So where's the Public Sector Strike thread at???

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

TheStone wrote:

The NPV of the public sector pensions is around £1.2tr, so not insignificant.

Are public sector pensions a discrete fund grown by contributions and investment or does its funding come also from general taxation?

The pensions are self funding. Hence why the £1.2tr isn't relevant. The tax payer (which includes Public sector workers) does fund the employer contributions but it funds the wages as well so treating them as two different things is unhelpful. Probably the bit which is fairest to pick on is where employers have increased contributions to keep he pension funds at the desired level. That effectively becomes a pay rise for publc sector employees that nobody hears about - not even the staff themselves unless they read the small print.

Hence why the costs aren't great and the potential savings to be had effectively minimal.

1) Cutting public sector pensions won't save any money that will make everyones (non public sector obv) lives better in any way.
2) You'd save more money cutting tax relief on private sector pensions
3) people do need to work a bit longer - and paying a bit more might not be a bad idea at least whilst the recession lasts (ie forever)
4) cutting pensions benefits may damage the funds sufficiently to make them less sustainable due to ignorant people chosing to opt out - ultimately you just end up with loads more people needing state support after retirement.

In what way are the pensions self-funding? This USED to be the case in many big company pensions (in fact Gordon Brown completely screwed up these schemes) but, with the return on investments and interests rates being so low, it's been a while since this was true. Hence the end of many of the better private sector pensions. Even if the public sector pension pot was the same, it won't be now. The same harsh economic realities apply to both.

rolf_f

SimonAH wrote:

I have seen (what I assume is a protest?) which was four or five crusties getting a brazier going next to the roundabout at the bottom of the industrial estate where I work. Despite going around all of the likely locations, that was it at 12.30.

In Leeds, at lunchtime all the strikers were at the rally by the town hall. There were no pickets on buildings between 12 and 2pm.

DonDaddyD

I'm not a union member.

Public sector pensions are unsustainable. They need to be changed. It's what they're being changed to that is the sticking point. Average salary instead of final salary is the main concession I'd like.

With an ageing population more situations like this are going to arise.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look Simon,

You have no idea whether they are strikers shopping, whether that's an average day (since you're at work all day any other day), or whether people have taken time off to look after the kids and have gone shopping.

It's a pretty expensive shopping day if you give up a day's pay to go and do it. That could get me a lot of presents.

Plenty of pickets in London apparently.

Rick, a) yes I do see the town at this time several times a week. When I am working in the office rather than being on the road then I cycle home for lunch. At this time. EVEN allowing for Christmas shopping uplift (I was here last year as well and the year before that) I promise you that the load on the roads is at least 25% higher than the heaviest I've ever seen it. And probably three or four times what it was yesterday lunchtime, at about the same time of day. Admittedly most monthly salaried people were paid on Monday which would egg on the retail frenzy a little but even so...

Yes, losing a day's pay is a burden (and it is certainly not my argument that folks are striking so that they can instead shop) however to deny that the striking workforce is largely out Christmas shopping today is rather silly and not germain to the discussion. What is the important question is "why are they Christmas shopping and not picketing?"

I have spoken to a number of friends recently who work in the PubSec and are striking today, weirdly not one of them voted to strike. In fact some of them were not given the option to vote as the strike was already fait acomplis.

I think that these strikes have, in reality, not that much to do with the pensions, and rather more to do with political point scoring by the union bosses in collaboration with the labour party against the coalition.

The reason I surmise that most of these people are Christmas shopping and not picketing with placards and slogans is because most of them probably didn't really have a choice about being on strike, ergo the days pay was already forfeit, ergo sod it, let's make the best of the time off and go shopping.

If they were striking through passion then they would be marching and shouting, the streets would be full of angry demonstrations, the barricades would be forming.

Is that the case? No.

Apart for the aformentioned four crusties burning some wood in a barrel (TBH they looked more like students than striking workers anyway) the striking workers are hunting bargains.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Average salary instead of final salary is the main concession I'd like.

That doesn't really make much difference - mostly all it does is stop companies giving big pay rises to people in their last year of service to boost their pensions.

