Public Sector Strike Day

[Captain Sensible]

If it is any consolation Mrs Hut was a Scab today and went to work.

Good to see the Blue version has finally arrived for her.

You must be so proud. Still pay her Union membership does she? Ready to use them whenever she needs help? Benefitting from the negotiations of the unions previously? Well why doesn't she just leave the union, then whatever pay rise or future pensions they get decline it? Because she did nothing, therefore doesn't deserve anything the union manage to salvage for their members.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Sealed your fate? Free travel? Poor little sausage.

I don't know the circumstances of your exchanges with beach hut and his sausage. But I have found in my experience in employment law, that strikes really show people up for who they are. Those that stand up against poor pay or conditions are generally trustworthy folk with integrity and honour. Then there's those that still pay union subs 'in case they ever get in trouble' and take all the benefits and previously won conditions yet betray their fellow workers, are the opposite. They lack all those qualities. Funny thing is sometimes you find out that someone you thought had those qualities, didn't..and then someone you thought would never stand up for themselves and strike, did! It really is an eye opener.

 

[pastafarian]

Len McCluskey has attacked the PM and his comments concerning the low number of union members supporting a strike ...

"The whiff of hypocrisy coming from Cameron as he harps on about voting thresholds is overwhelming," he said. "Not a single member of his cabinet won over 50% of the vote in the 2010 election, with Cameron himself getting just 43% of the potential vote. ....quoted from this article http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/09/david-cameron-strikes-1m-walk-out-bully-threats.

isnt this a silly standpoint to take by McCluskey,surely the union strike vote is by paid up members of that union to decide on an issue,how on earth do you compare it to the vast proportion of the electorate who are not affiliated or paid up members to any political party.

seems a bit odd to me,.....no doubt someone will show me the error of my ways

 

[wellquickwoody]

I crossed the picket line for about the 12th time in five years, ridiculous!

Well done you!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Call this a simplistic view,

it just doesn't seem fair

Yep, that is a simplistic view. Did your parents never tell you?

 

[pastafarian]

I don't know the circumstances of your exchanges with beach hut and his sausage. But I have found in my experience in employment law, that strikes really show people up for who they are. Those that stand up against poor pay or conditions are generally trustworthy folk with integrity and honour. Then there's those that still pay union subs 'in case they ever get in trouble' and take all the benefits and previously won conditions yet betray their fellow workers, are the opposite. They lack all those qualities. Funny thing is sometimes you find out that someone you thought had those qualities, didn't..and then someone you thought would never stand up for themselves and strike, did! It really is an eye opener.

you probably make some sense here,although its too easy to demonise people that do good and legitimate work on behalf of unions,......the unions have only themselves to blame for their own bad press..

My only ever involvement with a union is when i turned up first day for a job and was told(which had never been divulged to me) that i had to join the union if i wanted to work....no buts!......seemed very unfair.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I bet you still pay your subs to your union and if ever were in trouble at work through an incident or sickness, you would need the help of your union rep to save your job? Yet you betray them.
I think anyone that crosses the pickets should not be allowed union membership. If you don't agree with what your union is doing then leave!!
Oh and before you say 'you left your union', then you wouldn't be eligible for strike. Many cowards and selfish, cross the pickets yet still pay their subs and profit from conditions and pay rises that their unions negotiate. Profiting and taking the benefits that others have made sacrifices for, in my mind you can't get much lower.

If you were ever in trouble at work blah blah, I have met self important self serving union reps that you speak of. After sub's were paid for 20 years plus you thought they might have come running when needed, well the local rep couldn't even return phone calls until the regional office were contacted. Even they dragged their feet so slowly that their inefficiency matched the government agency that they were being asked to challenge. A belated resolution was only achieved by the threat of legal action. The union and their rep? Nowhere in sight. Absolute saddo's who are worse than most of our politicians who we at least know are acting in their own self interest, The union officials blackmail people into following the union line with sneering comments of people taking the benefits of membership but not supporting the cause etc etc, whilst in reality these officials are still sitting on a gravy train of self importance harking back to the 70's and their inadequacies are evident for all to see.

You sound like a hate filled, control freak determined to smash those with a mind of their own, are you a union rep?

You must be so proud. Still pay her Union membership does she? Ready to use them whenever she needs help? Benefitting from the negotiations of the unions previously? Well why doesn't she just leave the union, then whatever pay rise or future pensions they get decline it? Because she did nothing, therefore doesn't deserve anything the union manage to salvage for their members.

