Public Sector Strikes

Le73Uq86Uv

It don't take long before 580K turns into millions.

I am in support of the public sector pensions but what I think they should do is all pull out on mass.

That way no need to strike and they get more money in pockets.

But the scheme is no longer viable and who would fund the current pensioners?

Then see the goverment reaction.

Flyboy152

dreavi wrote: »

How can it be selfish? If younger public sector workers withdraw their pension contributions thats their right. In fact if they think they can make the money work harder for them by pulling it out I'd say thats the sensiable course of action.

My pension contributions are for my retirement, I'm not supporting a system that I wont get to enjoy. If that makes me Selfish then so be it, I want to spend my retirement sitting on a beach with Pina Colada, not in a council bedsit in Hull

Yeah...best of luck with that.

dreavi

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yeah...best of luck with that.

Dont need luck friend. Just prudent financial planning, a decent property portfolio and being one half of a couple earning a decent salary.

We are well on the way and I haven't even hit thirty yet, having no kids to drain off our income helps a lot as well

Rotor

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

It don't take long before 580K turns into millions.

I am in support of the public sector pensions but what I think they should do is all pull out on mass.

That way no need to strike and they get more money in pockets.

But the scheme is no longer viable and who would fund the current pensioners?

Then see the goverment reaction.

I definitly support you in this. It is , however , good example of how little some of the public sector appreciate the value (and therefore cost) of final salary pensions

As for who would then fund it. Joe Muggins the taxpayer thats who ; same person who funds it now. Participant contributions only make up a small proportion of the actual costs - thats the problem!

fluffnutter

Rotor wrote: »

I definitly support you in this. It is , however , good example of how little some of the public sector appreciate the value (and therefore cost) of final salary pensions

As for who would then fund it. Joe Muggins the taxpayer thats who ; same person who funds it now. Participant contributions only make up a small proportion of the actual costs - thats the problem!

Just join the public sector! Problem solved (for the individual at least).

jonnyd281

What are UNISON looking at taking strike action over, listening to the General Secretary on the BBC this morning and it sounded like they wanted to strike over raising the state retirement age for women to 65. Surely a union can't justify a sexual discrimination by having to seperate retirement ages for men and women, with me he has just lost you your argument with me, this is not about pensions it is a political strike.

Another thing that bothers me how can the PCS strike, when the figures published showed one that less than a fifth of the membership voted for strike action, yet of those that voted the overwhelming majority (I think the figure was 81%) voted for action less than strike action, PCS rep I don't see you having a mandate for strike action, I see you with one for something like work to rule.

Rotor

KME91 wrote: »

OK I'm a public sector worker and a union rep for PCS, one of the unions going on strike on 30th june, and I'd like to correct some misconceptions.

Firstly we will not be getting paid for going on strike, either by the employer or the union, there is no strike pay at all in PCS, we will lose the days pay, end of. no idea what the other unions are doing but that's where we are.

Secondly we are going on strike because we feel we need to defend our contractually agreed pensions from cuts. The day I started work I signed a contract agreeing the terms of my pension. That contract is now on the verge of being breached to fund a deficit which is actually no worse than the one in existence at the time when the government of the time launched the welfare state.

Thirdly this is not just about pensions. we want to deliver services. we believe in what we do. people don't join the civil service, or become teachers, or wildlife wardens, or social workers, for the money or for the fun of it. we believe that this country needs and deserves the services we provide and we are very very worried about where this country will be left if those services are lost.

Finally, it is a fundamental right of the worker to withdraw their labour when the situation becomes intolerable. this right is enshrined in law, and the trade union movement fights to protect that right under ever increasing attacks. to lose that right would mean that we are essentially subject to a form of slavery. agree to whatever the employer says or lose your job, worse still quit over this and be prosecuted for breach of contract! wages cut by half? deadly working conditions? holidays slashed? tough.

The divide and conquer approach of the media and government is something that should be questioned at every opportunity. so you work in the private sector? Your pension currently is not as good as mine? your terms and conditions are rubbish? you don't have a union to join? I have news for you. that's not my fault either as a civil servant or a union member. It's your fault, but there's plenty you can do about it. you want a better pension? stand up and fight for it. You want decent terms and conditions? Likewise. you want your colleagues to back you up on this so you're not on your own? well that's a union. go for it. I am more than willing to stand alongside you and help you. we as workers have as much control as the employer does in these things if we stand together.

The media is demanding a race to the bottom. my pension's better than yours, therefore mine should be brought down to meet yours. How does that benefit society in the end? short term narrow minded thinking, which doesn't help anyone. oh hang on, that's what they're accusing unions of.......

In extremis I DO agree with the right to strike but modern employment rights and H &S legislation have made it largely redundant.
Those most prone to striking are not the downtrodden, close to minimum wage earners or those in dangerous industries ( farm workers builders etc.) but the heavily unionised.
Reinforces the truism " those with the biggest guns are keenest to go to war"
As for your last paragraph. Well earlier I was accused of being patronising but I bow down in admiration. Your implication that you are doing us a favour by showing us what a good pension we could have if only we could force someone else to pay for it is brilliant. But who can we get to pay for ours?

As for the contract- it's clearly not a breach of contract. If it were you would be in court now not going on strike. It's happened throughout the private sector to many times the number of people you're representing and is necessary.
The Hutton Report recommended this , the coalition govt. know this is needed and SO DOES the labour party ( Ed Balls has stated that a Labour govt. would be doing the same thing!)

worldwheeler

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't get it. I can understand that people don't agree with striking. I can understand that people have difficulties with some aspects of the public sector workforce. I don't share those views but I appreciate that people have valid and heartfelt reasons for holding them.

But to think that employees don't deserve rights - that the "workforce" (not my use of quotes btw) is stupid and not 'deserving' is unbelievable, frankly. There are very, very few 'employers'; we are virtually all workers, millions and millions and millions of us. That we're not worthy of respect and decent conditions sounds positively 19th century to me. God, even the Victorians treated people better than some on this board are suggesting.

This whole debate is about divide and rule. The media brainwash the public into see their neighbour as their enemy. The financial system focuses public scrutiny, through an obliging media that gave up investigative reporting years ago, on the fact that someone should be grateful for a job whatever the pay and conditions. If not then someone worse off than you will do that job for less. This leads to all labour should work and be grateful for the bag of chips they get at the end of a shift. Welcome to slavery.
The financial system depends of infinite growth as all money is brought into existence as debt, to be repaid with interest. Read John Pilger, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Bill Stills. Watch Bill Hicks and George Carlin's greatest moment. It could take the sleep from your eyes.

Rotor

fluffnutter wrote: »

Just join the public sector! Problem solved (for the individual at least).

What ! Join the dark side you mean? Annoyed Darth Vader was about losing his pension.:p

Thought I was qualified to be a teacher - I hate kids and everything, but seems you need some book learning too.

paramedic

biggaz26 wrote: »

Personally I think, those that do, have cheek going on strike.

Most people in the private sector have had pension rights reduced and told that we have to work until later in life and contribute more whilst earning less and working longer hours.

Then because your super duper pensions are having to be funded your hiting the hard working average man/woman by striking.

The government dont give a !!!!! It wont effect them.

All that and you get school holidays of as well....the cheek of it;)

That seems to be the problem with a lot of people. They seem to think that EVERYONE in the public sector has an easy life working school hours and having all school holidays off. There are other occupations in the public sector apart from teachers!!

I am a Paramedic and work an average 37.5 hrs a week including days and nights. On an average 12 hour shift, I am entitled to one HALF hr break and regularly work over my end of shift time. The typical day involves picking people up off the ground, carrying them downstairs, lifting them onto our stretcher and then the opposite at hospital quite a few times a day. Mentally, we have to deal with horrific scenes and often have to deal with family members at their time of loss. We are more skilled than nurses and work alone without the need for a doctors signature to administer medication. We are not given beds to sleep in at night unlike the Fire Service. Ambulance staff have a history of early retirement on ill health grounds through musculo-skeletal injuries and cardiac related illnesses and hardly any staff manage to work to full retirement age of 65 due to the demands of the job.

We have stringent response times to meet and when you phone for the Emergency services, Ambulance Service is one of the choices. Yet the Government does not regard us as an Emergency Service and gives early retirement options only to military, police and fire based on the physical demands.
Policing may have been physically demanding when they had time to be 'on the beat' but now is only at a time of restraining individuals which is less since the introduction of CS spray and Tazers.

Fire service has changed to containment where they will not actually fight fires but stop it spreading. They will not enter a building unless persons are reported to reduce risk to themselves and quite rightly. They have the lowest call out of the 3 Emergency services and so have to fill their time fitting free smoke alarms further decreasing the need for full time staff.

Emergency and Military staff should be 30 yrs service or 55 for retirement (Paramedics included!)
Nurses and Prison staff should be aged 60
All other Public sector should be as State pension age.



Military, fair enough. Physically and mentally demanding!