Heartland

I've never (striked? struck? stroke? erm...) been out on strike before. (Wot, me, the ultra-lefty? Never been on strike? Well, I've only ever worked for small businesses before...) So tomorrow will be my first time...

I find it interesting that despite the extremely negative press it's been getting, the strike is backed by 61% of those polled (and that support rises to almost 80% among the 18-24s).

Any thoughts? Anyone else taking part in the national strike tomorrow?

i've never worked public sector, and have only ever worked in small to medium sized companies. also, in the private IT sector unions have never been on the radar.

however, the former mrs qb (henceforth known simply as jo) was (and still is, i guess) public sector and a member of unison, who are one of the less militant union (unite are the extremist nutters by all accounts), so i was privy to a lot of issues facing public sector workers and have total sympathy with those that are striking.

My diploma work was about right to strike so i know a little of legal site of this, also in the light of EU and ILO legal acts( ). My opinion: when it's fair then it's fair, when demands are ridicioulus then it will pissed public. But i have problem with stirkes in public sectors esp. now; i do realize that almost in every countires (if not everywhere) salaries in public sector not give satisfaction (because of course money is main worries- reason to strike), but now when countires had to cut fat it's not necessarily wise to strike. I do know that dear Keynes had some point but sometimes (if not everytime) countries had to be like normal, rational employer. But in the other hand inflation. I become stupid lawer who can't make decision because i see all sites.

The strike is (officially) about pensions. The UK government has imposed huge changes to public sector pensions so that workers have to pay in more and retire later, but get less money. People are not very happy.

There is also an unofficial "stick one to the Tory bastards" undercurrent to it all.

You deffo got some point. Working more to get less- how rational. Good job Cameron!

Oooh, tricky one.

I don't blame anyone for trying to retain decent working conditions and remuneration. But I'd ask why said strikers believe those working in the private sector should work longer and pay more tax so they can retire earlier and with better pensions. Or do they have the strange belief that the government somehow has it's own money? I think we all accept that Gordy spent money we didn't have(and no, the Tories never called him on it), now we have to pay that back with a bit extra for the interest payments. If he spent a fair whack of that money on the public sector (and he did), then that's where the money should come from.

For me this is too much like the students not caring that Labour introduced tuition fees but squealing like a penetrated Frenchman when the Tories raise them. Unions that bankroll Labour not saying a word when money we never had increased the public sector screaming about the unfairness of the Tories having to pay it back. Why didn't they say something back then?

Bartek wrote: You deffo got some point. Working more to get less- how rational. Good job Cameron!

Everyone else is going to have to do it, I'm afraid.

When the private sector, who's taxation pays for the public, starts to shrink dramatically, the public sector has to as well. Or accept far less money. Asking those who remain in work to pay more tax so public sector workers can have better pensions than them will not go down well.

I haven't yet seen Len McCluskey (salary £180'000) come up with a convincing way of paying for what he wants before the bond markets finish chewing up and spitting out Europe and come after us.

I do understand that some will and even have to loose their job; i could even accept smaller salaries, but 2+2 has to give 4 not 3,2. When people work more you can't give them less; giving the same salaries would be a bit worried, interm freez of salaries in this situtation is acceprtable, but it's about pensions and people pay their 'taxes' and other charges for the whole 'careere' to get this.

at least that how it works here, as far as i know in UK is the same and even better at some points.

The thing is though, some people have been paying into these pension funds for years in the belief that they'll be able to retire at 65 and get X% of their salary as a pension. To be told at the age of 55 that, oops, sorry, you'll have to work three years longer (including paying in another three years' contributions) and get 0.9X% salary at the end of it because Gideon Osbourne wants to raid your pension pot... rankles.

I'll tell you how to pay for it. Scrap Britain's nuclear "deterrent". Get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop the unwinnable "war on (some) drugs". Release anyone who's in prison solely for drug crimes. Tax the bankers and financiers who got us in this mess in the first place.

...and take an axe to the bloated middle-management bureacracy (and salaries) across public-sector, including the monolithic NHS. I mean look at the ridiculous funds they've sunk into IT projects, or crippling PFI repayments.

Our faculty at University is divided, depending on which union you're affiliated with.

DeWinter wrote:...squealing like a penetrated Frenchman

Ed Balls has apparently asked Osborne why it is that it's always women, children and families who got hit hardest by Tory cuts.

Anyone?

public sector pay rises are to be capped at 1% for two years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086

i don't know about other industries but within I.T., comparable roles within the private sector typically get paid more than public sector.

the commonly acknowledged benefit of working in the public sector was always job security and a decent pension.

many public sector roles where perceived as "a job for life", usually due to slow staff churn and the strong unions making it very difficult to get rid of under-performing, useless or downright negligent staff.

(to my mind, this also contributes to it being lethargic, bloated, expensive to run and slow to change, and usually half-full of deadwood biding their time until their retirement)

take away the job for life & the good pension, and cap the already below-market-rates salaries, and you have even less incentive for people to go work public sector.

so, where you gonna get your teachers, police, nurses, social services, etc etc etc?

in a market-led developed society certain organisations will never be profitable (nhs, police, fire service, etc) and are too important to be left to "the market".

it's f*cked

The days when the public sector was a "job for life" have long gone.

markfiend wrote:The thing is though, some people have been paying into these pension funds for years in the belief that they'll be able to retire at 65 and get X% of their salary as a pension. To be told at the age of 55 that, oops, sorry, you'll have to work three years longer (including paying in another three years' contributions) and get 0.9X% salary at the end of it because Gideon Osbourne wants to raid your pension pot... rankles.

I'll tell you how to pay for it. Scrap Britain's nuclear "deterrent". Get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop the unwinnable "war on (some) drugs". Release anyone who's in prison solely for drug crimes. Tax the bankers and financiers who got us in this mess in the first place.

Curious that you call him Gideon Osbourne, but no-one ever called Gordon Brown by his real name..James Brown!
I agree it's rotten, but why is it MORE rotten than everyone else being told to work for longer for their decidedly less appealing State pension? And not only that, it must be their tax money used to fund public sector pensions.
I wouldn't mind the cancellation of any or all the above things you've suggested, but I'd rather that money went back to who it was taken from, so that they can put some money away for their own pensions. As for the bankers and financiers, unless you agree a global standard of taxation, they'll bugger off abroad and you won't even get what you get from them now. Same argument as to why a Tobin Tax can only work if global.

As for Ed Balls, would you seriously give credence to one of Brown's right-hand men on anything economic? I agree Osbourne will probably fail (the alarm bells started ringing when his economic plans involved "increased consumer debt" being an engine for growth, and became Notre Dame in volume when he pumped money into the housing price bubble), but Balls has already proved himself useless.

markfiend wrote:Ed Balls has apparently asked Osborne why it is that it's always women, children and families who got hit hardest by Tory cuts.

Anyone?

Because they are the groups Labour gave large amounts of borrowed money to that we can't afford anymore would be my response.

There's nothing wrong with showering largesse on certain groups if you have the money to do it, but doing it with borrowed money, rather than the proceeds of growth or an increased tax-take can only ever be short-term. Eventually people wont want or be able in this case,to lend you the money anymore.

DeWinter wrote:Curious that you call him Gideon Osbourne, but no-one ever called Gordon Brown by his real name..James Brown!

I will happily admit it's a petty little bit of inverse snobbery on my part. According to the fount of all knowledge, he never liked the name "Gideon" and changed it aged 13 to "George". By rights someone should be called whatever they want to be called. And I misspelled his surname!

Anyway, the pensions thing: thieving from his employees' pension pot was what did for Robert Maxwell, why should Osborne be allowed to get away with the same thing? As far as I understand it, the only "tax money" going into public sector pensions is the bit the government pays as its "employer contributions". And of course a public sector worker pays just as much tax as her private sector colleague on a comparable salary.

I'm a teacher, but our union didn't have enough of a majority vote to strike tomorrow :/ All of my other teacher friends are, I feel quite guitly.
The bus driver who delivers the school dinners is off, so no lumpy potatoes or semolina for the littlun's tomorrow. Every cloud...

markfiend wrote:Ed Balls has apparently asked Osborne why it is that it's always women, children and families who got hit hardest by Tory cuts.
Anyone?

DeWinter wrote:Because they are the groups Labour gave large amounts of borrowed money to that we can't afford anymore would be my response.

Wow




I will be striking.

I've been out twice, once maybe 15 or 16 years ago and once 2 or so years ago. It's an odd thing, you know that you're going for a principle that you feel is correct, but you wonder if it's actually going to achieve anything (particularly given the way things are these days) or if you would have been better off taking a day in bed.

Also participated in a fairly lengthy work-to-rule which HR responded to by blocking all promotions for a good 6 months (which did affect me at the time) but which did result in a pretty comprehensive organizational review (and which was promptly killed off by good old death-by-committee).

