Going ape over jobsworths and can Londoners afford to work for £30k?

In MetroTalk: Wakefield council comes under fire for posing restrictions on art outside houses, more scrutiny for the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union and the Labour government is defended over money moves (Picture: Carlos Jasso / AFP via Getty images)

Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.

Reader defends Labour’s seemingly conservative actions

The ‘current conservative government’ as Richard puts it (MetroTalk, Wed), has the mammoth task of replenishing the public pot – the very same pot the previous Conservative government conveniently emptied just before the election. Marion, Glasgow

Birmingham Council under fire for ‘mountains’ of rubbish

Perhaps Wakefield council could rehome ‘gorilla-mad’ Ms Teale’s statue of Caesar in a park where she can at least visit her pal?

But if we are removing all abstract forms of art, then perhaps Birmingham council could see fit to remove all the mountains of uncollected rubbish lining the streets? Samuel, Tooting

This reader says rubbish piles such as this can be seen around Birmingham streets and the council need to remove them (Picture: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

Are workers ‘glad’ for a £30k salary?

So, according to David in London (MetroTalk, Wed), workers in London would ‘gladly’ take a job for £30,000 per year. I’m not so sure.

That equates to £2,500 per month before tax, and roughly £2,000 after tax and NI.

My council rent is £750 per month, and my other bills bring the total to around £950 per month.

I walk to and from work every day. This leaves me with £1,050 per month, or £262.50 per week, or £37.50 per day. Enough to survive on but very little to save, put into private pension or go on holiday.

Sorry David I would not gladly work for this low wage, and neither I guess would you, gladly. Frank Jacobs, Stepney

More scrutiny for the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union

JWA Caley’s (Metrotalk, Wed) justifications for giving in to the Tube union strikes are way off the mark.

Firstly, if it’s about safety, why is there a demand for a wage increase at the same time? Secondly, members of Eddie Dempsey’s (right) RMT union voting to lose the best part of a week’s wages doesn’t prove they’re being altruistic, as they will gain far more by a yearly wage rise than they will ever lose by these strikes. Thirdly, even if the cost to the economy of these strikes is supposedly greater than the cost of additional workers needed, the strikes are a one-off event, whereas the cost of additional wages will occur year after year.

Lastly, if they are being so altruistic, why are they deliberately damaging the economy to achieve their aim? Paul, London

This reader questions claims that the RMT union are striking for increased safety (Picture: CARLOS JASSO/AFP via Getty Images)

Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.

Comments