Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Zelazny

DCodd wrote: »

It seems they are "not happy" about the announcement.



Quite rightly too. If I was negotiating my remuneration package with my boss and he announced the proposals to the rest of my collegues before we had finished the meeting, then I would be rightfully peeved too.[/LEFT]

Sure, I'd be annoyed if the details of my personal pension details were leaked, but if you were discussing the remuneration of all of your colleagues as well it would surely be a different matter?

Old_Slaphead

DCodd wrote: »

Quite rightly too. If I was negotiating my remuneration package with my boss and he announced the proposals to the rest of my collegues before we had finished the meeting, then I would be rightfully peeved too

What about if you were negotiating on behalf of your colleagues (but not yourself). Suppose your employer made what he thought was a good offer but you decided to be bloody-minded and refused tell your colleagues or give them the chance to discuss it?

DCodd

Zelazny wrote: »

Sure, I'd be annoyed if the details of my personal pension details were leaked, but if you were discussing the remuneration of all of your colleagues as well it would surely be a different matter?

No not at all, if I was negotiating then I would tell my collegues what was available once we had concluded the negotiations and not have my employer giving a running commentary to all and sundry.

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

What about if you were negotiating on behalf of your colleagues (but not yourself). Suppose your employer made what he thought was a good offer but you decided to be bloody-minded and refused tell your colleagues or give them the chance to discuss it?

But that is not what is happening here.

IMHO, the Unions are rightly annoyed because details of the negotiations are being announced prior to agreement for the sole purpose of following a political agenda of attempting to alienate a section of the UK public and create a rift between that section and the rest of society as a bargaining tool.

dshart

NAR wrote: »

Latest proposal announced today is NHS staff earning £25.5k or less will not pay any additional contributions during 2012-13 and those earning over that will pay extra. This would mean 500,000 will not pay additional contributions next year.

Unions were not happy with this announcement, as they are supposed to be in negotiations over ther proposals. :mad:

I do not understand why the unions are not happy with the proposal being announced. They are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of their members, they should be the ones passing the information onto their members but for some reason they do not seem to want to do that. Are they afraid that such information will erode the support for the union actions.

In this whole debate we have not heard any suggestions from the unions on how to move forward, we only hear their outrage at this and that and how they are not happy. They seem to do it just to get their members wound up, as I have said before they just seem to want a fight and the ability to flex their muscles rather than reach a settlement.

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

I do not understand why the unions are not happy with the proposal being announced. They are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of their members, they should be the ones passing the information onto their members but for some reason they do not seem to want to do that. Are they afraid that such information will erode the support for the union actions.

In this whole debate we have not heard any suggestions from the unions on how to move forward, we only hear their outrage at this and that and how they are not happy. They seem to do it just to get their members wound up, as I have said before they just seem to want a fight and the ability to flex their muscles rather than reach a settlement.

Are you a Union member? If not, why would you need to know?

dshart

DCodd wrote: »

Are you a Union member? If not, why would you need to know?

But it is public money they are spending and thus I have a right to know.

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

But it is public money they are spending and thus I have a right to know.

No its Government money they are spending. Taxes that you pay but would still pay regardless of what they spend it on. However the pensions/pay deals are the private earnings of individual UK citizens (like you) so are you saying I have a right to know your finances as I may have spent some money that has contributed to your earnings?

Zelazny

DCodd wrote: »

No its Government money they are spending. Taxes that you pay but would still pay regardless of what they spend it on. However the pensions/pay deals are the private earnings of individual UK citizens (like you) so are you saying I have a right to know your finances as I may have spent some money that has contributed to your earnings?

I think the discrepancy is due to the public sector being paid by the government, i.e. from tax revenue. If they were to be paid less, it would mean less taxation were required in the future (or that the tax money could be spent on other things, providing us with more services).

Everyone in the UK contributes to the tax revenue.

Now, you could easily say that everyone in the UK shops at Sainsbury's, so everyone should have a say in the pay of Sainsbury's staff - but we have a choice. If you think that the director of Sainsbury's is being paid too much, you can choose to go to Tesco, or Morrisons, or the local corner shop.

We have to pay income tax, NI, VAT, etc and have no choice in the matter.

For that reason, people want to know what the money is being spent on.

DCodd

Zelazny wrote: »

I think the discrepancy is due to the public sector being paid by the government, i.e. from tax revenue. If they were to be paid less, it would mean less taxation were required in the future (or that the tax money could be spent on other things, providing us with more services).

Everyone in the UK contributes to the tax revenue.

Now, you could easily say that everyone in the UK shops at Sainsbury's, so everyone should have a say in the pay of Sainsbury's staff - but we have a choice. If you think that the director of Sainsbury's is being paid too much, you can choose to go to Tesco, or Morrisons, or the local corner shop.

We have to pay income tax, NI, VAT, etc and have no choice in the matter.

For that reason, people want to know what the money is being spent on.

I agree to a point and am not against the publication of the pay agreements per se. Where I have an issue is when Governments (of all persuasions) seem to want to publish snippets of the ongoing negotiations in an attempt to seek a public reaction against the Public Sector.

Old_Slaphead

DCodd wrote: »

But that is not what is happening here.

IMHO, the Unions are rightly annoyed because details of the negotiations are being announced prior to agreement for the sole purpose of following a political agenda of attempting to alienate a section of the UK public and create a rift between that section and the rest of society as a bargaining tool.

My example was a more refined example of your original (and IMHO flawed) analogy.

Are you suggesting that the Unions don't follow a political agenda too (ie suggesting that all public sector employees are "hard working" and "low pay & pensioned" etc etc)

Many public sector employees are not Union members and those, together with the taxpayer who's footing the bill, should be told how the negotiations are progressing so they can form an opinion as to whether the Government is acting fairly rather than solely relying on Union propaganda.

nb - when it suits the Unions they are quite happy to disclose what's happening before official announcements - remember Derek Simpson tweeting from inside BA meetings when it suited him?