Message for strikers

starnight_2

dickydonkin wrote: »

I never stated you were.

If you read my post correctly, you will see it is in context with my previous posts and the one you have reacted to makes no reference to your current dispute.

The post relates to a private sector worker in a small company who has a poor pension scheme and no union - and was in response to a suggestion that every worker should join or start a union to ensure a better or improved pension to the one they may or may not have.

Sorry I did read it out of context, I haven't been fully charged this morning :rotfl:

System

starnight wrote: »

We're not asking for improved pensions, just for the government to come back to the table and listen and talk about the concerns their workers have.

so can i ask if they do as you want above and they say at the end of it, it isn't feasible will that be the end of it ?

melancholly

Mistral001 wrote: »

That is the whole point of my post.

The poor woman had to take a day off work because of the strikers and as a result will be docked a days pay and theoretically could be sacked for taking leave without permission if she had been in the job for less than a year which is within an employer's rights as far as I can see.

No employer would sack her of course but there are millions of people in jobs who will have their pay docked a day's wages. There will me millions like that woman who are not striking and probably have no pension provision either.

i don't like the idea of strikes but at some point the unions had to show they meant business. they all tried to sit down and talk about it, but the government announced the outcome while that was on-going! it completely undermined the whole idea of having negotiations! with that kind of attitude being shown, and union reps not known to taking things lying down, strikes were bound to happen. the fact they happened on this kind of scale (teachers are getting a lot of stick when they are only part of who was striking!) says a lot about the manner of the negotiations as much as the specifics of how things need to be reformed.

this isn't like, let's say, another tube drivers strike, which for a while seemed to happen on a monthly basis! don't get me wrong - i think some unions are excessively militant and more occupied with damaging government than protecting their members, but i also think that the government's approach was so bad, that they really caused a strike to be inevitable.

let's at least be glad that the government advisor's ludicrous suggestion of being allowed to sack anyone for no reason if they had worked somewhere for under two years.....

this is one of the omelettes and eggs situations. awful for those caught up in the cross fire, but since the opposition politicians don't seem to be doing anything remotely useful in terms of holding the government to account for any kind of policy, in many ways it's good that the unions have stepped up. it's an important part of our political process that policies are discussed and debated and picked apart in detail. an effective opposition ensures that everything is checked properly. it was dangerous when labour had such a massive majority as they could do whatever they wanted. to me, it's just as dangerous now since labour seem to be completely ineffective.

fadetogrey

Stylehutz wrote: »

Yes that's right Andy give the jobs to the Poles just so they can send the money back home and not put it into the UK economy.
They are happy to do the work as you say and from experience if there was no NMW they would work for £3.00 per hour.

There is NMW and they DO work for £3.00 per hour,least at my local car wash...................:cool:

Irn-Bru-Kid

To be honest, the whole thing seemed a little sad in my area. A few of them standing at the side of the road, waving their wee flags and blowing a whistle whilst being completely ignored by all passers by.

suited-aces

Says more about your area to he honest.

OwenGriff

Message to all dim witters one question for you. Say you worked hard for 30 years and paid into you pension a fair amount every month and you were 2 years away from retirement..ok
you would retire on say £20k a year and cash settlement of say £60,000
Then the government one day turned around and said after all these years you apid in we are only going to give you £20,000 and a pension of around £14,000 pa what would you do?
Now dont forget you have paid this money in over a 30 year period....Come on

ILW

OwenGriff wrote: »

Message to all dim witters one question for you. Say you worked hard for 30 years and paid into you pension a fair amount every month and you were 2 years away from retirement..ok
you would retire on say £20k a year and cash settlement of say £60,000
Then the government one day turned around and said after all these years you apid in we are only going to give you £20,000 and a pension of around £14,000 pa what would you do?
Now dont forget you have paid this money in over a 30 year period....Come on

I would say that if you have been paying in an average of 1000 per year and then expect a lump sum of 60k and 20k per year for the next 25 years, you should have realised that it did not all quite add up.

dandelionclock30

So what that people had to take a day off work and lose a days pay to look after their kids.They could have taken an annual leave day instead.Also parents have their children looked after by these teachers and assistants all the time for free(well they do pay tax).These ungratefull parents should be supporting the strikers not whining about how they lost a days pay.Its me me me, without looking at the bigger picture.

debsue

Ive been paying my pension for over 30 years and I have paid in a damn site more than £1000 pa. After all these years why cant I have the pension I signed up for. I have no perks in my job, I more than often work over my paid hours, never have a decent lunch break and have leave cancelled with little or no notice. I do this to make sure that the patients I care for get the care they deserve, now can I have the pension i pay for and the pension I deserve?