Strike!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 08:58

I'm on strike today. Anyone here going to the march?

Strike disruption hits Scotland

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:24

I'm in UNISON but am not on strike.

I'll be with you in solidarity though.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:27

Dadaist wrote:I'm in UNISON but am not on strike.

How so?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:31

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I'm in UNISON but am not on strike.
How so?

I guess I must be "national" and this is "local". I just obey orders - we're not out.

I'd much rather be on the streets getting the tories out!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:38

Erm, this is national - UK wide, possibly the biggest strike since 1926. Whose orders are you obeying?

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:46

Orders by the unions to strike, oh how quaint...

Anyone fancy explaining the logic behind this strike?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 09:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:Erm, this is national - UK wide, possibly the biggest strike since 1926. Whose orders are you obeying?

Different pension scheme. I know it's nationwide, but I think it's just people who work for local government ?

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:01

Doesn't effect Revenue & Customs (PCS).

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:04

wangi wrote:Orders by the unions to strike, oh how quaint...

Anyone fancy explaining the logic behind this strike?

No-one has been ordered to strike. Dadaist said he was obeying orders and would not be striking. Presumably this instruction came from his branch of Unison.

As for the logic behind the strike, there is plenty of information in the media. The following is from the Unison website:

Why we are on strike

Members of the local government pension scheme are being discriminated against.

The government has ruled that members of the uniformed police, armed forces, NHS, civil service and teachers' pension schemes - colleagues we often work alongside - should be able to retire at 60 and have their pensions benefits protected.

Yet the government is changing the local government pension scheme for the worse, forcing us to work longer or receive a smaller pension.

Contrary to newspaper propaganda, we don't retire on "fat cat" pensions. Women, who make up three quarters of the pension scheme members, get an average pension of just Â£31 a week. For many, pensions fall below benefit levels.

These changes will affect 10% of all working people, their families and their communities.

And here's some more info from Unison:

Pensions FAQ

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:05

wangi wrote:Orders by the unions to strike, oh how quaint...

Anyone fancy explaining the logic behind this strike?

I think the affected Union branches were balloted on strike action and must have voted "yes".

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:32

Bob Jefferson wrote:As for the logic behind the strike, there is plenty of information in the media.

The economics behind it all is "interesting" (source):

Staff paying in: 1.4m
Pensioners: 0.9m
Deficit: Â£27bn (2004 estimate)
Estimated percentage using "rule 85" on retirement: 33%

Do the unions / folk striking have an alternative plan to reduce this deficit, or are they just putting their heads in the sand, wishing it goes away?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:44

Do the unions / folk striking have an alternative plan to reduce this deficit, or are they just putting their heads in the sand, wishing it goes away?

I'm sure your copy of the Daily Express has some answers - if you don't own a copy, I'm sure it is full of enlightening anti-union chat which is right up your street.

You'll probably find that, even if it isn't blaming ordinary low paid workers for a government deficit, it will be blaming the high spending communists in disguise who run the country, or something like that.

I would like to provide some balance to wangi's statements by wishing my UNISON comrades the very best of wishes as they march today.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:48

Bob wrote:Dadaist said he was obeying orders and would not be striking. Presumably this instruction came from his branch of Unison.

Didn't mean to create confusion - at least not with you. wangi can think what he likes - as far as I'm concerned he can think that a UNISON branch is some sort of al-Qaeda cell.

No - we have not had "orders" of one kind or another - meaning we're working as usual. We weren't balloted on strike action nor have we had any sort of official communication about showing solidarity. I've had plenty from the SSP side of things though as you can imagine.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:51

Yep. It's all part of the ageing population problem. We all need to pay more in taxes, particularly those on high income. Vote for a party that promises to raise tax, if you can find one.

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:03

Well I'm not sure how productive it is to paint folk with colours and pin them to sides...

Anyway, sure I'd be pissed off if something in my contract -- something sweet -- was going to be removed. But the situation isn't going to fix itself, and striking without proposing any alternative isn't productive.