Dinosaur from the past, fighting against evolution and extinction. Good riddance.

 

[Plastic-Fantastic]

I bet you still pay your subs to your union and if ever were in trouble at work through an incident or sickness, you would need the help of your union rep to save your job? Yet you betray them.
I think anyone that crosses the pickets should not be allowed union membership. If you don't agree with what your union is doing then leave!!
Oh and before you say 'you left your union', then you wouldn't be eligible for strike. Many cowards and selfish, cross the pickets yet still pay their subs and profit from conditions and pay rises that their unions negotiate. Profiting and taking the benefits that others have made sacrifices for, in my mind you can't get much lower.

Don't worry, I've never been a member of the Union, so am not a 'scab' in that respect. I'd like it if there was a Union I felt comfortable joining, but the activities of our branch are all about pursuing the childish political agenda of the local reps and nothing to do with representing the day to day needs of members

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I bet you still pay your subs to your union and if ever were in trouble at work through an incident or sickness, you would need the help of your union rep to save your job? Yet you betray them.
I think anyone that crosses the pickets should not be allowed union membership. If you don't agree with what your union is doing then leave!!
Oh and before you say 'you left your union', then you wouldn't be eligible for strike. Many cowards and selfish, cross the pickets yet still pay their subs and profit from conditions and pay rises that their unions negotiate. Profiting and taking the benefits that others have made sacrifices for, in my mind you can't get much lower.

That argument goes both ways. My partner was a union member and had to call upon them for help at work. It took them over a week to finally get back to her despite constant chasing. Even then they were utterly useless and uninterested. In the end we paid for an employment solicitor and the issue at work was resolved in a few days.

 

[father_and_son]

With regard to spend spend spend, we were spending money we were earning but then of course the bank led recession put paid to that!

WOW!!! Staggeringly uninformed!

We spent MORE than we earned! It's called a "budget deficit" and it meant that we spent everything we earned and then borrowed sh*t loads more so that we could spent that as well.


A little Economics 101 for you and the other ret~rds!
The "bank led recession" was caused by a sudden tightening of the debt market meaning that new money became extremely expensive to borrow. If you are living beyond your means and someone tells you that you can't borrow any more money then things start to go wrong.

Only those countries which were in deficit should have been impacted in this sort of situation. But because so many countries were overspending, the knock on impacts hit even the prudent countries - hence, worldwide recession.


1. The banks who packaged up impossibly complicated debt products to offload all the toxic debt and sold them to each other caused a sudden tightening of the market - they are the root cause of the problem. The regulators who allowed this to happen are also culpable here.

2. The banks who bought the packaged debt products were the secondary cause because they were too wrapped up in the bull market to actually do any basic analysis into the products they were trading.

3. EVERYONE who was living beyond their means - countries, governments, businesses and individuals - were the victims, but with a very large dose of blame because of their own negligent behaviour. If you're not constantly borrowing money then you don't give a sh*t if the debt market tightens up!

4. When too many people are part of #3 and too many banks are part of #2 then we all suffer, including the prudent ones.

The British Government, under New Labour, were part of #3 and we are now paying the price.

 

[father_and_son]

If you buy overseas property then the money has gone from our economy unless the person who sold the house then buys one in this country!

To also call you out on this particular point.

Firstly: If you bothered to read all of my post I specifically mentioned that money can more to another country, but is still in circulation - its in the Global Economy, just not the Local one. It doesn't makes the facts of my post any less valid!

Secondly: We are a net receiver of property investment money in this country. Considerably more money from other countries flows into our local Economy from foreign property investors (domestic, commercial and from Oligarchs & Princes). So this actually pumps more into our waterfall for it to cascade down as I described earlier.

You really need to actually get out and learn some stuff because you are spectacularly ignorant.

 

[Goldstone1976]

All - could we try to keep the personal insults down a little, please? It's obvious that a topic such as this will generate strong feelings, but do remember to play the ball, not the man.

 

[father_and_son]

That argument goes both ways. My partner was a union member and had to call upon them for help at work. It took them over a week to finally get back to her despite constant chasing. Even then they were utterly useless and uninterested. In the end we paid for an employment solicitor and the issue at work was resolved in a few days.

[MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION]... Tip for the future. Look through the paperwork for things like your Home Insurance, your Bank Account and any other financial products you have. Quite often there are "Legal Services" included as part of the product. Sometimes its nothing more than a free telephone advice line that you can call, but sometimes its a pretty good package and you can access all sorts of help, including having your solicitor paid for! The products are usually a catch-all legal service which means you can use it for almost any matter not just in relation to product that you got them with.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

@Westdene Seagull... Tip for the future. Look through the paperwork for things like your Home Insurance, your Bank Account and any other financial products you have. Quite often there are "Legal Services" included as part of the product. Sometimes its nothing more than a free telephone advice line that you can call, but sometimes its a pretty good package and you can access all sorts of help, including having your solicitor paid for! The products are usually a catch-all legal service which means you can use it for almost any matter not just in relation to product that you got them with.

Thank you but I purposely remove the legal assistance from insurance policies. We've jointly used ( the same ) employment solicitor three times and each time the employer has had to pick up the tab !

 

[father_and_son]

Thank you but I purposely remove the legal assistance from insurance policies. We've jointly used ( the same ) employment solicitor three times and each time the employer has had to pick up the tab !

With you. Because I know how it works I will always decline the optional covers (you only need it free on one product, then you can ignore it on all the others!). Also availed myself of the 'generosity' of employers who pick up the legal bill when they were wrong in the first place!

If its optional, decline because you will be overpaying (the logic is - only people likely to claim will buy it so it needs to be more expensive then just selling to a random selection of people). If its included as standard it costs the insurer next to nothing and you would barely notice it was there.

Compared to the cost of employing a solicitor, IMHO worth a bit of research through your paperwork.

 

[beorhthelm]

Len McCluskey has attacked the PM and his comments concerning the low number of union members supporting a strike ...

"The whiff of hypocrisy coming from Cameron as he harps on about voting thresholds is overwhelming," he said. "Not a single member of his cabinet won over 50% of the vote in the 2010 election, with Cameron himself getting just 43% of the potential vote. ....quoted from this article http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/09/david-cameron-strikes-1m-walk-out-bully-threats.

isnt this a silly standpoint to take by McCluskey,surely the union strike vote is by paid up members of that union to decide on an issue,how on earth do you compare it to the vast proportion of the electorate who are not affiliated or paid up members to any political party.

seems a bit odd to me,.....no doubt someone will show me the error of my ways

its a clever distraction by McCluskey. as far as im aware, no one is suggesting a majority vote for action, only that a majority actual take part in the vote. so you'd only need 25.1% required to carry a vote. if you cant get 25% of your members to turnout for an issue, then you dont really have support. McCluskey is redirecting attention, but the vast majority of people wont be fooled and will see it as a reasonable restriction of union power.

 

[Dandyman]

Don't worry, I've never been a member of the Union, so am not a 'scab' in that respect. I'd like it if there was a Union I felt comfortable joining, but the activities of our branch are all about pursuing the childish political agenda of the local reps and nothing to do with representing the day to day needs of members

I presume you will therefore be handing back every pay rise and benefit won by trade unions to your employer ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I presume you will therefore be handing back every pay rise and benefit won by trade unions to your employer ?

Of course you are assuming that his employer recognises the unions for the purpose of collective pay bargaining - many don't.

 

[Dandyman]

its a clever distraction by McCluskey. as far as im aware, no one is suggesting a majority vote for action, only that a majority actual take part in the vote. so you'd only need 25.1% required to carry a vote. if you cant get 25% of your members to turnout for an issue, then you dont really have support. McCluskey is redirecting attention, but the vast majority of people wont be fooled and will see it as a reasonable restriction of union power.

It's not a distraction, it's a statement of truth. The present government came to power on a minority of eligible votes. The Tories even failed to win an overall majority over all other parties and had to rely on the LibDems whoring themselves out. The right to withdraw labour is a fundamental human right and restrictions on the rights of labour are the hallmark of every dictatorial system that has ever existed.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not a distraction, it's a statement of truth.

i didnt say it wasnt the truth*, i said he's distracting from the proposed legislation. no one is proposing 50% of all members needed to carry a vote. currently a union can take action on say getting 10% of its members to vote for, as long as the against is less. thats wrong and a farce (and nothing to do with the individuals right to withdraw labour). seems quite fair to require a 50% turnout for a vote to stand, and the only reason i can see a union would be against this principle is it means they wouldnt be able to carry or manipulate so many votes. funny thing is a union will insist on quorums for internal, administrative votes, just not when it suits them.

And i would apply this to electing MPs too, if turnout is less than 50% it should be re-run. that would get the politicians to shape up on their policy and campaining.

* although, I'd suggest McClusky check his facts. Cameron, Osborne, May, Hague, Clegg (got bored at this point) all got >50% of the vote, in constituencies with >50% turnout.