Anyone ever cross a picket line?

[Lord Bracknell]

Face it, there are far too many people in local government employment and they generally don't do as good a job as the private sector in terms of value for money.

Private sector Classroom Assistants?
Private sector Care Workers?

They certainly don't deserve to have their employers 13.5% contribution hiked even higher so that they can shirk off at 60.

I never said that. I said that the tax handout given to everybody in the country that allowed the employers to make a ZERO contribution for years is the fundamental cause of the crisis.

The fact is that ANY public sector spending that delivers public benefits has been denigrated by rightwing politicians for years. They don't seem to mind too much when public sector spending bolsters up the chisseling little crooks who get fat on the proceeds.

 

[Napper]

don't bother me , Im a council slave, not against high council tax payments, keeps me on NSC

 

[Lammy]

If you don't like it get another job. Transfer your pension to a private one and see how much the rest of us have to pay in to retire at 60. Then you will see why there is little sympathy outside the public sector.

My Mother in law is a teacher, she was able to sign in and still not go to work so that she got paid. Now what the f*** is that all about?

 

[Dave the OAP]

That is referring to company pensions. The Government did it several years ago.
I can retire in 2 years time and get a state pension because I was born before April 1950.
Women born between 1950 and 1955 have to work until they 63 and any woman born after 1955 has to work til 65 now.
Equal opportunities and women's lib? No thanks.

I am sorry that is bollocks.

Teachers can retire at 60 on full pension whereas Classroom assistants have to wait for their 65 birthday

 

[Dave the OAP]

"Face it, there are far too many people in local government employment and they generally don't do as good a job as the private sector in terms of value for money"

CHIP YOU f***ing SANCTIMONIOUS PRICK

Next time I deliver laura down to Uni, perhaps you could tell me where you "lecture" and you can explain to me face to face why you think my wife, who works her bollocks off in a very stressful job - its not all washing out paintpots, she is also "special needs person, speech therapist, language therapist, councillor to some very disturbed children, reading specialist etc etc does not provide a good a job as a private sector person.

Time you took your head ourt of your "research " books and moved into the real world

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Some of the people who this affects are some of the most low paid workers in the country - teaching assistants, care workers, bin men, road sweepers etc.

One of the few real benefits they get is to look forward to a slightly erlier retirement with a pension, this is a term of their employment contract.

As the pension is related to wages they won't be getting a great pension at the end of it even with these "perks!".

I fully support the cause that tese workers are striking for.

P.S.
This shows again how far Labour left its roots behind - it is still trying to push these changes through which will penalise low-paid local government workers, after agreeing to abandon them for other, higher paid, areas of the public sector (civil service etc).

 

[Dave the OAP]

The thing that really pisses me off, is when Governments Tory and labour(sic) wants to save money, its the weak and vunerable who are the ones thay target, be it via closing council run nursing homes, to "care in the community" to this Pension stuff and not forgetting "targetting" the people on disability allowance, who they have now got it in their middle class brains are all in effect spongers and workshy - tell that to my neighbour who has chronic back pain and cant sleep or walk properly due to working as a contruction worker humping roof trusses about.

But their "friends" like multi millionaires are able to exploit the tax laws by avoiding tax by affording highly paid lawyers and accountants who are there purely to find loopholes so these parasites dont have to pay their share of tax. And then , if they are clever enough to give the government of the day money, they are rewarded with a peerage and more "privaledges"

Its all bollocks

 

[tedebear]

no I haven't as yet - but if I had to i would, I don't believe in unions and I don't believe striking is the way to protest. Distrupting other peoples lives to better your own cause is selfish. That being said the decisions being made in this case are ludicrous. I support the cause for which they striked yesterday but believe that there is a better way to resolve it.

I am however annoyed with several friends who are council workers and spent yesterday wondering around town shopping. Theres a few bad lazy eggs in council work land - and they spoil it for the good'uns...

This decision is a change in the terms and conditions of someones employment, in most private sector jobs the employee needs to be consulted with prior to this change, why is this not the case in the public sector?

 

[SJ's Love Monkey]

I have been on a picket line at the Wapping dispute, i had only just started working in the Print Trade and was called out by The NGA to picket!

