November 30 Strikes

[Joker]

Co-ordinated strike action is planned for November 30th in protest at the Government's planned changes to public sector Pensions. Apparently as many as 3 million workers could take strike action next Wednesday. What's your opinion on the strikes? Do you think they're justified?

[Syn]

It annoys me when people have a go at ‘public sector inefficiency’ and how lazy the workers are on the basis of articles - like the one Letters posted - about how they browse on betting sites (and GW!) etc.

As you’d expect with the numbers of people involved, there are lots of people who are lazy and eat cakes and get their news from Ananova and mod an Arsenal forum site - but the rest shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush. Also tube workers that do an easy job get paid far too much. But I saw many people that have been working at government departments for years who are very skilled at what they do and often do much more than they’re getting paid for - they could easily sell out to a consultancy and get paid double+ more but they don’t (I think most of these are women that tend to require that extra flexibility or people who value job security above all else).

I don’t know whether they’re justified. I think the system needs a change towards a more performance-related pay/pension scheme. But my opinion of many acts relying on public co-ordination (whether it’s strike action or booing at football matches) is always the same. Go big or go home.

[Niall_Quinn]

Strikes are a waste of time unless they are against the cancerous element that preys on the whole society. If people are only prepared to march up and down shouting then save your breath. You meet extremism with an extreme response or you get crushed.

[Letters]

Syn, do you work in the public sector?
I do, and have done a LOT of work with the public sector at my old job which was private sector.

As for the strikes...I don't know. I can see both sides. The new deal being proposed still seems pretty generous, more generous than a lot of private sector workers would get. And there's a massive deficit in the pension schemes which needs plugging somehow. That said, I can understand people who have been working in the public sector for years being miffed that the scheme they signed up to is suddenly being changed and the pension they were due to get isn't there any more.

[Niall_Quinn]

Syn, do you work in the public sector?
I do, and have done a LOT of work with the public sector at my old job which was private sector.

As for the strikes...I don't know. I can see both sides. The new deal being proposed still seems pretty generous, more generous than a lot of private sector workers would get. And there's a massive deficit in the pension schemes which needs plugging somehow. That said, I can understand people who have been working in the public sector for years being miffed that the scheme they signed up to is suddenly being changed and the pension they were due to get isn't there any more.

You see both sides? Are there 2 sides? We have one small group that has robbed the entire nation (the whole planet in fact) and then we have what? What's the other side?

[Cripps_orig]

You see both sides? Are there 2 sides? We have one small group that has robbed the entire nation (the whole planet in fact) and then we have what? What's the other side?Good side of the force? :unsure:

[Niall_Quinn]

Good side of the force? :unsure:

I agree there's another side (as in particiapnt) in the war, but I mean what's the other argument, the one that would be in favour of the majority plodding on despite the fact they keep getting fucked up the arse?

[Xhaka Can’t]

What happened to Private Sector pensions is an absolute travesty that is going to have massive repercussions in the future. Now, the people who fucked over the private sector have decided the time is ripe to do the same to the public sector. And these cynical cunts engineering this are pitting plebs in both sectors against each other in a race to the bottom. Their argument centres around, 'look how much it sucks to be you, don't you think it should suck to be them as well'?

I hate my Union and the fucking Trotskyites that run it and have resigned from it in the past, but I'm in now, I fully support this strike, and for those who think this is just a bunch of Union layabouts looking for a day off and to stick two fingers up at the Government, consider this - at least two of the Unions going on strike have NEVER called a strike in their circa 100 year histories.

[Letters]

Isn't the basic problem that people are living longer and there's not enough money?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Isn't the basic problem that people are living longer and there's not enough money?

That is a factor. But changes in the public sector pensions were agreed and implemented circa 2007 and public sector pensions are becoming more affordable without further changes. Not that I'm averse to negotiation on existing schemes - but to say there has been negotiation of any substance would be wrong. In relation to the private sector, regulatory changes, a tax grab and underinvestment by employers taking 'holidays' when the stock market was rocketing led to massive underinvestment in pension schemes.

Strange though that none of this underinvestment has had any effect on the size of directors pension handouts or indeed the pensions of MPs.

[Niall_Quinn]

Isn't the basic problem that people are living longer and there's not enough money?

No, that's not even a minor problem, but it has been engineered into a major smokescreen. Don't forget, money has no value, you can create as much as you want of it just by turning on a printing press or tapping a keyboard. It's what the money is exchanged for that's important, labour being the primary example. So tell me, if we have more and better educated labour than ever before and money is a measure of the value of that labour - what the fuck have the cunts who appointed themselves as leaders been up to? They have been creating scarcity and all the misery that goes along with it. Because from scarcity comes control, even on an abundant planet. How can you possibly fuck up a technologically advanced society like ours with fucking stupid wars and racial hatred and fucked up sexism and prehistoric class systems? What's the point beyond allowing a few tired old crusty cunts to retain their inherited control at everyone else's expense? Do you honestly believe a single word these cunts tell you? Isn't it in their interests to lie to you? There are more than enough resources on and in this planet to accommodate the many billions of people we have today - and more. Trouble is everything is arranged to be scarce, it's called economics - the regressive and utterly discredited science that holds the species back. It's fantastic people are living longer, this should mean wisdom and experience is retained for longer. Unfortunately the regressives have taught us how to pile the elderly on a scrapheap. Soon they will convince us to legally (definition: dictated by a rich person) kill them. They could say there isn't enough money to go around so old people can't be afforded. That would be the money that's printed out of the thin air or conjured into existence at the tap of a computer key. It takes some balls to engineer things so the entire population is convinced good is bad and bad is inevitable - but give them their due, they've done it.

[LDG]

Lol.

This hasn't even started yet.

Can't wait for NEST. It's gonna piss people right off.

As for striking. It stinks. If I strike. I lose my job. And as jobs are rather difficult to come by at the moment, having 3 Million people pissing off for a day, because they are in the same boat as the rest of 95% of the country is a joke.

Go to work you lazy fuckers.

[Flavs]

There is going to be a big protest outside of my work on that day, so i can kick a few hippies. I have been regularly kicking the "Occupy Leeds" brigade that are camping in the city centre but its getting a bit samey now.

Cant wait, first person who shouts scab at me gets punched in the throat

:dance:

On the issue i don't have a pension so don't give a shit, simples

[LDG]

There is going to be a big protest outside of my work on that day, so i can kick a few hippies. I have been regularly kicking the "Occupy Leeds" brigade that are camping in the city centre but its getting a bit samey now.

Cant wait, first person who shouts scab at me gets punched in the throat

:dance:

On the issue i don't have a pension so don't give a shit, simples

Oh you will do my friend. You will do.

[Flavs]

Oh you will do my friend. You will do.

what i will have a pension? or i will give a shit?

[LDG]

what i will have a pension? or i will give a shit?

You will have a pension in a few years time.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Lol.

This hasn't even started yet.

Can't wait for NEST. It's gonna piss people right off.

As for striking. It stinks. If I strike. I lose my job. And as jobs are rather difficult to come by at the moment, having 3 Million people pissing off for a day, because they are in the same boat as the rest of 95% of the country is a joke.

Go to work you lazy fuckers.

Calling us lazy fuckers might carry a tad more weight and authority if you weren't doing it on GW from your work computer.

[Flavs]

You will have a pension in a few years time.

need to get a career job first, i have savings from when my ma and pa died in holdings until i am 50 anyway and i don't plan on retiring as would go crazy so i have a while yet.

Was never going to take an NHS pension as its far too open to getting screwed over.

[Letters]

No, that's not even a minor problem, but it has been engineered into a major smokescreen.

So people living for longer and thus needing more money to pay for their pension for longer isn't any part of the problem of how much money is needed in a pension scheme? Wow...


Don't forget, money has no value, you can create as much as you want of it just by turning on a printing press or tapping a keyboard.

Which key do I press to get money? :unsure:
You can print more of course but that just devalues it and leads to inflation.

The rest of your post is just a rant and nothing to do with what I said so I'll leave that.

[Letters]

need to get a career job first, i have savings from when my ma and pa died in holdings until i am 50 anyway

You're northern though, you'll never live that long :shrug:

[Xhaka Can’t]

You're northern though, you'll never live that long :shrug:

I'm sure chirping at big bald angry bastards will work wonders for your longevity.

