The Strike

petemadoc

What's the general opinion?

Obviously if you work in the public sector you won't be happy but what about everyone else?

random man

I work in the public sector and I'm a member of Unison, but I won't be going on strike.
The union leaders and the government need to come to an agreement like grown-ups but I don't see that happening

Mad Roadie

its about time those in the public sector with nice more secure jobs woke up to reality and acknowledged they have to work in the real world where pensions have collapsed and are less valuable - their selfish attitude will cost an already crippled economy millions - MTFU and shut up!

if they had been in the private sector their jobs would have gone by now

So expect a complete loss of public support and backlash to their head in the sand approach

dilemna

Mad Roadie wrote:

its about time those in the public sector with nice more secure jobs woke up to reality and acknowledged they have to work in the real world where pensions have collapsed and are less valuable - their selfish attitude will cost an already crippled economy millions - MTFU and shut up!

if they had been in the private sector their jobs would have gone by now

So expect a complete loss of public support and backlash to their head in the sand approach

+1. These people don't realise how good they have got it. And before the public sector mafia get on my case I was a civil servant once and the sloth and wastage I saw was breathtaking. They have gold plated pensions that cannot fail as they are under written by the government by tax payers from private and public sectors. So while many low paid workers in the private sector have lost an opportunity of joining a pension scheme we are still subsidising those workers in the public sectors from income tax we pay. This is mad. Any public sector workers who strike, fire them and give their jobs to me.

pb21

I work in the private sector and I support the strikes.

Even if public sector pay was twice what it was in the private sector, and the pensions were ten times as much, and you got to retire at 50 I would still support them. Just because private sector jobs are worse in these respects doesn’t mean they should fall in line.

The vilification of the public sector workers going on strike, is misplaced. Everyone had the possibility of choosing a public sector job, but for whatever reason didn’t.

daviesee

pb21 wrote:

Everyone had the possibility of choosing a public sector job, but for whatever reason didn’t.

Really? Everyone?

Where are all these vacancies?

pb21

daviesee wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Everyone had the possibility of choosing a public sector job, but for whatever reason didn’t.

Really? Everyone?

Where are all these vacancies?

Everyone had the choice (maybe opportunity is a better word) of entering the public sector or the private sector. Anyone can apply for public sector jobs, admittedly there are less around these days though...

rick_chasey

I'm in two minds.

On the one hand I'm pleased people can still strike.

Generally, the ability to strikes helps. I'd suggest Brits are worse off because of the reduction in unionisation.

On the other, protecting the pensions for the back end of the baby boomers will f*ck it for my generation.

So good on them for striking, just not so good it's about pensions, though I can totally empathise.

And parents - if your kid is genuinely going to suffer because school will be shut for one day, then your kid has problems.

Sirius631

I'm about to start a maths degree with the intention of going into teaching, but still they do not have my simpathy. Do they not realise that we are in this together? What if they could have done this during the second world war? "Okay chaps, try not to get shot. I know millions of us are going to perish, it just can't be helped. Of course the teachers have buggered off to Ireland, safely out of harms way. Good show chaps!"

GiantMike

It is a fundamental right to be able to withhold ones labour. It is an indication of how important the Public Sector is that when there is a strike there is a significant impact on the country.

There is a lot of confusion between a pension secured in statute and a 'gold-plated pension'. The latter implies the pensions are very generous, the former just says that, rather than value of investments, the pension is borne out of public funds (as are the salaries, training costs etc).

Everybody has the opportunity to join the public sector, or work as a car salesman or a plumber. There may not be any vacancies now, but there were a lot of public sector jobs a few years ago, and a lot of people took thembecause of the flexible working conditions they offered, not the salaries. These were jobs that anybody could take. With hindsight and a recession these jobs now look cosy and people are looking enviously at them.

While some people will fully understand the implications of pension reform and the current status of the negotiation between the Govt and the Unions, almost all information in the media is either incorrect or misrepresentation. I don't work for the Public Sector, and I wouldn't becuase I can earn more money elsewhere. But I do support the right of all individuals to protest about something they consider to be a one-sided attack on their pension rights.

Of more importance is the planned change to employment rights the Govt is planning for the private sector. NO EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS for 2 years! Private conversations that can't be used as evidence as an Employment Tribunal! Compulsory ACAS mediation before Employment Tribunal and charges to take a case to Employment Tribunal. If you're planning to change jobs in the Private Sector in the future you will have a significant reduction in your employment rights, and I'm sure the public sector workers would support your complaints about the changes.

We're all workers, we've all made our choices and can continue to do so. But condemning somebody else's actions without knowing all the facts leaves us open to manipulation by the Govt (who do actually have 'Gold-plated' pensions, expenses, multiple jobs and influence on company boards, but that was their choice and we continue to support their employment, pay and pension packages while they undermine ours).

Bozman

I'm not inthe teaching trade but looking from a neutral point of view.....
For - Why won't the Government release the details of the teachers pension pot? Because they know that it's positive, so why do they have to pay more to get less and retire later, i can't wait for the reaction of parents in 20 to 30 years time when the primary schools are full of 60 to 70 yr old teachers.
Why did the Government offer the change - if you're due to retire in the next ten years you will not effected by the pension changes? Probably because there would have been a mass exodus of over 55s in the teaching trade and they were counting on less support for strike action.

rick_chasey

Sirius631 wrote:

I'm about to start a maths degree with the intention of going into teaching, but still they do not have my simpathy. Do they not realise that we are in this together? What if they could have done this during the second world war? "Okay chaps, try not to get shot. I know millions of us are going to perish, it just can't be helped. Of course the teachers have buggered off to Ireland, safely out of harms way. Good show chaps!"

No-one's in it together.

nevman

The average public pension is around £9000 pa so people are defending very little,thats why it matters.
Its an issue that goes to the core-fairness.People entered public service on reduced salaries,knowing that it was compulsory to pay into a partly self funded scheme,the state making up the balance on retirement.That was the agreement,everyone knew where they were.Changing the rules without consent isnt fair.End of.Public sector workers wont strike unless severely provoked,they serve the public not themselves.This is the last straw.

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sirius631 wrote:

I'm about to start a maths degree with the intention of going into teaching, but still they do not have my simpathy. Do they not realise that we are in this together? What if they could have done this during the second world war? "Okay chaps, try not to get shot. I know millions of us are going to perish, it just can't be helped. Of course the teachers have buggered off to Ireland, safely out of harms way. Good show chaps!"

No-one's in it together.

+ lots. Most definitely not all in it together.

Tom Butcher

I think if they believe striking can work for them then they should strike - stuff everyone else. That seems to be the foundation of our economic system - if you can get something for yourself then you use whatever leverage you can to do so.

As they always say about footballers and top exectutives - if you could get that kind of money you would. Well if public sector workers can get better pensions than private why should they forego that out of some kind of misplaced belief that we are all in it together.

MattC59

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

That's not the problem. If I, and my colleagues went on strike, nothing would get manufactured or sold which would end up with less income to the company, more job cuts and a viscious circle until the company goes bust. Of course, the other option is for the company to give in to the union, increase salaries, employ more people to make stuff that's not being sold, and then go bust. (Yes, I know that's somewhat over simplified)

My salary hasn't increased because company turnover isn't where it should be. I accept that. Striking isn't going to help productivity and the company's position in the market place.

pb21

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

Exactly, aim your wrath elsewhere, where it is warranted.

Just because some people have got some things better than you doesn’t mean they should give them up so they are the same as you, to make your position seem fairer.

Anyway I may be wrong but I don’t think you have to work in the public sector to be in a union?

Smokin Joe

Will anybody notice?

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

That's not the problem. If I, and my colleagues went on strike, nothing would get manufactured or sold which would end up with less income to the company, more job cuts and a viscious circle until the company goes bust. Of course, the other option is for the company to give in to the union, increase salaries, employ more people to make stuff that's not being sold, and then go bust. (Yes, I know that's somewhat over simplified)

My salary hasn't increased because company turnover isn't where it should be. I accept that. Striking isn't going to help productivity and the company's position in the market place.

Well a) there isn't much else out there to find.

b) because it's harder to quantify state sector output, and since punters don't want to pay tax, their pay generally gets squeezed. After all, the public sector is a monopsony, so by and large, they are underpaid. The unionisation is there in an attempt redress that balance.

c) if the economy can't tolerate one day of public sector striking, then it's too f*cked for it to matter anyway.

d) What you're paid by your company barely has an affect on what people in the public sector are paid, unless it's a similar job, obviously.

People complain when their public services are stopped for the day, but complain that they're paid to much every other day of the year.

Can't have it both ways.

MattC59

pb21 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

Exactly, aim your wrath elsewhere, where it is warranted.

Just because some people have got some things better than you doesn’t mean they should give them up so they are the same as you, to make your position seem fairer.

Anyway I may be wrong but I don’t think you have to work in the public sector to be in a union?

WTF ???

zippypablo

I work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise in 3 years.
I won't get a pay rise anytime soon.

The govt want me to work longer.
The govt want me to pay more into my pension (up from 11% to 14%).
The govt want me to get a smaller pension at the end.

I could probably accept one of the changes but not all
That is why there is a strike happening. The govt haven't been prepared to enter any dialogue, they just wanted to impose this on the public sector.
There have been massive cuts in the public sector with more to come.

All in this together!?
Don't be so naive.

