Imminent Industrial Action

[Ivo]

@ theblackwatch and others:

Of course I don't. But they are often blown out of proportion and are probably more frequent that necessary.

If I recall correctly, there was a teaching strike in 2008. Before then, there had not been one for something like 30 years. Now, we have averaged roughly one a year! You can't tell me that this isn't too frequent. Others' education should be far more important to a teacher than his wallet.

I don't mean to antagonise those who are striking. I just don't agree with it.

 

[nedchester]

And speaking of school, I find it quite ironic that people saying that anyone who uses the 12-week holiday excuse for the workload are wrong are themselves ditching an extra day of work in support of something detrimental to the country. It is a teacher's role to bring in the next generation of workers; what is this saying to them? "I'm not happy - STRIKE!" In addition, as a prospective teacher myself I would much rather we had less holiday than the alloted 12 weeks. So we might have more work on an hour-by-hour basis than the average, but so what? It's not even much of a difference is it? An average teacher may have to commit some of his or her time at home to his job, for marking or whatever, but why does that matter? It is something that should be enjoyed.

I wonder when you become a teacher whether you will be shouting 'I want less holidays' after 12 months. It is an extremely demanding job (and can be very rewarding) but it can drain you both physically and emotionally.

As I have said I have trained those who come from other professions to become teachers and every single one of them says that teachers deserve the holidays.

As for being a bad example to the children by striking maybe I am showing the pupils that it is a democratic right to be able to withdraw ones labour?!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As far as I am aware, this is the first large-scale strike that the ambulance services have had since 1989.

The public sector certainly don't strike as much as some areas I the private sector!

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[nedchester]

.

If I recall correctly, there was a teaching strike in 2008. Before then, there had not been one for something like 30 years. Now, we have averaged roughly one a year! You can't tell me that this isn't too frequent. Others' education should be far more important to a teacher than his wallet.

At the end of the day it is a job and it pays my mortgage and keeps my family solvent. That is the most important thing.

I don't want to strike but cannot afford not to.

I have never been on strike since I entered the profession in 1985 so hardly a yearly event. (I didn't strike in June as my union was not involved)

 

[Nym]

I refer the rightful ralph to BL in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Butts]

I think the most telling contribution was from the poster who was attempting to point out that many employees have no pension or indeed sick pay and probably inferior holidays to those employed in the Public Sector. This is in addition to being paid a much lower probably minimum wage.

The response on the whole seemed to be that those in unionised positions should not be prevented from using this to secure further concessions or enhanced pay and conditions at the same time others are receiving substantially less.

I take it they would also use the same logic to allow Bankers to secure themselves large bonuses .

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I refer the rightful ralph to BL in the 70s and 80s.

Again, a very long time ago, and only one part of the public sector.

Some PS workers I know, despite voting for action can't morally justify withdrawing emergency medical services from the masses. So, whilst having a pay cut forced, pensions cut up they'll be working that strike day for free answering the most serious calls only.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[table38]

Can you explain the vast difference between them? Why can those offering private sector schemes not invest in the same areas as the public sector funds, therefore getting the same return?
What am I missing?

Private sector pensions are usually paid out of an investment "pot". The income from the members of the pension is invested, and the income from the investments used to pay the pensions of those who have retired.

Public sector pensions usually have no investment pot. Retired public sector workers are paid out of current government income (revenue). Future public sector pension payments are an "off balance sheet" liability.

(Thinking about it, the private sector pension I described above is typical of the old "final salary" type; for more recent private sector pensions, you still build up a pot (or "fund") but it's more of an individual pot. On retirement, you then use that pot (and any additional money it has accrued because hopefully it was invested wisely) to buy an annuity which is sort of life-insurance in reverse, ie. it pays out (typically monthly) until you die.

Another difference between private and public sector pensions is that because the private sector pensions are managed by the private sector, there are a lot of companies taking a cut in the terms of management fees, investment fees and other costs)

 

[EM2]

@ Others' education should be far more important to a teacher than his wallet.

You surely would not be happy either being a teacher on minimum wage and basic state pension, nor with your children being taught by one.

 

[yorksrob]

Public sector pensions usually have no investment pot. Retired public sector workers are paid out of current government income (revenue). Future public sector pension payments are an "off balance sheet" liability.

Some but by no means all. The West Yorkshire pension fund, for example, does indeed have a pension fund in the same way that private sector final salary schemes used to. Like private sector schemes, contributions are paid by both the employee and the employer.

Unlike some private sector final salary schemes, West Yorkshire Local Authorities did not take frivolous and ill advised employer contribution "holidays" in times of plenty, meaning that it's fund was better prepared when the stockmarket fell in in the early noughties, and pension investments in general were depleated.

 

[table38]

Thanks, that's something I didn't know (although I suspected some might be, hence my careful insertion of the weasel-word "usually" )

Actually that also make me wonder if members of that scheme are having the same changes imposed on them.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks, that's something I didn't know (although I suspected some might be, hence my careful insertion of the weasel-word "usually" )

Actually that also make me wonder if members of that scheme are having the same changes imposed on them.

You're welcome, and they are.

 

[table38]

Indeed, I found this

Of course, most private schemes have had to tighten their belts too; mine certainly has

 

[yorksrob]

This is true. The fall in the stockmarket and increasing longevity has affected all pension funds.

 

[Pumbaa]

The response on the whole seemed to be that those in unionised positions should not be prevented from using this to secure further concessions or enhanced pay and conditions at the same time others are receiving substantially less.

I take it they would also use the same logic to allow Bankers to secure themselves large bonuses .

I personally do not think the state has a mandate to interfere with business when it comes to what they do with their profits. For most (admittedly, not all) firms profit is the motive. Thus they can do with it what they will, and we/the state have no right to say that salaries should be capped, bonuses no more than three figures, etc.

Whether people like it or not, Britain survives on the financial industry. And one of the ways to keep bankers, err, banking!, is to let them have their bonuses. A bitter pill to swallow for some.

 

[CarterUSM]

Ouch. When I posted this I didn't expect what has become little short of an all-out war!

There have been plenty of arguments in this thread supporting the Strike, for about 1,000,005 different reasons. But most of these are just recycling the old trash that all these Labour-supporting Unions throw at them. "Oh no... Cameron won... whatever will we do? I know - we'll strike to make him look unpopular!" Well, I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. The much larger private sector is showing very little sympathy for those striking and it is obvious why. Economic centres nationwide are going to be crippled by the selfish ideals of a few Left-leaning nobodies who think they can rule the country, while the rest of us have to put up with this behaviour. It is just like a school gang trying to rule the playground - they need someone in authority (but rather than the "Big Boss", i.e. Cameron or a Headteacher, a specialist in behavioural therapy and the like which would usually be the Deputy's role in a school) to stamp them down and say "Enough is enough".

Are you kidding Ivo? Strike threads are always a bity on the vociferous side! It seems to me you're wearing your heart on your sleeve a bit loudly, but there's nowt up with passion of course!. In any case, I fully support the action also, not sure if it'll acheive much except some more anti union legislation , but I hope they get somewhere.

 

[AlterEgo]

(Strikes) are often blown out of proportion and are probably more frequent that necessary.

i.e. You have no idea if they are more frequent than necessary. Ivo, wait until you work hard for a living. I did a huge amount of overtime last month, and I paid the most tax and NI I've ever paid on one payslip in my life. I have nothing against students, and don't wish to try and claim they have no right to an opinion because of their circumstances, but it seems as though you have no concept of how hard these cuts are hitting ordinary people.

On a positive note, I got a letter that was delivered to my parents' house today. A lovely civil servant from HMRC has had a look at my tax and is going to give me a cheque for over five hundred English pounds.

A civil servant just paid for my ALR!

(Oh alright, of course he isn't, it's my money, but you know what I mean!)

I love the argument 'Well I get X and Y, and these people get Z, that means I'm hard done by and how dare they strike...' Essentially you feel unable to exercise your own rights so you prefer to tell others they mustn't exercise theirs.

I have never ever felt the need to go on strike. But that's because I've been well looked after wherever I've worked and I've never been promised X and told 'oh sorry, I can't pay you this much any more/I can't give you that pension any more, I gave the money to someone else. Yes I know we had a contract but needs must.'

This situation was caused by the reckless greed of absolute tossers, and working men and women are being asked to pay for it.

No thank you. I will be in work on Wednesday, but I respect and understand why many people won't.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will Wednesday see "feral hordes" of teenage children not at school descending upon city centres, celebrating a day's freedom from incarceration in classrooms? I am sure that the large shopping centres will have their views on the good (more money in the tills) and the bad (security) implications of this.

 

[Butts]

One aspect of the proposed action that suprised me was the relatively low turn out in most of the ballots for strike action.

Although the percentage of those that did vote was very high in favour of withdrawing their labour, only about 40 % of eligible members actually bothered to vote.

Can anything be read into this apparent apathy ?

 

[nedchester]

One aspect of the proposed action that suprised me was the relatively low turn out in most of the ballots for strike action.

Although the percentage of those that did vote was very high in favour of withdrawing their labour, only about 40 % of eligible members actually bothered to vote.

Can anything be read into this apparent apathy ?

The same could be argued about how many voted in the General Election.

That said I don't know why people find it so difficult to fill in a ballot paper. Got mine and filled it in within a minute of receiving it and popped it in the post next time I went out. Not hard really.

 

[Butts]

The same could be argued about how many voted in the General Election.

That said I don't know why people find it so difficult to fill in a ballot paper. Got mine and filled it in within a minute of receiving it and popped it in the post next time I went out. Not hard really.

It would be interesting to canvas those who didn't vote to find out why, they will be happy enough to accept any deal the Union secures.

It would add legitimacy to the cause if there was a higher turnout.

 

[Schnellzug]

There have been plenty of arguments in this thread supporting the Strike, for about 1,000,005 different reasons. But most of these are just recycling the old trash that all these Labour-supporting Unions throw at them. "Oh no... Cameron won... whatever will we do? I know - we'll strike to make him look unpopular!" Well, I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. The much larger private sector is showing very little sympathy for those striking and it is obvious why. Economic centres nationwide are going to be crippled by the selfish ideals of a few Left-leaning nobodies who think they can rule the country, :

... as opposed to a few Right-leaning nobodies who think that they can run the country... (and actually weren't elected any more than the Left-leaning Nobodies in charge of the Unions were...) ?

... And I really don't think that they need a Strike to make "Cameron" look unpopular; I think he's doing an admirable job of that by himself.


In fact, (conspiracy theory time) I wonder if it might speculated that the strikes are being organised by agents provocateurs to make the Labour and the Unions look unpopular.... ?

 

[Butts]

... as opposed to a few Right-leaning nobodies who think that they can run the country... (and actually weren't elected any more than the Left-leaning Nobodies in charge of the Unions were...) ?

... And I really don't think that they need a Strike to make "Cameron" look unpopular; I think he's doing an admirable job of that by himself.


In fact, (conspiracy theory time) I wonder if it might speculated that the strikes are being organised by agents provocateurs to make the Labour and the Unions look unpopular.... ?

As they would say in the HOC "I refer you to your previous answer"

I don't think Labour and the Unions are far behind Cameron in making themselves unpopular - they are also doing "an admirable job of that".

 

[SS4]

It would be interesting to canvas those who didn't vote to find out why, they will be happy enough to accept any deal the Union secures.

Am I missing something or if they were happy with the deal offered by the government surely they can vote no.

It would add legitimacy to the cause if there was a higher turnout.

That goes without saying yet general election turnouts are little better and the less said about local elections the better. Union ballots are more like referenda in the fact that all votes are equal. At government elections all votes are equal but some votes [swing seats] are more equal than others [safe seats]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... as opposed to a few Right-leaning nobodies who think that they can run the country... (and actually weren't elected any more than the Left-leaning Nobodies in charge of the Unions were...) ?

... And I really don't think that they need a Strike to make "Cameron" look unpopular; I think he's doing an admirable job of that by himself.


In fact, (conspiracy theory time) I wonder if it might speculated that the strikes are being organised by agents provocateurs to make the Labour and the Unions look unpopular.... ?

Nah, it's far simpler than that. The press is censoring itself to show the government as voice of reason and light and that the strikers of the embodiment of Lucifer himself.
Next time you see a news report check who's side they're on but intonation on tv and opinion words

 

[ainsworth74]

That goes without saying yet general election turnouts are little better and the less said about local elections the better.

Someone up thread said the turnout for the strike ballot was 40% whilst the general election got a 65% turnout or nearly two thirds of the electorate. That's surely a bit more than a 'little' better? Though I take your point about local elections...

 

[RJ]

I presume that all TOCs currently have Final Salary schemes (open to new members)?

Yes, I have two.

 

[theblackwatch]

Someone up thread said the turnout for the strike ballot was 40% whilst the general election got a 65% turnout or nearly two thirds of the electorate. That's surely a bit more than a 'little' better? Though I take your point about local elections...

'The ballot' was actually around 20 ballots, as there are a large number of unions involved and each held their own. In Prospect, 52.6% voted, of which over 75% voted for industrial action.

 

[Schnellzug]

'The ballot' was actually around 20 ballots, as there are a large number of unions involved and each held their own. In Prospect, 52.6% voted, of which over 75% voted for industrial action.

Which is a sight better than the majority in any recent General election.

 

[Michael.Y]

I used to work in the public sector up until October, when I joined ASC/ATW, for my local council, which is run by a ConDem coalition. I've recently learned that they are demoting five good, hard-working members of senior public-facing staff with day-to-day supervisory and pseudo-management responsibilities from one pay scale (19k gpa) to a lower one (15k gpa, which after tax comes to 12k p.a.). The management however are not getting a pay cut, despite sitting in offices playing with computers all day drinking coffee. All have families, mortgages, cars etc to run, and now have to make do with 4k a year less at least than they did before.

I will be supporting the strikes.

 

[Butts]

Yes, I have two.

Interesting in the current climate that despite being privatised these rail companies are able to still afford good pension schemes open to new members.

What is their secret ?