A change to average as against final for most people will make little difference in its own right. Some people will do rather nicely out of it.

rolf_f

SimonAH wrote:

The reason I surmise that most of these people are Christmas shopping and not picketing with placards and slogans is because most of them probably didn't really have a choice about being on strike .

How does that work - nobody should be being forced to strike. All that you are forced to do is either state that you are striking, turn up at the office and work or provide a doctors note if you are sick. I am being forced not to take today as leave but that is down to Mr Cameron.

We have striking and non striking Union members here.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

The reason I surmise that most of these people are Christmas shopping and not picketing with placards and slogans is because most of them probably didn't really have a choice about being on strike .

How does that work - nobody should be being forced to strike. All that you are forced to do is either state that you are striking, turn up at the office and work or provide a doctors note if you are sick. I am being forced not to take today as leave but that is down to Mr Cameron.

We have striking and non striking Union members here.

See First Aspect's post on the other thread: there are some more hardline union members who take very badly to those who chose to think independently/not show solidarity.

lardboy

bails87 wrote:

My final note on this.

Public sector workers are taxpayers too.

And a complete waste of time and money it is too. If we were to pay all public sector employees approx 30% less, but tax/NI free, we wouldn't need as many accountants in those organisations or tax officers checking through end of year returns, so the overall cost of the public sector would be reduced.

However, this would require the civil service to instigate it, so it's unlikely to ever happen. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Average salary instead of final salary is the main concession I'd like.

That doesn't really make much difference - mostly all it does is stop companies giving big pay rises to people in their last year of service to boost their pensions.

A change to average as against final for most people will make little difference in its own right.

Not in the public sector it don't.

Most working in the public sector will work in one area (teacher, NHS, emergency services et al) for the duration of their career (some 30 - 40yrs maybe longer). Of those that climb the ladder in, say, the Deparment of Workforce and Pensions, their final salary may be a lot higher (especially when you take into inflation over a 40yr period - how much was a low wage salary 35 yrs ago £1000 per year?) than their average salary over the duration of their career.

W1

How did I miss this thread? It's even better than the other one.

I like that Rick's got all aggressive about Simon thanking people for doing their jobs. What's wrong with people not wanting to strike, and therefore not doing so?

I do wish recruitment consultants would go on strike though - we'd all get much more done if they stopped cold calling all the time. Any chance Rick?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

How did I miss this thread? It's even better than the other one.

I like that Rick's got all aggressive about Simon thanking people for doing their jobs. What's wrong with people not wanting to strike, and therefore not doing so?

I do wish recruitment consultants would go on strike though - we'd all get much more done if they stopped cold calling all the time. Any chance Rick?

What can I say W1? Means I'm not on the dole and means I pay tax. Surprised you mind that. Some people even use head hunters. You think this is what I dreamt of as a little kid?

Anyway, it's not thanking for doing their jobs, it's thanking for not going on strike. Which is knobbish.

jds_1981

jds_1981 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

How does breaking an agreement to give public sector workers a certain level of pension make private sector pensions any better?

This is the main bit I'm confused about. Are the pension schemes detailed in the contract of employment? If so I don't understand how the government are changing it.

Anyone know?

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look Simon,

You have no idea whether they are strikers shopping, whether that's an average day (since you're at work all day any other day), or whether people have taken time off to look after the kids and have gone shopping.

It's a pretty expensive shopping day if you give up a day's pay to go and do it. That could get me a lot of presents.

Plenty of pickets in London apparently.

Rick, a) yes I do see the town at this time several times a week. When I am working in the office rather than being on the road then I cycle home for lunch. At this time. EVEN allowing for Christmas shopping uplift (I was here last year as well and the year before that) I promise you that the load on the roads is at least 25% higher than the heaviest I've ever seen it. And probably three or four times what it was yesterday lunchtime, at about the same time of day. Admittedly most monthly salaried people were paid on Monday which would egg on the retail frenzy a little but even so...

Yes, losing a day's pay is a burden (and it is certainly not my argument that folks are striking so that they can instead shop) however to deny that the striking workforce is largely out Christmas shopping today is rather silly and not germain to the discussion. What is the important question is "why are they Christmas shopping and not picketing?"

