30/11 Strikes.

[Deleted member 77746]

They have changed nothing about already accrued entitlement, only moving forwards from now, exactly in line with the same employment law that applies in all sectors.

should a different set of employment laws apply in the public sector?

No but the government wants to change contracts what they originally signed up for that will leave them substantially worse off. This is why it should have been changed for new joiners and not existing. The world is belly up as it is without upsetting people. I can see both sides of the story though.

 

[shoes]

Of course upselling is ok. There will always be rogue sales guys upselling products that don't fit the customer, or generally mis-advising them to increase personal success, but the practice of upselling is perfectly fine in any sector.

I don't know about other industries but you try upselling to a building contractor working for a private client in my industry and you get put in your place straight away.

You try to upsell to a council for something slightly fancier than they wanted and it's either meh...why not, or it's bite you arm off zomg that's so cool we want it......

Classic example is in Stafford recently the new biblically expensive council offices were decorated with protective balls of concrete which cost circa £500 each. They could have been purchased, from a local company no less, for a little under £200 a unit. So if delivery and cementing into place costs £300 a pop then I'll eat my hat.

In the real world any purchaser worth his salt would have stopped that at the ordering stage.

 

[fez]

I think all the government had to do is change contracts of new starters for the pension then there wouldn't have been in a strike in the first place.

But no, they have to change the rules for everyone upseting the UK.

They are not 'upsetting the UK', they are upsetting those who stand to lose something along with a small minority of supporters.

Maybe we should have handled the MPs expenses in the same way. Just the new MPs follow the revised rules.

Sometimes you have to take a hit because those before you screwed up. Its not your fault but that doesn't change the fact that we cannot afford current public sector pensions right now.

 

[shoes]

It either sounds like you don't really work for a private sector organisation offering services to the public sector at all or that your organisation has a very poor relationship with it's customers.

If you really do work along side the public sector I can't see your organisation having a public sector contract for much longer, as your experience certainly isn'twhat my experience has been for the last 12 years (working for the largest private supplier of services to the public sector btw).

Afraid I do, I work for a technology based company and the public sector is a cash cow like no other. We've had contracts spanning over five years now so although since public spending has been on the decrease we've seen less spending our way. Thankfully the private sector has more than made up for it and we've shown growth greater than 10% for the fifth year running. Recession? What recession?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

They are not 'upsetting the UK', they are upsetting those who stand to lose something along with a small minority of supporters.

Maybe we should have handled the MPs expenses in the same way. Just the new MPs follow the revised rules.

Sometimes you have to take a hit because those before you screwed up. Its not your fault but that doesn't change the fact that we cannot afford current public sector pensions right now.

This is different than the handled of MPs expenses. The MPs didn't sign up to use other peoples money to purchase things.

The people who opted into this pension everything is in contract. It's not like the people who signed up for this contract is claiming expenses with someone elses card is it?

Yes, I agree something has to be done about pensions.

 

[Dolph]

No but the government wants to change contracts what they originally signed up for that will leave them substantially worse off. This is why it should have been changed for new joiners and not existing. The world is belly up as it is without upsetting people. I can see both sides of the story though.

In line with employment law. Restricting changes to new joiners only doesn't address the issues, nor does it address the issues with cap and share as agreed between the unions and the Labour government, which was planned as a timebomb to cause spiralling employee contributions, probably knowing that while Labour would ignore it, the Conservatives are responsible and would have addressed it.

The public sector is not a jobs club, and public sector remuneration should not be based on whether people will whinge about it, but about whether the total compensation is sufficient to attract the required staff, and fair to those paying for it. This is something that Labour and the unions have completely forgotten.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Afraid I do, I work for a technology based company and the public sector is a cash cow like no other. We've had contracts spanning over five years now so although since public spending has been on the decrease we've seen less spending our way. Thankfully the private sector has more than made up for it and we've shown growth greater than 10% for the fifth year running. Recession? What recession?

Isn't it amazing how in this thread your employer is fantastic and amazing yet in the past 2 months you've posted that you were afraid you were going to get fired from your job, and then you posted saying you wanted to quit your job because the procedures they make you folllow were not what you wanted to do. You specifically complained about the inflexibility of your superiors, a criticism you levelled at apparently the entire public sector in this thread?

How odd.

It's almost as if half of your points are being made up as you go along to support whatever shouty rant you are on this week

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Afraid I do, I work for a technology based company and the public sector is a cash cow like no other. We've had contracts spanning over five years now so although since public spending has been on the decrease we've seen less spending our way. Thankfully the private sector has more than made up for it and we've shown growth greater than 10% for the fifth year running. Recession? What recession?

In that case I look forward to my company taking over your contract very soon, because your outfit sounds a shambles.

Oh, and nice one Fox

 

[Deleted member 77746]

In line with employment law. Restricting changes to new joiners only doesn't address the issues, nor does it address the issues with cap and share as agreed between the unions and the Labour government, which was planned as a timebomb to cause spiralling employee contributions, probably knowing that while Labour would ignore it, the Conservatives are responsible and would have addressed it.

The public sector is not a jobs club, and public sector remuneration should not be based on whether people will whinge about it, but about whether the total compensation is sufficient to attract the required staff, and fair to those paying for it. This is something that Labour and the unions have completely forgotten.

I understand that but they should not have created such a fancy contract in the first place. Might as well make up contracts everywhere then give out bob no hope broken promises. Yeh, lets all just lie to get where we want. Brilliant.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Isn't it amazing how in this thread your employer is fantastic and amazing yet in the past 2 months you've posted that you were afraid you were going to get fired from your job, and then you posted saying you wanted to quit your job because the procedures they make you folllow were not what you wanted to do. You specifically complained about the inflexibility of your superiors, a criticism you levelled at apparently the entire public sector in this thread?

How odd.

It's almost as if half of your points are being made up as you go along to support whatever shouty rant you are on this week

What you mean like this?
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18337168
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18339466
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18322382

 

[shoes]

Isn't it amazing how in this thread your employer is fantastic and amazing yet in the past 2 months you've posted that you were afraid you were going to get fired from your job, and then you posted saying you wanted to quit your job because the procedures they make you folllow were not what you wanted to do. You specifically complained about the inflexibility of your superiors, a criticism you levelled at apparently the entire public sector in this thread?

How odd.

It's almost as if half of your points are being made up as you go along to support whatever shouty rant you are on this week

Eh? What? Show me where I said my employers were amazing. I said business was good and the public sector like to pay us lots of money. I haven't mentioned my employers?

And yes, I am still negotiating with them vis-a-vis the inflexibility - if you must know I've handed in my notice with my resignation effective of the first day we return after Christmas if they are not advertising for someone to come in and work all the sage ******** for me.

As of yet they don't seem to care - but with an investment, a new job lined up and £135k in the bank I couldn't care less

 

[Vonhelmet]

I understand that but they should not have created such a fancy contract in the first place. Might as well make up contracts everywhere then give out bob no hope broken promises. Yeh, lets all just lie to get where we want. Brilliant.

Contracts were based on the information available at the time ie everyone will be dead by 75. We now know that is rubbish. Should we pretend it's not?

 

[Dolph]

I understand that but they should not have created such a fancy contract in the first place. Might as well make up contracts everywhere then give out bob no hope broken promises. Yeh, lets all just lie to get where we want. Brilliant.

This position really doesn't suggest you understand employment law. Employment contracts are not set in stone forever once signed, they can be changed, giving sufficient notice and consultation.

This is to reflect the reality that businesses change, circumstances change, regulations and taxation change and so on. Businesses in the real world are competing, and this is reflected by the need to improve or reduce terms to attract the right calibre of staff and ensure a reasonable cost base. The alternative to doing this is for the business to die and end up employing no-one.

What does matter is protecting accrued terms, which is what is happening with the proposals.

The conflict has been driven by a failure to manage public sector employees appropriately in the past, but that is not an excuse to continue to fail to ensure that the public sector is run in a cost effective, efficient and customer focused manner.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It is possible to understand why people are angry and also support the changes to the pensions at the same time.

If you take something away from somebody which will cause them to be worse off, why wouldn't they do everything they possibly can in order to try and stop this happening? It's all very noble to say you'd not do the same (Although I strongly suspect you are very 'do as i say not as I do' Dolph) but I reckon if any of us were in the same position we'd probably have quite different opinions. It's natural instinct to put yourself before everyone else. It's very easy for us to sit and disapprove as our futures don't depend on a public sector pension.

