Two-lane Posted January 9 Posted January 9 https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/tynwald-re-election-losers-of-all-ages-could-get-38000-grant-in-future/ Westminster MPs get 4 months and until recently, only 2 months. Quote
Numbnuts Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/tynwald-re-election-losers-of-all-ages-could-get-38000-grant-in-future/ Westminster MPs get 4 months and until recently, only 2 months. And there responsible for how many thousands of constituents ! While are lot are lording over how many ? 1 Quote
swoopy2110 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Shouldn't get anything if you don't get voted back in. Why are we paying for the ineptitude. 6 Quote
Thefella Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/tynwald-re-election-losers-of-all-ages-could-get-38000-grant-in-future/ Westminster MPs get 4 months and until recently, only 2 months. What the press haven’t reported (because they are crap) is that this change is down to multi millionaire greedy bastard Geoffrey Boot who was over retirement age and got offered nothing at the last election then challenged it under anti age discrimination legislation. So now they all get it in any circumstances. 5 Quote
TheTeapot Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Boot shouldn't have got anything based on the absolute hammering he took at the polls. He lost like 1500 votes. Fuck off man. 1 Quote
Non-Believer Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) It's to compensate for the shock of having to return to the real world, real world working hours, real world T&Cs, real world pay. As opposed to 5 years of having most of the manifesto good intentions carefully rinsed out of the skull by the purple and pageantry of #clubtynwald, the best club in the world and its ringmaster, the civil service. Edited January 9 by Non-Believer Typo 1 Quote
Non-Believer Posted January 9 Posted January 9 18 minutes ago, Thefella said: What the press haven’t reported (because they are crap) is that this change is down to multi millionaire greedy bastard Geoffrey Boot who was over retirement age and got offered nothing at the last election then challenged it under anti age discrimination legislation. So now they all get it in any circumstances. Don't forget Perkins. Another oxygen thief. 4 Quote
Kopek Posted January 9 Posted January 9 How does their pay off compare to redundancy payments??? Quote
Kopek Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) If they, the MHKs, are voted out, it sticks in the craw that they should be paid for losing but but ............ Just the shirt on their backs??? I'd go along with that until comparing with employee rights??? Edited January 9 by Kopek Quote
Numbnuts Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 minute ago, Kopek said: How does their pay off compare to redundancy payments??? Isn’t redundancy payments 1 weeks pay for every year you’ve worked over 2 ? Quote
Lost Login Posted January 9 Posted January 9 33 minutes ago, swoopy2110 said: Shouldn't get anything if you don't get voted back in. Why are we paying for the ineptitude. In my case because Stu Peters got elected as MHK for Middle. I would suggest that in other cases we are also paying for ineptitude whilst in post. 1 1 Quote
The Voice of Reason Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 minute ago, Lost Login said: In my case because Stu Peters got elected as MHK for Middle. I would suggest that in other cases we are also paying for ineptitude whilst in post. And who is determining or judging how good you are in your own job? ( assuming you have one) 1 Quote
Numbnuts Posted January 9 Posted January 9 5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: And who is determining or judging how good you are in your own job? ( assuming you have one) I would think that there’s a massive difference as to where the funds come from. In a MHK’s situation it’s basically taxpayers. In most other marketplaces it’s self generated . And if your no good at it your going to get the sack ! Quote
Tinpot Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) So say a talented 35 year old who is on 80k a year in a law or accountancy firm put themselves forwards and gets in. They take a risk of a career break and take a pay cut and limit their earning potential for the next few years. Then they are unsuccessful next time and we expect them to get nothing and have to reskill and try and get themselves a respected job now they have been in the public eye for a few years. We don’t want useless people getting in and taking the piss, but at the same time you have to give some sense of security to those who are prepared to put themselves forwards. Without it the standard of people representing us will drop even further. Edited January 9 by Tinpot 2 Quote
Kopek Posted January 9 Posted January 9 We elect MHKs and we have the right to de-selct them, ( every 5 years), during their term, they are our employees but do they have the rights of all employees? If we are rejecting them for their poor performance it would be great to see them go without payment, with only the repayment of their own pension contribution and be gone with them! You did a bad job and we elect to toss you aside, shirt on your back scenario? ..... ...but is that right in employment law??? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.