Can the LibDems sink any lower?

chewmylegoff

claiming that the right to strike is the only thing that sets us aside from oppressive dictatorships is a bit sensationalist isn't it.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

MikeR71 wrote: »

I hate to make such comparison, but if strike action becomes illegal then what exactly is the difference between a progressive western democracy like ours and the dictatorial backward systems of some 3rd world and middle eastern countries like Iran and Syria? In those countries the strike laws are very very limited and you have to have all sorts of permission to do so which you never get.

If striking becomes outlawed and a criminal offence, then what's the difference between our social system and their autocratic one?

p.s. I know the obvious differences but I am asking about the right to strike in particular.

Iran & Syria dont bother about the cameras?

Cant think of anything else.

MikeR71

Read my p.s. again. I said I am aware of differences and was drawing attention on the right to strike.

Today they outlaw the right to strike, tomorrow they will introduce a bill to restrict other rights and slowly slowly they erode them all so that they can get on with their policies without any protest.

grizzly1911

Interesting that in Greece, the austerity measures affecting the public sector(biggest employer) are leading to a reduction in spending, high streets are starting to close down and less VAT being collected causing them more problems.

Perhaps, rather than striking, a no purchase policy (especially big ticket items - you can still have some chocolate) might have more affect. :think:

How you would coordinate and monitor it I don't know.

Milarky

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Just towing the Tory line

Gotcha!........

AndyGuil

The Times covered the pensions row today. They explain that for a private sector worker to gain the same pension as a public sector worker they need to contribute 40% of their salary. People are living longer than the 10 years after retirement the pension is designed to cover. The changes are understandable. Even those in the private sector have had major changes to pensions recently, businesses would go bust otherwise, why should the government be any different? Life expectancy is increasing by 3 years every decade.

grizzly1911

AndyGuil wrote: »

The Times covered the pensions row today. They explain that for a private sector worker to gain the same pension as a public sector worker they need to contribute 40% of their salary. People are living longer than the 10 years after retirement the pension is designed to cover. The changes are understandable. Even those in the private sector have had major changes to pensions recently, businesses would go bust otherwise, why should the government be any different? Life expectancy is increasing by 3 years every decade.

On the basis that very few average people can put away anywhere near 40% even including employer contribution, private or public, the future for the majority is very bleak then.

I think the issue is much bigger than this current private/public pension debate. Don't dispute the latter needs modernisation.

This debate will help deflect from the underlying problem which Governments of all persuasions are not really addressing.

This country is deteriorating at an ever greater pace.

At least giving the keys back to the Taliban will provide some respite soon.

johnny_storm

MikeR71 wrote: »

Read my p.s. again. I said I am aware of differences and was drawing attention on the right to strike.

Today they outlaw the right to strike, tomorrow they will introduce a bill to restrict other rights and slowly slowly they erode them all so that they can get on with their policies without any protest.

Were you asleep during the last 13 years of labour? Thats exactly what they did.

MikeR71

AndyGuil wrote: »

The Times covered the pensions row today. They explain that for a private sector worker to gain the same pension as a public sector worker they need to contribute 40% of their salary. People are living longer than the 10 years after retirement the pension is designed to cover. The changes are understandable. Even those in the private sector have had major changes to pensions recently, businesses would go bust otherwise, why should the government be any different? Life expectancy is increasing by 3 years every decade.

Don't forget that public sector employees on average get paid far less than those doing the same job in the private sector.
A better pension is all that public sector employees have had to console themselves with and now you are arguing that it's not fair and needs changing?
Private sector employees often have amassed more wealth by the time they retire while most public sector workers are still paying off a mortgage in their 60s. It's going to be more and more like this.

johnny_storm wrote: »

Were you asleep during the last 13 years of labour? Thats exactly what they did.

Oh I know. I was just saying what successive governments did to erode our rights. I get mad when leftists/labour people blame Thatcher for everything because in many ways the Blair years were far worse.

dtsazza

MikeR71 wrote: »

I hate to make such comparison, but if strike action becomes illegal then what exactly is the difference between a progressive western democracy like ours and the dictatorial backward systems of some 3rd world and middle eastern countries like Iran and Syria?

If striking becomes outlawed and a criminal offence, then what's the difference between our social system and their autocratic one?

...

Today they outlaw the right to strike, tomorrow they will introduce a bill to restrict other rights and slowly slowly they erode them all so that they can get on with their policies without any protest.

I understand where you're coming from, but from my perspective that's just begging the question. You think it would be a travesty because you consider it fundamentally important, whereas I think it would be a triviality because (as was the point of my post) I do not see why this is considered so important.

If you want to see things from my perspective, imagine if you were talking about removing the right to kill a Welshman with a bow and arrow. You could claim that that's a start of a slippery slope too - but I see it something which we happen to have now*, but which the lack of would not cause our society to be unjust.


So to reiterate my question, I'd be very grateful if you could explain to me exactly why you consider the right to strike - i.e. to violate the terms of a mutually accepted, bipartite contract (as I see it) - to be so fundamental to a fair society?


*according to the urban legend which is almost certainly false