That said, the strikes are generally quite pointless, will not acheive what they want, and frankly it's difficult to disagree with the revised offer on the table from the Government anyway.

But that doesn't mean you can't understand why people are angry and realise why they are taking what they feel is worthwhile action, even if it is fundamentally futile and counter-productive.

 

[fez]

I understand that but they should not have created such a fancy contract in the first place. Might as well make up contracts everywhere then give out bob no hope broken promises. Yeh, lets all just lie to get where we want. Brilliant.

When people became MPs they will have been told about the expenses allowed in their contracts. I don't reckon that there was a qualifying line that stated "when we get caught for taking advantage massively of the system you may lose some of the outrageous benefits you are about to receive"

I have sympathy for some public sector workers, my dad is one. That doesn't change my general view that as a nation we need to start growing up and realising that we have all had far more than we have earned for far too long and will have to pay for it now. It won't be fair and some will lose out more than others but that is not a reason to ignore or downplay the issue.

I am not massively chuffed that buying a house for me is going to be very very hard due to the stupid price of houses that cheap debt brought. My parents have benefitted hugely from simply being born at the right time too buy a house for £30,000 that is now worth nearer £250,000. Thats not inflation, thats madness. Lifes not fair, all we can try to do is make it as fair as possible. Usually when you give something to someone, you are depriving someone else of that. If the governments wants to ignore public sector pensions then something else will have to feel the cuts more and there are not many parts of the budget that could take that if any.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Employment contracts are not set in stone forever once signed, they can be changed, giving sufficient notice and consultation.

Maybe the government should start consulting then.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

it's difficult to disagree with the revised offer on the table from the Government anyway.

What offer would that be? There hasn't been an offer as far as I'm aware.

Proposal yes, offer no. It's quite an important distinction. You cannot ballot on a proposal.


Say you've entered into a dispute with your company over pay and they came to you saying:-

"We're thinking of giving you a 5% pay rise".

Would you go away a happy chappy and say no more? What if they kept saying that for 6 months? Would you continue waiting patiently?

What if they came to you with:-

"I'm offering you 3%, sign here".

 

[Dolph]

It is possible to understand why people are angry and also support the changes to the pensions at the same time.

If you take something away from somebody which will cause them to be worse off, why wouldn't they do everything they possibly can in order to try and stop this happening? It's all very noble to say you'd not do the same (Although I strongly suspect you are very 'do as i say not as I do' Dolph) but I reckon if any of us were in the same position we'd probably have quite different opinions. It's natural instinct to put yourself before everyone else. It's very easy for us to sit and disapprove as our futures don't depend on a public sector pension.

That said, the strikes are generally quite pointless, will not acheive what they want, and frankly it's difficult to disagree with the revised offer on the table from the Government anyway.

But that doesn't mean you can't understand why people are angry and realise why they are taking what they feel is worthwhile action, even if it is fundamentally futile and counter-productive.

I can say I wouldn't do the same. I might well look for alternative employment (as I have before), but I wouldn't strike, because chances are, if I couldn't find alternative employment with the same or better conditions than I had or were being proposed, I was being overpaid to start with...

I can understand why people are angry, I just can't understand why they think the response of a strike is reasonable or acceptable.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I can say I wouldn't do the same. I might well look for alternative employment (as I have before), but I wouldn't strike, because chances are, if I couldn't find alternative employment with the same or better conditions than I had or were being proposed, I was being overpaid to start with...

I can understand why people are angry, I just can't understand why they think the response of a strike is reasonable or acceptable.

Theoretical tangent Dolph, when would you consider withdrawal of labour a suitable response?

Not looking for an argument - I'm genuinely interested in your views.

 

[fez]

Maybe the government should start consulting then.

I think that you are overestimating the average person. Ask someone if they wish to take a cut in their pension and I think I can guess the answer. They will have consulted with numerous members of the unions but they are also working from the other side of the fence.

They have information about how much they need to save, the consequences of not saving the desired amount and what alternatives there are. Its not in the governments best interests to **** off the unions or the public but the unions seen to be taking the stance that they are being targeted.