 

[Dave the OAP]

I have been on a picket line at the Wapping dispute, i had only just started working in the Print Trade and was called out by The NGA to picket!

TOP MAN - serious respect to you mate.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

No, what is disgraceful is that people like you think that these pensions should be protected, often by people who have seen thier own pensions reuduced, by increased council taxes and other taxation. This is the single largest cause of the increases in local taxation since Brown started taxing pension fund dividends. It would be outrageous to expect young people, just starting out in their working lives to subsidize these funds to make up the shortfall. EVERYONE ELSE HAS SEEN THEIR PENSIONS MESSED UP, WHY SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY?

Why is it outrageous to expect young people to fund peoples pensions? Where do you think the state pension comes from, I'm effectively paying my parents pension.

There are a multitude of reasons why pensions are in the state that they are, I can think of five at the moment. However the two major issues are that we are living longer, and that Brown takes on average of £5billion in tax's from pension funds. When the state pension was first introduced people were only expected to live too 66, yes that's 66, it's not a typo. Men on average live to about 85, women to about 87, this really canes a pension fund regardless of whether it's public or private final salary scheme. The thing to remember wrt a final salary scheme is that it is effectively at the employers risk whereas a DC scheme is the employees risk, hence the movement to DC schemes. Brown could reduce the liabilities of the scheme by reintroducing the tax relief.

The problem with the civil service scheme is the retirement age of 60, of which 10,000 people are eligible. The retirement age will have to increase to reduce funding cost, (sorry Dez) but it needs to be phased in, so instead of going straight to 65 it should phase it over say 5 or ten year period.

As for them being treated differently, are you Digby ‘hypocrite’ Jones, retiring head of the CBI in disguise? He was on the Radio yesterday lambasting the unions for this. Maybe he should look at the CBI’s own members who can, if they so wish retire at 55 or 60 because their pension benefits that make the civil service pension fund look positively Dickensian. Executive schemes tend to work on 40th’s rather than the normal 60th’s.

Also, I’m not convinced that someone that lecturers at Uni should be criticizing the public sector for being inefficient and poor value for money. Let’s face it, irate students and research that’s not going to plan is about the worst it gets. You don’t have the ‘joy’s’ of a job in the social security offices and the verbal abuse that comes with it, or emptying bins in all weathers try doing that at 60, let alone at 65.

As in all things it’s not black or white ……

 

[Lammy]

no I haven't as yet - but if I had to i would, I don't believe in unions and I don't believe striking is the way to protest. Distrupting other peoples lives to better your own cause is selfish. That being said the decisions being made in this case are ludicrous. I support the cause for which they striked yesterday but believe that there is a better way to resolve it.

I am however annoyed with several friends who are council workers and spent yesterday wondering around town shopping. Theres a few bad lazy eggs in council work land - and they spoil it for the good'uns...

This decision is a change in the terms and conditions of someones employment, in most private sector jobs the employee needs to be consulted with prior to this change, why is this not the case in the public sector?

I agree with all but your last paragraph. My in-laws were both 'on strike' one is a teacher the othe ra council worker. They spent the day shopping. The teacher signed in and even got paid for the day off!!

In the private sector people are often being asked to re-apply for their own jobs often getting paycuts. The only option you have is to leave. Which is the way it should work. If the employment package was so bad that no one wanted to work there the employers would have to change. This happened in teaching. The package teachers are offered now is mile better than 10 years ago and so there is now an increase in applicants.

 

[chip]

"Face it, there are far too many people in local government employment and they generally don't do as good a job as the private sector in terms of value for money"

CHIP YOU f***ing SANCTIMONIOUS PRICK

Next time I deliver laura down to Uni, perhaps you could tell me where you "lecture" and you can explain to me face to face why you think my wife, who works her bollocks off in a very stressful job - its not all washing out paintpots, she is also "special needs person, speech therapist, language therapist, councillor to some very disturbed children, reading specialist etc etc does not provide a good a job as a private sector person.

Time you took your head ourt of your "research " books and moved into the real world

You really are a very angry person, aren't you? It'll do your blood pressure no good. You also take everything so, so personally but think you are always right. I imagine you to be just like the Harry Enfield character in the pub - mr angry.

If you read what I had writen, it was about value for money not how hard people work. Local government swallows a very significant proportion of education funding before it even reaches the schools. It also wastes huge ammounts on employing people in non-jobs. Why you need me to explain that to you I don't know. Try telephoning you district councillor and asking her/him.

I would actually like to see teaching assistants, for example, paid more - especially now that they are being required to gain NVQs, etc. They are often appointed to provide support for very difficult children in mainstream schools and work irregular hours. However, I don't see why they should be treated any differently to the rest of the work force in terms of how their pensions are funded.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

I don't believe in unions

Just out of interest, how do you believe that ordinary workers can protect themselves from unscrupulous employers, ensuring that they get a fair deal over pay and conditions?

(I'm not having a go BTW, I'm interested).

 

[MattewEdwards ShinPads]

"The Unions Forever defending our rights !"

The words of Mr Billy Bragg!

 

[tedebear]

If the employment package was so bad that no one wanted to work there the employers would have to change.

Agreed, however in this case the package was (or is) being changed after they have taken employment? They have the jobs in the first place and are having their terms and conditions changed without consent? or have I got this wrong?

 

[Dandyman]

"Face it, there are far too many people in local government employment and they generally don't do as good a job as the private sector in terms of value for money"

CHIP YOU f***ing SANCTIMONIOUS PRICK

Next time I deliver laura down to Uni, perhaps you could tell me where you "lecture" and you can explain to me face to face why you think my wife, who works her bollocks off in a very stressful job - its not all washing out paintpots, she is also "special needs person, speech therapist, language therapist, councillor to some very disturbed children, reading specialist etc etc does not provide a good a job as a private sector person.

Time you took your head ourt of your "research " books and moved into the real world

Spot on. Well said, Dave.

 

[Dandyman]

Agreed, however in this case the package was (or is) being changed after they have taken employment? They have the jobs in the first place and are having their terms and conditions changed without consent? or have I got this wrong?

Correct. Pensions are part of the employment package which the employer is seeking to unilaterally alter. It might be pertinent to ask those employers who harp on about the pensions shortfall why so many of them took pensions "holidays" back in the 90's.

 

[Dandyman]

You really are a very angry person, aren't you? It'll do your blood pressure no good. You also take everything so, so personally but think you are always right. I imagine you to be just like the Harry Enfield character in the pub - mr angry.

If you read what I had writen, it was about value for money not how hard people work. Local government swallows a very significant proportion of education funding before it even reaches the schools. It also wastes huge ammounts on employing people in non-jobs. Why you need me to explain that to you I don't know. Try telephoning you district councillor and asking her/him.

I would actually like to see teaching assistants, for example, paid more - especially now that they are being required to gain NVQs, etc. They are often appointed to provide support for very difficult children in mainstream schools and work irregular hours. However, I don't see why they should be treated any differently to the rest of the work force in terms of how their pensions are funded.

Care to give me some examples of non-jobs or is that just another illustration of your ivory tower existence ?

 

[tedebear]

Just out of interest, how do you believe that ordinary workers can protect themselves from unscrupulous employers, ensuring that they get a fair deal over pay and conditions?

(I'm not having a go BTW, I'm interested).

Well a few things come to mind.... You go for a job interview the conditions are not suitable thus you don't take the job, someone else may be willing to settle for those conditions. Secondly, if an employer changes the conditions to which you originally signed up to, without your consent - then there is tribunal and or legal action (with legal aid if you need).

My discontent with unions stems from a pay dispute which took a company I worked for to the brink of insolvency. We went from a factory producing turf aeration and maintenance equipment employing 50 odd welders, spray painters, metal fabricators etc. to a company of 5 people, with the company unable to fill orders and eventually selling off machinery and becoming purely there to maintain existing machinery. Simply because the sheetmetal workers union stepped in a complained about 2 things - 1 that the workers were not getting paid enough. and secondly that the changing rooms weren't big enough. The second issue we addressed the first issue crippled the company.

The men took those jobs at those rates of pay in the first instance and were happy to do so. They received small pay increases each year, and bonuses at christmas. If the union hadn't started its shit stirring, the men would still have jobs and the company still running. The alternative if the men were unhappy would be to find work elsewhere...