[Flavs]

You're northern though, you'll never live that long :shrug:

I think the smog of old London town is less healthy than the open air of the dales somehow. Plus we eat real food up here like Yorkshire pudding and Eccles cakes, you guys live on Jellied eels so i will last longer than you.

By eck

[LDG]

need to get a career job first, i have savings from when my ma and pa died in holdings until i am 50 anyway and i don't plan on retiring as would go crazy so i have a while yet.

Was never going to take an NHS pension as its far too open to getting screwed over.

It's gonna be compulsory.

[LDG]

Calling us lazy fuckers might carry a tad more weight and authority if you weren't doing it on GW from your work computer.

Perks of the private sector :coffee:

[Xhaka Can’t]

Perks of the private sector :coffee:

I think you'll find we all have the hypocritical perk is one enjoyed and used by many.

[Letters]

Going on strike isn't 'lazy', you don't get paid for that day and as Gary said the unions calling the strikes are not doing this sort of thing all the time (compare and contrast with Bob f***ing Crow and the RM f***ing T who go on strike every f***ing year because they know they can hold the capital to ransom despite being paid far more than the average wage for a not very difficult job and being offered par rises way in excess of most workers in the current climate. F***ers)

Not sure I support the action (I'm not in the union anyway) but to glibly dismiss it as laziness is wrong.
(Plenty of ways public sector workers could be accused of laziness, especially those who waste taxpayers money on internet messageboards :sulk: , but this isn't one of them IMO)

[LDG]

I think you'll find we all have the hypocritical perk is one enjoyed and used by many.

I don't judge you! You lazy git!

[Flavs]

It's gonna be compulsory.

A compulsory pension in the public sector? Yeah I can see them getting that through.

[Letters]

I don't judge you! You lazy git!

He's also fat.

[LDG]

A compulsory pension in the public sector? Yeah I can see them getting that through.

Already has mate.

[Flavs]

Already has mate.

*Goes of to ask HR

[LDG]

*Goes of to ask HR

It's not quite as simple as "compulsory", you can opt out after one month, but every employer, public or private, is legally obliged to have a scheme for each and every employee, and it's being phased in, starting next year.

You would be automatically enrolled.

[Flavs]

It's not quite as simple as "compulsory", you can opt out after one month, but every employer, public or private, is legally obliged to have a scheme for each and every employee, and it's being phased in, starting next year.

You would be automatically enrolled.

That's no change to ours then. I paid a month when i started here 6 years ago but had it refunded back not long after so i am "sound as a pound" as you cockney types say

[Letters]

Because of the deficit in the Baptist Union pension fund (statistically Baptist Ministers live longer than any other profession, not that has any impact on the amount of money needed to pay their pension of course :NQ: ), churches will be obliged from next year to pay pension contributions whether they have a minister or not, which seems a bit harsh.

[LDG]

That's no change to ours then. I paid a month when i started here 6 years ago but had it refunded back not long after so i am "sound as a pound" as you cockney types say

Then they auto-enrol you again 3 years later. And you have to do the same again.

[Flavs]

Then they auto-enrol you again 3 years later. And you have to do the same again.

I don't mind that, i will just keep pulling out ##

[Xhaka Can’t]

Fnarr fnarr

[IBK]

The strikers are just as remorselessly self-interested as the bankers. Its the human condition, and its pretty pointless anyone taking the higher ground. Self-interest fuels capitalism and is the reason why a fucked up Western economy has imploded. Tinkering around with it is like trying to hold back the sea.

Public sector workers have traditionally had a cushy life compared to those of us in the private sector who pay their wages. I'd agree that it ain't nice losing some of your pension benefits - but many people in the private sector can't afford to have pension scheme's at all in these restrained times, and I'm afraid that if the country is near bankrupt and there's no more money to go around - then that's cold hard reality that will eventually have to be accepted by everyone.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The strikers are just as remorselessly self-interested as the bankers. Its the human condition, and its pretty pointless anyone taking the higher ground. Self-interest fuels capitalism and is the reason why a fucked up Western economy has imploded. Tinkering around with it is like trying to hold back the sea.

Public sector workers have traditionally had a cushy life compared to those of us in the private sector who pay their wages. I'd agree that it ain't nice losing some of your pension benefits - but many people in the private sector can't afford to have pension scheme's at all in these restrained times, and I'm afraid that if the country is near bankrupt and there's no more money to go around - then that's cold hard reality that will eventually have to be accepted by everyone.

That is quite frankly a steaming pile of bullshit. Someone concerned about not wanting to live out their last remaining days in poverty and benefits can in no way be lumped in with the self interest of bankers. Your post is extraordinarily arrogant, ignorant and ill-informed. You should the 'cushy' life of social workers or people working in the benefits system where you get it from all directions.

I've willingly taken the pay freeze, I work longer than my contracted hours because people in my team have been laid off and I accept some changes, all of which have been detrimental to my pay and conditions, but there comes a time when enough is enough and the very least I expect is for the employer to take part in serious negotiations over pensions rather than concentrating on divide and rule tactics that are leading to the vast majority of those working in the private and public sectors engaged in a race to the bottom while bickering with each other the whole way down.

Meanwhile, the architects of this whole mess continue with eye watering pay rises, pensions far in excess if what most people dream of earning and job security that is buffered by massive pay offs if they fuck up so badly that they virtually destroy the business they are meant to be running. Where is the economic justification for that? Why are the plebs who are undertaking the most pain and losing the most bickering with each other rather than being outraged at the hypocrisy of out masters?

[IBK]

That is quite frankly a steaming pile of bullshit. Someone concerned about not wanting to live out their last remaining days in poverty and benefits can in no way be lumped in with the self interest of bankers. Your post is extraordinarily arrogant, ignorant and ill-informed. You should the 'cushy' life of social workers or people working in the benefits system where you get it from all directions.

I've willingly taken the pay freeze, I work longer than my contracted hours because people in my team have been laid off and I accept some changes, all of which have been detrimental to my pay and conditions, but there comes a time when enough is enough and the very least I expect is for the employer to take part in serious negotiations over pensions rather than concentrating on divide and rule tactics that are leading to the vast majority of those working in the private and public sectors engaged in a race to the bottom while bickering with each other the whole way down.

Meanwhile, the architects of this whole mess continue with eye watering pay rises, pensions far in excess if what most people dream of earning and job security that is buffered by massive pay offs if they fuck up so badly that they virtually destroy the business they are meant to be running. Where is the economic justification for that? Why are the plebs who are undertaking the most pain and losing the most bickering with each other rather than being outraged at the hypocrisy of out masters?

You are very wrong. First - read my post. I said that public sector workers are as self-interested as bankers, and they are. Self-interest is a state of mind - its got nothing to do with how much money you have. Public sector workers are striking because they don't want some of their pension benefits taken away. They have no more concern for other members of society who are in a damn sight worse a position than they are than bankers do. And they (and you) seem to have no concept at all that the country is broke - and can't afford to continue funding their retirement at the levels of previous years if we are going to have any country to pass on to our children.

There are millions of people in lowish paid jobs in the private sector who can't afford to pay into pensions at all. They are the ones facng poverty - as are those post retirement people who have saved from their taxed incomes all their lives only to see their private pensions wiped out altogether (Equitable Life foundered for much the same reason that the government is now trying to avoid with public sector pensions - bankrupted by guaranteed annuities), and their saved money earning fuck all in interest, and very little prospect of any investments producing a sustainable income.

Like it or not, we are seeing the result of years and years of the country living on the never never. I can see little that is more self-interested than opposing sensible attempts to try to address the situation before its too late.

Its childish beyone belief to blame the investment banker 'bogeyman' for creating the situation we now find ourselves in. All the bankers are guilty of is playing the same game on the institutional level as the majority of people have done on a personal level. Borrow too much, save too little. Take risks with investing (which is what people taking out huge mortgages in reliance on the housing bubble have done) - and assume the good times will go on for ever.

And this ignores the fact that in real terms we are talking minute relative numbers of people who are earning these massive bonuses and salaries - that the current economic crisis is no longer bancking led anyway.