And yeah, I know there's a bit of "them and us" on the Unison website wrt uniformed police, armed forces, NHS, civil service and teachers being in a different scheme and not having this benefit removed. Well to be honest they should be arguing to have it removed for all...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:22

wangi wrote:striking without proposing any alternative isn't productive.

...

Well to be honest they should be arguing to have it removed for all...

wangi, I think everybody should be happy and I'm most upset to think that you have been angered by this strike and the failure of the massed ranks of actuarial experts taking part to provide you with an alternative.

Each and every one of them should not be allowed to dare vote to strike, be sympathetic to a strike, or actually strike unless they have first hand delivered a fully costed budget of their own to the steps of 10 Downing Street.

I'm not sure how to preserve your happiness as this cursed red tide threatens to engulf you in its communistic horror. I just don't feel that recommending you vote Tory is enough as they've gone all caring - at least on the surface.

Hmm.

Ah - here's an idea. You have already given us your views on a robust law and order policy. I assume you have similar views with regards to tax (as low as possible, or maybe none at all) and trade unions (ban them and outlaw strikes). It's going to take a long time and a great deal of change in voting habits here in order to bring about a regime which suits you.

But in the meantime, there must be one out there somewhere.

Perhaps on the Arabian peninsula.

Let's see - no unions, no tax, public hangings.

Any ideas?

I'm sure the weather is nicer too!

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:42

I was trying to have a discussion, I don't really think a personal attack is called for.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:46

wangi wrote:I was trying to have a discussion

Oh, how quaint.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:52

wangi wrote:I was trying to have a discussion, I don't really think a personal attack is called for.

I agree. Let's leave the personal attacks out of this please.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:55

wangi wrote:
And yeah, I know there's a bit of "them and us" on the Unison website wrt uniformed police, armed forces, NHS, civil service and teachers being in a different scheme and not having this benefit removed. Well to be honest they should be arguing to have it removed for all...

Or arguing that it should not be removed for all.

The govt has sold the pass somewhat by not applying it to the strongest groups and seeking to impose it on the weakest.

If people want to strike, and they have to be extremely disciplined how they do so these days, then that is their right.

They are not bound to supply alternatives, it is surely the governments job to find a solution acceptable to all.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:58

Well put, xxxx.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:03

Bellybabe wrote:
wangi wrote:I was trying to have a discussion, I don't really think a personal attack is called for.
I agree. Let's leave the personal attacks out of this please.

I wouldn't define my comments as a personal attack any more or less than wangi's use of the word "quaint" was.

I was certainly attacking his ideas though.

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:14

Dadaist wrote:I was certainly attacking his ideas though.

Well first off do you really feel it's necessary to "attack" someone's ideas? Perhaps debating them is a better option, and it needn't be confrontational.

It was a personal attack - you felt it necessary to confuse the matter and pelt me with your guesses (incorrect) about my views on other, totally unrelated, matters. What did any of that have to do with today's strike?

It's hard to have a meaningful discussion when people are pounced upon.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:19

wangi wrote:Orders by the unions to strike, oh how quaint...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You took an ironic comment I made to Bob and chose to turn it back on me as a sarcastic one.

I only throw darts at dart boards.

Post by **wangi** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:22

xxxx wrote:Or arguing that it should not be removed for all.

The govt has sold the pass somewhat by not applying it to the strongest groups and seeking to impose it on the weakest.

If people want to strike, and they have to be extremely disciplined how they do so these days, then that is their right.

They are not bound to supply alternatives, it is surely the governments job to find a solution acceptable to all.

Which is the route Unison is going down. It does appear to me like they're clinging to a sinking ship, and aren't worried about life boats. What happens a few years down the line when the pension scheme collapses?

My understanding is that the two pension schemes are separate, thus while one might need this drastic action to remove the early retirement with full pension option the other might be in a healthier state.

I think the age discrimination nonsense is a disgraceful swerve ball by the government. And if it's true then surely the equiv rule needs removed in other pension schemes too.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:02

Dadaist wrote:
I wouldn't define my comments as a personal attack

But i would, and repeat - let's leave it out.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:09

Bellybabe wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
I wouldn't define my comments as a personal attack
But i would, and repeat - let's leave it out.

You're the boss. Please can you tell that bad man wangi that I did not appreciate having my ironic comment made to my friend Bob thrown back at me as a sarcastic swipe and that it made me cry a single tear onto my copy of the Daily Worker?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:24

wangi wrote:
xxxx wrote:Or arguing that it should not be removed for all.

The govt has sold the pass somewhat by not applying it to the strongest groups and seeking to impose it on the weakest.

If people want to strike, and they have to be extremely disciplined how they do so these days, then that is their right.

They are not bound to supply alternatives, it is surely the governments job to find a solution acceptable to all.
Which is the route Unison is going down. It does appear to me like they're clinging to a sinking ship, and aren't worried about life boats. What happens a few years down the line when the pension scheme collapses?

My understanding is that the two pension schemes are separate, thus while one might need this drastic action to remove the early retirement with full pension option the other might be in a healthier state.

I think the age discrimination nonsense is a disgraceful swerve ball by the government. And if it's true then surely the equiv rule needs removed in other pension schemes too.

To be honest, I don't the ins and outs of the argument, so I don't know if this is the only option for a successful conclusion, and I strongly suspect it isn't.
Why should this section of public sector pensions be so underfunded compared to another?
It is hardly the employees fault that well paid arctuaries messed up, or previous governments did not seek to nip this problem in the bud.

However, I think the people,( mostly low paid,mostly women) that are going on strike have every right to judge for themselves and act as they see fit. Its up to the government to justify why they are being singled out for this special treatment.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:58

Robin! wrote:Doesn't affect Revenue & Customs (PCS).

But we in PCS have done our strike and sent Prescott or someone "back to think again" - I believe the new rules will now apply to the newbies but not us old lags!!!

And the Civil Service strike did not mean walking home in the pouring rain and getting soaked.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Mar 2006, 08:18

Poppy wrote:
And the Civil Service strike did not mean walking home in the pouring rain and getting soaked.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, you can't blame unison for the weather

from todays guardian:

Ministers will today hold urgent talks with the trade union leaders responsible for yesterday's mass walkout by up to a million public sector workers, amid fears of more industrial action timed to devastate the local elections on May 4.

Phil Woolas, the local government minister, made conciliatory noises to the strikers last night after they staged what the unions claimed to be the biggest mass show of industrial muscle since the 1926 general strike, paralysing schools, libraries, leisure centres and transport networks across the country.

Maybe there is something in this old fashioned solidarity lark

ali · Post by **ali** » 29 Mar 2006, 10:43

What I found interesting were the media reports (on the BBC 6 o'clock news last night and repeated in today's Scotsman) that "the dead went unburied" because gravediggers joined the strike.
Surely no undertaker or crematorium would have arranged a funeral for yesterday given that there was clear advanced notice that the strike was to take place??
So whilst the claim that the dead went unburied was technically true I would suggest that if funerals had actually been cancelled because of the strike then journalists would have tracked them down and presented us with the evidence.
I suspect that just as in the infamous "winter of discontent" in 1979 allegations of this nature will be used by an unscrupulous media and the right to smear trade unions and their members for the next decade.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Mar 2006, 11:48

I found the bbc coverage fairly awful though I only saw the breakfast news, where the presumably well paid presenter seemed concerned how the 'demands' (which were actually defence of existing agreements) were going to impact on council tax payers, as if the strikers were a distinct group from them.

Discussion of the musical chairs in the knesset seemed to take priority this morning over the aftermath of a million person national strike.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Mar 2006, 15:33

Interesting take on the so called 'demographic timebomb' to be found here

sample:

There is no ageing crisis. As a society we can afford to grow old.Rising productivity can outweigh any negative impacts on living standards arising from an ageing population

Worth a read

Also, despite govt claims

"It's an artificial debate and is only going on in Britain. The directive has no influence on pension value or pension age. It is completely up to the member state." - Katharina von Schnurbein, EU commission's spokeswoman

more at the scotsman

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Mar 2006, 16:27

And remember while our population ages the falling birth rate means less public money spent on nurseries,schools etc