The Strike

MattC59

Tom Butcher wrote:

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.

Because other companies are in the same boat. There are very few out there which are prospering and not having to make cuts in this climate.

MattC59

zippypablo wrote:

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. So will I if I want to fill my pension sufficiently.

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

How much do you pay towards your pension?I've just (last week) increased it to 12.5%

greasedscotsman

I used to work for a private company doing public sector work. Last year due to a reduction of work, my company cut back on its staff, making about 25% of its staff redundant (including myself). The council employed project managers to oversee the projects we were working on, but there are still the same number working there today.

Don't get it, maybe someone can explain it to me...

petemadoc

Personally I think a pension cut is a soft option and is a cowardly way of making cuts. The pensions are fair as they are and should be left alone. The big problem that government won't deal with is that the public sector is just way too big ! !

Pointless administration jobs, quangos and all the other crappy red tape made up jobs need to be slashed. At least a third of public sector jobs need to go. It'll be painful bit it will relieve some of the burden on the private sector which should stimulate growth and create employment elsewhere. Remember where ALL the money comes from to pay for the public sector!

Of course this will never happen because the public would never expect such big job loses.

rick_chasey

PeteMadoc wrote:

Personally I think a pension cut is a soft option and is a cowardly way of making cuts. The pensions are fair as they are and should be left alone. The big problem that government won't deal with is that the public sector is just way too big ! !

Pointless administration jobs, quangos and all the other crappy red tape made up jobs need to be slashed. At least a third of public sector jobs need to go. It'll be painful bit it will relieve some of the burden on the private sector which should stimulate growth and create employment elsewhere. Remember where ALL the money comes from to pay for the public sector!

Of course this will never happen because the public would never expect such big job loses.

Private sector isn't doing that at the moment with the current round of cuts?

And this 'who pays for it' is a big big misnomer.

TheStone

I'd be annoyed if I was promised something, then they wanted to change the terms later.

That said. I don't think we can afford these pensions. Most of the costs are being added to already huge amount of debt/liabilities we're chucking on our kids and I think that's disgusting (seems to be what socialism is these days!)

They knew there were problems with the public sector pensions back in the 80s, but chose to kick the can down the road. Gordon Brown made things so much worse by employing so many more people and raising wages without making any provisions for these extra liabilities.

petemadoc

"Who pays for it" it being the public sector

There's only one place money comes from to pay for it and that's the private sector. Cut corporation tax but make sure the financial sector is taxed properly and slash public sector jobs, not frontline jobs just all the naff ones created over the last 15 years. Having such a large public sector is just not viable.

Encourage manufacturing and get this country moving again. The banking/financial sector has been acting like one giant pyramid scheme and it's all crashing down around us.

sfichele

Here's my view:
I'm peeved that the public sector workers get a reasonable pension compared to me, and that my taxes pay for that.

BUT are they right to strike? YES because they are being swindled out of their entitlement and what they originally signed up for in their contract. In addition their pension is NOT gold plated, as it is sometimes branded, it is merely reasonable!

You are all arguing about the WRONG thing!!!

You should be arguing that we all have the same good quality pension entitlement based on our national insurance contributions! The real elephant in the room is the shoddy affair that is the state pension, which is claimed to be the worst in Europe!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/nov/13/statepensions.personalfinancenews

Also, year on year our private pensions are being fleeced by the white collar b4st4rds in the finance sector.
If your pension under performs or loses money, the b4st4rds still take their commission - every year!

People in the private sector should be sticking up for their own pension rights not berating the public sector!

rick_chasey

PeteMadoc wrote:

"Who pays for it" it being the public sector

There's only one place money comes from to pay for it and that's the private sector.

No, it's not.

It's not a zero sum game.

The ONLY difference between public and private sector with regard to payment is whether you chose to spend your money, or whether the gov't spent it for you.

By working, you add economic value, whoever employs you. The market puts a value on that labour, which is your wage.

shouldbeinbed

I'm not going to waste many keystrokes directly arguing with the malinformed reactionary daily mail b****cks that has been spouted by some on here but if the 1 day of action is really going to cost £500million than that is the daily value of the public sector to this country, (in terms of value saved to others if nothing else)

not bad for a bunch of sponging parasites that supposedly produce and contribute nothing to the economy is it.

(EDIT) Most of us should be seen as insurance, if you opt out of paying your house insurance, and your house burns down tough. the only difference is that the government takes the insurance premium that means if you dial 999 etc you get a police officer (and all the huge support infrastructure too) or an ambulance & hospital bed etc. rather than being left out in the cold or to die on the roadside. Lets sack all the teachers and you pay for a private tutor/ childminder for your kids? why not? because it'd cost you a f****ing fortune, thats why. think in those terms of the public sector and you realise that in the majority of cases it is saving you far more than a private 24/7 militia/education/24/7 medical service and fully supported backup would cost from your own pocket. (END EDIT)

just as a personal from my (police public sector)place eg. 30% redundancies so far (paid at the bare legal minimum, not a single penny or day of enhancement), everyone surviving has had a pay cut of at least £2,500 many have lost far more, no pay rise last year, none for the next 2 at least, sub inflation pay rises for over a decade, still expected to be 24/7 staff but on imposed less family friendly shifts. And this is only the first of many rounds of the same thing.
I'm as frontline as you can get without a tall hat and a truncheon, contributing hundreds of detections a year to crimes that would invariably otherwise not be solved at all or take the cops far longer to get there. My colleagues and I contribute names and evidence to thousands of crimes and often save huge police officer time as what we do often elicits an early guilty plea. If people think it is the far backroom staff and the '15 years of created non-jobs' and the council funded expressive dance facilitators (probably a made up job) being slashed and targetted, they are sadly mistaken.

the single gold plated public sector pension is another myth, there are literally hundreds of different and entirely individual schemes, funded and performing in amny different ways. The 'Sir Humphrey Appleby whitehall mandarin' example that is delliberately given out as propagandist disinformation to con the gullible isn't in any way representative at all.

My pension pot survives and thrives by it investment and stock market acumen, it is tens of billions in credit and well able to meet its obligations for decades into the future in no small part because IT HAS ALREADY CHANGED T's&C's AND PAYOUTS FOR US TO MAINTAIN ITS STANDALONE AFFORDABILITY.

Why should they all be lumped together into some sort of communal solution just because of this mythical 'the public sector' beast. I didn't see any huge desire from the private sector for lumping so many entirelly distinct and unique schemes together to "all in it together" when the Mirror Group or Equitable Life went to the wall. 1 rule for 1 &1 rule for the other eh?

I also don't remember there being any of this purient and distasteful schadenfreude coming from the public sector employees a few years back when the same s**t was dropping onto private sector (final salary) schemes.

if you want to suckle at the teat of biased politicians and the daily mail for your information then good luck but don't be surprise of people that actually know what they are talking about point and laugh at you in the street if you pass off this propaganda as fact.

and BTW, not striking, I have duties and responsibilities tied to that particular day that will compromise things beyond the limits of it and will let colleagues and way more importantly innocent victims of crime down.

petemadoc

Rick Chasey wrote:

PeteMadoc wrote:

"Who pays for it" it being the public sector

There's only one place money comes from to pay for it and that's the private sector.

No, it's not.

It's not a zero sum game.

The ONLY difference between public and private sector with regard to payment is whether you chose to spend your money, or whether the gov't spent it for you.

By working, you add economic value, whoever employs you. The market puts a value on that labour, which is your wage.

The public sector makes zero (or negligible) money. It only spends money. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just a fact. Yes employees of the public sector pay tax but their wages came from the public purse in the first place.

The private sector makes money and from that money it makes a contribution in tax to pay for the public sector.

Currently the Public sector is too big and so the private sector cannot make enough money to pay for it. Despite cuts the government still has to borrow huge sums of money every month to pay the bills.

petemadoc

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I'm not going to waste many keystrokes directly arguing with the malinformed reactionary daily mail b****cks that has been spouted by some on here but if the 1 day of action is really going to cost £500million than that is the daily value of the public sector to this country, (in terms of value saved to others if nothing else)

not bad for a bunch of sponging parasites that supposedly produce and contribute nothing to the economy is it.

