The Strike

EKIMIKE

Don't want to get involved in the anecdotally biased diatribe being spouted by some.

But i'd like to make a fundamental point - the private sector need to sit up an realise how screwed many (not all) of them would be without the huge - HUGE - subsidies they get from the state.

I'll leave the obvious examples *cough* Bailouts *cough* Q-E *cough* and give you the car industry (relatively uncontroversial) - Toyota, Honda and Nissan all have factories in this country and none of them would be here but for rather fat juicy subsidies laid down by the supposedly 'neo-liberal' govt. protagonists of days gone by. So take your free-market, competition ideals and shove them up your @rse... unless you really want to play fair and do without the govt. lifeline?!

There is a place for markets and competition but leave the health and education systems out of it please. I don't want my poorer neighbours in society being f**ked by the invisible hand(s) of the neo-liberal.

dilemna

Retirement age should be raised to 70 years. No one should be able to take early retirement before 65.
Max pension pot should be £30k. If people cannot live on £30k a year when they likely have no mortgage, kids have left home, low out goings, no interest in buying flat screen tvs or i-phones then they shouldn't be entitled to a pension. Period. The greed of the greedy bhastards both in the top civil service and private sector has ruined pensions for many by raiding the funds with over generous payouts which were not matched by contributions.

nwallace

dilemna wrote:

Retirement age should be raised to 70 years. No one should be able to take early retirement before 65.
Max pension pot should be £30k. If people cannot live on £30k a year when they likely have no mortgage, kids have left home, low out goings, no interest in buying flat screen tvs or i-phones then they shouldn't be entitled to a pension. Period. The greed of the greedy bhastards both in the top civil service and private sector has ruined pensions for many by raiding the funds with over generous payouts which were not matched by contributions.

30K, you're kidding yourself if you think most of us get anything near that.
The average is 8k, 1k less than the average private sector pensioner.

Working to 70 because you may live to 100 may sound liek a great idea, but all it means is you have to work beyond the point you're physically and mentally past it.

Frank the tank

Hark at people bickering on here, this whole situation has been caused by the wealthy,powerful,influencial people of the world who are motivated totally by self interest. Fair do's they provide a lot of employment. Due to their greed it's gone t1ts up and because sh1t rolls downhill the minions are the ones who suffer and bear the cost whilst those truely responsible laugh at us .

GiantMike

Frank the tank wrote:

Hark at people bickering on here, this whole situation has been caused by the wealthy,powerful,influencial people of the world who are motivated totally by self interest.

What has this got to do with Public sector strikes over Pension Reforms?

random man

Stanley222 wrote:

random man wrote:

I work in the public sector and I'm a member of Unison, but I won't be going on strike

Why not?

I've been a union member since 1983 when most employees were members. I really only stay in the union as I think it's unfair to benefit from any possible benefits they may negotiate for staff if you haven't contributed.
Their influence in recent years has become very limited and have acted in ways that have worked against members - any union that is willing to agree to it's members receiving a pay cut as a result of job evaluation has to be questionable IMO.
So, although the union has a mandate for strike action, I'd rather make up my own mind whether I follow it or not.

petemadoc

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Rick, we don't need a hypothetical world for this, America has private hospitals paid for by insurance rather than tax.

Anyways I'll try to explain. Public services are essential . . . schools, hospitals, police, universities etc . They encourage a secure, stable and educated workforce. But they do not make ANY money. They cost a lot of money, but they are worth it!

How do we pay for schools, hospitals, police etc? Well you need private companies, manufactures, retailers and so on to make lots of money, then they can employ people who will pay income tax and the companies will pay corporation tax. These private companies are the ONLY thing that can pay for public services.

the last 15 years have seen the pubic sector grow and government dept grow to ridiculous levels. When times were good this all seemed ok. But imagine you had a massive wage increase (private sector growth) and instead of saving you decided to spend more and get into more debt, not just more debt but more debt than ever before, that's what the labour government decided to do.

So the financial sector pyramid scheme collapsed and the government piled more debt upon dept to bail it out and to stop the country getting completely fooked public sector workers will have to take a hit on their pensions to prevent the UK triple AAA rating being pulled and screwing us over even more.

