Public Sector Unions : Day of Action

[Duke Malcolm]

Well, that is how the letter was titled.

I was at school today, and shall be again on Wednesday. Tomorrow, however, I shall be at home due to a strike of : Janitors; cleaners; administrative staff; support staff; kitchen staff; and the technicians.
They are moaning about having to work a few extra years before they can claim full pension: 65 instead of 60, I believe. Her Most Supreme Excellency, Anne Wilson, Director of Education for Dundee City Council, has responded by giving pupils the day off on safety grounds.

A few friends and I have arranged a counter-protest for when the afore-mentioned staff picket at the school gates.

Auntie Provides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4839520.stm)

Your thoughts on such a strike?

[Major Robert Dump]

Unions for state/federal jobs are the worst kind unless we are talking about something where workers put their lives at risk. They are worse than private enterprise unions because they arent affected by the market like everyone else, and government is inherently wasteful.

Instead of striking maybe they should look for other jobs

[English assassin]

Public Sector Unions : Day of Action

Well, it would make a change...

[Scurvy]

:laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Shouldn't it be a day of inaction? There again no one would notice.

When I worked in local government in the 80's we had a day of action to protest at Thatchers policies. No one noticed AND the local authorities saved millions in pay.

Then someone pointed out to the union bosses that the majority of union members must have voted for Thatcher in the first place. :dizzy2:

Me? I rang in sick. Thus securing a days pay and not upsetting the 'brothers'. :laugh4:

[BDC]

Why is everyone so horrified at working longer. You live longer if you are working, plus as most women can live to be 80ish, it's going to be a long and dull 20 years.

[doc_bean]

Why is everyone so horrified at working longer. You live longer if you are working, plus as most women can live to be 80ish, it's going to be a long and dull 20 years.

Because people get bored with their job. Another reason why a more flexible career can be a good thing...


These kinds of protest can piss me off at times, I'm probably gonna have to work until I'm 80, or more likely, until I'm death. :skull:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why is everyone so horrified at working longer. You live longer if you are working, plus as most women can live to be 80ish, it's going to be a long and dull 20 years.

My father is still working and he's 73. But he's a self-employed consultant, one of the top men in his field.

I think the main concern is working longer doing what? With current ageist attitudes, few older people (outside the higher tax brackets and, ironically, the public sector) get the chance to work on in their profession or improve/change their careers.

Working longer seems to mean working for the minimum wage at B&Q for 20 years. Not overly appetising.

[BDC]

These kinds of protest can piss me off at times, I'm probably gonna have to work until I'm 80, or more likely, until I'm death.

Long lasting job there. I'd go for it. Death and taxes and all that...

:)

[Scurvy]

Why is everyone so horrified at working longer. You live longer if you are working, plus as most women can live to be 80ish, it's going to be a long and dull 20 years.

being 16, it looks like i might have to work until im 80 (paying for other people pensions :) - i could be dead by then :help:

[Sjakihata]

I support strikes, if it hadnt been for strikes we'd have no vacation and a 6 x 12 hour work week. Not fun.

[Scurvy]

I support strikes when they dont effect me (ie. not tube strikes :2thumbsup: )

[Sjakihata]

I know what you mean, but you have to think more abstactly than that. In the city where I live in there have just been a big bus strike, that meant I couldnt go to lectures, which unfortunately was on Kant's Critique and Hegel's Phenomenology so I had to study even harder, I still supported the strike though.

[doc_bean]

I support strikes, if it hadnt been for strikes we'd have no vacation and a 6 x 12 hour work week. Not fun.

Sure, I support strikes like that too, what I don't support is a general strike because the unions want wages that can't realistically be supported by the current economy. Europe is dragging itself down with all those strikes, and the unions could care less about how bad they are hurting the companies. heck, in Belgium they get funded for each UNemployed person...

[doc_bean]

Not sure how it is over un the UK, but here in the US Unions have, for the most part, long outlived their usefulness. All they do now is use their brute strength to extort money from businesses and the average worker. For the vast majority of American workers, there's no reason to Strike.

Like when all those companies just decided to not pay overtime anymore ? Or is that a grossly exagerated myth ?

[Marcellus]

Urgh, my sister gets a day off school but for some reason I don't.

*sulks off mumbling 'not fair'*

[Ja'chyra]

Well, that is how the letter was titled.

I was at school today, and shall be again on Wednesday. Tomorrow, however, I shall be at home due to a strike of : Janitors; cleaners; administrative staff; support staff; kitchen staff; and the technicians.
They are moaning about having to work a few extra years before they can claim full pension: 65 instead of 60, I believe. Her Most Supreme Excellency, Anne Wilson, Director of Education for Dundee City Council, has responded by giving pupils the day off on safety grounds.

A few friends and I have arranged a counter-protest for when the afore-mentioned staff picket at the school gates.

Auntie Provides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4839520.stm)

Your thoughts on such a strike?

Yeah, well done, after all how unreasonable can these people be??? I mean, actually expecting their employers to honour the terms that they signed these people on for!!!! Just plain ridiculous if you ask me.

Why don't you wait and see how you like it when you have worked for a company for 35 years and then they turn round and tell you that you will have to work for another 10 years, instead of the 5 you have been planning on, otherwise you won't get your pension.

The MoD recently went through this with the outcome being that staff would be able to retire at 60 as in their contract, any new staff coming in would have the standard contract altered so that the retirement age was 65, now that is a fair outcome.

Maybe you should actually give it some thought before you go through with your so-called counter protest, after all what are you protesting? The fact that some low-paid workers are trying to protect the rights given to them when they signed their contracts? Or the fact that schoolchildren think they know better?

[InsaneApache]

hmmm.....well it's been 17 years since I left local authority employment, but from what I remember the 'statement of main particulars' was, even then, liable to summary changes.

Now I'm on the other side of the fence in private industry, I am aware how well public service employees are treated. Excellent pension scheme. 5/6 weeks paid holidays per annum (depending on length of service) plus all the statutory holidays. If you do happen to work on a bank holiday then you are entitled to triple time. Up to 6 months full pay on sick leave, then six months half pay.

As a self employed businessman I get none of the above. If I don't work, I don't get paid. Plus all of the above is derived from taxes levied on the working population. However, civil servants and LGOs' do not contribute to the wealth of the economy, that onus falls onto people like me, who as I said get nothing like the benefits package that the Public sector enjoy.

They should thank their lucky stars they have a pension worth fighting over. A lot of people have been screwed by this governments botched handling of the pension timebomb.

:hide:

[Banquo's Ghost]

hmmm.....well it's been 17 years since I left local authority employment, but from what I remember the 'statement of main particulars' was, even then, liable to summary changes.

Now I'm on the other side of the fence in private industry, I am aware how well public service employees are treated. Excellent pension scheme. 5/6 weeks paid holidays per annum (depending on length of service) plus all the statutory holidays. If you do happen to work on a bank holiday then you are entitled to triple time. Up to 6 months full pay on sick leave, then six months half pay.

As a self employed businessman I get none of the above. If I don't work, I don't get paid. Plus all of the above is derived from taxes levied on the working population. However, civil servants and LGOs' do not contribute to the wealth of the economy, that onus falls onto people like me, who as I said get nothing like the benefits package that the Public sector enjoy.

They should thank their lucky stars they have a pension worth fighting over. A lot of people have been screwed by this governments botched handling of the pension timebomb.

:hide:

Thank you for writing the post I was in the process of composing :2thumbsup:

[King Henry V]

I support strikes, if it hadnt been for strikes we'd have no vacation and a 6 x 12 hour work week. Not fun.
* Mrs Sjakihata runs out of the house.
"Honey, the house is burning! We have to call the fire brigade!" she shouts.
"No use in doing it that. They're on strike" Sjakihata replies.
"What?" demands his wife. "How are the lazy ******** alllowed to go on strike when there could be a fire?"
"Now now, dear, don't talk of the firemen in such a tone. We must always support the working man in his struggle against the bourgeoisie, and the fat, capitalist pigs who devote every effort to oppressing the proleteriat, even if it does mean that we have to sacrifice a few little things from time to time."
There are cries of pain and anguish as a floor of the house crashes down, killing those bellow.
Deaf to all the shouts and screams, Sjakihata continues lecturing his wife on the virtues of striking, even though the awful conditions he describes were those from eighty years ago. *

I personally favour the old way of getting rid of strikes: with a whiff of grape shot. The cavalry can do the rest. :evil:

I thoroughly agreed with the businessman who I was watching on te news this morning who said that it was disgusting that the public sector really did believe that they were something special who were worthy of preferential treatment.
May I remind all UK citizens present here that these special priviledges for which they are advocating will have to be paid out of your pocket?

[master of the puppets]

when they took the job they were given the number 65 years, for so many years they have remained loyal and have strove fo that time when they recieve there pension. and suddenly in a recognizable breach of contract they turn around and slap an aditionional 5 years onto there indentured servitude. they have every right to strike.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yeah, well done, after all how unreasonable can these people be??? I mean, actually expecting their employers to honour the terms that they signed these people on for!!!! Just plain ridiculous if you ask me.

Why don't you wait and see how you like it when you have worked for a company for 35 years and then they turn round and tell you that you will have to work for another 10 years, instead of the 5 you have been planning on, otherwise you won't get your pension.

The MoD recently went through this with the outcome being that staff would be able to retire at 60 as in their contract, any new staff coming in would have the standard contract altered so that the retirement age was 65, now that is a fair outcome.

Maybe you should actually give it some thought before you go through with your so-called counter protest, after all what are you protesting? The fact that some low-paid workers are trying to protect the rights given to them when they signed their contracts? Or the fact that schoolchildren think they know better?