Tom Butcher

The question is are these one off strikes really effective ? Does anyone have the money or the will for the kind of extended industrial action that might put real pressure on the employer ?

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise for two years (which is essentially a pay cut), and I'm guessing that there won't be one this year.
My pension has taken a beating.

The country has no money.
The economy is in a sh*t state.

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?
I can't strike.
If I don't like my (lack of) pay rise or pension issues, it's up to me to get off my ar*e and find something else.

That's the problem. It's quite easy to argue your pay is getting f*cked because, in part, you're not unionised.

That's not the problem. If I, and my colleagues went on strike, nothing would get manufactured or sold which would end up with less income to the company, more job cuts and a viscious circle until the company goes bust. Of course, the other option is for the company to give in to the union, increase salaries, employ more people to make stuff that's not being sold, and then go bust. (Yes, I know that's somewhat over simplified)

My salary hasn't increased because company turnover isn't where it should be. I accept that. Striking isn't going to help productivity and the company's position in the market place.

Well a) there isn't much else out there to find.
That was never disputed, although I seem to be getting approached by head hunters on a monthly basis (which I appreciate is a fortunate position to be in and isn't the same for everyone)

b) because it's harder to quantify state sector output, and since punters don't want to pay tax, their pay generally gets squeezed. After all, the public sector is a monopsony, so by and large, they are underpaid. The unionisation is there in an attempt redress that balance.
Is it ? In what way ? Perhaps my understanding of a monopsony is incorrect (wouldn't be the first time )

c) if the economy can't tolerate one day of public sector striking, then it's too f*cked for it to matter anyway.
I suspect that we could do without the predicted £500m cost to the economy at the moment.

d) What you're paid by your company barely has an affect on what people in the public sector are paid, unless it's a similar job, obviously.
It's unlikely to be a similar job, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. A 5%, 10%, 15% cut is the same percentage what ever you earn. We all have living expenses, which unless you're living beyond your means, are generally derived from your income. ie people tend to spend what they earn (unless your Tesco's CEO) and their salaries are accounted for. (I'd love to have a big chunk of unaccounted for £££ at the end of each month, but I don't).

People complain when their public services are stopped for the day, but complain that they're paid to much every other day of the year.
First point, yes I do. Second point no I don't.

Can't have it both ways.

rick_chasey

a) head hunters eh?

b) Monopsony is one one buyer for many sellers - in this case, the state is the only 'buyer' of public sector labour.

c) £500m won't even register.

d) I mentioned it because you use your pay as a comparison to judge public sector pay - which I don't think is relevant.

MattC59

zippypablo wrote:

I work in the public sector.
I've not had a pay rise in 3 years.
I won't get a pay rise anytime soon.

The govt want me to work longer. I have to anyway, what's an 8hr day ? I get out what I put in.
The govt want me to pay more into my pension (up from 11% to 14%). I have to anyway, pensions aren't performing well so if I want a decent return, I have to put something extra in.
The govt want me to get a smaller pension at the end. Yep, pensions aren't performing well, mine is suffering as well.

I could probably accept one of the changes but not all. I don't have a choice
That is why there is a strike happening. The govt haven't been prepared to enter any dialogue, they just wanted to impose this on the public sector. See above
There have been massive cuts in the public sector with more to come.

All in this together!?
Don't be so naive.

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

a) head hunters eh? Yep, and we're not talking pigmys !

b) Monopsony is one one buyer for many sellers - in this case, the state is the only 'buyer' of public sector jobs.
Thought as much, but although the state is the only buyer of public sector jobs, surely it could only be a monopsony if the state was the only buyer of all jobs ? Generally, people have a choice. They don't have to go into the public sector.

c) £500m won't even register.
But I'm sure it would be better not being a cost to the economy ?

d) I mentioned it because you use your pay as a comparison to judge public sector pay - which I don't think is relevant.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, as I wasn't comparing my salary, but the fact that I'm being hit as well

Tom Butcher

Matt - why don't you have a choice ? By your own admission you have a choice of going elsewhere. Teachers and many other public sector workers don't because as Rick says the government is a monopoly or near monopoly provider of the service they work in - the only show in town.

rick_chasey

Indeeed:

The standard textbook monopsony model refers to static partial equilibrium in a labor market with just one employer who pays the same wage to all its workers.

he lower employment and wage caused by monopsony power has two distinct effects on the economic welfare of the people involved. First, it redistributes welfare away from workers and to their employer(s). Secondly, it reduces the aggregate (or social) welfare enjoyed by both groups taken together, as the employers' net gain is smaller than the loss inflicted on workers.

zippypablo

Race to the bottom Matt?
By work longer I mean extra years not extra hours in a week. I work more hours than I used to but I'm not complaining at all about that.

As for you not having a choice, what about the head hunting bit? It seems you do have a choice.

How much do you pay towards your pension?