270,000 Civil Service Workers To Strike For 2 Days

abaxas

cosyc wrote: »

But that's the point of the strike, now they want to rid of civil servants they are changing the conditions of service so they don't have to pay us. They are loads of people who would go if they offered volantary packages but they prefer to target people who want to stay but are in areas not in a major city but won't pay for them to move to where the work is. So bye bye with half the money than you would have have got last year.

Look at it the other way round, would you pay your employer £10,000's if you wanted to leave?

Double standards at it's worst. Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie, but I will give you nothing etc.

Generali

abaxas wrote: »

So the law governing strikes negates the employment contract?

That a crock of **** country we live in.

Of course it does as it does in any country.

I can't sign an enforcable contract with you enabling me to lend you money secured on your life for example. Even if we both enter into the contract freely, I can't kill you legally if you refuse to repay me.

In the same way, an employment contract must take into account the legal framework in which it operates such as the 'right' to strike.

ManAtHome

cosyc wrote: »

they are changing the conditions of service so they don't have to pay them.

Is being reported as a redundancy cap at £60,000 - or are there other T&Cs which would allow nothing to be paid?
From the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/07/whitehall-strike-redundancy-payouts

The government has spent 18 months negotiating the changes, which will cap redundancy payments for those earning more than £30,000 a year at twice their annual salary. Five other civil service unions have accepted the deal, which will save £500m over three years.
Tessa Jowell, the Cabinet Office minister, said the government had already agreed that civil servants earning less than £30,000 – 80% of the total – will still qualify for redundancy worth up to three years' salary.

abaxas

Generali wrote: »

Of course it does as it does in any country.

I can't sign an enforcable contract with you enabling me to lend you money secured on your life for example. Even if we both enter into the contract freely, I can't kill you legally if you refuse to repay me.

In the same way, an employment contract must take into account the legal framework in which it operates such as the 'right' to strike.

So what you are saying is that our employment law disadvnatages business? I think you are right.

Maybe time for a more level playing field?

ILW

cosyc wrote: »

But that's the point of the strike, now they want to rid of civil servants they are changing the conditions of service so they don't have to pay them. They are loads of people who would go if they offered volantary packages but they prefer to target people who want to stay but are in areas not in a major city but won't pay for them to move to where the work is. So bye bye with half the money than you would have have got last year.

What a load of whinging. In the real world where a small company runs out of money and goes bust, the people laid off are lucky if they get their last months pay. Wake up.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The government has spent 18 months negotiating the changes, which will cap redundancy payments for those earning more than £30,000 a year at twice their annual salary. Five other civil service unions have accepted the deal, which will save £500m over three years.

Tessa Jowell, the Cabinet Office minister, said the government had already agreed that civil servants earning less than £30,000 – 80% of the total – will still qualify for redundancy worth up to three years' salary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/07/whitehall-strike-redundancy-payouts

:eek:

2 years pay as redundancy!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they want to strike over that?????:mad:

Zero sympathy.

In fact, let them take as much unpaid strike time as they want.

Nobody will notice they're gone anyway.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cosyc wrote: »

So bye bye with half the money than you would have have got last year.

But ten or twenty times the money someone working in the private sector would get.

You public sector people are in for a very rude awakening over the next few years.

Generali

abaxas wrote: »

So what you are saying is that our employment law disadvnatages business? I think you are right.

Maybe time for a more level playing field?

Well yes, there are lots of laws that disadvantage business in favour of other groups (eg strike laws, unfair and unlawful dismissal, anti-discrimination laws) and there are others that advantage business over individuals (eg limited liability, bankruptcy laws).

The law of the land should come before contact law IMO unless the law is to be enforced retrospectively.

phatbear

Have my own opinions on the strike which I wont go into but here are some facts:

only 31% of pcs members voted at all and only 20% voted for the strike.

so given that probably only half of civil servants are in the union the actual number of people voting yes for a strike is minimal.

personally im going in today, dont tell the boss though as it will be a nice suprise when I turn up, but thats purely a matter of economics I cant afford to lose a few hundred quid for 2 days off work when the stirke will have zero impact, when was the last time industrial actions worked anywhere is the point I keep making to my more miltant colleagues

phatbear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But ten or twenty times the money someone working in the private sector would get.

but the flip side is, on average, a civil servants overall pay tends to be less than someone in the private sector