Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

real1314

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Thats because the rest of the population is not propping up the deficit!

Do you have any idea of how profit is made?
Or did their pension contributions come from the magic money tree?

Or from the work done by the employees of the companies, which led to profits.
Funny that their pensions can be sustained but the employees pensions could not.
And the workers were stupid enough to just accept that "some animals are more equal than others".

Perhaps the public sector are the ones who can see clearly? :cool:

The_Angry_Jock

real1314 wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how profit is made?
Or did their pension contributions come from the magic money tree?

Or from the work done by the employees of the companies, which led to profits.
Funny that their pensions can be sustained but the employees pensions could not.
And the workers were stupid enough to just accept that "some animals are more equal than others".

Perhaps the public sector are the ones who can see clearly? :cool:

But if a product becomes too expensive you can go and spend your money elsewhere or not at all, can't do that with taxes.

EDIT: Saying the PS sees thing clearly followed by a smiley wearing dark glasses tickles my funnybone

real1314

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

But if a product becomes too expensive you can go and spend your money elsewhere or not at all, can't do that with taxes.

EDIT: Saying the PS sees thing clearly followed by a smiley wearing dark glasses tickles my funnybone

So, when Gas and Electric gets too expensive I can just stop using them?
And can I reasonably avoid shopping at Tesco/Asda/Sainsburys/Morrisions without incurring extra travel costs that negate any choice?

Do we really have any great degree of customer choice or do we have semi-monopolistic markets?

Anyway, you get just as much, if not more choice, as you can vote and elect a government to change taxation. You can't vote on the Director's of Tesco getting too much pay and pension (48% rise in the last year for FTSE directors?)

The_Angry_Jock

real1314 wrote: »

So, when Gas and Electric gets too expensive I can just stop using them?

Last time I check there was more than one supplier. There are also ways you can make your own energy.

real1314 wrote: »

And can I reasonably avoid shopping at Tesco/Asda/Sainsburys/Morrisions without incurring extra travel costs that negate any choice?

Internet shopping would remove your travel costs entirely.

real1314 wrote: »

Do we really have any great degree of customer choice or do we have semi-monopolistic markets?

Semi-monopolistic is still better than monopolistic, there's very few products we rely on, energy being one of them. With the taxes we have to pay for every "product" whether we use it personally or not.

real1314

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Last time I check there was more than one supplier. There are also ways you can make your own energy.

But there's not much to choose between them, and creating your own energy is not really financially viable for most people.

Internet shopping would remove your travel costs entirely.

But the goods available are limited and the prices not really much better. Food is hardly a viable internet proposition

Semi-monopolistic is still better than monopolistic, there's very few products we rely on, energy being one of them. Food being the other. And quite a significant part of spending for many

With the taxes we have to pay for every "product" whether we use it personally or not.

We pay for everything from Taxation, but in many cases we gain a benefit even from non-use.

I pay for insurance, but I don't use it!

Education of others increases the economy; Health spending provides us all with a safety net of care; Benefits provide a form of insurance against hardship.

If we had no benefit system, how many people would voluntarily buy insurance? And who would sort out the problem of their hardship if they ended up without income? Do we let children starve? :cool:

The_Angry_Jock

real1314 wrote: »

I pay for insurance, but I don't use it!

You don't need insurance and you aren't forced to pay for it (with the exception of car insurance if you want to drive it on the roads...but then do you really need a car etc etc)

real1314 wrote: »

Education of others increases the economy; Health spending provides us all with a safety net of care;.Benefits provide a form of insurance against hardship.

All can be had privately.

real1314 wrote: »

If we had no benefit system, how many people would voluntarily buy insurance? And who would sort out the problem of their hardship if they ended up without income? Do we let children starve? :cool:

The problem is that the successive Governments since WW2 have made the public ever more dependent on it. That's wrong.

You PS guys really love going straight to the lowest common denominator in order to justify things. Maybe if the benefits system wasn't so lax there wouldn't be so many children living below the poverty line :cool: Whatever...

You're doing a fine job of diverting any relevent discussion away from your belief in the complete lack of choice consumers have (basically what this site is about).

