30th of June strikes.

So we have confirmation from a union leader that the strikes are political.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/18/biggest-strike-100-years-union

Prentis said that while pensions were the focus of the unions' industrial dispute – and the only issue that they could legally jointly strike on – his members were equally angry about the coalition's deficit reduction programme and its effects on the public sector.

"You can't just look at what's happening around pensions as a single issue. All our members provide public services. You look at what this coalition has decided to do to reduce the deficit and it's decided that most of the deficit reduction programme will be at the expense of our public services," he said.
Click to expand...

Well done Mr Prentis, you have ensured that the public will see you for what you are, a bunch of bullying whingers trying to bully through your political views just because your preferred party did not win the election.

Many said Vince Cable's suggestion that strike action would be curtailed if Unions misbehaved was unnecessary, this interview clearly shows that the Unions intend to misbehave. For the sake of the rest of us, they must not be permitted to behave in such a manner.
 
Dolph said:
Many said Vince Cable's suggestion that strike action would be curtailed if Unions misbehaved was unnecessary, this interview clearly shows that the Unions intend to misbehave. For the sake of the rest of us, they must not be permitted to behave in such a manner.
Click to expand...

Bring it on :cool:

It's about time the issue was settled once and for all - for better or worse.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Bring it on :cool:

It's about time the issue was settled once and for all - for better or worse.
Click to expand...

See, I don't share your enthusiasm, because I don't want to see the union movement destroyed, just to become sensible, useful and a general benefit rather than a hindrance and a throwback to a failed political ideology.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
See, I don't share your enthusiasm, because I don't want to see the union movement destroyed, just to become sensible, useful and a general benefit rather than a hindrance and a throwback to a failed political ideology.
Click to expand...

Sometimes something needs to be destroyed before you can rebuild it.
 
Dolph said:
But sometimes things get destroyed and not rebuilt. It would be terribly ironic if the unions activities actually resulted in worse rights for workers in the long term...
Click to expand...

So the Unions would then be responsible for those worse rights, not the people implementing them?

Next you'll be telling me it's a womans fault she got molested because she was wearing a short skirt.
 
its a shame beaker and his mates had to announce their plans whilst they were in negotiations with the unions, just shows they are paying lip service to consultation, oh what a surprise, its about time we had a good old national strike
 
Dolph said:
They are honouring what is already accrued, what is changing is what will accrue moving forward. Why is that wrong?
Click to expand...

well because quite clearly we all have CONTRACTS stating our pension rights and retirement ages, the government cant just change this at will without asking us first, and basically we are saying **** off
 
amigafan2003 said:
So the Unions would then be responsible for those worse rights, not the people implementing them?
Click to expand...

If they abuse the rights they have (as they are currently), then public opinion will swing against them, and demands will be made to amend or remove the rights that are being abused. This is what happened during the miners strike, and those rights haven't come back because the public still opposes them.

The responsibility for such things revolves entirely around the party who misuses the rights they currently have.
 
MrMoonX said:
well because quite clearly we all have CONTRACTS stating our pension rights and retirement ages, the government cant just change this at will without asking us first, and basically we are saying **** off
Click to expand...

Actually, they can, please read up on your employment law, specifically section 188 of the trade union and labour relations act 1992.

You can't deadlock this by simply saying no, the law doesn't allow you to. So far, the government is still playing nice by giving the opportunity for discussion which has been squandered by strike announcements before the discussions have been completed. they could simply wait and issue section 188 notices and be done with it, especially as they are protecting existing accrued pensions...
 
MrMoonX said:
it would be a show of immense power against a government that has no mandate to wage ideological war on the working classes
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, it would be a show of bullying from an aggressive minority without significant popular support.

The current government has a greater mandate than any since the 1950's. The only way you can claim otherwise is if you don't understand our political system, but then, it seems facts and understanding are never your strong point MrMoonX.
 
Dolph said:
So we have confirmation from a union leader that the strikes are political.
Click to expand...

I read this type of quote as basically saying 'so we've put up with this, this and this which we don't like (all of which have implications to working conditions on the ground, not just in political theory, so in my view it's acceptable to note this), however, this (pensions for example) is where we draw the line'

It is not 'P'olitical to set this context of policies that are affecting the members.
 
How would you reduce the defecit MrMoon?

160 billion doesn't grow on trees as you are no doubt aware. Cuts are inevitable and the public sector does have fat that can be trimmed like any other company or department.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
How would you reduce the defecit MrMoon?

160 billion doesn't grow on trees as you are no doubt aware. Cuts are inevitable and the public sector does have fat that can be trimmed like any other company or department.
Click to expand...

And why does MrMoon think it acceptable to tax poor workers in the private sector to give wealthier public sector workers a pension that the poor workers could never ever afford themselves? This is especially relevant with the confirmation that the low paid public sector workers will be exempt (up to £15,000 per annum) or capped (£15,000-£18,000 per annum) in terms of increases in costs?
 
Dolph said:
No, it wouldn't, it would be a show of bullying from an aggressive minority without significant popular support.

The current government has a greater mandate than any since the 1950's. The only way you can claim otherwise is if you don't understand our political system, but then, it seems facts and understanding are never your strong point MrMoonX.
Click to expand...

with Unison now on board thats over 2million people, plus the smaller unions now on board we are looking at 3 million people on 30th June, should unison decide to strike, this government will have achieved more people striking than Thatcher, id call that quite a lot of support
 
Von Smallhausen said:
How would you reduce the defecit MrMoon?

160 billion doesn't grow on trees as you are no doubt aware. Cuts are inevitable and the public sector does have fat that can be trimmed like any other company or department.
Click to expand...

Tax justice.


Queue the liberal right wingers dismissing this as "we'll lose big business" etc - I don't care anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom