30th of June strikes.

[Biohazard]

nothing, I'm seconded here so they could just end that and move me back down anyway.
we're having a consultation but they don't care about anything we bring up.

That rings a bell

I really wish they would stop calling them 'consultations'.

The last one I was involved in came with a health warning, "you will not get answers to your questions!"

Way hay! Go you Westminster!

 

[PermaBanned]

Imagine your boss wasting money on a security guard for your office when there is no requirement, for example.

Depends if they're missing a finger or not

Anyway, i've been lurking (and skipping half the pages), so you know. My 2p - the strikes are ultimately a good thing. Will they achieve anything however? Not in a million years.

 

[guyfawkes5]

No they aren't.

Yes it has.

They're not untenable.

So what are you doing about it?

No one ever read the following?

*Obligatory comparison to Nazism*

What a titan of debate you are, I bow in awe.

 

[MrMoonX]

I don't think it's fair. I think private sector workers should start pushing much harder for a fairer deal. I think that the huge differences between the top and bottom in both wages and 'extras' (pensions, pay-offs and other 'benefits') is obscene- but people within organisations, fields or sectors need to communicate this!

All workers public and private sector should stick together and push for better conditions, unity is strength only a united workforce can achieve change to an oppressive and exploitative system no matter which sector you work in

 

[SKILL]

Who exactly supports the private sector by educating future generations of workers? Who builds roads and operates train lines? Who makes sure employers don't have pay for expensive private healthcare insurance for their employees?

The point is that it's not public sector vs. private sector - that's what they (the establishment) want you to believe so they can play one side off against another. We're all part of the same symbiotic ecosystem - both sides need each other. If you want to cut pensions to private sector levels then fine, but you've got to raise levels of pay to private sector levels as well.

I agree, but when something isn't affordable should the actions be to cry and stamp your feet or get on with life?

As for the pay, this has already been brought up in this thread, is there any evidence (and no, 'I know xxx' doesn't count as evidence) to say that the public sector are paid significantly less for similar roles?

As is the teaching pension scheme.

I should imagine your employer doesn't have 200,000 staff to distribute the spoils to either.

So go one then, how much profit did your employer make last year? And how many employees does it have?

Interestingly it made a good chunk more per-employee (less than 100) than yours, I don't want to say more as my companies accounts are not in the public domain so even though it's unlikely to be linked, or even mean anything I'll be quiet.

The per-employee bit is an interesting thing to bring up though, will $130 a year (on average, most pensions are % of earnings based so it would be far less for the lowly majority) really make much of a difference to your pension? And how much would the company shareholders like a company that gives away all it's profit?

And if we're going to go down that route how big a negative do we attribute from the deficit to public sector pensions?

I'd like to note that I don't have a major issue with the teachers striking, as mentioned their pensions are funded and hence fine, but my irritation is more with the PCS strikes with the sub-20% support.

Yes it is a very fine line.

Yet taxation is not ring fenced.

And this 'we pay for you' is right, but to mark it so emotively and exclusively as financed from private sector work is not entirely accurate.

My uncle pays tax, as little as possible mind you, and it isn't borne from any UK operations.

He pays for me, and he isn't in the UK private sector. As an example.

The public sector is vital as an enabler, to damage it damages the UK as a whole.

It is interesting that, as a constitutional pillar, the UK has come to hate and disparage the services instead of being proud or respectful of them. This mallicious political streak seriously undermines the very concept it supports over time, the United Kingdom and it's establishment.


If your employer is not in a financial position to meet your expectations, then ultimately you cannot do anything except for increasing productivity.

With the public sector, people dissagree with the 'companies' ie governments spending priorities.

Imagine your boss wasting money on a security guard for your office when there is no requirement, for example.

This is not to say I am not sympathetic, because I am, but such simplistic lambasting isn't directly comparable. Neither is small and medium size enterprizes directly comparible to large business groups.

This is a seperate issue all together.

I agree the language I used was perhaps too emotive, it is simply that when looking at the economy it's quite obvious to see that major changes are needed, and yet you have individual groups not willing to give an inch and their sole argument seems to be 'why race to the bottom/fight for better treatment' without seeming to see the bigger picture...

 

[scorza]

I agree, but when something isn't affordable should the actions be to cry and stamp your feet or get on with life?

Err yes - that's exactly what you should do. I'm a software engineer, our customers come to us and ask us how much it would be to develop a computer system for them, we go away, analyse their requirements, propose a solution, produce realistic estimates, factor in risks and contingencies, add a bit of profit, then tell the customer how much it costs. Typically at this point they get very cross, accuse us of all sorts of nasty things and storm out of the room.

Later one of our senior managers takes his opposite number out for a game of golf and over a pint or two at the 19th hole they agree a number that is somewhere between how much we said it would cost and how much they thought it would cost - that's how much we end up charging them (and us workers have to work long hours to deliver on time and maintain the profit margin).

Obviously trying this approach in your local Tesco's won't get you very far, but if you can organise yourself into a more powerful structure you will get somewhere.

 

[uk_unbeliever]

All workers public and private sector should stick together and push for better conditions, unity is strength only a united workforce can achieve change to an oppressive and exploitative system no matter which sector you work in

Agreed, but I think that a starting point has to be within organisations / fields.

I think that there is a misnomer that collective action automatically equates to holding the employer to ransom- it is too often portrayed as this (helped greatly by politicising from government PR machines) when in reality what is desired is a fair voice and fair negotiation. Striking gets lambasted by certain sections as it's seen as a 'my way or the highway' approach, when in reality (in my experience that it, although I accept that maybe some union actions haven't always helped this image) it is usually the employer who talks in the language of 'my way or the highway'! This though gets no-where near the coverage.

 

[MrMoonX]

Agreed, but I think that a starting point has to be within organisations / fields.

I think that there is a misnomer that collective action automatically equates to holding the employer to ransom- it is too often portrayed as this (helped greatly by politicising from government PR machines) when in reality what is desired is a fair voice and fair negotiation. Striking gets lambasted by certain sections as it's seen as a 'my way or the highway' approach, when in reality (in my experience that it, although I accept that maybe some union actions haven't always helped this image) it is usually the employer who talks in the language of 'my way or the highway'! This though gets no-where near the coverage.

well perhaps large trade unions that have public/private members like Unite and unison should organise better between different types of membership.

There is no negotiation/consultation the employers just ride over the process and pay lip service, I see it time and time again, too many employers including public sector organisations dont care about the workers, they will do what they want and when they want it. The only power the workers have is to withdraw their labour or restrict it

 

[Dolph]

Bunch of undemocractic blackmailing *****.

 

[Biohazard]

Agreed, but I think that a starting point has to be within organisations / fields.

I think that there is a misnomer that collective action automatically equates to holding the employer to ransom- it is too often portrayed as this (helped greatly by politicising from government PR machines) when in reality what is desired is a fair voice and fair negotiation. Striking gets lambasted by certain sections as it's seen as a 'my way or the highway' approach, when in reality (in my experience that it, although I accept that maybe some union actions haven't always helped this image) it is usually the employer who talks in the language of 'my way or the highway'! This though gets no-where near the coverage.

And in the case of Government, you are tied to not revealing the content or manner of the discussions.

It boils down to a name calling excercise between people accusing one side of 'stonewalling' and then the other.

The Government is certainly in the powerful position in this respect.

 

[MrMoonX]

Bunch of undemocractic blackmailing *****.

wondered when this tory fanboy would show up

so its undemocratic for a union to strike on 42% of membership turnout but OK for a government to run its ideological agenda on 29% of the vote? double standards?

 

[Biohazard]

Bunch of undemocractic blackmailing *****.

What is undemocratic about it to you?

Why do you have to generalise tens of thousands of people you have never met with expletive names?

I thought you could hold serious grown up debate?

Was I wrong?

Blackmail? Bit strong, no?

 

[Dolph]

wondered when this tory would show up

so its undemocratic for a union to strike on 42% of membership turnout but OK for a government to run its ideological agenda on 29% of the vote? double standards?