I have spoken to a number of friends recently who work in the PubSec and are striking today, weirdly not one of them voted to strike. In fact some of them were not given the option to vote as the strike was already fait acomplis.

I think that these strikes have, in reality, not that much to do with the pensions, and rather more to do with political point scoring by the union bosses in collaboration with the labour party against the coalition.

The reason I surmise that most of these people are Christmas shopping and not picketing with placards and slogans is because most of them probably didn't really have a choice about being on strike, ergo the days pay was already forfeit, ergo sod it, let's make the best of the time off and go shopping.

If they were striking through passion then they would be marching and shouting, the streets would be full of angry demonstrations, the barricades would be forming.

Is that the case? No.

Apart for the aformentioned four crusties burning some wood in a barrel (TBH they looked more like students than striking workers anyway) the striking workers are hunting bargains.

So to summarise, you think the dig about the strike vote not being a majority - i.e. this isn't a strike that most PubS workers want - was fairly accurate.

notsoblue

This is quite interesting:

Evening Standard - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 32% No 68%
BBC - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 61% No 39%
Guardian - Do you support the 30 November strikes? Yes 79.3% No 20.7%
Daily Mail - Do you support the public sector strikes today? Yes 90% No 10%

I'd have expected a lot less support all round. The DM result is baffling.

SimonAH

Well, if they did really want the strike at the root and branch level because of their passionate feelings, then they seem (leastaways 'round these parts) not to be picketing in what one would normally consider a typical manner.

....so yes I suppose.

TheStone

notsoblue wrote:

This is quite interesting:

Evening Standard - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 32% No 68%
BBC - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 61% No 39%
Guardian - Do you support the 30 November strikes? Yes 79.3% No 20.7%
Daily Mail - Do you support the public sector strikes today? Yes 90% No 10%

I'd have expected a lot less support all round. The DM result is baffling.

That last one is really surprising! Always thought the Standard and the Mail had much the same type of reader.

notsoblue

TheStone wrote:

That last one is really surprising! Always thought the Standard and the Mail had much the same type of reader.

The Standard is London based though isn't it. That wasn't so much of a surprise for me. Much less people in the public sector here.

rick_chasey

TheStone wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

This is quite interesting:

Evening Standard - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 32% No 68%
BBC - Do you think Wednesday's strike by public sector workers is justified? Yes 61% No 39%
Guardian - Do you support the 30 November strikes? Yes 79.3% No 20.7%
Daily Mail - Do you support the public sector strikes today? Yes 90% No 10%

I'd have expected a lot less support all round. The DM result is baffling.

That last one is really surprising! Always thought the Standard and the Mail had much the same type of reader.

Standard = london commuters

DM = tabliod reader

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

With the debt crisis the Keynesian argument had to become a bit more nuanced. It has become a balancing act - keeping the markets at bay and keeping lending cheap with austerity, but at the same time providing stimulus.

Now, currently, Britain was doing OK on the first bit, but the 2nd bit not so. That the UK has a 1/3 chance of receding again (and that's assuming the Eurozone gets sorted out), shows that not enough people are spending. You can't force people to spend, so the only way you can get things going is for the gov't to show the way and spend.

It disappoints me that the left across Europe hasn't been able to articulate this argument.

But that's the dilemma: as you say, HMG is doing ok on the austerity side of the balance. If it tries to add some weight to the public spending side of the balance, it will undo the what it is doing right on the austerity side.

I'm not sure that the argument - "we need austerity measures but we need a public spending drive to get us going" is a really coherent.

And in any event, the PIIGS have rather put the kybosh on public spending as a solution to anything for the time being. There can't be a western Government that would seriously consider it a sensible course right now.

Oh, except for Ed Balls, it seems. Who not only (according to this morning's interview) predicted all this, says that none of it is to do with the Eurozone going down the shitter (amazing that. Labour's financial mire was not caused by domestic factors, but rather by the international banking collapse. But the Coalition's woes are entirely their fault, and nothing to do with the sovereign debt collapse), AND that he, and only he, has the answer to all our problems.

So there is someone on the Left *trying* to make the incoherent argument. Just not very well and not very convincingly.

SimonAH

And Rick, I'm so glad you can divine my unspoken thought processes and reasoning.

I did deliver a couple of tins of Quality Street to the school staff room at lunchtime. They were much appreciated as a gesture by some PubSec workers who must, one presumes, be feeling fairly hard done by at the moment.

They were a thankyou to good and dedicated staff for providing my child with an education in difficult times.

MrsAH is on the board of governors by the way, and we are both staunch supporters of the school.

Sorry for my outlandish knobbiness.

rick_chasey

I don't think we need austerity measures but we need a public spending drive to get us going" is the argument. I think "we need balance stimulus with long term gilt yields" is the argument.

In fairness to Ed Balls (though not sure he always deserves fairness), the Tories have it totally the opposite way. '08 was all Brown's fault, but the current problems are all Eurozone < we'll brush over that UK domestic demand and capacity has reduced.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

How did I miss this thread? It's even better than the other one.

I like that Rick's got all aggressive about Simon thanking people for doing their jobs. What's wrong with people not wanting to strike, and therefore not doing so?

I do wish recruitment consultants would go on strike though - we'd all get much more done if they stopped cold calling all the time. Any chance Rick?

What can I say W1? Means I'm not on the dole and means I pay tax. Surprised you mind that. Some people even use head hunters. You think this is what I dreamt of as a little kid?

Anyway, it's not thanking for doing their jobs, it's thanking for not going on strike. Which is knobbish.

Yet you still can't explain why that's the case? By not going on strike, they are doing their jobs. You will twist and turn about this, but that is a fact. Those on strike are not doing their jobs - they're not even doing a very good job of striking. They are also signifying that they understand and agree with the many people who think these striks are completely misplaced and merely evidence of the out of touch world of the union dinosaurs and some elements of the public sector. They could have slinked off to Lakeside instead, but no - they are at work. Good for them, that must be hard in some backward unionised sectors of the public sector. They deserve thanks for not trying to cock up peoples' days on some unhinged notion of "fairness".

You may think it's knobbish to thank people for grasping the real world. Many others think it's nobbish to complain about having to fund your own pension. Some people think it's knobbish to strike when there are plenty of unemployed people who would be grateful for a job that has as many perks as some public sector jobs. This is standard toy throwing from unmandated, out of touch, political union bullies. The sooner that is ended, the better.

rick_chasey

I explained earlier on.

And since Simon doesn't go into the school any other day to give them chocolates, but only on the day when other teachers are striking to 'thank' them for keeping the school open... A little deconstruction shows that the chocolates are for not striking, not for generally teaching.

Anyway, if I was one of the teachers, I'd gladly accept the chocolats with good grace, but would probably privately think it was quite knobbish.


Anyway, lay off the insults about my work. We all have to eat sh!t to earn a crust. Some more than others.

TheStone

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think we need austerity measures but we need a public spending drive to get us going" is the argument. I think "we need balance stimulus with long term gilt yields" is the argument.

In fairness to Ed Balls (though not sure he always deserves fairness), the Tories have it totally the opposite way. '08 was all Brown's fault, but the current problems are all Eurozone < we'll brush over that UK domestic demand and capacity has reduced.

Like wise, Labour in 08 "it all started in america" and now it's all the tories fault. That's the p*ss poor politics we have at the moment.

Economically, I see things completely different to you. The boom was the problem. There was no real growth, just a debt bubble. Massive inflation of the money supply along side price indexes (and interest rates) suppressed by cheap import and labour.

To try to chase the level of GDP we had in those boom years, let alone growth from there is madness. To extend the public debt (stealing from our children) to achieve this is even more crazy.

To pretend the standard of living, the public sector services we've enjoyed and the bizarre redistribution of wealth up the generations can be sustained is equally mad.

jamesco

Greg66 wrote:

But that's the dilemma: as you say, HMG is doing ok on the austerity side of the balance. If it tries to add some weight to the public spending side of the balance, it will undo the what it is doing right on the austerity side.

I'm not sure that the argument - "we need austerity measures but we need a public spending drive to get us going" is a really coherent.

Doing okay at the austerity is like doing okay at cutting one's throat... The idea that cutting spending in the midst of a recession is the right thing to do is astonishingly ill-judged and having dreadful results.

As to the strikes: 1% annual payrises are the functional equivalent of 4% cuts, given the rate of inflation. No wonder the strikers feel aggrieved.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

I explained earlier on.

And since Simon doesn't go into the school any other day to give them chocolates, but only on the day when other teachers are striking to 'thank' them for keeping the school open... A little deconstruction shows that the chocolates are for not striking, not for generally teaching.

Anyway, if I was one of the teachers, I'd gladly accept the chocolats with good grace, but would probably privately think it was quite knobbish.


Anyway, lay off the insults about my work. We all have to eat sh!t to earn a crust. Some more than others.

So, the other day when I spent the day up to my waist in sh1t clearing out and digging free the pond in the school grounds with a spade was only rescued from being knobbish because there was no industrial action at the time. By the way, I took a day's holiday to do that.

Get over yourself Rick.

jds_1981

jamesco wrote:

As to the strikes: 1% annual payrises are the functional equivalent of 4% cuts, given the rate of inflation. No wonder the strikers feel aggrieved.

I'm sorry, does anyone expect annual pay rises as a right?

Unfortunately the country is experiencing an inevitable rebalancing of standard of living.

jamesco

W1 wrote:

Yet you still can't explain why that's the case? By not going on strike, they are doing their jobs. You will twist and turn about this, but that is a fact. Those on strike are not doing their jobs - they're not even doing a very good job of striking. They are also signifying that they understand and agree with the many people who think these striks are completely misplaced and merely evidence of the out of touch world of the union dinosaurs and some elements of the public sector. They could have slinked off to Lakeside instead, but no - they are at work. Good for them, that must be hard in some backward unionised sectors of the public sector. They deserve thanks for not trying to fool up peoples' days on some unhinged notion of "fairness".

You may think it's knobbish to thank people for grasping the real world. Many others think it's nobbish to complain about having to fund your own pension. Some people think it's knobbish to strike when there are plenty of unemployed people who would be grateful for a job that has as many perks as some public sector jobs. This is standard toy throwing from unmandated, out of touch, political union bullies. The sooner that is ended, the better.

There are very, very few working people who don't owe a great debt to the trade unions for all the benefits they get. Study the history of the labour movement and you might appreciate the absolute, grinding misery & exploitation it's saved so many from. Yeah, strikes can be infuriating, but it's the right of the worker to withhold their labour; they're not indentured servants, thankfully.

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Doing okay at the austerity is like doing okay at cutting one's throat... The idea that cutting spending in the midst of a recession is the right thing to do is astonishingly ill-judged and having dreadful results

Yes, hello, it's Jamesco here. I'd like a ticket to Athens please. Leaving today. No, one way will be quite enough thank you...

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I explained earlier on.

And since Simon doesn't go into the school any other day to give them chocolates, but only on the day when other teachers are striking to 'thank' them for keeping the school open... A little deconstruction shows that the chocolates are for not striking, not for generally teaching.

Anyway, if I was one of the teachers, I'd gladly accept the chocolats with good grace, but would probably privately think it was quite knobbish.


Anyway, lay off the insults about my work. We all have to eat sh!t to earn a crust. Some more than others.

So, the other day when I spent the day up to my waist in sh1t clearing out and digging free the pond in the school grounds with a spade was only rescued from being knobbish because there was no industrial action at the time. By the way, I took a day's holiday to do that.

Get over yourself Rick.

Simon,

I wasn't having a go at you generally. You come across as a good bloke on here.

I just thought the idea of being all goodie tooshoes to just because they're not striking was disingenuous to those who feel aggrieved enough to strike, and a little heavy on the brown-nosing.

It is, let's be honest, not my nor your place to judge people for choosing to strike or not. I have reasons to see why it happens and empathise with the reasons why people do or don't, but I'd try to avoid judgements on individuals with regard to this, and stick to judging collectives, or at least, the macro/political picture. I guess I felt your chocolates was decidedly personal and judgemental.

Had there been a small picket line, would you have offered them chocolates too?