270,000 Civil Service Workers To Strike For 2 Days

RobertoMoir

abaxas wrote: »

But very useful in times when you want to get rid of staff. Get rid of those who dont want to work.

Well they do want to work. They're striking to protest the employment contract being changed to make it cheaper to get rid of them.

lostinrates

kabayiri wrote: »

I know people who are grads there on rolling annual temporary contracts. There is.

This is going to show how long I've been out of work, because I have no idea, but isn't everybody now who is employed on a sort of annual contract a oppose to just ''having a job''? where did I get that idea?

Mr.Brown_4

What does annoy me is these people who should be grateful to have a job funded out of my tax money complaining about it. Not only that, but they seem to lack the manners that a job in service entails. Half of them can hardly be bothered to address you as Sir (or Madam I suppose if you have let the wife deal with them). And they seem to strike eveyr other minute for more money, paid holidays - even something called Paternity leave I ask you.

And the pensions! Don't talk to me about the pensions. I was only saying to my chaffeur this morning...

prowla

Well, it is their democratic right to strike, if they believe they have a genuine grievance.
However, apart from some possible headlines, most of us won't even notice.

Kohoutek

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Pensioners have also done well under Labour (compared to previous Tory govt.)

Bit of a challenge for the Tories to persuade those pretty large groups to vote for them

I think pension related benefits will be cut whoever gets in power, but Labour's unprecedented largesse to pensioners has certainly built up a lot of votes like you say. Osborne talked about raising the pension age a while back, but they've got quiet recently in response to Labour's spin about not making cuts.

I'm sure the eligibility for the state pension will be changed to a higher age, perhaps to 68 for people under 50 or 55 now and to 70 for younger people.

The (non-means tested) winter fuel allowance and free TV licences cost £3.2 billion/year that we can't afford right now too.

sjaypink

Anyone actually witness any picket lines?

In my region apparently the strikers were less than 5%, and they probably didn't care about the 'cause' anyway, just fancied a day of getting the garden tidied up whilst the sun was out.

michaels

I crossed a picket line on my way in this AM but had my mp3 player on so not sure what they were trying to say to me - however I noticed that a couple on my floor who I thought were part of the picket group actually appeared a few minutes later so were obviously just on a ciggie break...

Not sure why people on here are so anti- these guys have a contract, the employer wants to change the conditions, they are entitled to strike. Yes it may be that the total package is more generous than the equivalent private sector job package but may be the opportunities are less too for excitement, promotion in merit rather than time served etc. Those who object what stops you from jacking in what you do now and taking one of these feather-bedded jobs instead?

Spartacus_Mills

westv wrote: »

Only if the private sector worker gets the minimum. I'm sure I read on the net somewhere that around 50% get more than that. Myself, when I got made redundant (private sector), received 30 weeks pay + extra.

Good for you, have a cookie.

The current redundancy pay offs in the public sector are scandalous. In the private sector people get far less and the money does not come from the hard pressed taxpayer. In the Public sector the money comes from us.

These bone idle slackers should be grateful they have a job and get back to work.

The public sector should get the legal minimum.

dori2o

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Good for you, have a cookie.

The current redundancy pay offs in the public sector are scandalous. In the private sector people get far less and the money does not come from the hard pressed taxpayer. In the Public sector the money comes from us.

These bone idle slackers should be grateful they have a job and get back to work.

The public sector should get the legal minimum.

Whether or not you deem the payout scandalous is not the issue at all. I couldn't care what we get, but once I have signed a contract,that contract should not be allowed to be changed without my agreement.

Hows about this, you work for an employer, your contract of employment, signed by you and only amendable if both parties agree, is then changed without your agreement.

For example, your employment contract states you will work 35 hours for £24000 a year. Then your employer says, sorry but your salary will now be £22000 a year and you have to work 40 hours a week and imposes this without agreeing it with you.

Would you be happy?

It's the same principle. When I signed my contract I was agreeing to the terms of that contract,the company by asking me to sign that contract was agreeing to abide by that contract. To then decide they want to change certain terms and conditions without my agreement is not right.

Would they like it if I changed the terms and conditions without their agreement. Should I change the contract so that I only work 32 hours? Do you think they would allow me to do this?

As for those commenting on how 'lazy' all us civil servants are, maybe that can be said about those in higher ranking positions, many of whom simply cannot justify their jobs. However, those like me on the front line work hard from the minute we walk in to the minute we go home, for a very poor return when compared to the private sector. The average annual salary in the UK (excluding London areas) is £24000, I currently take home more than £7k less than this.

So before you go tarring everybody with the same brush, just take a moment to think.

lostinrates

dori2o wrote: »

Would they like it if I changed the terms and conditions without their agreement. Should I change the contract so that I only work 32 hours? Do you think they would allow me to do this?

Practically Generali hit the nail on its head way back with employment law beating contract law, but the caveat about retrospective application.



But, less tangibly practical I feel that what is described above: this really happens to all of us all the time...as heinous as it feels...its life.

In the private sector I know people struggling to meet bills on time because three years ago they had a season ticket loan: a small boon perhaps, but one that they based their finances around receiving. Other people still lost other perks: gym memberships, the subsidised canteens, etc etc.

Losing a job in itself when you are good at it, when yo want it, seems unfair, and I hate to sound trite, but life IS unfair.

I just don't know about this redundancy stuff, and have no particular axe to grind against public sector, but when people's argument is that ''its unfair'' I find myself wondering who else its unfair for if we preserve the fairness for those people....