J_i_m

This might wind some people up and I do expect many uptight and sarcastic replies from whichever side of the debate.

I read a trust (my emloyer) e-mail today. Basically by the very tone of it I perceive that striking will not be encouraged within my trust. Remember I already decided that I would not be striking, partly due to not having voted (nor even received a ballot paper) and partly due to moral obligations.

However from what I can gather is that no overtime (and definitely not an overtime rate) will be paid to anyone covering work forsaken by a striking employee. Any one off sick days taken on the day of the strike will viewed with the utmost suspicion. Staff who are expecting child care upheavals are urged to organise cover or swap swifts etc ahead of the 30th.

Basically as far as we're concerned, strike or no strike it's business as usual on the wards which as it should be. I just thought this was worth pointing out.

BobQ

J_i_m wrote: »

This might wind some people up and I do expect many uptight and sarcastic replies from whichever side of the debate.

I read a trust (my emloyer) e-mail today. Basically by the very tone of it I perceive that striking will not be encouraged within my trust. Remember I already decided that I would not be striking, partly due to not having voted (nor even received a ballot paper) and partly due to moral obligations.

.

Why would any public sector employer encourage staff to strike. Of course they will do all they can to encourage staff to work and continue to provide the service, and that will include allowing any that can to work at home.

A strike is just a way of protesting about the Government's anti-public sector behaviour. Nobody needs an excuse for not striking. I have heard many people's explanations for not participating in industrial action over the years. Morality is always a good one, it sounds so honourable and principled but is often a euphemism for I do not want to lose the money.

If I were a public sector worker I would be striking reluctantly on this rather historic occasion. I know that public sector pension reform is needed but can sympathise with their outrage over the unprincipled way the Coalition is treating them. As I have nothing better to do that day I will take my regular walk at one of their rallys to make up for those who should be striking but have their excuses for not doing so.

real1314

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

You don't need insurance and you aren't forced to pay for it (with the exception of car insurance if you want to drive it on the roads...but then do you really need a car etc etc)

Well, the insurance can be seen as tax as much as road tax is a tax.

All can be had privately.

At what cost? Is it comparable? Would people pay it?

The problem is that the successive Governments since WW2 have made the public ever more dependent on it. That's wrong.

That's a different point though. The basis is that it is a form of insurance. The actual cost/dependency issue is not one I'd disagree with; I pay tax too.

You PS guys really love going straight to the lowest common denominator in order to justify things. Maybe if the benefits system wasn't so lax there wouldn't be so many children living below the poverty line :cool: Whatever...

Again, the laxity is a different issue. The key question iswhether it should exist as a form of insurance

You're doing a fine job of diverting any relevent discussion away from your belief in the complete lack of choice consumers have (basically what this site is about). A lot of your points have simply been ad hominem (or at least ad "organisation" if that makes any sense)remarks, as a few of these are; You're hardly in a position to pull me up for not relating posts to consumer issues;

Besides all those comments above, every single point you quoted was about consumer spending. If you can't see the connection, maybe you need to think about it a bit more.

Let's give you an example.
Public Sector Education costs about £5-6k per child per year
People generally complain when the suggestion is made that we should spend more on education.
The LibDems proposed 1p extra tax a few years ago, half a penny on education, half a penny on health.
The average earner would have paid £250 extra a year.
It was not popular, yet most people directly benefit from education, through their children/grandchildren.
Hence we can conclude that the public in general are not prepared to spend more on education.

Private Sector Education costs at least £8.5k per child per year, in fact in a lot of private schools it can easily be double that.
Therefore by comparing the amount that the public are not prepared to pay (£6k + £250) we can conclude that they would not invest in education if it were only offered privately.

This is a direct comparison of consumer spending and the value /cost issue.

As the public are not prepared to spend enough to fund a level of education sufficient for the nation's economy we can deem this a market failure, on the basis of a "merit" good that is insufficiently taken up.
Therefore we must, for the economic well-being of the nation, provide education from the public sector. :cool:

Koicarp

J_i_m wrote: »

Remember I already decided that I would not be striking, partly due to not having voted (nor even received a ballot paper) and partly due to moral obligations.

Have I missed it J I M or have you not yet told us which union you are in?