You do get a mixture of stick and support, sometimes from the oddest places. I had a fairly lengthy conversation with a taxi driver shortly after the last one, and of all the people you would expect support from you would imagine that would be the last (aside from maybe a fascist newspaper editor), but there he was talking it up.

Whatever, if you believe that you're doing the right thing for the right reason - sense of injustice, right and wrong, biased perceptions, whatever, then go for it. If it's just for a "stick it to the man" thing then I don't think it's the right reason and you should probably get yourself a curry, a DVD, a nice warm duvet, some tinnies, anything else you fancy, and switch the phone to voicemail instead.

i had an interesting discussion with someone last week who was going to break the strike and go into work, despite being a member of unison.

i think if you're part of a union and the union says strike, you're obliged to do it even if you disagree with the grounds.

unions are based on solidarity and strength in numbers.

if you expect your union to support you should you need it, you have to give yours in return.

if you disagree with what the union is suggesting, leave and find another union.

Quiff Boy wrote:i had an interesting discussion with someone last week who was going to break the strike and go into work, despite being a member of unison.

i think if you're part of a union and the union says strike, you're obliged to do it even if you disagree with the grounds.

unions are based on solidarity and strength in numbers.

if you expect your union to support you should you need it, you have to give yours in return.

if you disagree with what the union is suggesting, leave and find another union.

That's a fair point. I don't know about the UK, but for my part there is only one union that is officially recognised for each level, so we don't really have that much choice (i.e. none) in the matter. But given choice, yeah - do wot Quiffy sez.

Batty Von Blingtrash wrote:I'm a teacher, but our union didn't have enough of a majority vote to strike tomorrow :/ All of my other teacher friends are, I feel quite guitly.
The bus driver who delivers the school dinners is off, so no lumpy potatoes or semolina for the littlun's tomorrow. Every cloud...

As I said to one of my colleagues, you don't have to be in a union (or in the right union) to join the strike. The school probably doesn't know which union you're in...

Obviously I'm not trying to badger you. And see my point below...

mh wrote:If it's just for a "stick it to the man" thing then I don't think it's the right reason

Agreed.

Quiff Boy wrote:if you expect your union to support you should you need it, you have to give yours in return.

It's a good point.

Quiff Boy wrote:i think if you're part of a union and the union says strike, you're obliged to do it even if you disagree with the grounds.

As it happens, I do agree with the grounds for the strike anyway, but that's a very interesting take on it. After all, I suppose if my union had voted not to strike, even though I would have disagreed I would have had to abide by a decision arrived at democratically.

I do think I would struggle to cross a picket line though.

what rankles with me is union members saying 'well, it doesn't affect my pension because i'm so close to retirement so i don't need to bother'. wtf? nice solidarity, chaps.

emilystrange wrote:what rankles with me is union members saying 'well, it doesn't affect my pension because i'm so close to retirement so i don't need to bother'. wtf? nice solidarity, chaps.

Yeah, Kerry is really p!ssed off at that one too.

markfiend wrote:

DeWinter wrote:Curious that you call him Gideon Osbourne, but no-one ever called Gordon Brown by his real name..James Brown!

I will happily admit it's a petty little bit of inverse snobbery on my part. According to the fount of all knowledge, he never liked the name "Gideon" and changed it aged 13 to "George". By rights someone should be called whatever they want to be called. And I misspelled his surname!

Anyway, the pensions thing: thieving from his employees' pension pot was what did for Robert Maxwell, why should Osborne be allowed to get away with the same thing? As far as I understand it, the only "tax money" going into public sector pensions is the bit the government pays as its "employer contributions". And of course a public sector worker pays just as much tax as her private sector colleague on a comparable salary.

Well, Gordon managed to finish off a large number of private pension schemes by slapping a tax on their share dividends. Stealing the pensions of people who don't work for you is even worse!
All public sector wages and pensions are taxpayer cash, surely? The Government doesn't have any money of it's own to pay public sector workers with. It's why most countries follow the 70:30 rule regarding their public sectors. You need the tax intake of two and half private sector workers to pay the wages of one public sector worker. Any tax paid by a public sector worker is pretty much an accounting exercise, it'd save admin costs if you simply paid a third less but exempted them from taxation.
Don't get me wrong, I've no objection to a big State sector like Heffer etc, Sweden manages rather well with one. But we clearly couldn't afford it back then even (Gordon was running a quarterly deficit of £30 billion before the crash), how on earth can we run it on the same basis now without mass layoffs?