Before you get into that, remember that even the Tories alone got a greater proportion of the vote than Labour did in 2005

Incidentally, I'm not a tory.

 

[Biohazard]

Before you get into that, remember that even the Tories alone got a greater proportion of the vote than Labour did in 2005

Incidentally, I'm not a tory.

Yes you are.

You are a conservative neo liberal "great thinker", and the closest thing on offer to you is the Conservatives.

You might not fit in with the full Conservative Party ideology or direction, but you are very sympathetic to the extreme right.

 

[Dolph]

What is undemocratic about it to you?

Why do you have to generalise tens of thousands of people you have never met with expletive names?

I thought you could hold serious grown up debate?

Was I wrong?

Blackmail? Bit strong, no?

Undemocratic is trying to bully a government to change it's course by exploiting the fact that you happen to work for a monopoly.

I can hold a serious debate, but what's the point, you can't reason someone out of a position that isn't held on reasonable grounds to start with, and that just about sums up most of the trade unionists on the forum with only a couple of exceptions.

 

[SKILL]

Err yes - that's exactly what you should do. I'm a software engineer, our customers come to us and ask us how much it would be to develop a computer system for them, we go away, analyse their requirements, propose a solution, produce realistic estimates, factor in risks and contingencies, add a bit of profit, then tell the customer how much it costs. Typically at this point they get very cross, accuse us of all sorts of nasty things and storm out of the room.

Later one of our senior managers takes his opposite number out for a game of golf and over a pint or two at the 19th hole they agree a number that is somewhere between how much we said it would cost and how much they thought it would cost - that's how much we end up charging them (and us workers have to work long hours to deliver on time and maintain the profit margin).

Obviously trying this approach in your local Tesco's won't get you very far, but if you can organise yourself into a more powerful structure you will get somewhere.

Is that how it should be or simply how it works?

I'm also a software engineer, and again a customer will come to us for some work, we'll look into it, maybe agree a short investigation/feasibility study phase, and then produce a quote for the work to be done.

However in my experience the majority of customers agree with no real issues, big companies seem to be the biggest problems with an attitude of "you can quote what you like but we're going to pay £X" but that's not that common in my experience, and I'm not sure how often we've accepted a project like that.

Now either our quotes are more realistic, or our customers are more realistic, but that seems to me to be the way it should be done, eg company a wants work, companies b, c and d put forward a quote, company a picks the one most suitable or re-thinks the plan.

 

[Dolph]

Yes you are.

You are a conservative neo liberal "great thinker", and the closest thing on offer to you is the Conservatives.

You might not fit in with the full Conservative Party ideology or direction, but you are very sympathetic to the extreme right.

Actually, I'm far closer to an Orange book or classical liberal than a Tory if you really need a pigeon hole to put me in

 

[uk_unbeliever]

Bunch of undemocractic blackmailing *****.

The government, the union or the teachers? or all of them? your statement could apply to any of them in (my view) the order of most undemocratic and likely to use blackmail.

 

[MrMoonX]

Before you get into that, remember that even the Tories alone got a greater proportion of the vote than Labour did in 2005

Incidentally, I'm not a tory.

you certainly act like it

exactly the political system doesnt work, as people are being elected with hardly any turnout, but you cant then scald the unions for achieving a greater turnout.
your probably just jealous because daddy owns a business and doesnt like to see the workers gaining a bit of power

Marx said that the Proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and its about bloody time

 

[Biohazard]

Undemocratic is trying to bully a government to change it's course by exploiting the fact that you happen to work for a monopoly.

That's not the case though.

I can hold a serious debate, but what's the point, you can't reason someone out of a position that isn't held on reasonable grounds to start with, and that just about sums up most of the trade unionists on the forum with only a couple of exceptions.

No, you can't.

You've walked in and out of the blue called thousands of people you disagree with a shielded name.

What is unreasonable about anything I have said in here today, for example? Yet I am still a trade unionist.

This is smothered in your right wing extremism and authoritarianism. No wonder you hate these people with a seething rage.