Government "trap" or not?

Frank the tank

Are the public sector workers being "drawn into" industial action by the government (as Ed Balls sugests) to help precipitate even stronger anti-union laws or is it an inevetable show down between people endevouring to protect their own futures and a government hell bent on cutting the benefits of the working masses?

tim_wand

Having been the Secretary of a public services union I have witnessed the total removal of any rights to Collective Bargaining being removed as the Goverment continues to impose legislation and remove contractual rights.

Far be it from me to talk about the breaking of Unions by Goverment to a man from Nottinghamshire. My Union has been on strike once in its 75 year history for one day by 2 pm on that day the Goverment sucessfully gained an injunction in the High Court to force us back to work.

The new TULCRA legislation which has to be complied to in order to bring your members out on strike is virtually impossible and just gives the Goverment time to block you in court.

Basically Thatcher did Labour a massive favour by smashing the Unions before Labour got to power and had to make good on their Union backing and this lot whoever they are just dont want public services. They cant affoard the pensions or the contracts and will rush to privatise everything.

So yer we are playing right into their hands we will get zero public support from the majority who work in the private sector and the Goverment know it.

Frank the tank

I fear that the gov will use any strike action undertaken as a reason to tighten up already very tight anti strike laws. OTOH what are people expected to do if they're having their futures attacked I know what I would do, I would have to make a stand I owe it to my family and myself.

Before long the penny will drop, I just hope when it does it's not too late, if it isn't already.

verylonglegs

It's a global game now folks, strike all you like, there are people who'll work 3 times as hard to get what we have and the lifestyle so many in this country feel they 'deserve'. It's not even a political issue for me, just a consequence of a changing world.

jim453

Maybe it is a trap, but what would the government have public servants do? They are bound to try defend their position. The alternative to walking into the 'trap' is just as unpleasant.

What exactly is the point of paying union dues?

GeorgeShaw

verylonglegs wrote:

It's a global game now folks, strike all you like, there are people who'll work 3 times as hard to get what we have and the lifestyle so many in this country feel they 'deserve'. It's not even a political issue for me, just a consequence of a changing world.

Well it's not all a global game - I don't fancy having to leave the country to get educated or find a decent hospital. Most public services can't be outsourced abroad.

AndyRubio

verylonglegs wrote:

It's not even a political issue for me...

verylonglegs

GeorgeShaw wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

It's a global game now folks, strike all you like, there are people who'll work 3 times as hard to get what we have and the lifestyle so many in this country feel they 'deserve'. It's not even a political issue for me, just a consequence of a changing world.

Well it's not all a global game - I don't fancy having to leave the country to get educated or find a decent hospital. Most public services can't be outsourced abroad.

No, they can't be outsourced but external factors are influencing what we can afford. We import food and energy resources and as we all know they have become more expensive. Maybe we need some brave politicians to say exactly how much it would cost to provide the best services although I suspect the voting public are too inward looking to go for that option.

bearfraser

it may well be a trap but do we want to work to a 100 pay 1000% more into the pension fund and get Fcuk all out of the fund when we finally retire, if we dont die before we can.!!!!!! :evil:

GeorgeShaw

verylonglegs wrote:

Maybe we need some brave politicians to say exactly how much it would cost to provide the best services although I suspect the voting public are too inward looking to go for that option.

I'd be more sympathetic if our MPs and chief executives were also making sacrifices, but no sign of that.

rick_chasey

GeorgeShaw wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Maybe we need some brave politicians to say exactly how much it would cost to provide the best services although I suspect the voting public are too inward looking to go for that option.

I'd be more sympathetic if our MPs and chief executives were also making sacrifices, but no sign of that.

MPs have. They are no longer allowed to supplement their salary with erroneous expenses claims.

OffTheBackAdam

The public sector's finally having to face up to what we in the private sector haved faced for years. No more jobs for life, no more final salary pensions and no more retiring at 55 on a full pension.
We're all living longer, so retirement ages are going to have to rise to take that into account.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... ectancy+uk
In 1960, life expectancy in the UK was ~70, in 2009 it's ~80 years old. Retire at 65 in 1960 and you'd live for about 5 years, now you're looking at another 15 years of life. More elderly people too, more medical care available too.
If you don't like your current job's package, find one better.
The public sector's been historically overmanned for decades, ditto Parliament. I agree whole-heartedly, that they should lead the way and withdraw their pension scheme, cut their numbers by at least 50%, probably more unless they grow real balls & start working on UK legislation, instead of rubber-stamping EU stuff.
It's the usual situation, a Labour government's wrecked the economy, so a Conservative one's having to put it back on its feet again, make themselves unpopular & so another labour one can come along & wreck it again!
Note how a subsequent Labour goverment doesn't repeal the "Anti-Union Laws", they know they're good laws, but wouldn't pass them themselves, because they're funding would dry up.

snailracer

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

...
It's the usual situation, a Labour government's wrecked the economy, so a Conservative one's having to put it back on its feet again, make themselves unpopular & so another labour one can come along & wreck it again!
...

I don't remember the Conservatives doing any better with the economy during their 18-year term in office '79-'97 - just the usual boom & bust cycle that seems characteristic of the British economy.

rick_chasey

snailracer wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

...
It's the usual situation, a Labour government's wrecked the economy, so a Conservative one's having to put it back on its feet again, make themselves unpopular & so another labour one can come along & wreck it again!
...

I don't remember the Conservatives doing any better with the economy during their 18-year term in office '79-'97 - just the usual boom & bust cycle that seems characteristic of the British economy.

Black Wednesday anyone?

Zachariah

GeorgeShaw

I was under the impression that it was the bankers that caused the crisis, and the deficit was amongst the lowest in Europe before the crisis.

The government is also saying that pension saving is far too low in this country, and that we all need to save more for the future. So how does cutting back on occupational pensions fit in with that? More likely pension provision for private companies should be increased rather than those for the public sector decreased.

Imposing a new regime will only lead to more people withdrawing from their occupational pension, so the government will have to pay anyway.

And the Hutton review didn't show a major problem with public sector pensions. Some adjustments need to be made, and these can be negotiated. But it seems that some members of the government prefer grandstanding.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

I fear that the gov will use any strike action undertaken as a reason to tighten up already very tight anti strike laws. OTOH what are people expected to do if they're having their futures attacked I know what I would do, I would have to make a stand I owe it to my family and myself.

Before long the penny will drop, I just hope when it does it's not too late, if it isn't already.

very tight anti strike laws ?

Oh you mean actually requiring a vote of the members before going on strike. How draconian will they get?

squired

More likely pension provision for private companies should be increased rather than those for the public sector decreased.

That would never work. As verylonglegs said, it is a global game. If we tried to force private companies to increase pension provisions for workforces that are already expensive many will just find staff in another country. Politicians are always talking about what is "fair". In a situation where public sector workers (on average) now earn more than the private sector, plus have better pension provisions, that simply isn't "fair".

The role of the banks was obviously very important, but Labour were simply spending too much. It is funny really, because the Government tells you that you should save in the good times so that you have money for a rainy day, yet they were spending public money like a drunken sailor. Had Labour kept spending under control and actually built up a surplus we could be in a pretty good position right now.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I fear that the gov will use any strike action undertaken as a reason to tighten up already very tight anti strike laws. OTOH what are people expected to do if they're having their futures attacked I know what I would do, I would have to make a stand I owe it to my family and myself.

Before long the penny will drop, I just hope when it does it's not too late, if it isn't already.

very tight anti strike laws ?

Oh you mean actually requiring a vote of the members before going on strike. How draconian will they get?

http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.co ... d-herring/

Aggieboy

squired wrote:

More likely pension provision for private companies should be increased rather than those for the public sector decreased.

That would never work. As verylonglegs said, it is a global game. If we tried to force private companies to increase pension provisions for workforces that are already expensive many will just find staff in another country. Politicians are always talking about what is "fair". In a situation where public sector workers (on average) now earn more than the private sector, plus have better pension provisions, that simply isn't "fair".

The role of the banks was obviously very important, but Labour were simply spending too much. It is funny really, because the Government tells you that you should save in the good times so that you have money for a rainy day, yet they were spending public money like a drunken sailor. Had Labour kept spending under control and actually built up a surplus we could be in a pretty good position right now.

Have you seen the price of gold??? :roll:

zippypablo

I've already had 2 pension reviews in the last 6 years. Second review has upped my contributions from 11% to 13 and probably 14%. This is on top of a minimum 3 year pay freeze now they want me to work longer. That's fine, I'll do an extra 3 or 4 years. After all, we all have to do our bit unless you're a politician. On top of all that, less pension at the end. Thanks very much, where do I sign?

zippypablo

Meant to add that 4 years extra is what I think is reasonable but it's more likely to be 8. Any word on what they expect from the army? Public sector after all.

Cleat Eastwood

spen666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I fear that the gov will use any strike action undertaken as a reason to tighten up already very tight anti strike laws. OTOH what are people expected to do if they're having their futures attacked I know what I would do, I would have to make a stand I owe it to my family and myself.

