Alternatives to STRIKING

[Simster]

im no expert, but i understand it was wealthy victorian industrailists that made the first steps, albeit small. what is bollocks is to imply that until the labour movment no "rich" ever gave a shit about the working class, who would be kept in starvation, its left wing mythology.

I don't think there is anybody arguing that not a single rich person has a conscience. But to the premise that the working classes fought for the rights that they now have, your (frankly weird) response is that there were many rich who were at least if not more committed to the advancement of the working classes than the working classes themselves.

If there had been any notable urge among the rich to improve the lot of the poor, it wouldn't have taken until well after the industrial revolution before free schooling was put in place. Landowners had taxed peasants, taken advantage of low wages since the middle ages. Striking was outlawed until the late 19th century. So suggesting a handful of wealthy quakers with a conscience DROVE the rights of working classes is completely disingenuous and utterly misrepresentative.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you are wronged enough to strike.... er get another job?

I hated my first job after a few years, so I left and got something else. Not hard to work out is it? Instead of bleating and pissing and whining], get off your arse and go find another job.

Or am I just being silly.

But isnt this what strikers are doing? I'd suggest that standing up for what you believe in IS getting of your arse and not bleating and whining. Skulking off to another job is a very lily livered approach to me. Stay for the fight, you shitter.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Although I don't think striking should be legal, I think the wages of those in the public sector should be better protected to compensate.
My beef with striking is that it isn't fair to the employer. Normally staff will only strike if they have been wronged, but there's nothing to stop them striking for any reason they fancy. You could easily bring a company like British airways down by striking, and give them no choice but to meet your demands, regardless whether they were fair or not.
For public sector workers, like the NHS, it wouldn't matter how much they protested, it would fall on deaf ears. They get shafted over their pay, but they don't have the ability to move to another job like those in private industry do (yes there are some private hospitals, but not enough to give NHS staff a real choice).
Change the laws on controlling public sector pay, and remove the right to strike.

Can someone please destroy the myth that public sector workers, in general, get shafted over pay? Of course there are exceptions but the fact is that public sector workers, on average and allowing for the fact that different skill levels apply, are paid more than those in the private sector. Their terms of employment and their job security (even now) is better than the private sector. And of course they have those pensions.

I spent 17 years in the public sector and have since spent 22 years self-employed. My public sector pension is very acceptable, and over the years is rising. Since leaving 'the service' I have paid the same proportion of my income into a private pension scheme which even on a good day would be worth far less than the Post Office one. But of course it's not a good day - the value of the private pension has fallen by 30 per cent in recent years and it is currently not worth cashing in. So I keep on working.

I am sorry but in a morning when I have just lost nearly £1000 out of my own pocket (that's self-employment for you) I am in no mood to listen to the whingers of the state and their politically inspired mates. I don't criticise those who work for the state but I do wish they would look over the hedge and see what life is like on the other side (hardly any of us are bankers) before they start moaning about their lot.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can someone please destroy the myth that public sector workers, in general, get shafted over pay? Of course there are exceptions but the fact is that public sector workers, on average and allowing for the fact that different skill levels apply, are paid more than those in the private sector. Their terms of employment and their job security (even now) is better than the private sector. And of course they have those pensions.

I spent 17 years in the public sector and have since spent 22 years self-employed. My public sector pension is very acceptable, and over the years is rising. Since leaving 'the service' I have paid the same proportion of my income into a private pension scheme which even on a good day would be worth far less than the Post Office one. But of course it's not a good day - the value of the private pension has fallen by 30 per cent in recent years and it is currently not worth cashing in. So I keep on working.

I am sorry but in a morning when I have just lost nearly £1000 out of my own pocket (that's self-employment for you) I am in no mood to listen to the whingers of the state and their politically inspired mates. I don't criticise those who work for the state but I do wish they would look over the hedge and see what life is like on the other side (hardly any of us are bankers) before they start moaning about their lot.

Okay, I have just looked over the hedge and I see you: a self-employed person who can earn a grand a morning.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[cloud]

Do you think there are any alternatives? Or is striking really the last resort?

I remember a few years back the Australian transport workers went on strike.

They all turned up to work as normal, but simply let all the passengers on for free.

Well it didn't last very long, hitting the owners in the pocket.

 

[Triggaaar]

Can someone please destroy the myth that public sector workers, in general, get shafted over pay?
...
I do wish they would look over the hedge and see what life is like on the other side (hardly any of us are bankers) before they start moaning about their lot.

You were responding to my post - I don't need to look over the hedge, I don't work for the state. And I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are shafted over pay, but they don't have the same options that private sector workers have. For example, if you're a policeman, and the state decides to freeze your pay for 10 years, and cut your pension, what can you do about it? You can't go and get a job as a policeman for a competitor down the road. In a private sector job, you can always leave and work for the competition.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You were responding to my post - I don't need to look over the hedge, I don't work for the state. And I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are shafted over pay, but they don't have the same options that private sector workers have. For example, if you're a policeman, and the state decides to freeze your pay for 10 years, and cut your pension, what can you do about it? You can't go and get a job as a policeman for a competitor down the road. In a private sector job, you can always leave and work for the competition.

I think you will find they become highly paid security advisors peddling fear.

 

[Mr Burns]

It would appear I was being silly. I am glad though to be silly, as although it took me a few years, I went from a crap job I hated for not very much money at all, into one where I do very very little, and get paid very very much.

 

[Mr Burns]

A large amount of the people on strike have spent most of their life building up a career only to have their conditions changed at the last minute.

Its tough mate I'll agree with you there, but its also LIFE !

Does that mean every one in the private sector should go on strike just because we have to work longer before retirement.

Does that mean every one who has a private pension and seen it become worthless over the past few years go on strike and stop paying taxes in protest.

It's life. And lifes tough. So if people dont like it, there is not much they can do about it, because there is no money to pay for the life style they thought they would have. They can strike all day every day, but its not going to change the situation.

And while I'm in a flow, I fail to see the point of one day strikes. All they do is piss everyone of, cost the country millions, and just set everything further behind. If you hate the situation that much, go on strike until things change, because one day strike dont solve or do anything.

Personally I woould like to see a law come in that outlaws short strikes. If your going to strike, do it properly or dont do it at all.............

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Okay, I have just looked over the hedge and I see you: a self-employed person who can earn a grand a morning.

What point are you trying to make?

Goodness, this kind of suggests you don't really understand how self-employment normally operates. Just because you can lose £1000 in a morning doesn't mean you can earn it. To illuminate, this was a design job which I had spent many hours at various times over several days working on and which I hoped to earn perhaps £200 from. The cost of printing the job was £972. It had an error on it, a fatigue-driven mistake made late at night for which I am totally responsible. I will therefore pay the bill out of my own pocket. It is right that I do so, although it does grate a bit when I hear the fonctionaires droning endlessly on about their entitlements.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You were responding to my post - I don't need to look over the hedge, I don't work for the state. And I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are shafted over pay, but they don't have the same options that private sector workers have. For example, if you're a policeman, and the state decides to freeze your pay for 10 years, and cut your pension, what can you do about it? You can't go and get a job as a policeman for a competitor down the road. In a private sector job, you can always leave and work for the competition.

Are you going to tell the millions of the poor buggers terrified of losing their jobs that they can always walk out and join the competition or would you like me to?

 

[Triggaaar]

Are you going to tell the millions of the poor buggers terrified of losing their jobs that they can always walk out and join the competition or would you like me to?

When jobs are hard to come by (as they are now) I wouldn't expect private sector workers to get many pay rises, and I expect they'd be happy to stick with what they have. The market dictates. However, with the public sector the government (in place of the market) dictates regardless how well the economy is going. The government can (not necessarily will) be unfair, whereas the market treats everyone the same and is not unfair.

 

[Glawstergull]

Okay, I have just looked over the hedge and I see you: a self-employed person who can earn a grand a morning.

What point are you trying to make?

He didn't say he earn't a grand in a morning he said he LOST a grand.I don,t earn a grand a day but i could lose a fortune especially if someone wants to take me to tribunal for calling them a lazy ******.
We also had an employee steal 20 grand and he did 3 months and repaid none.

I work for my family company we pay very well, but my pension is the building we stand in and it won't be cashed in until the day i retire.And EVERY DAY until then ALL of it is at risk.

 

[looney]

im no expert, but i understand it was wealthy victorian industrailists that made the first steps, albeit small. what is bollocks is to imply that until the labour movment no "rich" ever gave a shit about the working class, who would be kept in starvation, its left wing mythology.

Rowntree, Carr Gomm, Dr Banados etc

 

[Lincoln Imp]

When jobs are hard to come by (as they are now) I wouldn't expect private sector workers to get many pay rises, and I expect they'd be happy to stick with what they have. The market dictates. However, with the public sector the government (in place of the market) dictates regardless how well the economy is going. The government can (not necessarily will) be unfair, whereas the market treats everyone the same and is not unfair.

Surely you forget that markets are frequently skewed by government policy rather than the conventional rules of supply and demand. The government can determine the job security of those in the private sector as well as those in the public. The different is that when the policy changes it's the private sector that suffers the most. I am sure there must be some examples but I can't actually think of any cases where the government treats its employees unfairly compared to those in the private sector

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Goodness, this kind of suggests you don't really understand how self-employment normally operates. Just because you can lose £1000 in a morning doesn't mean you can earn it. To illuminate, this was a design job which I had spent many hours at various times over several days working on and which I hoped to earn perhaps £200 from. The cost of printing the job was £972. It had an error on it, a fatigue-driven mistake made late at night for which I am totally responsible. I will therefore pay the bill out of my own pocket. It is right that I do so, although it does grate a bit when I hear the fonctionaires droning endlessly on about their entitlements.

Fair enough I stand corrected. I thought you meant you lost a job worth a grand in earnings.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Rowntree, Carr Gomm, Dr Banados etc

The real philanthropist in the Carr-Gomm family was Richard Carr-Gomm, grandson of Francis Carr-Gomm, the Victorian chairman of the London Hospital, who "rescued" the Elephant Man. Francis Carr-Gomm was more of a fund raiser than a spender of his own wealth. It took a couple of generations (and half the twentieth century) before the Carr-Gomms started seriously giving their money away.

My dear old granny lived in the same block of flats in Rotherhithe as Richard Carr-Gomm. He turned to philanthropy largely as a result of a post-WW2 religious conversion, combined with bucket loads of inherited wealth.

 

[looney]

The real philanthropist in the Carr-Gomm family was Richard Carr-Gomm, grandson of Francis Carr-Gomm, the Victorian chairman of the London Hospital, who "rescued" the Elephant Man. Francis Carr-Gomm was more of a fund raiser than a spender of his own wealth. It took a couple of generations (and half the twentieth century) before the Carr-Gomms started seriously giving their money away.

My dear old granny lived in the same block of flats in Rotherhithe as Richard Carr-Gomm. He turned to philanthropy largely as a result of a post-WW2 religious conversion, combined with bucket loads of inherited wealth.

True, but I think the question was more along the lines of did the rich help the poor rather than a who opened their wallets type question. Many Victorians, industrialists and wealthy types established institutions and precidents that helped the poor and needy. Anthoney Ashley-coopers crusade against child labour/exploitation in Parliament as the 7th Earl of shaftsbury for example. You could probably throw in a few chartists as well.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Yes but you did infer that the "rich" drove the rights of working classes, possibly more than the working classes themselves.

Which is utter bollocks.

I think we can pretty well guarantee that he didn't infer that.