[Xhaka Can’t]

You are very wrong. First - read my post. I said that public sector workers are as self-interested as bankers, and they are. Self-interest is a state of mind - its got nothing to do with how much money you have. Public sector workers are striking because they don't want some of their pension benefits taken away. They have no more concern for other members of society who are in a damn sight worse a position than they are than bankers do. And they (and you) seem to have no concept at all that the country is broke - and can't afford to continue funding their retirement at the levels of previous years if we are going to have any country to pass on to our children.

There are millions of people in lowish paid jobs in the private sector who can't afford to pay into pensions at all. They are the ones facng poverty - as are those post retirement people who have saved from their taxed incomes all their lives only to see their private pensions wiped out altogether (Equitable Life foundered for much the same reason that the government is now trying to avoid with public sector pensions - bankrupted by guaranteed annuities), and their saved money earning fuck all in interest, and very little prospect of any investments producing a sustainable income.

Like it or not, we are seeing the result of years and years of the country living on the never never. I can see little that is more self-interested than opposing sensible attempts to try to address the situation before its too late.

Its childish beyone belief to blame the investment banker 'bogeyman' for creating the situation we now find ourselves in. All the bankers are guilty of is playing the same game on the institutional level as the majority of people have done on a personal level. Borrow too much, save too little. Take risks with investing (which is what people taking out huge mortgages in reliance on the housing bubble have done) - and assume the good times will go on for ever.

And this ignores the fact that in real terms we are talking minute relative numbers of people who are earning these massive bonuses and salaries - that the current economic crisis is no longer bancking led anyway.

You really should try to read my post, what I said rather than labelling me with your outrageously lazy assumptions that you could have just lifted from the Daily Mail.

I understand the financial situation and I understand who is and who is not paying the price for it.

I understand the need to make sacrifices I articulated some if them, you ignored them.

I understand the need to negotiate an equitable solution, you ignored that.

I understand the pain by those down the foodchain in the private sector, I articulated that and my concern. You ignored that. I am very concerned by what is going on in both the public and the private sector and how those lower down the foodchain - the majority of us, are being treated and the effect of the divide and rule strategy. I'm acutely aware of and concerned by the effect of all future pensioners as a result of legislative changes, taxation changes and failure of companies to maintain their pension contributions at the height of the growth in the economy. Though strangely this is not something that seems to have had a negative impact on the packages of directors.

And I am not referring to bogeymen, I am referring to a small section of society that has never had it better than they do now. People who genuinely do have gold plated pensions and people who are earning 130x the average their employees earn. These are real scenarios and if you care to look at the majority of businesses are folding, it tells you where the pain lies and the price is being paid. These are businesses that supply the majority of the population that have less and less to spend. Meanwhile luxury brands and retailers are profiting like never before. This isn't and should not be a private v public sector issue. The problem lies in that the vast majority of the population is made to face an economic future that directors and politicians are immune from.

[Letters]

Right on, comrade

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KJCs4LbA2Yk/TIlLbZhRh5I/AAAAAAAAAHs/XhfISYpt4Ew/s1600/PFJ.jpg

[IBK]

You really should try to read my post, what I said rather than labelling me with your outrageously lazy assumptions that you could have just lifted from the Daily Mail.

I understand the financial situation and I understand who is and who is not paying the price for it.

I understand the need to make sacrifices I articulated some if them, you ignored them.

I understand the need to negotiate an equitable solution, you ignored that.

I understand the pain by those down the foodchain in the private sector, I articulated that and my concern. You ignored that. I am very concerned by what is going on in both the public and the private sector and how those lower down the foodchain - the majority of us, are being treated and the effect of the divide and rule strategy. I'm acutely aware of and concerned by the effect of all future pensioners as a result of legislative changes, taxation changes and failure of companies to maintain their pension contributions at the height of the growth in the economy. Though strangely this is not something that seems to have had a negative impact on the packages of directors.

And I am not referring to bogeymen, I am referring to a small section of society that has never had it better than they do now. People who genuinely do have gold plated pensions and people who are earning 130x the average their employees earn. These are real scenarios and if you care to look at the majority of businesses are folding, it tells you where the pain lies and the price is being paid. These are businesses that supply the majority of the population that have less and less to spend. Meanwhile luxury brands and retailers are profiting like never before. This isn't and should not be a private v public sector issue. The problem lies in that the vast majority of the population is made to face an economic future that directors and politicians are immune from.

I'm outrageously lazy and a Daily Heil reader because because I don't agree with your socialist view of the world? :lol:

Too many of your ilk, IMO, are getting your ideas and targets hopelessly confused. I agree that there is too great an imbalance between those select few who command massive salaries and bonuses, and the rest of society - only a fool would think otherwise. But do you honestly think that that is the root cause of the current problems in the public sector? And are you honestly saying that there should be some socialist adjustment that will end up taking money from the rich to redistribute amongst those further down the foodchain?

People seem to forget that the highest earners are already taxed 50% - a tax BTW that has been shown to contribute ridiculously little in relative terms to the public purse and is more political than anything else.

Unless top executives' salaries are capped worldwide - the only result of the UK tring to do so will be that our economy is impoverished, and the people who suffer will be the very ones that you seek to defend. Its an intractable solution that will last as long as capitalism itself does.

The financial crisis was caused principally by governments not doing their job - and instead of regulating the banking sector burying their snouts in the trough alongside it and spending like there was no tomorrow. We all know that there is always a tomorrow - and yet nothing was done to try to plan for it. Now that the govt is trying to plan for it the strikers are doing their very best to derail the process.

Its human nature to look out for mumber one - first and foremost. Those of a socialist persuasion may seek to hide behind concern for their fellow man, but while they may indeed be more concerned about society on a general or intellectual level than those at the top of the tree, its still the bank balance that comes first - as you yourself have made clear in your posts.

[Niall_Quinn]

So people living for longer and thus needing more money to pay for their pension for longer isn't any part of the problem of how much money is needed in a pension scheme? Wow...



Which key do I press to get money? :unsure:
You can print more of course but that just devalues it and leads to inflation.

The rest of your post is just a rant and nothing to do with what I said so I'll leave that.

You're right, it's better to focus on the symptoms.

[Xhaka Can’t]

No, you were outrageously lazy because you made assumptions and ignored just about every point I made when replying to me. And you are doing it again. You make assumptions on what I think the root causes are and then base the rest of your post on what YOU assume.

As it happens, I'm not a socialist. And your last sentence about me is incorrect. I'll be relatively ok.

I'll make an assumption about you now. I am assuming you think what we have in place is a Capitalist system.

[Flavs]

You are all lazy tbf

[IBK]

No, you were outrageously lazy because you made assumptions and ignored just about every point I made when replying to me. And you are doing it again. You make assumptions on what I think the root causes are and then base the rest of your post on what YOU assume.

As it happens, I'm not a socialist. And your last sentence about me is incorrect. I'll be relatively ok.

I'll make an assumption about you now. I am assuming you think what we have in place is a Capitalist system.

:lol: You are expressing yourself in fairly socialist terms - and have the kind of typically prickly attitude that most socialists have, so its a fair assumption for me to make!

As for the bottom line - again a reasonable assumption given


I've willingly taken the pay freeze, I work longer than my contracted hours because people in my team have been laid off and I accept some changes, all of which have been detrimental to my pay and conditions, but there comes a time when enough is enough

...where you mention pay twice.

I don't know you so its inevitable that I have to make assumptions. It would be a pretty dry debate otherwise.

As for ignoring what you say, as far as I'm concerned what I have done is simply to take what you say and try to respond to it in the round, as I'm entitled to do. At least I've tried to be grown up rather than dismissing it as bullshit. ;)

[IBK]

You are all lazy tbf

I think that's probably true across this forum...! :lol: (At least is is for me until Jan when I's switching to a 'scary' job!)

[Flavs]

I think that's probably true across this forum...! :lol: (At least is is for me until Jan when I's switching to a 'scary' job!)

Why is it scary? Is it public sector...

[IBK]

Why is it scary? Is it public sector...

Fuck no - I want to earn some wedge! :lol:

[Flavs]

Fuck no - I want to earn some wedge! :lol:

You capitalist bastard!

[PGFC]

Times are hard at the top too you know, I've had to lose an under-butler but I did save on redundancy pay by killing him in a 'hunting accident' and turfing his family out of the tythe cottage whilst they were at the funeral, hard times indeed - Nine

[Niall_Quinn]

:lol: You are expressing yourself in fairly socialist terms - and have the kind of typically prickly attitude that most socialists have, so its a fair assumption for me to make!

As for the bottom line - again a reasonable assumption given



...where you mention pay twice.

I don't know you so its inevitable that I have to make assumptions. It would be a pretty dry debate otherwise.

As for ignoring what you say, as far as I'm concerned what I have done is simply to take what you say and try to respond to it in the round, as I'm entitled to do. At least I've tried to be grown up rather than dismissing it as bullshit. ;)

I think the thing that's confusing everyone is that GB is expressing things in HUMAN terms. We are conditioned to think small and I don't think anyone should be criticised or labelled for trying to break out of that box to take a good look at what's staring them in the face. It's particularly galling to be laughed at for resisting ignorance. Letters, you aren't funny mate. Not this time anyway.

[IBK]

I think the thing that's confusing everyone is that GB is expressing things in HUMAN terms. We are conditioned to think small and I don't think anyone should be criticised or labelled for trying to break out of that box to take a good look at what's staring them in the face. It's particularly galling to be laughed at for resisting ignorance. Letters, you aren't funny mate. Not this time anyway.

First lets deal with the emotive issue
It's particularly galling to be laughed at for resisting ignorance.

If you were referring to my post, I was laghing at GB's statement that
you were outrageously lazy because you made assumptions and ignored just about every point I made when replying to me. which is simply not true. I find having what I say dismissed as bullshit a mite galling but I'll get over it.

Where you are spot on I think is in your observation that this is in many ways a human (personal) as opposed to an ideological (impersonal) debate going on. I would be the first to agree on a personal level that it is hard to live with when you've signed up to a public sector job wih certain pension benefits only to have these removed. And even harder when you see the riches enjoyed by other members of society who have in many cases lived charmed/privileged lives throughout.

And its always possible to reduce issues down to the personal level - pick out individual instances of hardship or tragedy. That's why we get the shot of the malnourished child in Ethiopia as opposed to the dry facts. Respond to the dolphin washed up on the beach when 1000's are being killed in trawl nets every week.

These are hard times. Everyone apart from a tiny percenatage of the over-privileged is having to make sacrifices - some far greater than having value taken off their pensions. But there will always be the privileged few - and there always have been. As humans we always want someone to blame. But the reality is that we are in the current mess because of market forces and the human condition - which is ultimately selfish - no matter what your trade or profession happens to be.

[Flavs]

Yeah but my dads a copper :sulk:

[IBK]

Yeah but my dads a copper :sulk:

No he's not. He's dead.

[Flavs]

Yeah but my dad was a copper :sulk:

[Letters]

Letters, you aren't funny mate. Not this time anyway.

I've not tried to be. :shrug:

[IBK]

Yeah but my dad was a copper :sulk:

Super good pension then.

[Flavs]

Super good pension then.

Not in the public sector....oh i see

[Niall_Quinn]

which is simply not true. I find having what I say dismissed as bullshit a mite galling but I'll get over it.

What you are saying here is bullshit and I dismiss it.

No, I was talking about people posting up silly pictures.


But there will always be the privileged few - and there always have been. As humans we always want someone to blame. But the reality is that we are in the current mess because of market forces and the human condition - which is ultimately selfish - no matter what your trade or profession happens to be.

Right there, I don't agree with that, bar the bit about the human condition which in itself is not true or false either. We're supposed to be better than mere animals, the whole point of society is to apply our intellect to organise for the ongoing greater benefit. Otherwise what's the point, just go back to survival of the fittest. Trouble is, we've taken it too far and now we have not only survival of the un-fittest but domination by the unsuitable. It's holding the development of our species back, something even more important than the engineered (no accident involved) state of the economy. History is a guide in these matters and what we see today has happened time and time again in cycles. There is nothing new here. There will always be a privileged (euphemism for unenlightened, regressive and abusive) few if we permit it. If we choose not to then that changes. We could view this as a choice or a duty. But when we view inaction as an inevitability then we are slaves and that's not a worthy condition for the most advanced species on the planet. I just can't bring myself to reduce such complexity to paint daubing like politics, economics and other such bullshit. These are artificial distractions from the real challenge. You're right about the dolphin. 1,000 people would rush to help. But they wouldn't do it for a fellow member of their species in a faraway land and I've often wondered is that due to overwhelming control, mental illness or is it possible evil is the default condition? Anyway I have to get back to my unpaid work.

[MissHandbag]

Yes I do

[IBK]

What you are saying here is bullshit and I dismiss it.

No, I was talking about people posting up silly pictures.



Right there, I don't agree with that, bar the bit about the human condition which in itself is not true or false either. We're supposed to be better than mere animals, the whole point of society is to apply our intellect to organise for the ongoing greater benefit. Otherwise what's the point, just go back to survival of the fittest. Trouble is, we've taken it too far and now we have not only survival of the un-fittest but domination by the unsuitable. It's holding the development of our species back, something even more important than the engineered (no accident involved) state of the economy. History is a guide in these matters and what we see today has happened time and time again in cycles. There is nothing new here. There will always be a privileged (euphemism for unenlightened, regressive and abusive) few if we permit it. If we choose not to then that changes. We could view this as a choice or a duty. But when we view inaction as an inevitability then we are slaves and that's not a worthy condition for the most advanced species on the planet. I just can't bring myself to reduce such complexity to paint daubing like politics, economics and other such bullshit. These are artificial distractions from the real challenge. You're right about the dolphin. 1,000 people would rush to help. But they wouldn't do it for a fellow member of their species in a faraway land and I've often wondered is that due to overwhelming control, mental illness or is it possible evil is the default condition? Anyway I have to get back to my unpaid work.

You are right about cycles - but history shows us that as a species we are driven far often by greed and 'base desires' than by enlightenment or desire to better the lot of our society. Hell - isn't the fact that we are fucking up the very planet that we need to live on the best example of our inability to apply our considerable intellect for the greater good?

Just like the tribesman killing the last black rhinocerous in Africa so he can sell the horn to feed his large family human beings rarely have the ability to look past their own personal circumstances in favour of the majority. I think society has become progressively greedier and more materialistic, but that's part and parcel of what Western society has come to see as 'progress'.

[Letters]

I don't think it's fair to say this is about greed, Ice Berg Kamping.
The people striking are mostly those on low wages and who want a reasonable retirement - one which they were promised when they started their careers in the public sector. It doesn't matter which sector they're in actually, the point is the people striking are not going to be hugely well off in retirement either way but are not happy that the rug is being pulled from under them. No worker, public or private sector, would be happy with that.

[IBK]

I don't think it's fair to say this is about greed, Ice Berg Kamping.
The people striking are mostly those on low wages and who want a reasonable retirement - one which they were promised when they started their careers in the public sector. It doesn't matter which sector they're in actually, the point is the people striking are not going to be hugely well off in retirement either way but are not happy that the rug is being pulled from under them. No worker, public or private sector, would be happy with that.

No - you misunderstand me. The financial crisis was caused by greed - leading to banks taking ridiculous investment risks principally for the individual rewards that could be achieved. The strikes are the result of the near-bankruptcy the country has been left in because of unrestricted government spending that paid no heed to the possibility fo the bubble bursting - and the fact that so many other governments/economies followed the same model is the reason why the crisis will not go away.

My point is that the people striking are driven principally by self interest. Completely understandable. But to pretend that this is primarily about the greater good of society is IMO wide of the mark.

[Letters]

OK. Is anyone pretending it's for the greater good of society?
Of course it's basically self interest but it's understandable self interest, it's not like the people striking are going to be on 100k a year pensions and want more, they just want what they were promised.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086

<_<

[IBK]

OK. Is anyone pretending it's for the greater good of society?
Of course it's basically self interest but it's understandable self interest, it's not like the people striking are going to be on 100k a year pensions and want more, they just want what they were promised.

I don't think the amount that people get paid has anything to do with the principle of whether the strikes are justified or not. Plenty of businesses have altered the terms of their employees' contracts in these testing economic times - requiring them to work longer hours; freezing or even reducing pay or benefits. Yet when public sector workers are asked to do similar they strike. If you picture the state like a private employer like Thomas Cook - it is struggling to stay solvent and continue to have access to bank credit at reasonable rates. How do you think Thomas Cook employees feel ATM. If they were told to accept a reduction of benefits in order to safeguard their jobs what do you think they'd do, strike?

Yet because these people are employed by the state - different rules apply. We are conditioned in this counrty to see the state as some massive cash cow that can be milked forever - when the reality is that what's being milked is the taxpayer.

I am not saying that these peoples' grievances can't be understood. I'm not saying that they aren't justified. I'm saying that ultimately they must accept that if there is no more money in state coffers; if years of over borrowing have made the very future of the country and its ability to obtain credit vulnerable; if we are looking at an ageing demographic where everyone will be drawing on their pensions for longer...then something has got to give.

[Coney]

What you are saying here is bullshit and I dismiss it.

No, I was talking about people posting up silly pictures.



http://scriptsforschools.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/silly.jpg

[Cripps_orig]

Whos striking for what now?

Cba reading the thread or looking it up. As long as it doesnt affect me and it wont then who cares tbh

[Xhaka Can’t]

IBK, your post makes out that we are going on strike lightly, that we are not willing to give ground. I've had my pay frozen now for three years, have just heard that any settlement will be capped at 1 percent for the next two years.

Additionally, severance payments have been cut by over a third, despite the Government being found to have acted illegally. So they changed the law. That hasn't affected me directly yet but I've had a lot of friends it has affected. In my view they were robbed by this Government. People made career decisions based upon what could happen and the Government tore up the rulebook and these decisions that affected them so gravely were based on fallacy.

We have paid, as have others through frozen pay, losing jobs, being made cheaper to sack and despite this, we have TRIED to negotiate a fair pension settlement. This Government isn't interested in negotiating and as a consequence, Unions that have NEVER voted for strike action in their history, have done so resoundingly. Everyone of a sane mind knows things cannot go on as in the past because we can't afford it, but that does not mean the Government should use the situation in an unfair and bullying manner which they have been doing to this point.

[Syn]

A couple of demonstrations planned - posters, banners, pickets already on display. Vagrants on the streets don’t have a can to hand. Big Issue Dave’s looking quite crafty. Could get quite nasty tomorrow. Should be good fun. I might set-up a stall and charge £5 a bucket of popcorn - might as well cash in on the tourists. Sweet or salty tbf. Big decision to be made. I’ll keep my brethren posted as always.

[Letters]

Additionally, severance payments have been cut by over a third, despite the Government being found to have acted illegally. So they changed the law. That hasn't affected me directly yet but I've had a lot of friends it has affected.

Exactly what's happened to my sister. They changed the rules about redundancy pay, then they started making people redundant including my sister.

IBK, you're acting like the first little thing and the Public Secor walks out which is demonstably not true. There have been years of public sector cuts and no strikes. From talking to people I work with who are more active in the Union (I'm not even in the Union) the pension scheme has been shown to be affordable at the current contribution rate and the extra money they're asking public sector workers to pay isn't going into the pensionn fund anyway, it's effectively an extra tax which only the public sector workers will have to pay.

[IBK]

IBK, your post makes out that we are going on strike lightly, that we are not willing to give ground. I've had my pay frozen now for three years, have just heard that any settlement will be capped at 1 percent for the next two years.

Additionally, severance payments have been cut by over a third, despite the Government being found to have acted illegally. So they changed the law. That hasn't affected me directly yet but I've had a lot of friends it has affected. In my view they were robbed by this Government. People made career decisions based upon what could happen and the Government tore up the rulebook and these decisions that affected them so gravely were based on fallacy.

We have paid, as have others through frozen pay, losing jobs, being made cheaper to sack and despite this, we have TRIED to negotiate a fair pension settlement. This Government isn't interested in negotiating and as a consequence, Unions that have NEVER voted for strike action in their history, have done so resoundingly. Everyone of a sane mind knows things cannot go on as in the past because we can't afford it, but that does not mean the Government should use the situation in an unfair and bullying manner which they have been doing to this point.

Interesting post. I guess the nub of it is whether the Government is 'using the situation' or whether it feels it has little choice. I would be more inclined to believe the former if it were just the Tories, but I have heard pretty convincing arguments from Vince Cable and the Lib Dems too. Bottom line is that public expenditure - ie borrowing - needs to be cut. I've heard it put by various pro-strikers that the current pension scheme is affordable and I can't comment directly on this as I just don't know, but it stikes (geddit) me as unlikely that if if was so eminently affordable the government would be sticking to its guns on this.

There are a lot of arguments about - including the one that points to the fact that considerably fewer than 40% of those unions striking actually voted yes (I think there was only a 60% turnout amongst voters). But when bodies such as the IOD say that even the government's current offer to public sector workers is unsustainable then it seems to me that you are going to end up damaging the economy ofr the rest of us privately employed workers either way.

[server too busy!]

I'm against it, aren't public sector now paid more than the private sector. Why shouldn't they have to have the same pension as them. Isn't there more public sector workers now then private? Everyone is getting older, deal with having to work longer. Will you really give a crap when your older anyway, most people dread retirement and age drastically as they haven't got their day to day routine. Retire early if you feel the need to, public sector pensions will still be better than the private.

People should just be glad they have a job rather than striking at any opportunity.

[Coney]

It is not unsustainable. That is an exaggeration. And the IOD would say what they do, wouldn't they - the IOD is hardly a hotbed of communism.

Percentages on the votes are bollocks. The government happily spouts about how it is not representitive because of what percentage voted and what percentage of those voted for a strike. Now check what percentage voted in the last election... etc... - they are on very weak ground.

The government is also playing a deceit by the examples they give - sure, the unions counter by giving opposite examples. When they (both sides) are playing those games it is hard to know the full truth.

But when the government insists it will not budge, then in another breath says the unions are on strike and won't negotiate, that is contradictory bollocks too.

Of course, if all the government ministers and their cronies also drop their current pensions they have got from any number of sources and agree to share the load and also take the kind of pensions that they say are so generous for most of the public service people, then I might listen. They are all sitting on HUGE pensions ready for when they want to retire so they can piss off.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm against it, aren't public sector now paid more than the private sector. Why shouldn't they have to have the same pension as them. Isn't there more public sector workers now then private? Everyone is getting older, deal with having to work longer. Will you really give a crap when your older anyway, most people dread retirement and age drastically as they haven't got their day to day routine. Retire early if you feel the need to, public sector pensions will still be better than the private.

People should just be glad they have a job rather than striking at any opportunity.

I don't strike at "every opportunity". Nor do members of Unions that have never striked before in their history. Most of the rest of your post is littered with inaccuracies and missing context and it is a pity that an opinion is based upon it. And it would also appear that you've read little, if anything in this thread including even the recent posts made.

I read this on the way home from work - it will help contextualise things for you.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-24015553-myth-of-public-pension-sir-humphreys.do


The two great pension myths of our time are that public-sector pensions are unfairly generous and that they are unaffordable. And if you want a third mistake, it is to assume that the Government's plans for reform, even if they survive tomorrow's strike, will save the State any significant amount of money.

The real scandal in pensions is the way a combination of misguided accounting standards and crassly ill-considered government tax and regulatory policy has destroyed private-sector pension provision over the past 20 years. But rather than seek to right that wrong, the Government has embraced the notion that it is "unfair" that public-sector schemes have not been similarly destroyed. Why else should it be a criticism that public-sector pensions are "more generous" than those of the private sector?

There are things wrong with public pensions: some - in teaching, for example - have been too generous over the years, with ill-health retirements that assume the person affected will never seek work again and indeed encourage them not to. There has probably been too much early retirement over the years as well, with people paid off that way when, in the private sector, they would simply have been sacked for incompetence. The police have something to answer for here. But the popular perception that public-sector pensions are all about the Sir Humphreys of this world sailing into a golden sunset on a copper-bottomed index-linked pension is a fiction.

The London Pension Fund Authority (LPFA) - which is the body that gives pensions to all those who worked in the past for the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and various other arms of government in the capital - shows how far from the truth this is. Last time I checked, it had about 20,000 people on pension.

Of these, 38 were getting a pension of £100,000 a year or more - that is one in 500, a ratio significantly less than you would find in most company schemes. The average annual pension for members as a whole was £4140 -about £80 a week. Women's pensions are almost invariably much lower because they have worked fewer years, earned less or been part-time.

