■■■■■■!!! They sit there like ill birds in the grievance i told mine to get out you dumbo. HOPE THIS HELPS… SAVE YOUR 150.00 A YEAR.