Before long the penny will drop, I just hope when it does it's not too late, if it isn't already.

very tight anti strike laws ?

Oh you mean actually requiring a vote of the members before going on strike. How draconian will they get?

Why not ask Dr Snuggles look-a-likeand workers friend mr V "planned strike actions would force the government to consider tougher anti-strike laws" Cable.

spen666

squired wrote:

More likely pension provision for private companies should be increased rather than those for the public sector decreased.

That would never work. As verylonglegs said, it is a global game. If we tried to force private companies to increase pension provisions for workforces that are already expensive many will just find staff in another country. Politicians are always talking about what is "fair". In a situation where public sector workers (on average) now earn more than the private sector, plus have better pension provisions, that simply isn't "fair".
The role of the banks was obviously very important, but Labour were simply spending too much. It is funny really, because the Government tells you that you should save in the good times so that you have money for a rainy day, yet they were spending public money like a drunken sailor. Had Labour kept spending under control and actually built up a surplus we could be in a pretty good position right now.

And tomorrow on Jackanory.......

rick_chasey

Public sector jobs need to be competitive somehow, else all they won't get any talent.

I know my mate's joined the public sector, and has traded off a higher, less reliable income to a lower salary with a proper pension, rather than a up to 3% matched pension...

Valy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The public sector's finally having to face up to what we in the private sector haved faced for years. No more jobs for life, no more final salary pensions and no more retiring at 55 on a full pension.
We're all living longer, so retirement ages are going to have to rise to take that into account.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... ectancy+uk
In 1960, life expectancy in the UK was ~70, in 2009 it's ~80 years old. Retire at 65 in 1960 and you'd live for about 5 years, now you're looking at another 15 years of life. More elderly people too, more medical care available too.
If you don't like your current job's package, find one better.
The public sector's been historically overmanned for decades, ditto Parliament. I agree whole-heartedly, that they should lead the way and withdraw their pension scheme, cut their numbers by at least 50%, probably more unless they grow real balls & start working on UK legislation, instead of rubber-stamping EU stuff.
It's the usual situation, a Labour government's wrecked the economy, so a Conservative one's having to put it back on its feet again, make themselves unpopular & so another labour one can come along & wreck it again!
Note how a subsequent Labour goverment doesn't repeal the "Anti-Union Laws", they know they're good laws, but wouldn't pass them themselves, because they're funding would dry up.

Cut public services by 50%? Do you even understand what you are say.. oh wait, you don't.

Tom Butcher

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

n 1960, life expectancy in the UK was ~70, in 2009 it's ~80 years old. Retire at 65 in 1960 and you'd live for about 5 years, now you're looking at another 15 years of life. .

Are you telling me that in 1960 the life expectancy for someone aged 65 was 70 - 5 years life ? I don't think so. A quick google of official statistics suggests life expectancy aged 65 for men was 13 years and for women 17 years. That has now reached 17 years for men and 20 for women. It's an increase but nothing like the three fold increase using the life expectancy from birth you use.

Pross

They're being drawn into industrial action by Union leaders on a power trip and who refuse to realise that the current situation is unsustainable both in the short term (deficit) and long term due to ageing populations etc. Their retort is always "what about the bankers" but that's just a convenient scapegoat and the pension issue has been a time bomb being ignored for years. Private sector businesses and employees have been through this already and in general were more pragmatic about it. There was a Unison rep on Radio 5 the other day saying that taxpayers money doesn't help fund public sector pensions much as it all comes from the employees and the employers - where does she think the employers contributions come from?

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

There was a Unison rep on Radio 5 the other day saying that taxpayers money doesn't help fund public sector pensions much as it all comes from the employees and the employers - where does she think the employers contributions come from?

That's not how it works though, is it?

If you count back far enough you could make anything be paid for by anyone.

They've worked, provided an economic function, and get paid the market value for that.

The only difference is is that the state has decided to command a proportion of your salary and spend it for you (tax) since you can't be trusted to spend it on stuff that helps the greater good.


Surely, by your logic anyone ever is funded by 'us'.

GeorgeShaw

In fact you could say that every pound in your pocket has been created by government spending. It's the government that prints money and spends it - and it represents no more than "a promise to pay" and has no intrinsic value.

OffTheBackAdam

Valy, where do I mention cutting public services by 50%?
Cutting MPs by 50% yes (Arguably about waist level would be good! )
Tom, click the link, in 1960, the life expectancy of someone who had been born in Britain was 70 years. Retire at 65, likely to be dead by 70. In 2009, you were likely to live until you were 80, so retire at 65, another 15 years of life left.