The average pension paid to most public-sector employees in most occupations is similarly modest. It has not been designed to make them rich. It has been designed so that when combined with the State old age pension, they can live with a reasonable degree of dignity. Although it is true the average wage in the public sector is now higher than that of the private sector, it is not because they have had massive increases. Rather it is largely because the lowest-paid public jobs have been privatised.

Nor are local authority pensions, modest though they are, usually paid by the taxpayer. Like the LPFA , most local government schemes in this country are funded - the pensions are paid from a pot built up by the contributions of members and their employers during their working lives. It is quite wrong to claim that such pensions are paid directly out of taxes.

Because there are so many different schemes, it is difficult to generalise but the idea that State-sector pensions are unaffordable is over-simplifying the matter. It has long been the case, for example, that the day-to-day cost of pensions in payment - those actually funded directly by the taxpayer - is less than the amount paid by the exchequer to individuals as tax relief on private-sector pension contributions. Massively less. In 2007-08, when public-sector pensions had a net cost to the taxpayer of £4 billion, private-sector pension relief cost the taxpayer £37.6 billion. Only in the past 12 months has this figure come closer to balance, with the introduction of a relatively low ceiling on how much relief individuals can claim.

There is a similar amount of misinformation about affordability. To look at the total cost of pension provision as a lump sum is as absurd as looking at the next 50 years' costs of the NHS as a lump sum. If instead you think of public-sector pension costs as a percentage charge on national income every year, then they are expected to grow from 1.5% of GDP now to about 2% of GDP by 2027, and then remain stable. What is so scary about that? To put the number in context, the UK's GDP is today some 14% below where it would have been if we had not hit this financial crisis and recession. Pension costs are a fleabite in comparison.

The final point is whether the Government's reforms will help. Arguably, they won't because they are trying to do too much too fast to save money rather than pursue natural justice.

The demand for increased contributions in particular is most likely to force people out of the schemes because they cannot afford the extra payments in these troubled times -about a third will pull out on some estimates.

Two things happen then. First, the funded local authority schemes have a catastrophic drop in income that will do huge damage to their investment and solvency assumptions and risks turning them into basket cases. Second, people won't have enough to live on when they get to retirement so they will become reliant on State social-security payments. The money the Government claims we will not be able to afford in pensions will be paid out anyway as welfare and poverty relief.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Interesting post. I guess the nub of it is whether the Government is 'using the situation' or whether it feels it has little choice. I would be more inclined to believe the former if it were just the Tories, but I have heard pretty convincing arguments from Vince Cable and the Lib Dems too. Bottom line is that public expenditure - ie borrowing - needs to be cut. I've heard it put by various pro-strikers that the current pension scheme is affordable and I can't comment directly on this as I just don't know, but it stikes (geddit) me as unlikely that if if was so eminently affordable the government would be sticking to its guns on this.

There are a lot of arguments about - including the one that points to the fact that considerably fewer than 40% of those unions striking actually voted yes (I think there was only a 60% turnout amongst voters). But when bodies such as the IOD say that even the government's current offer to public sector workers is unsustainable then it seems to me that you are going to end up damaging the economy ofr the rest of us privately employed workers either way.

I'd be loath to take what the IoD has to say on Public Sector pensions given that their membership has presided over the virtual destruction of viable private sector pension schemes. In fact if anything we should ALL be fearful over what they would like to see happen. Of course they are not solely responsible, they only took maximum advantage for themselves resulting from ill advised legislative changes and a disgraceful tax grab by the previous administration,

[Niall_Quinn]

but I have heard pretty convincing arguments from Vince Cable and the Lib Dems too

I find that impossible to believe. Cable was outed as an incompetent cunt during the run up to the election but it was played down. Uncle Vince - he's a two faced cunt. And whatever the Lib Dems are saying, bank on them saying the opposite tomorrow. The cunts say what they are paid to say.

[Flavs]

"Neil why aren't you striking with the rest of us"

"Because I am busy, don't have a pension and genuinely don't care about you lot"

"That's not really the spirit is it"

"Why?"

"Well the rest of us do have pensions and will suffer when retirement comes"

"Yeah but i don't care about that"

"we are all in this together"

"No we aren't I am in there and you are out here"

And that was it, no fight, no shouting and no aggro at all, its a bloody disgrace.

Motivational management :bow:

[Letters]

Last time there was a strike there were 3 people out there, more of a picket triangle than a line.
I think one had a placard (DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING), another offered me a sticker which I politely declined.

I'm on holiday this week so can't strike but I'm not in the union anyway and don't care enough to strike.

[server too busy!]

I don't strike at "every opportunity". Nor do members of Unions that have never striked before in their history. Most of the rest of your post is littered with inaccuracies and missing context and it is a pity that an opinion is based upon it. And it would also appear that you've read little, if anything in this thread including even the recent posts made.

I read this on the way home from work - it will help contextualise things for you.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-24015553-myth-of-public-pension-sir-humphreys.do

Your right I haven't read anything of this thread, just offering my opinion.

So from your article, yes public are paid more on average then private. Yes people in the public have taken advantage of the pension. Yes people in the private got screwed over in their pensions. It says that there are fewer people getting paid huge sums of money in there pension then in private, which isn't surprising when you think of what the bankers get etc.

What am I missing, that Public don't feel they should be on the same as the private, just because the private got screwed over why should they?

[Letters]

Why should anyone get screwed over?

[LDG]

Your right I haven't read anything of this thread, just offering my opinion.

So from your article, yes public are paid more on average then private. Yes people in the public have taken advantage of the pension. Yes people in the private got screwed over in their pensions. It says that there are fewer people getting paid huge sums of money in there pension then in private, which isn't surprising when you think of what the bankers get etc.

What am I missing, that Public don't feel they should be on the same as the private, just because the private got screwed over why should they?

There are pros and cons to being both Private and Public.

Problem is, that the public sector was overwhelmed with jobs that just didn't need doing; Part of Labours initiative to get people working tbh. Which whilst very nice of them, cost far too much money. And no the public sector is suffering like never before.

The private sector has gone through just as bad, if not worse over the last 4 years. And bar the fat cats, many people have lost jobs, pensions in full, and businesses as a result of the recession (to my mind caused by keeping the boom being sustained too long).

Thing that annoys me slightly, is that it's far easier to strike in the public sector than it is in the private sector. If I was to strike because I'm still on a 10% paycut, which is effectively 15 to 20% because of inflation, I get the sack.

[Letters]

Thing that annoys me slightly, is that it's far easier to strike in the public sector than it is in the private sector. If I was to strike because I'm still on a 10% paycut, which is effectively 15 to 20% because of inflation, I get the sack.

Dunno. Tube drivers go on strike all the sodding time despite being very well paid for a not that difficult job.
British Airways staff were on strike despite getting paid twice what they'd get paid for another airline.
It's not just about what sector you're in, it's about representation. In a smallish company you probably won't have any. In large companies and organisations (and the public sector are always large scale operations) you get unions and better representation.

[LDG]

Dunno. Tube drivers go on strike all the sodding time despite being very well paid for a not that difficult job.
British Airways staff were on strike despite getting paid twice what they'd get paid for another airline.
It's not just about what sector you're in, it's about representation. In a smallish company you probably won't have any. In large companies and organisations (and the public sector are always large scale operations) you get unions and better representation.

I suppose.

I might go on pretend strike tomorrow.

In fact.

Yes, I will.

"I am on leave strike until Monday 5th December. If your query is urgent....etc"

[Xhaka Can’t]

There are pros and cons to being both Private and Public.

Problem is, that the public sector was overwhelmed with jobs that just didn't need doing; Part of Labours initiative to get people working tbh. Which whilst very nice of them, cost far too much money. And no the public sector is suffering like never before.

The private sector has gone through just as bad, if not worse over the last 4 years. And bar the fat cats, many people have lost jobs, pensions in full, and businesses as a result of the recession (to my mind caused by keeping the boom being sustained too long).

Thing that annoys me slightly, is that it's far easier to strike in the public sector than it is in the private sector. If I was to strike because I'm still on a 10% paycut, which is effectively 15 to 20% because of inflation, I get the sack.

I'm not striking over a paycut and I find it strange/annoying that people do want to strike over trivial things such as a differential of 1-2% over pay. This is far more fundamental than that. While there have been countless Union abuses over the years this isn't one of them. I would also add that many of the employment rights that are taken for granted in most sectors of the economy are only in place because they were won by Unions.

LDG, I've had my pay frozen for three years now - never even contemplated striking over that - now there is a further cap of 1% - again, I'm annoyed but I don't feel that is strike worthy. I don't stike over trivial things, but here they are effectively ripping up my contract - I've based career decisions over the past 20 years on my contract - I could have earned more on earlier different decisions, but I saw the big picture and what was important to me and my family. Now that is effectively gone. I understand the game has changed and the picture looks different and I'm happy to concede things - furthur things detrimental to me, but the Government isn't even prepared to negotiate seriously.

Honestly, if you look at the rhetoric and behaviour of Government Ministers, they sound like they are stuck in the 80s and are chomping at the bit to somehow re-enact their glory years under Thatcherism.

[LDG]

I'm not striking over a paycut and I find it strange/annoying that people do want to strike over trivial things such as a differential of 1-2% over pay. This is far more fundamental than that. While there have been countless Union abuses over the years this isn't one of them. I would also add that many of the employment rights that are taken for granted in most sectors of the economy are only in place because they were won by Unions.

LDG, I've had my pay frozen for three years now - never even contemplated striking over that - now there is a further cap of 1% - again, I'm annoyed but I don't feel that is strike worthy. I don't stike over trivial things, but here they are effectively ripping up my contract - I've based career decisions over the past 20 years on my contract - I could have earned more on earlier different decisions, but I saw the big picture and what was important to me and my family. Now that is effectively gone. I understand the game has changed and the picture looks different and I'm happy to concede things - furthur things detrimental to me, but the Government isn't even prepared to negotiate seriously.

Honestly, if you look at the rhetoric and behaviour of Government Ministers, they sound like they are stuck in the 80s and are chomping at the bit to somehow re-enact their glory years under Thatcherism.

I'm not saying you're stiking because of a paycut; and in no way am I pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I just don't like the whole "striking" thing in general, but maybe it's because it has been used so frequently as a bully boy measure by the unions. I get that people aren't getting what they signed up to, but nor are the majority of people in this country. We're not just talking about pensions here, we're talking about all kinds of employment related issues.

We all have to concede that something has to be done in order that the economy gets back on track. This is the way the Government we (sort of) elected has chosen to do things. Unfortunately, we are not governing 90% of our finances anymore, as it is a world-wide economy. We're stuffed until the bog boys we are in bed with sort their shit out....

Personally, I believe the policy (not PSP's necessarily) is on the right track (overall), but I think the media handling is fucking awful.

Half of the problem with the economy right now, is how it is being reported. Average Joe is going to listen to the news and get no confidence. Positivity is one of the biggest things needed right now to kick start more prosperous times, and until we get past the bullshit being spouted on both sides of the house and by the news in general, the better.

PS. I haven't had a standard yearly payrise for 3 years either...10% cut in fact, plus inflation. They're talking about another 5% in January....:(

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm not saying you're stiking because of a paycut; and in no way am I pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I just don't like the whole "striking" thing in general, but maybe it's because it has been used so frequently as a bully boy measure by the unions. I get that people aren't getting what they signed up to, but nor are the majority of people in this country. We're not just talking about pensions here, we're talking about all kinds of employment related issues.

We all have to concede that something has to be done in order that the economy gets back on track. This is the way the Government we (sort of) elected has chosen to do things. Unfortunately, we are not governing 90% of our finances anymore, as it is a world-wide economy. We're stuffed until the bog boys we are in bed with sort their shit out....

Personally, I believe the policy (not PSP's necessarily) is on the right track (overall), but I think the media handling is fucking awful.

Half of the problem with the economy right now, is how it is being reported. Average Joe is going to listen to the news and get no confidence. Positivity is one of the biggest things needed right now to kick start more prosperous times, and until we get past the bullshit being spouted on both sides of the house and by the news in general, the better.

PS. I haven't had a standard yearly payrise for 3 years either...10% cut in fact, plus inflation. They're talking about another 5% in January....:(

I understand you not liking strikes, I don't like them and don't want to lose pay. Many others on strike don't like it either - thats why there are Unions that have called the first strikes in their history. We arent talking Bob Crow and the RMT here. I agree that things need to be done to get the economy moving, but I think it is morally wrong of this Government to use the economy to do things they don't need to do. Just like employers in the Private Sector and previous Governments didn't need to make the changes that decimated the future of the vast majority of peoples pensions for short term gain.

The changes being made and that have been made are a ticking timebomb for when the likes of you or I retire, the changes will result in the State having to support people out of poverty. It is short-sighted, and ultimately potentially very damaging to the future of public finances.

I wish people would get their shit together and sort this out, but nobody has even met since November 2nd. It is insane!


PS. I haven't had a standard yearly payrise for 3 years either...10% cut in fact, plus inflation. They're talking about another 5% in January. Well at least Arsenal did their bit by only putting ticket prices up 6.5%

[server too busy!]

I'm not saying you're stiking because of a paycut; and in no way am I pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I just don't like the whole "striking" thing in general, but maybe it's because it has been used so frequently as a bully boy measure by the unions. I get that people aren't getting what they signed up to, but nor are the majority of people in this country. We're not just talking about pensions here, we're talking about all kinds of employment related issues.

We all have to concede that something has to be done in order that the economy gets back on track. This is the way the Government we (sort of) elected has chosen to do things. Unfortunately, we are not governing 90% of our finances anymore, as it is a world-wide economy. We're stuffed until the bog boys we are in bed with sort their shit out....

Personally, I believe the policy (not PSP's necessarily) is on the right track (overall), but I think the media handling is fucking awful.

Half of the problem with the economy right now, is how it is being reported. Average Joe is going to listen to the news and get no confidence. Positivity is one of the biggest things needed right now to kick start more prosperous times, and until we get past the bullshit being spouted on both sides of the house and by the news in general, the better.

PS. I haven't had a standard yearly payrise for 3 years either...10% cut in fact, plus inflation. They're talking about another 5% in January....:(

:gp:

[IBK]

I'm not saying you're stiking because of a paycut; and in no way am I pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I just don't like the whole "striking" thing in general, but maybe it's because it has been used so frequently as a bully boy measure by the unions. I get that people aren't getting what they signed up to, but nor are the majority of people in this country. We're not just talking about pensions here, we're talking about all kinds of employment related issues.

We all have to concede that something has to be done in order that the economy gets back on track. This is the way the Government we (sort of) elected has chosen to do things. Unfortunately, we are not governing 90% of our finances anymore, as it is a world-wide economy. We're stuffed until the bog boys we are in bed with sort their shit out....Personally, I believe the policy (not PSP's necessarily) is on the right track (overall), but I think the media handling is fucking awful.

Half of the problem with the economy right now, is how it is being reported. Average Joe is going to listen to the news and get no confidence. Positivity is one of the biggest things needed right now to kick start more prosperous times, and until we get past the bullshit being spouted on both sides of the house and by the news in general, the better.

PS. I haven't had a standard yearly payrise for 3 years either...10% cut in fact, plus inflation. They're talking about another 5% in January....:(

Very well said. The press are all over this trying to create war between the public and private sector and almost welcoming economic armaggedon simply for the drama of it all. Doing as much as anything to erode confidence and make matters worse.

[Coney]

Most of the people I see complaining on TV about the strike are people in the private sector saying how well off the public sector workers are. And how they get well paid for doing bugger all. OK - if you think that is the case, why did you not get a job in the public sector? Sounds like sour grapes. And if you got crapped on by your employer by having your pension reduced or having a crap one in the first place, would you have done anything about it if you could? And if you and your colleagues could get together to protest about it, would you not do the same?

Today I saw a self-employed catering person saying how unfair it was because she didn't even have a pension. Well get a bloody grip. When I was a self-employed contractor, I got off my arse and arranged a pension that I paid into myself.

If people can't be arsed to sort out their own pension, if people think there are cushy public service jobs with fantastic pay, then do something yourself or piss off.

The trades unions need to exist and need to protect the interest of their members. The present situation makes that quite clear. The rich tory bastards in government are sacrificing bugger all, they and their mates in the city are earning obscene amounts of money. If there were no unions, the less well off would right now be being hit much harder by the government than they are at the moment. Unions sometimes have exceeded their demands - like in the winter of discontent in 1979, but be in no doubt that without reasonably strong unions, in a matter of a few years, you would get a serious reminder of why they were formed in the first place over a century ago.

[IBK]

Most of the people I see complaining on TV about the strike are people in the private sector saying how well off the public sector workers are. And how they get well paid for doing bugger all. OK - if you think that is the case, why did you not get a job in the public sector? Sounds like sour grapes. And if you got crapped on by your employer by having your pension reduced or having a crap one in the first place, would you have done anything about it if you could? And if you and your colleagues could get together to protest about it, would you not do the same?

Today I saw a self-employed catering person saying how unfair it was because she didn't even have a pension. Well get a bloody grip. When I was a self-employed contractor, I got off my arse and arranged a pension that I paid into myself.

If people can't be arsed to sort out their own pension, if people think there are cushy public service jobs with fantastic pay, then do something yourself or piss off.

The trades unions need to exist and need to protect the interest of their members. The present situation makes that quite clear. The rich tory bastards in government are sacrificing bugger all, they and their mates in the city are earning obscene amounts of money. If there were no unions, the less well off would right now be being hit much harder by the government than they are at the moment. Unions sometimes have exceeded their demands - like in the winter of discontent in 1979, but be in no doubt that without reasonably strong unions, in a matter of a few years, you would get a serious reminder of why they were formed in the first place over a century ago.

I genuinely would like to know, though, why the returns on state pensions are so much better than those on private ones. Anyone?

[Coney]

I genuinely would like to know, though, why the returns on state pensions are so much better than those on private ones. Anyone?

Easy.

Because the private sector invests the money as it is put into the pot by the company and the employee. The end pension pot depends on the state of the markets, economy, etc.
In the public sector, the pension money is not saved at all. There is no pension fund. Any money that would be in the treasury is spent immediately. When a person in the public sector retires, the pension comes out of current government spending.

When the public sector started doing pensions, had they then put the money away each week in an investment, then while there might be some cost in making sure that it always had the right value when the public sector worker retired, it would not be a 100% shortfall as it is at the moment.

Politicians of all parties have squandered the money to make themselves look good because they dodn't think further than the next possible election.


The funny thing about the private sector, though, is that although the ordinary workers in a company share in a pension fund that gets raided now and again by the comany when there is a surplus (but put nothing back when there is a shortfall), the pension funds of the directors and senior managers remains topped up to cover any eventuality. Clearly these captains of industry know something about economics that we don't because otherwise you would be left with the impression that they are a bunch of self serving greedy bastards who would sell their own grandmother if it meant an extra 2 quid a week when they retire.

[Coney]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-delighted-as-union-leaders-walk-into-strike-trap-6258013.html


Strikes by millions of public sector workers over reform of their pensions will bolster support for the Government's austerity drive, senior cabinet sources have claimed.

No 10 is said to be "delighted" at the prospect of walkouts on 30 November despite a more generous offer being made to union leaders last week. Liberal Democrat and Conservative ministers privately believe their argument will be strengthened by public anger at disruption by state workers who will still have more generous retirement funds than most in the private sector.

What a bunch of conniving toads. Mind you, I guess that is like saying that the pope shits in the woods.

[IBK]

Easy.

Because the private sector invests the money as it is put into the pot by the company and the employee. The end pension pot depends on the state of the markets, economy, etc.
In the public sector, the pension money is not saved at all. There is no pension fund. Any money that would be in the treasury is spent immediately. When a person in the public sector retires, the pension comes out of current government spending.

When the public sector started doing pensions, had they then put the money away each week in an investment, then while there might be some cost in making sure that it always had the right value when the public sector worker retired, it would not be a 100% shortfall as it is at the moment.

Politicians of all parties have squandered the money to make themselves look good because they dodn't think further than the next possible election.


The funny thing about the private sector, though, is that although the ordinary workers in a company share in a pension fund that gets raided now and again by the comany when there is a surplus (but put nothing back when there is a shortfall), the pension funds of the directors and senior managers remains topped up to cover any eventuality. Clearly these captains of industry know something about economics that we don't because otherwise you would be left with the impression that they are a bunch of self serving greedy bastards who would sell their own grandmother if it meant an extra 2 quid a week when they retire.

Cheers - genuinely didn't know that. :good: So the State effectively guarantees an annuity rate. Which is presumably why, given the fact that we are looking at anageing population and people living longer - it is predicted that the State cannot continue to do so. Also, is the issue not the fact that if you are increasing the number of public servants then at least you are increasing income into the state pension pot, but if the number is decreasing this has the opposite effect?

[Xhaka Can’t]

No. Because the money collected isn't put into a pot. It gets spent right away as will any further contributions would in the majority of public sector schemes.

I believe there are some fully funded schemes in local government. The irony of the situation is that should members contributions increase, they may be better off opting out of the scheme or they may do so because of affordability. The consequence would be a scheme that ceases to be fully funded, therefore requiring topping up by the taxpayer to meet it's obligations. That and those who opt out and don't save would create a double whammy by requiring state benefits.

[LDG]

Lots of public sector organisations places money into investments. It is not all spent straight away and ploughed back into public services.

Half of the councils in Britain were investing money from the public purse into accounts in Iceland, which is why the public is / was having to fork out for the millions lost in the bank crashes over there a few years back.

Much of the money is invested, not spent. It may not be a "pot", but to say that it is not floated somewhere to yeild more revenue is misleading.

[PGFC]

See, the public sector might be viewed more sympathetically if that one-eyed jock cunt hadn't plundered all our private-sector pension funds for his own nefarious ends...

[Flavs]

See, the public sector might be viewed more sympathetically if that one-eyed jock cunt hadn't plundered all our private-sector pension funds for his own nefarious ends...

To be fair who hasn't plundered someone else's with their nefarious end?

[PGFC]

## but never so joylessly.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Lots of public sector organisations places money into investments. It is not all spent straight away and ploughed back into public services.

Half of the councils in Britain were investing money from the public purse into accounts in Iceland, which is why the public is / was having to fork out for the millions lost in the bank crashes over there a few years back.

Much of the money is invested, not spent. It may not be a "pot", but to say that it is not floated somewhere to yeild more revenue is misleading.

None of what I pay in to my 'scheme' goes into a pot.

Not one penny of it goes into a pot or gets invested anywhere. It is an unfunded scheme. But many local government ones are fully funded and are in surplus.

[Grebbo]

Lots of public sector organisations places money into investments. It is not all spent straight away and ploughed back into public services.

Half of the councils in Britain were investing money from the public purse into accounts in Iceland, which is why the public is / was having to fork out for the millions lost in the bank crashes over there a few years back.

Much of the money is invested, not spent. It may not be a "pot", but to say that it is not floated somewhere to yeild more revenue is misleading.

I don't think you're correct. Councils were putting money collected up front from lump sum council tax payments into savings accounts and paying the bills as and when they came in throughout the year. They weren't investing it and it wasn't pension contributions.

[Grebbo]

So this week we saved 20% of the public sector wage bill and the shops were full of bored parents with kids not in school buying crap.

Sounds pretty good for the economy tbh.

[Niall_Quinn]

The question is, what would you do if some bloke walked up to you in the street and tried to stick his dick up your arse? And what if he asked you to pay him for the perceived privilege?

I'm thinking most of you would punch his lights out. But it's not like that with government. People simply say, yes we definitely need to pay to get raped, "everyone knows that™", but we need to protest about the size of the dick being used. Smaller would be better is the general thinking - although there are also those who beg for something bigger.

Until we snap out of this blind acceptance of the gang of criminals running the show then every solution is temporary at best and usually engineered for the purposes of misdirection. Hey your shoelaces are undone! Bang goes that dick up your shitter as soon as you bend over.

[LDG]

:haha:

[Coney]

The question is, what would you do if some bloke walked up to you in the street and tried to stick his dick up your arse? And what if he asked you to pay him for the perceived privilege?

I'm thinking most of you would punch his lights out. But it's not like that with government. People simply say, yes we definitely need to pay to get raped, "everyone knows that™", but we need to protest about the size of the dick being used. Smaller would be better is the general thinking - although there are also those who beg for something bigger.

Until we snap out of this blind acceptance of the gang of criminals running the show then every solution is temporary at best and usually engineered for the purposes of misdirection. Hey your shoelaces are undone! Bang goes that dick up your shitter as soon as you bend over.

I was wondering what made my eyes water when I picked up that pound coin.