(EDIT) Most of us should be seen as insurance, if you opt out of paying your house insurance, and your house burns down tough. the only difference is that the government takes the insurance premium that means if you dial 999 etc you get a police officer (and all the huge support infrastructure too) or an ambulance & hospital bed etc. rather than being left out in the cold or to die on the roadside. Lets sack all the teachers and you pay for a private tutor/ childminder for your kids? why not? because it'd cost you a f****ing fortune, thats why. think in those terms of the public sector and you realise that in the majority of cases it is saving you far more than a private 24/7 militia/education/24/7 medical service and fully supported backup would cost from your own pocket. (END EDIT)

just as a personal from my (police public sector)place eg. 30% redundancies so far (paid at the bare legal minimum, not a single penny or day of enhancement), everyone surviving has had a pay cut of at least £2,500 many have lost far more, no pay rise last year, none for the next 2 at least, sub inflation pay rises for over a decade, still expected to be 24/7 staff but on imposed less family friendly shifts. And this is only the first of many rounds of the same thing.
I'm as frontline as you can get without a tall hat and a truncheon, contributing hundreds of detections a year to crimes that would invariably otherwise not be solved at all or take the cops far longer to get there. My colleagues and I contribute names and evidence to thousands of crimes and often save huge police officer time as what we do often elicits an early guilty plea. If people think it is the far backroom staff and the '15 years of created non-jobs' and the council funded expressive dance facilitators (probably a made up job) being slashed and targetted, they are sadly mistaken.

the single gold plated public sector pension is another myth, there are literally hundreds of different and entirely individual schemes, funded and performing in amny different ways. The 'Sir Humphrey Appleby whitehall mandarin' example that is delliberately given out as propagandist disinformation to con the gullible isn't in any way representative at all.

My pension pot survives and thrives by it investment and stock market acumen, it is tens of billions in credit and well able to meet its obligations for decades into the future in no small part because IT HAS ALREADY CHANGED T's&C's AND PAYOUTS FOR US TO MAINTAIN ITS STANDALONE AFFORDABILITY.

Why should they all be lumped together into some sort of communal solution just because of this mythical 'the public sector' beast. I didn't see any huge desire from the private sector for lumping so many entirelly distinct and unique schemes together to "all in it together" when the Mirror Group or Equitable Life went to the wall. 1 rule for 1 &1 rule for the other eh?

I also don't remember there being any of this purient and distasteful schadenfreude coming from the public sector employees a few years back when the same s**t was dropping onto private sector (final salary) schemes.

if you want to suckle at the teat of biased politicians and the daily mail for your information then good luck but don't be surprise of people that actually know what they are talking about point and laugh at you in the street if you pass off this propaganda as fact.

and BTW, not striking, I have duties and responsibilities tied to that particular day that will compromise things beyond the limits of it and will let colleagues and way more importantly innocent victims of crime down.

Good post.

shouldbeinbed

PeteMadoc wrote:

The private sector makes zero (or negligible) money. It only spends money. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just a fact. Yes employees of the public sector pay tax but their wages came from the public purse in the first place.

The private sector makes money and from that money it makes a contribution in tax to pay for the public sector.

ahem, think you've typo'd there

see my edit above, what the public sector does is save time, money, peace of mind etc allowing the private sector to concentrate its resources and energies on the private sectors abilities to generate the wealth. We all benefit from the public sectors existence, a relative few shareholders benefit from the private sectors spare wealth.

Its not the foundations of a house that keeps the rain off your head is it but without them the whole lot falls down.

petemadoc

Thanks for the vital correction!

I have nothing against the public sector it's just gotton way too big. Cuts being made to front line workers is a disgrace and I don't agree with the pension cuts either.

sfichele

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?

There are not! The police and the nhs are taking a battering. Many posts in the nhs are not being re-advertised and posts are being downgraded in an underhand manner to cut costs.

Stewie Griffin

I'm Public Sector, I'm not going on Strike and I'm probably being made redundant in 4 Months.

LeicesterLad

Stewie Griffin wrote:

I'm Public Sector, I'm not going on Strike and I'm probably being made redundant in 4 Months.

Exact same position.

rick_chasey

PeteMadoc wrote:

The public sector makes zero (or negligible) money. It only spends money. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just a fact. Yes employees of the public sector pay tax but their wages came from the public purse in the first place.