I'm not even sure what the point I'm trying to make is anymore. , , , ,

Oh yeah, we're probably all screwed

Ginjafro

I work in a college, a member of Unison, voted to strike....why?

I don't see why the Government should be allowed to make me work for longer, make me pay more towards my pension and make me work for longer and then offer me a smaller pension should I ever get to retire! Bollox to them and all those who think we should be turkeys and vote for Xmas. The reality is the average public sector pension is very modest. At today's rates if you worked all your life in the public sector you'd be lucky to finish with a pension anything close to half your final annual wage.

Some may think the unions and its members will achieve little. That is true if we DO NOTHING but we are doing something and Its got everybody talking, bitching and whining! Maybe, just maybe we can all start to resist and stand up for ourselves and not just act like a bunch of pussies and continue to allow a bunch of self-serving politicians and their fat cat cronnies to give selves handsome pay rises and generous pensions.

Anyway rant over and hope I don't see you crossing the picket line on Wednesday.... :twisted:

mmaatt25

Average civil servant pension £6000 P/A perks zero
Average politian pension £21000 P/A perks where do you start.
If you want to talk about wasting tax payers money why not start with the bail out of Northern Rock and the sale at a £700 million loss. Military campaigns in countries half the population dont even where they are. Benefit fraud. Uncollected fines imposed by the courts. The Olympics. Government underwritten mortgages??

-spider-

The Government have us where they want us. Here we are, bickering amongst ourselves about who should get what and why we should be in a race to the bottom. At the same time there are powerful forces in Westminster that are insisting that we need to cut the tax on high earners from its current 50%.

Are we mad or what?

Frank the tank

GiantMike wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Hark at people bickering on here, this whole situation has been caused by the wealthy,powerful,influencial people of the world who are motivated totally by self interest.

What has this got to do with Public sector strikes over Pension Reforms?

I understand the pension reforms are being introduced as part of a raft of "ecconomies" within the public sector due to the deficit reductions caused by the ecconomic downturn and government policy. Not just a case of we're living longer so we have to pay more. HTH.

Frank the tank

-spider- wrote:

The Government have us where they want us. Here we are, bickering amongst ourselves about who should get what and why we should be in a race to the bottom. At the same time there are powerful forces in Westminster that are insisting that we need to cut the tax on high earners from its current 50%.

Are we mad or what?

That's the point I've been making. Why the hell do the working masses turn on each other in such a way?

Litespeed79

Quite simply public sector pensions are not affordable - people live longer & there are more recipients than ever.

However, these people were offered them when they were offered their terms & conditions. I work in the private sector & would be pissed off if my employer pulled a stroke like this. All new posts should be brought into line with new proposals yes.

I believe we should pay for the pensions offered to these people by the Governments we as a nation voted in. So cuts in th right places. So to make up any shortfalls we need to cut elsewhere:

Get rid of failed asylum seekers first time (no lengthy appeals costing £100,000's), deal with people illegally meeting the country with such a deterrent it makes others think twice, stop the immigration if USELESS work shy people (we have our own) allow hard working & skilled people to come though.

Now to our own work shy British born. If you want to sit on your arse find some other mug to pay for it. Why should my wife & I work to keep their arse on the sofa eating crisp while we bust one for 40+ hours a week & if you can't afford kids don't have them!!

Create jobs in manufacturing so we've something to trade & give people who want to work a chance. There are plenty wanting a chance who are just down on their luck & using tax breaks to foreign companies boost industry & all gov't money should be spent in Britain first - trains/trams being a recent example of short sightedness.

Proper reviews of gov't spending, not by a gov't quango, spending millions but delivering nothing, but by private industry. Not to cut jobs but to make the money go further.

If we keep handing out we'll go the same way as Greece & Italy but lets give people what we promised by dealing with waste & cuts in the right places. I'm not some dictator in waiting as many will say I'm just fed up of free loaders.

daviesee

I have three thoughts on this........

1. The strike may be justified but will achieve nothing. Hassle for the rest of us for a day but ultimately nothing.
2. The cuts are targeting the wrong people (As I've read it. Could be wrong). Target wastage where it exists and the "gold plated" pensions.

