Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

Jokester said:
I don't think the tax payer should be subsidising strikes.
Click to expand...

Your right of course. But neither should a company be able to **** all over its staff with no fear of reprisals. Can't afford to strike, can't "just quit" with unemployment this high either. This is a license for the less moral employers to abuse staff as much as they like.

The obvious answer is for employers to stop treating staff right as less important than profit.
 
Woden said:
Your right of course. But neither should a company be able to **** all over its staff with no fear of reprisals. Can't afford to strike, can't "just quit" with unemployment this high either. This is a license for the less moral employers to abuse staff as much as they like.

The obvious answer is for employers to stop treating staff right as less important than profit.
Click to expand...
And of course, subsidised strikes are an incentive for the less moral worker to strike without fear of loss of earnings.
 
Castiel said:
people living on such low wages (remember £13k is half the average wage)
Click to expand...

:eek: really? I didn't know this :( I earn just under £13k and its really hard.
would I strike, well no, coz I would just get replaced as I only work for a small place. plus we don't have a union so striking isn't an option :p
 
Last edited:
Presumably one reason is also to make strike numbers more realistic. There are no doubt many who join a strike because it's a paid day off, whether they care about it or not. If you are no longer getting the pay out of it, then you might think otherwise if you don't care so much for the cause. If it's a big enough issue, then the Unions representing them can fork out for their wages to get everyone to strike.

I'm sure this will cause a strike to stop it though!
 
Jokester said:
Their right to strike isn't removed - if they are to be subsidised it should be by the Unions, not the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Unions already offer limited Strike Pay, but contrary to popular belief Unions are not wealthy institutions (also now having to cover increased costs involved in unfair tribunals and the loss of legal aid in many situations where they offer legal services) and by removing the help to those on very low wages you are effectively is removing their right to strike by making it more expensive.....
 
Last edited:
Why target lower paid workers though? Most of the strike actions are in areas where workers are on more than 13k and surely cost the government more than the lower paid workers.
 
Jokester said:
And of course, subsidised strikes are an incentive for the less moral worker to strike without fear of loss of earnings.
Click to expand...

So you remove the rights for all because of the fear that the immoral few will strike anyway...

You do realise that access to working tax credits is not just replacing lost earnings, but removing their right to benefits they recieve while on strike. It isn't paying them benefits to replace wages because they are on strike.....

What it is effectively saying is that because you are on strike you do not deserve a minimum standard of living.......while strike action is a choice, it is also one that is often the only way low paid manual and semi skilled workers have to defend their terms and workong conditions, especially given the changes in employment law recently.....
 
Last edited:
Woden said:
People don't just strike because they feel like it. A union has to strike, not Dave and Bob.
Click to expand...
And Dave and Bob vote those strikes - hey we're only getting a 4% pay increase this year, shall we strike (by the way you'll still get paid)?

As Nexus says, paying people whilst they strike greatly lowers the threshold for people to strike from worthy to trivial causes.
 
Unite bung my money to Labour even though I've opted out of the political fund they still do it.

The government is thankfully trying to get rid of the subsidised rabble rouser "pilgrims" and hopefully that will come out of the Labour parties pocket, rather than increased union dues.

I don't mind the principle that everyone has a guaranteed income, as long as it's low, even if they're on strike. What I don't want is people striking and being brought right back up to the same salary through tax credits.
 
Castiel said:
So you remove the rights for all because of the fear that the immoral few will strike anyway...

You do realise that access to working tax credits is not replacing lost earnings, but removing their right to benefits they recieve while on strike. It isn't paying them benefits to replace wages because they are on strike.....
Click to expand...
It doesn't make that clear in the article, it certainly suggests that only the top up based on earnings would go, so the other components would still remain.
 
I assume the tax the low paid workers are paying will be reduced to reflect the loss of service? :rolleyes:
 
The Halk said:
What I don't want is people striking and being brought right back up to the same salary through tax credits.
Click to expand...



This is not what is happening though...they are proposing removing their working tax credit while they are on Strike......it is not a benefit currently paid because they are on strike, it is their normal WTC they are entitled to because they are on very low incomes.
 
I know it's not happening, but that's the position people seem to be arguing against, I'm saying I don't want it either to try to find some common ground.
 
Iain Duncan Smith again this man, who has been a career politician and makes so much money out of after dinner speaking, these politicians just live in a different world.

I know things need sorting but really picking on the poor, earning £13k is nothing in this country, its what £7 an hour?
 
cheets64 said:
Iain Duncan Smith again this man, who has been a career politician and makes so much money out of after dinner speaking, these politicians just live in a different world.

I know things need sorting but really picking on the poor, earning £13k is nothing in this country, its what £7 an hour?
Click to expand...

If i had any say on the matter i would suggest that anyone who wishes to become an MP has to spend at least 6 months living and working on a run down estate in some deprived area where each week is a struggle to feed and house yourself, where you actually have to spend your wages on living without the ability to save for your future or put evertything down as expenses.

These career politicians have no idea how it is to live in the real world as a low paid worker in a run down area, with no way to better yourself or move away from the situation.

They always reply with "the average wage of 25.000...... blah blah" when in reality there are many MANY people earning less than half this. Its only the average due to the rich earning far far more!

I would love to see cameron and his ilk working 60+ hour weeks for barely enough to feed and clothe/house themselves, with no working rights... zero job security and no ability to save for retirement or buy things that break such as white goods or other essentials. They wouldnt last to the end of the week!
 
Last edited:
probably end up with lower pay and hence more benefits being paid, not that I care either way, I just think the tories are a bunch of rich simpletons with a chip on their collective shoulders.

plus this will at best save a few quid, lolpoliticians and troughers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom