Public sector strikes on Wednesday

[brocklanders023]

havent read all this yet
but

in wifeys case , she will have to work an extra 6 years , pay more
into the pension scheme for less back

the local govt pension fund is fully paid up to the tune of 1.2 bm
surplus
they want her to pay an extra 3% that goes straight to the govt

she could retire at 60 ,but not any more

the thieves are raiding the pension funds as per maxwell and others

still we're all in it together


the media seem to miss all these facts

Exactly Mike. Many of the pension's under threat actually already pay for themselves. Others, like mine have no money in a pot because the government and local councils have been allowed to spend it all. how is this fair?

 

[rosstheboss]

If the 50% rule was imposed I bet you'd find more people voting. Apathy is rife in this country and that in part leads to low turn out, just like in the Elections.

The turnout for the 2010 election was 65%

The turnout for the 30th November strike (according to Socialist Worker online!) averaged at 44% with an average in favour of striking at 77%

So basically a third of union members want a strike and that carries the action does it??? Ridiculous!!

And suggesting I should have saved more when times were good is frankly insulting.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

Strikes have become the justification for unions.
The employees will ultimately lose out the employer will lose out and the consumer affected will lose out.
You'll get nothing extra by striking. It's just that everybody is now forced to play the game.

 

[brocklanders023]

If the 50% rule was imposed I bet you'd find more people voting. Apathy is rife in this country and that in part leads to low turn out, just like in the Elections.

The turnout for the 2010 election was 65%

The turnout for the 30th November strike (according to Socialist Worker online!) averaged at 44% with an average in favour of striking at 77%

So basically a third of union members want a strike and that carries the action does it??? Ridiculous!!

And suggesting I should have saved more when times were good is frankly insulting.

As insulting as suggesting I should be happy to have a pension (even though I'm only expecting what they offered me), be glad I can afford to pay in to it (which I struggle to do and will not be able to if it goes up) and should do nothing to protect it (even though I did not cause the economic melt down, the real reason they're attacking us)?

For the record I was suggesting that many of the people on this thread bashing the Public Service would probably think you should have saved more and it's all your fault that you're under pressure now, going by the attitude and opinions being expressed. That's not my view.

I'm a Fire Fighter and will guarantee the turn out will be far higher if and when we ballot.

 

[rosstheboss]

Aaaaah fire fighter.... what's your other job then?

 

[brocklanders023]

Strikes have become the justification for unions.
The employees will ultimately lose out the employer will lose out and the consumer affected will lose out.
You'll get nothing extra by striking. It's just that everybody is now forced to play the game.

That's just plain wrong Nail. Do you really think Unions take their members out on strike for the laugh? Do you think workers take losing pay lightly? If they are badly turned over the leaders will quickly find themselves out of a job. Do you have any understanding of the bulk of the work Unions do for their members?

 

[brocklanders023]

Aaaaah fire fighter.... what's your other job then?

Oh do f**k off Ross. I don't have another job. Those that do only do so to make ends meet. Do you really think they'd take on extra work if they didn't have to? Always makes me laugh when people like you come out with this.

Ff takes on extra work to make ends meet..... Money grabber.
Anyone else takes on extra work to make ends meet..... Salt of the earth, grafter, etc.

 

[tintin40]

Lets not forget where the pensions crisis started, the man who did steal your millions.
And worse than that he did it to further his own ends, not to reduce any public debt or to further public services.

This was going to happen well before him. The gove before was warned and the gov before warned. But they just x their fingers and shut the eyes and hoped it would go away.

 

[stevec1975]

Likewise, there is an assumption that those who did not vote do support the action, why else abstain if it is that important to them.

To be truly representative, not a union driven agenda, the sooner the minimum 50% of members rule comes into these ballots, the better.

The right to strike is firmly entrenched in law and to be applauded, I don't think many people believe it is going to make any difference anyway as there is no money in the pot.

I'd like you to show me someone that assumes no vote is a yes vote. It is not a Union driven agenda, they are simply doing what the members pay them for, protecting conditions.

It already has made a difference. The Government has come back with another offer. Do you think they would have done this if there was no threat of industrial action?

If the 50% rule was imposed I bet you'd find more people voting. Apathy is rife in this country and that in part leads to low turn out, just like in the Elections.

My point was in reply to your point saying "assumption that those that did not vote do not support action" therefore, I show you yourself.

The governments comeback was a token gesture to appease the small numbers of people in this bracket, its the longer term, with many years still left to run which cost the most, from a purely financial point of view it makes sense, and from a PR perspective, to look to be negotiating.

I will be amazingly suprised if any of this strike action will make a positive difference to your pension pots, the only difference in the short term is increased likelihood of further job losses and more legislation to prevent strikes that are only supported by a minority of the union members, as is the case here.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

I'm sorry but didn't fire fighters strike following 9/11 asking for a 40% pay increase?.
Did you not take the job knowing what the pay and conditions were?.
Is it ok for you to change your conditions in response to world events but not for anyone else?.
Did fire suddenly become more dangerous?.
Unions need to do some thing and in this day and age there are no shortage of legal firms willing to take on injury/unfair dismissal claims.
You have no need for a union, they need to be needed.
Thats how the game is played, you will get what you going to get.
The government will offer less knowing the unions will ask for more.
You're being naive thinking this is a simple case of you against the system.