Most importantly

3. The Government should lead by example, starting with themselves. People will believe that "We are all in this together" when MP's pensions and benefits are severely cut. They have taken a wage freeze which could be commendable but keep an eye on their expenses........... Oh, and how much are all the previous PMs and MPs collecting while doing nothing???????

finchy

Litespeed79 wrote:

Now to our own work shy British born. If you want to sit on your ars* find some other mug to pay for it. Why should my wife & I work to keep their ars* on the sofa eating crisp while we bust one for 40+ hours a week

I agree that those who make no effort whatsoever to find a job should not be supported (my neighbours, for example, are professional dole-queue types), but who gets to say that unemployed person x is or isn't making reasonable efforts to find work?

Litespeed79 wrote:

if you can't afford kids don't have them!!

If procreation were left to those who can afford children, then we'd have a massive demographic crisis within 20-30 years.

Litespeed79

johnfinch wrote:

Litespeed79 wrote:

Now to our own work shy British born. If you want to sit on your ars* find some other mug to pay for it. Why should my wife & I work to keep their ars* on the sofa eating crisp while we bust one for 40+ hours a week

I agree that those who make no effort whatsoever to find a job should not be supported (my neighbours, for example, are professional dole-queue types), but who gets to say that unemployed person x is or isn't making reasonable efforts to find work?

Litespeed79 wrote:

if you can't afford kids don't have them!!

If procreation were left to those who can afford children, then we'd have a massive demographic crisis within 20-30 years.

Those who make no effort to work are clear. They have not worked a day in their lives. I have worked in areas where I've see it, no income except benefits but everything you could wish for, house, car, TVs, top of the range clothes etc & a house full of kids.

We pay for out house, cars, TVs & clothes so regards to kids why am I saving up & sorting out my finances before we have kids. Is it fair to keep popping them out with no way of paying for them?

finchy

Litespeed79 wrote:

Those who make no effort to work are clear. They have not worked a day in their lives. I have worked in areas where I've see it, no income except benefits but everything you could wish for, house, car, TVs, top of the range clothes etc & a house full of kids.

My point is that it's quite easy to tell who is and isn't making a serious effort to find work when you live/work amongst them, but it's far more difficult for someone who works in the benefits office to make the same judgement. Take my neighbour for example, he lost his job late last year, so he was working, but now he's unemployed he's not making any effort at all to find a job.

On the other side, you might have someone who left school a couple of years ago and lives in an area of high unemployment who can't find a job but wants one and is proactive in searching. If we removed the welfare safety net for those that the Job Centre believes aren't serious, that person might be harmed.

Litespeed79 wrote:

We pay for out house, cars, TVs & clothes so regards to kids why am I saving up & sorting out my finances before we have kids. Is it fair to keep popping them out with no way of paying for them?

Child benefits payment aren't a question of fairness - it's about trying to make sure we have can replace retiring workers in 20 years' time. Even with child benefits we are failing in this regard, which is one of the reasons that Western societies are so willing to open the floodgates to immigrants on such a massive scale.

EKIMIKE

PeteMadoc wrote:

Rick, we don't need a hypothetical world for this, America has private hospitals paid for by insurance rather than tax.

Anyways I'll try to explain. Public services are essential . . . schools, hospitals, police, universities etc . They encourage a secure, stable and educated workforce. But they do not make ANY money. They cost a lot of money, but they are worth it!

How do we pay for schools, hospitals, police etc? Well you need private companies, manufactures, retailers and so on to make lots of money, then they can employ people who will pay income tax and the companies will pay corporation tax. These private companies are the ONLY thing that can pay for public services.

the last 15 years have seen the pubic sector grow and government dept grow to ridiculous levels. When times were good this all seemed ok. But imagine you had a massive wage increase (private sector growth) and instead of saving you decided to spend more and get into more debt, not just more debt but more debt than ever before, that's what the labour government decided to do.

So the financial sector pyramid scheme collapsed and the government piled more debt upon dept to bail it out and to stop the country getting completely fooked public sector workers will have to take a hit on their pensions to prevent the UK triple AAA rating being pulled and screwing us over even more.