The private sector makes money and from that money it makes a contribution in tax to pay for the public sector.

OK.

I've actually been struggling with this one. It's a bit like asking why 1+1=2.

Right.

Say, in a hypothetical world, there was no public sector.

Say, they made a rule that private hospitals could exist, but, to stop them exploiting the people, couldn't make a profit, but could pay standard rates.

Would they have revenue? Of course they would. They provide a service, and so that creates wealth. They get paid for that.

Literally, the only difference between state sector and private sector is a) whether the gov't decides you'll spend the money on it, or you decide yourself, and b) they're not there to operate at a profit > they go for best service for price, rather than out and out profits for themselves.

Right?

They still create wealth and revenue. We all need hospitals and schools, and we all pay for it, in the same way we all need food and you pay tescos for it.

All tax is, is the gov't commandeering a part of your pay and deciding how you spend it, since you, and everyone else, can't be trusted to spend it on stuff like education and revenue. You'd go spunk it on cars and hookers or something.


How on earth do you think communist Russia ever existed? By your logic, someone, somewhere, was paying for it?

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

PeteMadoc wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PeteMadoc wrote:

"Who pays for it" it being the public sector

There's only one place money comes from to pay for it and that's the private sector.

No, it's not.

It's not a zero sum game.

The ONLY difference between public and private sector with regard to payment is whether you chose to spend your money, or whether the gov't spent it for you.

By working, you add economic value, whoever employs you. The market puts a value on that labour, which is your wage.

The public sector makes zero (or negligible) money. It only spends money. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just a fact. Yes employees of the public sector pay tax but their wages came from the public purse in the first place.

The private sector makes money and from that money it makes a contribution in tax to pay for the public sector.

Anyone else gonna help me on this one? Or have you all given it up as lost cause?

You're on your own there I'm afraid Rick

markos1963

Some of my thoughts on the matter.

1. It's a sad state of affairs when people interviewed in the street seem to be more bothered about having to look after their kids for a day than their child's education. It seems that school has degenerated into a creche for 5-17yo rather than a place of learning.

2. No matter your point of view if the changes to pensions do go ahead then who is going to pay the increased costs when these people retire? 'Increased costs?' I hear you ask. Well yes there will be, Both public and private sector workers retiring on stupidly low pensions are going to need more help in the way of benefits. Council tax, heating, rent and probably food as well will all have to be subsidised.

3. All people have the right to strike(with the exception of the police and army) It's their only protection against being exploited. Some sections of the media are not far off suggesting marching the strikers at gunpoint back into work. If the grumblings and mutterings of Tory backbenchers come to pass then we could find ourselves without the ability to strike at all and find us commited to some kind of modern serfdom.

4. The old saying 'Two wrongs don't make a right' springs to mind. Why should the public sector be dragged down the the level of the private. The Government should be passing laws to make the private sector provide decent pensions for their workers before using profits to give Directors 49% pay rises.

5. Nobody goes on strike willingly, they are not work shy layabouts as one paper said yesterday. It's a hard descision for anyone let alone a teacher. You still lose a days pay whether you're in the public sector or private.

finchy

I'm public sector, I'm not going on strike because I can't afford to miss a day's pay and besides I don't intend to stay in the public sector in the long-term, but I support those who are striking.

It makes me laugh when private sector workers, whose salaries are being reduced, complain about public sector workers' pensions when, at the same time, boardroom pay is going up way above inflation. The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the highly-developed world and instead of seeking to change that, there are those that just want to race to the bottom.

Then again, I suppose if we want Scandinavian-style workers' rights, we need Scandinavian levels of education so that we have more bargaining power.

LeicesterLad

Just to be an arse, can i say that i have ALOT of teaching friends, and they AGREE that teachers get a better than average wage, and a sh*tload of Holiday, what the hell are they moaning at...same thing can't be said for alot of public sector work though...

Frank the tank

I work in the private sector some years ago we agreed to accept higher dividend for a smaller return on retirement. More the fool us. The employees in the private sector should be fighting to increase their own pension benefits/rights, not bemoaning those in the public sector; who whether you agree with the action or not, are endevouring to preserve their own future.

finchy

LeicesterLad wrote:

Just to be an ars*, can i say that i have ALOT of teaching friends, and they AGREE that teachers get a better than average wage, and a sh*tload of Holiday, what the hell are they moaning at...same thing can't be said for alot of public sector work though...