I have thought it through, and while the counter-protest did not go ahead (the picketers had marched off to the city centre already), I still stand by my thinking that it is wrong. Especially when compared with the last strike of such a scale 80 years ago. Their employers have a duty first and foremost to the taxpayer and the voter -- it was either have everyone receive full pension at 60 and cost their employer more or at 65 and have the people work a few more years.

The extra money would have to be met by tax payers -- and those in the private sector do not have the same perquisites of the job that public sector workers have, including the secure pension.


when they took the job they were given the number 65 years, for so many years they have remained loyal and have strove fo that time when they recieve there pension. and suddenly in a recognizable breach of contract they turn around and slap an aditionional 5 years onto there indentured servitude. they have every right to strike.

Firstly, it was originally 60, increased by five years to 65.
Secondly, this was not for everybody -- only some could retire on full pension at 60. This system had to be changed to fit in with E.U. directives or somesuch thing, so everyone can retire on full pension at the same age.

[Sjakihata]

* Mrs Sjakihata runs out of the house.
"Honey, the house is burning! We have to call the fire brigade!" she shouts.
"No use in doing it that. They're on strike" Sjakihata replies.
"What?" demands his wife. "How are the lazy ******** alllowed to go on strike when there could be a fire?"
"Now now, dear, don't talk of the firemen in such a tone. We must always support the working man in his struggle against the bourgeoisie, and the fat, capitalist pigs who devote every effort to oppressing the proleteriat, even if it does mean that we have to sacrifice a few little things from time to time."
There are cries of pain and anguish as a floor of the house crashes down, killing those bellow.
Deaf to all the shouts and screams, Sjakihata continues lecturing his wife on the virtues of striking, even though the awful conditions he describes were those from eighty years ago. *


And what's your point? It isnt firemen that's striking nor is it doctors - and why dont they strike? Because their superiors damn well know they cant afford a strike, those people employed in taking care of others have a huge advantage, if the threaten with a strike they can move the bosses (who in these cases are politicians) because the politicians damned well know who gets the shit if someone dies because the firemen strike - I do support them striking anyway, people die of many reasons, you might as well get a plane in the head. Speaking of planes, if the pilots at 9/11 had been striking it had saved lives, stop predicting life, it's not going to work.

[rory_20_uk]

Retirement at 65 was started in Germany by Bismark about 120 years ago. Surprisingly we live longer now on average. So I think that of course it should be expected that pensions pay out later as a result of this. Sure, some people die before getting one, but that means that the burden on the rest of us is not as great.

Boo hoo, people don't want to work. What's that got to do with it? Stop bieng such lazy gits and get on with it. :furious3:

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

It isnt firemen that's striking nor is it doctors - and why dont they strike? Because their superiors damn well know they cant afford a strike,

Err, the FBU goes on strike quite regularly. We have to get the army out when it does.

The only point I do have sympathy with is that the government was happy enough to sweetheart the central government public sector workers (err, because when they go on strike its the governments problem) but when it comes to local government workers they want to stiff them (because when they go on strike its local government's problem).

IMHO its obvious all public sector workers should be treated the same, and that is to say that they should all be made to retire later instead of preventing the poor bloody private sector worker saving for his own retirement by hiking taxes to pay for their pensions.

Incidentally, a factoid with ref to these "poorly paid" public sector workers, the median wage is higher in the public sector than the private sector.


the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£476 a week in April 2005) is £64 higher than in the private sector (£412 a week), and the gap is widening. That is an extra £3,328 a year, along with generous pensions. I didn’t know that. Bear it in mind when you hear the moans of public-sector workers next week over their pay rises.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2102232,00.html
Then there's the job security, the holidays, the days spent attending complusory lesbian diversity awareness courses instead of working...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then there's the job security, the holidays, the days spent attending complusory lesbian diversity awareness courses instead of working.Yes, well spoken.

I work in the private sector, and I got fired when during work hours I improved my diverse lesbian intercourse awareness. :no:

[InsaneApache]

Then there's the job security, the holidays, the days spent attending complusory lesbian diversity awareness courses instead of working...

Oh I forgot about all the 'in house' training we got. Another nice little earner. If it was your day off, you got time and a half and if it was your 'rest day' (IE: second day off) you got double time. If it was your day to work you also got expenses. I mean c'mon, expenses for going to work! :dizzy2:

Another thing. If your colleague was to attend a 'training day', then you could fully expect to be called in on your day off to cover. (time and a half, unless it was your 'rest day', then double time)

I even got a football coaching certificate, signed by Sir Bobby Robson no less. Now tell me what the hell that had to do with being a swimming pool manager?

Don't get me on the ethnic awareness course I attended for a week in what can only be described as a Chateau in the Dales, I got full pay, overtime, meals (free for me at the expense of the taxpayer) and expenses.....:sweatdrop: