babychunder Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Very good piece in the Times today. I've posted the actual text because I know you hard-up public sector types can't afford a subscription to the website. "A very odd row broke out yesterday about the cost of next week’s planned strikes over plans for public sector pensions. The Government claimed that the economic impact of the action might be as high as £500 million. In response Brendan Barber, of the TUC, said that the figure was “fantasy economics” while Mark Serwotka, of the Public and Commercial Services Union, described it as a “scare story”. In other words, the unions were accusing the Government of overestimating the significance of the action by the strikers and overvaluing the economic contribution of public service workers. This seems a strange position for them to take. What explains it? The unions are keen to show that they are the reasonable party in the dispute and that their action is proportionate to the wrong that has been done to their members. But they will fail in this effort and deserve to do so. The case being advanced for the proposed action is that the reform of public sector pensions is not fair on the recipients. Public sector workers will be asked to contribute more and work longer for what, the unions say, in some cases will be smaller pensions. Asking for higher contributions is undoubtedly hard on people whose living standards are already being adversely affected by a pay freeze at a time of high inflation. And being asked to work longer before retiring is unwelcome news for many. Being hard and unwelcome is not, however, the same as being unfair. Reform of public sector pensions is essential. Agreement on proposals made during the previous Labour Government’s term must be accompanied by measures that make an earlier impact on the amount spent. Without reform it will take too long before savings are made and the taxpayer will be asked to bear too much of the risk that projected spending has been underestimated. It was, naturally, important that the proposals left workers with reasonable provision. This was the thought that the Labour peer Lord Hutton of Furness kept uppermost in his mind as, charged by the current Government, he designed the new scheme. His most important decision was that he would not initiate a race to the bottom. Many private sector employers leave their workers with very poor pension prospects and he did not believe the public sector should follow suit. The public sector schemes will still, therefore, provide pensioners with a final-salary-defined benefit of the sort now rare in the private sector. And the Government has made numerous concessions to the unions on the details of how schemes will operate. To go any farther would be very unfair to taxpayers. As is this proposed set of strikes. Yesterday the unions attacked the Government’s preparation for the strike day. They described, for instance, the recruitment of Whitehall civil servants to staff the borders as a “panic measure”. It is certainly true that some attempts to offset the impact of the strike seem inadequate. The Prime Minister’s proposal that people should take their children to work seems out of touch with the reality of most working lives. Yet it is wrong to blame the Government for the disruption. After all, it has in place the perfect arrangement to staff borders and to ensure children do not need to accompany parents to work. It pays border staff and teachers. It is the unions who are encouraging those people not to turn up to do their jobs. Everyone, however well paid, always wants to be paid more, and thinks it a scandal when they are paid less. The reaction of public sector workers, many not well paid at all, is therefore understandable. But the fact that it is understandable does not make it right. The strikes will be disruptive, but the strikers will have to be resisted." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smarmy Arab Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 And because these were printed on a papers website they must be all true and not made up by a reporter. Freddie starr ate my hamster Freddie Starr and the hamster was from Chunders cretinous reading list i believe. Which particular letter do you find so hard to believe, they all seem straight forward to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Freddie Starr and the hamster was from Chunders cretinous reading list i believe. Which particular letter do you find so hard to believe, they all seem straight forward to me! Try one from the Times then ^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryhallsdanceband Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 ...never benefited from the actions of a union. Not sure that you can actually say his for sure - there will be some legislation brought in as a result of union action that has applied across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryhallsdanceband Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 ...and oh yes - if the proposals for pension reform are soooo bad (if you believe one of the headteachers unions the worst proposal EVER and the first to make them strike in their history so the proposals must be drastic) - why are the nurses not going on strike? They will be affected - so why not striking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Not sure that you can actually say his for sure - there will be some legislation brought in as a result of union action that has applied across the board. My industry isn't unionised. If this strike serves to put up (or maintain) the average cost of maintaining a public sector position, then fewer jobs will remain in the public sector because there isn't any more money. So, ultimately a self-defeating exercise I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 My industry isn't unionised. If this strike serves to put up (or maintain) the average cost of maintaining a public sector position, then fewer jobs will remain in the public sector because there isn't any more money. So, ultimately a self-defeating exercise I think. i think what he means is even if you never had a union in your industry at some time your industry has been influanced by something a union has done in the past. he's probably right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smarmy Arab Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Try one from the Times then ^^^^ both sides exchanging blows as the pressure builds..hardly a story at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smarmy Arab Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Never been on strike, never joined a union, never benefited from the actions of a union. If you cannot see the real difference organised labour has made to every workplace, from pay, conditions to health and safety, you should read some history. Every worker has benefited from the cause of trades unionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Fleming Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 You can't blame people for defending their pensions.Many have paid in for years,only for the government to 'change the goalposts' to suit their own agenda. This country is well and truely fecked and will get worse,if Scotland happens to gain independence. Heaven help us !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryhallsdanceband Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 If you cannot see the real difference organised labour has made to every workplace, from pay, conditions to health and safety, you should read some history. Every worker has benefited from the cause of trades unionism. Indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryhallsdanceband Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 You can't blame people for defending their pensions.Many have paid in for years,only for the government to 'change the goalposts' to suit their own agenda. This country is well and truely fecked and will get worse,if Scotland happens to gain independence. Heaven help us !!! Nobody is saying it is fair - but if the reform doesn't go through who is going to pay the pensions? - the money just isn't there - the PS pensions bill is unaffordable. To make it affordable taxation rises across the board (or public spending cuts and public sector jobs losses) will have to meet the bill - and that is not fair either to those who won't benefit from a relatively pretty good PS pension or those in the PS who will lose their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 ...Every worker has benefited from the cause of trades unionism. Oh yeah? What about the people who used to work in the coal, car, steel or other manufacturing industries in the UK whose greedy Union bosses ended up pricing their members out of a job because their labour rates became unsustainable. These industries / jobs aren't coming back you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 by that argument we should all just get paid 2 quid a day so the work doesn't go to india china etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint in exile Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Nobody is saying it is fair - but if the reform doesn't go through who is going to pay the pensions? - the money just isn't there - the PS pensions bill is unaffordable. To make it affordable taxation rises across the board (or public spending cuts and public sector jobs losses) will have to meet the bill - and that is not fair either to those who won't benefit from a relatively pretty good PS pension or those in the PS who will lose their jobs. Correct.We are all paying the cost of spending borrowed money we could never pay back,both on an individual level and a political one.Some people need to take a reality check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pringles Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Correct.We are all paying the cost of spending borrowed money we could never pay back,both on an individual level and a political one.Some people need to take a reality check. No actually wrong !the top 5%in the country are completely untouched by this and must be pissing themselves laughing as we fight over the crumbs from the master's table. All the anger we direct at each other would be better directed at the casino bankers in the City who by their continued greed are condemning our elderly and sick to inadequate care and our kids to a future without jobs. At least in Egypt they've got the courage to stand up to the wealthy dictators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainstand Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Very good piece in the Times today. I've posted the actual text because I know you hard-up public sector types can't afford a subscription to the website. You really show up your true colours with such a pathetic jibe, which undermines your arguements and logic. Yes some public sector workers are on good wages but the majority are on less than 22k a year or £9 per hour. The whole thing is becoming a publicity exercise played out in the press. In the blue corner you have the Government with the Cameron comments about his son missing school etc and in the other corner there is the unions who are setting out their side of the story. Both sides are trying to show the story that best suits their own arguements and I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Who will be the main losers The general public. Who will be the winners? No one will win, they will all stand up and shout and at the end of the day a compromise will be reached as the workers cannot afford a long strike and the Government cannot afford a long drawn out dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainstand Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Nobody is saying it is fair - but if the reform doesn't go through who is going to pay the pensions? - the money just isn't there - the PS pensions bill is unaffordable. To make it affordable taxation rises across the board (or public spending cuts and public sector jobs losses) will have to meet the bill - and that is not fair either to those who won't benefit from a relatively pretty good PS pension or those in the PS who will lose their jobs. If you actually read the Hutton report he states that the cost of public sector pensions will reduce by 25% with the measures already introduced, reduced numbers, pay freeze and change from RPI to CPI. He also states that: "Although 85% of public service employees contribute to a pension, he said that these pensions were far from "gold-plated", with the average pension in payment currently at a "modest" £7,800 a year. Around half of public service pensioners received less than £5,600 a year." He also states that pensins would reduce in relation to GDp dropping to 1.4% from a high of 1.9% this year. All stats which coudl probably be turned on their heads by someone else but these are actual figures form the report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagey Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Some real analysis from the people involved http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/30/the-case-for-public-service All poor teachers . It must be hard for them having to take 14 weeks holiday a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby kemp Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 All poor teachers . It must be hard for them having to take 14 weeks holiday a year. I dont think they are striking for holidays, think it about pensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Pomarium of Flats Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) Maybe I've missed it, babychunder, but what is it you do? Edited November 25, 2011 by Saint Pomarium of Flats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 House Husband by the sound of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint in exile Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 All poor teachers . It must be hard for them having to take 14 weeks holiday a year. Not only that i don`t know one teacher that has worked till they are 65 most have been in their fifties and many are very poor at their profession.It`s a shame that some sectors of the public sector are so overly paid for providing such a rank service whilst there are a lot of public sector workers that are poorly paid whilst providing a n excellent service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint in exile Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) No actually wrong !the top 5%in the country are completely untouched by this and must be pissing themselves laughing as we fight over the crumbs from the master's table. All the anger we direct at each other would be better directed at the casino bankers in the City who by their continued greed are condemning our elderly and sick to inadequate care and our kids to a future without jobs. At least in Egypt they've got the courage to stand up to the wealthy dictators. What % of the countries income tax is contributed by the top 5%? Edited November 26, 2011 by saint in exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Its starting the threats from Maude over tightening off Ballots before striking,complaining about the percentage vote for ballot for strikes, (remind me what was the total vote they got at last election) , and more anti union laws, Cameron wants to emulate thatcher he is going to take on the unions, this could and should have been settled months ago, said it before if and when the people rise up against the condems, bet they dont call it regime change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.