News Strikes

[Chilly]

Nonsense. Your employer would defend you first; any parent who tried to sue a teacher directly (unless it was for a reason unrelated to their employment) would find their case rejected. Unions pay for legal support if they employee is in dispute with their employer and pretty much nowhere else.

Fair enough. Down with the unions then!

 

[Rubber Bullets]

Nonsense. Your employer would defend you first; any parent who tried to sue a teacher directly (unless it was for a reason unrelated to their employment) would find their case rejected. Unions pay for legal support if they employee is in dispute with their employer and pretty much nowhere else.

Not exactly true, I am a member of the Society of Radiographers, mostly because of the professional indemnity it offers. If a patient sues due to a mistake I make then they would indeed be suing the trust, but the trust could then sue me to recoup its loses. It's a very rare occurrence, but not unheard of. It would be extremely foolish of me not to have this insurance, and through my professional body is the cheapest and easiest way to do it. The flipside is that they are TUC affiliated and did tell me to strike yesterday. I don't like to be told what to do, and feel that I am paid reasonably well for what I do, and that I am lucky to have a pension, even if it's not as good as it looked a few years back. Incidentally Gaff, the final salary pensions have already gone, the dispute is that despite the renegotiation that lead to that change, and that we were assured would be sustainable, we are having to make further changes with greater payments, for longer, and for a smaller payout.

I took the decision not to strike, though the increasing rhetoric from the government in the run up to the strike sorely tested this decision.

RB

 

[DaGaffer]

Not exactly true, I am a member of the Society of Radiographers, mostly because of the professional indemnity it offers. If a patient sues due to a mistake I make then they would indeed be suing the trust, but the trust could then sue me to recoup its loses.

So you would be defending yourself against your employer.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

So you would be defending yourself against your employer.

Well, as a member my Society would defend me, but essentially, yes.

 

[Chilly]

The point being that you do probably need some form of insurance for many jobs.

 

[Aoami]

by pay their legal fees you mean use their legal advisors with basic legal knowledge who are overseen by one or two trained solicitors

 

[Scouse]

So. To add something interesting to the debate on strikes:

The government's plan to ask employees to work longer and pay more is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

As the Public Accounts Committee observed: "Officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception rather than judgement on the cost in relation to either GDP or total public spending." In other words, the public have been misled and ministers are determined to keep misleading them.

And they're using the "private sector workers have poo pensions - therefore everyone should have poo pensions" jealousy ruse...

 

[Embattle]

I've seen the graph quite a few times that shows as a % of GDP the overall cost is going down, although this graph is naturally a prediction. Although as a person last night said, the government would probably prefer to use this money elsewhere in the future.

The reverse about public vs private could be called a smoke screen ruse.

 

[Scouse]

the government would probably prefer to use this money elsewhere in the future.

I'm sure they would. But they're supposed to be representing what we want - not what they'd like to do...

 

[Embattle]

Indeed but I suspect quite a few would want it as well.

 

[rynnor]

I've seen the graph quite a few times that shows as a % of GDP the overall cost is going down, although this graph is naturally a prediction.

I seem to remember there was a big mis-understanding over the graph - it actually shows a prediction based on making the proposed changes they are striiking against.

It cant therefore be used as an excuse not to make the changes by anyone sane but clearly Union leaders arent.

 

[Embattle]

It was the same graph as this one in this article - http://citywire.co.uk/money/stop-lying-about-public-sector-pensions-say-striking-teachers/a505061:

 

[Zenith.UK]

My opinion is this:

The Pensions Act 2008 says that starting in October 2012, employers should offer a workplace pension and automatically enrol eligible employees. Those who don't have a workplace scheme must enrol staff into the system of Personal Accounts. The contribution must be at least 8% of the employee's salary (3% employer, 4% employee, 1% tax relief).

That's what the rest of us are going to be dragged into next year if we're not already in an occupational scheme.

The public sector unions are saying that the current proposal on the table will mean their members will be paying more and working longer, for less pensions.
HELLO?!?!?! WAKE UP!!!! THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS BEING FORCED INTO ALREADY!
I know unions are there to make sure their members get the best deal, but this large scale strike action is playing right into the hands of the Govt and alienating a lot of their grassroots support with the public. Speaking as a parent who had to scramble around to get child cover yesterday.

 

[rynnor]

It was the same graph as this one in this article - http://citywire.co.uk/money/stop-lying-about-public-sector-pensions-say-striking-teachers/a505061:

Doesnt this just show that GDP is low now (recession) but will pick up as the economy recovers? In real terms this could mean we actually increase the spending on pensions but due to growth its less of GDP.

Edit - also this graph is based on the assumption we start coming out of the recession in 2015 - thats very much in the balance. If the recession turns into a depression that graph will reverse.

 

[Embattle]

Yes which is part of my point about it being a long range prediction.

 

[DaGaffer]

Erm, that graph predicts pension costs as % of GDP will fall by 2060. Very few of the people striking would be beneficiaries of that drop, as all the younger ones have had their pensions changed already. In addition, 1.4% of UK GDP just on pensions is still a really high number; the whole education bill is about 5.3% and the whole defence bill is about 2.5%.

 

[Chilly]

Erm, that graph predicts pension costs as % of GDP will fall by 2060. Very few of the people striking would be beneficiaries of that drop, as all the younger ones have had their pensions changed already. In addition, 1.4% of UK GDP just on pensions is still a really high number; the whole education bill is about 5.3% and the whole defence bill is about 2.5%.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to spend a bit on making sure public servants can survive after retirement, I just don't like being bullied by unions. I have no control over any of this but I always get done over by strike action. How the fuck is that supposed to work? The only people I now resent are the unions - I just assume the government are always cunts and probably not being any more cuntish to the unions than anyone else.

 

[Scouse]

Ah. The cat's out the bag now. There's a strong call for fiscal union - a United States of Europe.

Commenting on those - like the British - who objected to euro membership by saying the currency could not work without a state, Mr Delors said: "They had a point."

It means that, fundamentally, we give up the right to govern ourself.

The financial "crisis" was always going to end up with us giving up more rights. It's a con-job to scare us into fiscal union. If you think of it in those terms then the political choices our government is making now can be seen in a very dfiferent light.

Give me control of a nation's currency supply and I would care not who makes it's laws

...

 

[Sar]

Whinging fuckwits. Try getting a pay rise in the private sector. I haven't been able to increase my rates with inflation in five years.

I work for local Council, and I was on strike this week. I haven't had a pay rise in 3 years. At all, never mind one keeping up or otherwise with inflation. I won't get one for another 2 years at least, and beyond that we're looking at a rise, at best, of a stonking 1% per year for 2 years.

By which time I will effectively have had a 20% pay cut in 5 years.

And now they want to pay me up to 30% less in retirement? I'm paying 6% of my wages on my pension (£85 pm), and they want me to pay another 3.2% on top of that, so that, for my stonking £17k pay-packet would be over £130 a month, for a pension that will be worth less than 5k p/a at todays money? And it's supposedly "gilt-edged" because I have a rough idea of what I'll be getting when I retire? That's bollocks. My private sector pension which I had with BT did exactly the same thing for me when I had it, and I knew how much it would be when I retired, so all this talk about "gilt-edged" and guaranteed is a pile of shite.

I'm on less money now doing a similar job to the one I did in BT, so all this other talk of public sector pay being higher than the private sector is also complete bollocks.

Whinging fuckwits? Sorry?

 

[Tom]

Diddums. You don't see the private sector holding everyone to ransom, do you?

Maybe because we realise that if we do, our customers will just shop elsewhere.

 

[Sar]

Just because we work in the public sector, doesn't give George Osbourne and his millionaire colleagues the right to use us as mobile piggy banks when they could quite easily raise taxes on those on the higher incomes and raise the money just as easily and not make those on lower wages feel the hurt even more than we are already.

I work long and hard for the money I get, and just because my wages come from Government doesn't mean I won't find it that much harder to pay for the likes of my mortgage, and provide for my wife and child. I pay more for my pension that someone in the private sector on a similar pension scheme and receive lower wages, so any comparison to private sector is a moot point. Private sector companies employees go on strike as well you know, not just the public sector workers.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Erm, if I were to "strike" I'd lose my job. Plus, as has been stated in here and elsewhere ad infinitum, the AVERAGE public sector worker wage is higher than private, so please get off your high horses. You're not special. Stop thinking it.

 

[Raven]

I haven't had a pay rise (not counting promotions) in 3 years either. I don't have a pension through work. However, I do have targets to meet and if I don't then the company earns less. It actually matters that I carry out my work to the best of my ability.

I don't take the day off throwing a strop though, I get on with it.

 

[Sar]

I haven't had a pay rise (not counting promotions)

No such thing as "promotion" in the Council. I have to apply for higher graded jobs along with Joe Public if I want them (yes, they all go to public advertisement). We don't get afforded automatic promotions, or raises, or anything of the sort. The fact that you don't have a work-supplied pension is besides the point. You would have to sort out a private pension in that case. Hardly my fault your employer doesn't provide one now is it?

Wazz: Join a union you fucking layabout

I'm not worried about the "average", that has no effect on me. I'm concerned with my annual pay, nobody elses.

 

[Gwadien]

You all chose whether to go into private or public sectors, and you should've known the pros and cons. Deal with it

 

[Chilly]

Would those in the 40% bracket really be fucked by a hike to 45% (and a corresponding hike to 56% for the top bracket) ? I'd pay it, but then I don't have any kids or other huge outgoings. I think a time boxed tax hike for 5 years (or however long it would take) to pay down the debt and get us out of this mess would be a massive win.

 

[throdgrain]

Diddums. You don't see the private sector holding everyone to ransom, do you?

Maybe because we realise that if we do, our customers will just shop elsewhere.

Damn straight. If you're not satisfied with your pay, go get another job.

 

[Sar]

Best of luck in that endeavour Throd. It's obviously a job-seeker's market out there atm...

 

[Embattle]

I haven't had a pay rise (not counting promotions) in 3 years either. I don't have a pension through work. However, I do have targets to meet and if I don't then the company earns less. It actually matters that I carry out my work to the best of my ability.

I don't take the day off throwing a strop though, I get on with it.

A fair amount of the private sector doesn't even get an inflation based rise, to get more you must improve your skills and move up.

 

[Tom]

Just because we work in the public sector, doesn't give George Osbourne and his millionaire colleagues the right to use us as mobile piggy banks when they could quite easily raise taxes on those on the higher incomes and raise the money just as easily and not make those on lower wages feel the hurt even more than we are already.

I work long and hard for the money I get, and just because my wages come from Government doesn't mean I won't find it that much harder to pay for the likes of my mortgage, and provide for my wife and child. I pay more for my pension that someone in the private sector on a similar pension scheme and receive lower wages, so any comparison to private sector is a moot point. Private sector companies employees go on strike as well you know, not just the public sector workers.

Those on higher incomes pay a higher rate of tax and proportionately far more than you do.

And you want them to pay more, just so you can pay less? You don't think those people on higher incomes work hard?

The difference between private and public sector strikes is that in the latter instance, the general public can do little except put up with it.