I'm not even sure what the point I'm trying to make is anymore. , , , ,

Oh yeah, we're probably all screwed

So wrong, on so many levels.

Rick said it before: It's not a zero sum game! That's a fact, not an opinion.

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game

jim453

There seems to be rather a lot of misinformation on this topic.

I get irritated when people indignantly proclaim that they should not be subsidising public sector pensions when in fact they are not subsidising, they are footing the entire bill. And this is right and proper since that is exactly what taxes are for. It is in the governments interest (at the minute) to foster the 'us against them' attitude that appears to prevail.

Since taxes are the only way to pay for the public sector then we need to put aside our own earnings/pension arrangements when considering how best to remunerate the public sector workers. It should come down to the question of what is fair. Fair is not necessarily the lowest or poorest conditions 'because that's what I get in the private sector etc etc etc etc'.

Many others may well be underpaid/under pensioned by their own private scheme but it does not necessarily follow that the public sector is overpaid/over pensioned.

MaxwellBygraves

Frank the tank wrote:

-spider- wrote:

The Government have us where they want us. Here we are, bickering amongst ourselves about who should get what and why we should be in a race to the bottom. At the same time there are powerful forces in Westminster that are insisting that we need to cut the tax on high earners from its current 50%.

Are we mad or what?

That's the point I've been making. Why the hell do the working masses turn on each other in such a way?

Well said Frank.

TheStone

jim453 wrote:

There seems to be rather a lot of misinformation on this topic.

I get irritated when people indignantly proclaim that they should not be subsidising public sector pensions when in fact they are not subsidising, they are footing the entire bill. And this is right and proper since that is exactly what taxes are for. It is in the governments interest (at the minute) to foster the 'us against them' attitude that appears to prevail.

Since taxes are the only way to pay for the public sector then we need to put aside our own earnings/pension arrangements when considering how best to remunerate the public sector workers. It should come down to the question of what is fair. Fair is not necessarily the lowest or poorest conditions 'because that's what I get in the private sector etc etc etc etc'.

Many others may well be underpaid/under pensioned by their own private scheme but it does not necessarily follow that the public sector is overpaid/over pensioned.

This is true, but I'd also add that you can only have what you can afford.

Just because we group together to pay for something, it doesn't mean it's not productive or should be considered to not generate wealth. It makes sense and should ultimately be cheaper to collectively fund and use things like education, health and security.

I'm sure there's many things that people wouldn't pay for, but let's leave that for now.

The problem as I see it, is that all these things have a cost and should always be limited by the amount of money we have to spend.

We have 3 options:
- tax more
- continue to borrow
- spend less

Tax is already too high. We should be chasing those that don't pay, but adding on more (especially to employment) would, in my opinion be crazy. There might be room for a property tax.
Our borrowing is out of control. And this is really saying "we wan't this stuff now, but we can't afford it, so let's just get our kids in debt so we can have everything we want now"

So for me, the only option is to cut spending, or which, the pensions is part.

Currently we're spending over 25% more than we can afford (and this doesn't include the pension liabilities).
Our children won't be able to borrow that 25% and will have to pay off the money we're borrowing and will have to pay for the pensions.

We all want an amazing education and nhs, but we can't afford it. To continue to pretend we can, will mean that our children will end up with a fraction of the services we enjoy.

MaxwellBygraves

Yeah! We can't afford the NHS or education! Yeah!

The super-rich are getting richer, yet the only solution when the country is struggling is to introduce 'austerity' which will disproportionately affect the poor, and women. Bullsh!t.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... me-earners

TheStone

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Yeah! We can't afford the NHS or education! Yeah!

The super-rich are getting richer, yet the only solution when the country is struggling is to introduce 'austerity' which will disproportionately affect the poor, and women. Bullsh!t.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... me-earners

Didn't say that. I said if we either tax more or reduce the amount we spend. I've even suggested a property tax which would hit the richest much harder than the poor.

The rich should have suffered a lot more in this recession, but the decisions made by the governments and central banks have largely protected them. This should never have happened.

Edit: from the same paper, interesting to see who the high earners are
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/de ... -paid-jobs

Hooligan Bill

PeteMadoc wrote:

Rick, we don't need a hypothetical world for this, America has private hospitals paid for by insurance rather than tax.