Then may I suggest that they aren't doing their jobs properly. My parents are teachers and they work VERY, VERY long hours. They are also quite angry about the increasingly poor quality of NQT's, who, they feel, don't take the job seriously and are weak on the basics (Spelling, etc.)

thepeopleschamp

Businesses also fear that if public sector workers’ demands aren’t met, they may look for jobs in the private sector, costing billions in incompetence-related mistakes.

Employment lawyers are now frantically searching the Human Rights Act to see if it's legal to burn the CV of anyone who's ever been to an encounter group, or been paid to raise awareness of anything.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/real-cost-of-public-sector-workers%27-strike-is-having-to-speak-to-them-201111254593/

GiantMike

Why do people complain that somebody else has an 'easy job and gets an above-average wage' and then don't try to get that job or a similarly easy and well paid job?

YOU ALL HAVE CHOICES, some have been made, some are to be made. It's called life. Make the best of the ones you've made and try to make good ones in the future.

If you studied at school, got good grades at GCSE and A Level, then did a degree and a professional qualification to get a good job, why shouldn't you get more than somebody who fecked their life away in pubs while the diligent were studying?

But this isn't the discussion. The discussion is about the Govt, as the pension-provider wanting to change the trems and conditions of the future pensioners. These people made a choice based on an agreement which is now being changed and their Unions feel that their only way to get their voices heard is to strike.

stratcat

Its funny that in 'the good times' all these people from the private sector weren't complaining about how good it was in the public sector. No, they were quite happy taking their bonus payments and inflation+ pay rises (several of my friends earn much more than I do, or ever will). Yes they work incredibly hard for it and all power to them, its the path they chose and they were/are being rewarded for their hard work.

Now the hard times are here the private sector are quite happy to jump on any band-waggon that passes by denigrating the public service. I don't understand why everyone wants to have this rush to the bottom.

verylonglegs

I work for a manufacturer, in electronics, and striking from my point of view would be counter-productive as it would probably mean the job was just moved abroad in the future. I accept that is how it is however and don't feel any need to knock those who can still use striking as a method to get the best deal for themselves, which ultimately is what we are all after.

Attempting direct comparsion between private and public is often foolish imo too, we make stuff at work and have revenue, growth and productivity targets etc that are appropriate to the nature of the business and suggesting that a shareholder owned company meeting or missing these targets can be used to judge the value of nurses and the police is beyond me quite frankly. I may be biased in that respect as I dated a social worker briefly and I wouldn't have done her job for 3times the pay if I'm honest after the stories she told me.

nwallace

Take me.
My contribution is going to go from, 6.5% to 7.8%
For me that is 30 quid a month, 360 quid a year.
The change to CPI is already in place so I'm already set to get less money, and pay in more.

If I have to pay in more next year, I have £360 less money floating about next year, along with the reduced value of my pay. Therefore I have £360 quid less to spend on things like Bikes.
If there are 100,000 people in my same position with £360 less to spend on Bikes.
Then there is £36,000,000 less being spent on bikes next year.

And then in future when my pension is worth less than it might have been, I wil lhave less money to spend then, so SAGA Bike Tours will probably go down the pan also.

The changes are gonig to cut my spending power both now and in the currently distant future.

Also, the Scottish Pension pots are fully funded and are apparently in good health as it is, but will certainly be made to take the same deal as th English ones.

nwallace

sfichele wrote:

Why should the public sector be exempt from cuts ?

There are not! The police and the nhs are taking a battering. Many posts in the nhs are not being re-advertised and posts are being downgraded in an underhand manner to cut costs.

Recruitment freeze, absolute bastard when people are leaving due largely to the ridgid pay structure and a job role that's available at both the University and in the Comercial world. Thankfully the boss has managed to find the dosh from the project fund to get contractors in to kind of fill the gaps.

It's been difficult enough to convince HR that we needed to fill the gaps for long enough but now it's a point blank no. Even if we ran out of staff...