Anyways I'll try to explain. Public services are essential . . . schools, hospitals, police, universities etc . They encourage a secure, stable and educated workforce. But they do not make ANY money. They cost a lot of money, but they are worth it!

That is not quite true. I work for a company that was subject to PPP ten years ago. Before this we were making profits and while PPP has seen those profits increase the Government wants to sell off their share, despite the fact we are a net contributor to the Treasury and helping to reduce the national debt.

Sorry, but this is all about slimy David and George lining the pockets of their equally slimy mates. All in it together, right, as long as you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and an orange up your arse.

dilemna

Civil servants are just like benefit claimants only they do slightly more for the government handouts they receive. Well some don't. Some may as well be on the dole for all the good they do. I know I worked in the Home Office for 8 years. Sloth and wastage was staggering. So glad I am out of it though. Where money is involved people will fight tooth and nail to hang onto it or the maintain the source of it irrespective of how legitimate or deserved it is. Period.

NWLondoner

I work in the private sector and recently had to take a significant pay CUT to save my job.

Also whenever i've had to have any dealings with people in the Public sector they on the whole are disinterested and don't really give a toss!! While I know you can't tar everyone with the same brush, how many people can honestly say that they always receive a great service from the public sector??


Therefore I am against the strikes and believe that they will end up with a worse deal because of it!!!

finchy

dilemna - you must have been lucky to have worked in such a department. I certainly have never worked in a public sector organisation in which the staff wasn't MASSIVELY overstretched. Could you tell me who it was, please, I'll keep my eye out on their recruitment pages.

nwlondoner - maybe it's cos you live in London. I've always found that I've got shite service from miserable twunts in that city whether I'm dealing with public or private sector workers. Having done quite a bit of work in several departments in Kent, I know that the majority of my colleagues and I always did our best for those we were meant to be helping, even if it wasn't always possible to help them.

fast as fupp

Also whenever i've had to have any dealings with people in the Public sector they on the whole are disinterested and don't really give a toss!! While I know you can't tar everyone with the same brush, how many people can honestly say that they always receive a great service from the public sector??


ever tried phoning your gas or electric company? or sky or virgin? as far as im aware they are private sector companies and dealing with them is usually a nightmare!

Frank the tank

dilemna wrote:

Civil servants are just like benefit claimants only they do slightly more for the government handouts they receive. Well some don't. Some may as well be on the dole for all the good they do. I know I worked in the Home Office for 8 years. Sloth and wastage was staggering. So glad I am out of it though. Where money is involved people will fight tooth and nail to hang onto it or the maintain the source of it irrespective of how legitimate or deserved it is. Period.

I know, why don't we just round up all the public sector workers and shoot the idle skiving b@st@rds. :roll:

Then we won't have to pay them any pension at all and the private sector (which only ever employ hardworking,diligent thouroughly professional people) can do all the work at zero cost to the public purse. Oh, and while we're at it we'll totally dismantle the welfare state and gas anyone claiming benefits and deport all the foreigners (whoever they are?).

Now, I'm sure I had some kittens to drown somewhere.

cornerblock

Frank the tank wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Civil servants are just like benefit claimants only they do slightly more for the government handouts they receive. Well some don't. Some may as well be on the dole for all the good they do. I know I worked in the Home Office for 8 years. Sloth and wastage was staggering. So glad I am out of it though. Where money is involved people will fight tooth and nail to hang onto it or the maintain the source of it irrespective of how legitimate or deserved it is. Period.

I know, why don't we just round up all the public sector workers and shoot the idle skiving b@st@rds. :roll:

Then we won't have to pay them any pension at all and the private sector (which only ever employ hardworking,diligent thouroughly professional people) can do all the work at zero cost to the public purse. Oh, and while we're at it we'll totally dismantle the welfare state and gas anyone claiming benefits and deport all the foreigners (whoever they are?).

Now, I'm sure I had some kittens to drown somewhere.

Not forgetting those p*ss poor fat feckers who have the audacity to squeeze into a WC jersey they have no right to wear. String 'em up I say, string 'em up. :roll: