strike

[Otta]

But either way that's doing the same thing as d_c does when he tries to reposition this strike as an anti-government one - effectively you're trying to position this strike as an anti-banker one.

Huguenot accusing people of repositioning an argument to suit their stance...

I don't have the words!

[*Bob*]

Don't most committed teachers just compulsively carry-on teaching well beyond the point they ought to have packed it in? - until they finally go mad?

Most of the ones at our school did anyway.

[StraferJack]

well I don't know about a TINY minority - I'll go with significant. or enough. or even if it's (off the top of my head you understand) 1%, that 1% could do a lot more than they are doing. I'm just sayin'. You can't MAKE them do anyting (god forbid you should even suggest such a thing)

I'm not trying to position the strike as anything - I'm just picking up on comments that peolpe against the strike have made when they say that lots of other people are suffering (ie it's they who are widening the strike position)

In fact I didn't even mention banks in my post so I'm not sure why you can accuse me of that?

[Huguenot]

If you've not met them Keef it's probably because they've retired.

There are virtually no teachers who continue working after the age of 60.

[taper]

David

I'm in the exact same position (and same union!) as you. See you around a brazier somewhere next Wednesday?

PS Grateful you took time out to dismantle Huguenot's sub-Daily Mail cant.

I thought this blog piece in the Telegraph struck the right note:

"The Unions Would Be Mad Not to Strike

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100119563/the-unions-would-be-mad-not-to-strike/

Key quote:

"The depth and breadth of this anger is underlined by the names of the unions participating in next week?s action. The Chartered society of Physiotherapy. The Society of Radiographers. The First Division Association. The National Association of Headteachers. Next Wednesday?s strikes aren?t being led by the angry brigade. They?re being fronted by Sir Humphrey and Mr Chips"

[Otta]

Where does that 7 year old study say that nearly all teachers retire at 60? (serious question, I am missing it).

What it does seem to say, is that teachers relative pay is pretty crap, and their working hours are shite.

But as I say, it's 7 years old, and most of the figures end at 1999, so not sure how relevent it is.

[Huguenot]

If you're suggesting that the Labour Party is Daily Mail, taper, then that's the only way you'd be right.

[Huguenot]

Of Keef, come off it.

The data on teachers working post 60 is in the graph at the bottom of page 2.

The law for teachers retirement age only changed for NEW teachers in 2007, when the retirement age changed to 65. This hasn't had time to have any sort of impact.

Are you trying to suggest that suddenly in the boom period of the first decade of the 20th century teachers all suddenly started working until they were 65?

I come from a family of headteachers from 3 generations. My entire family life revolves around teachers. They nearly all retire at 60.

[Huguenot]

Okay here's the latest figures:

450,000 teachers in state schools in the UK, of which 6,300 are over the age of 60.

Happy now? ;-)

[peterstorm1985]

If you don't like the deal your employer is offering you simply look for another job. That's what happens in the private sector. OK, so firemen may find little alternative but teachers,nurses and much of the rest of the civil service could look elsewhere if they chose. But they don't. Why is that? Because they know they'd be worse off.

[Otta]

Headteachers is probably the keyword there.

I genuinely missed that graph, but it seemed to show that about 400 primary school teachers worked past 60 (with the peak of about 17000 being about 55. And about 2000 secondary teachers, with the peak being about 10000 again at 55.

It is probably worth mentioning that there are a lot more female teachers than male, and if you looked at similar graphs for any profession, but divided them in to gender, there would be a big difference (until more recent years).

[Otta]

What job would you recommend an English teacher (fr example) go for?

[Chippy Minton]

Up to three million are set to strike over this issue. Do you recommend they all resign?

[StraferJack]

Peter, that's a pretty flawed post right there

"If you don't like the deal your employer is offering you simply look for another job. That's what happens in the private sector."

if that's the case, then why don't all those people in the private sector apply for the public sector jobs they are so jealous about?

Exactly

But let's take your other argument, and let's assume that all of the strikers thought "I'm off" - wouldn't that cause rather more problems than a day's strike?

Maybe you think "well there are plenty of unemloyed out there" - which begs 2 questions

1) do you WANT some of those unemployed teaching your kids?

2) Where do 3 million jobs suddenly appear from? You have 3 million union members off doing other jobs on your advice - they haven't just abandoned work. Which means 3 million extra jobs just appeared from somewhere. Where?

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Up to three million are set to strike over this

> issue. Do you recommend they all resign?

'Up to', being the operative phrase. 78% yes on a 29% turnout, suggesting the number will be more like 600K.

The critical point will be how many of these will be of the important and visible area of the public sector like teachers, border staff, etc.

[DaveR]

The article in the Telegraph (by a trade unionist) is spot on. The key quote was this one:

"Nor, despite efforts by ministers to hang next Wednesday?s action around Ed Miliband?s neck, is this essentially a political dispute. It?s a good old fashioned dust up about pay and conditions. Or specifically what the TUC is calling the ?Triple Squeeze? on public sector pensions; namely the shift in calculating uprating from RPI to CPI, the increase in individual contributions and the proposed increase in the retirement ceiling.

Some may see these as perfectly sensible changes, which reflect modern economic and social realities. That?s a matter for debate. But what?s not debatable is they mean an erosion of the existing pension entitlements of public sector workers. And however moderate or far sighted, trade union general secretaries get paid to improve their members conditions, not sit idly by as they decline. Again, some may question why trade unionists should expect better pension provision than the rest of the population. But that?s the whole point of collective bargaining; to obtain better terms collectively than you can individually."

This is a strike for one purpose only - to protect the economic interests of union members. If you agree that that should take precedence over what the author recognises can properly seen as 'perfectly sensible changes which reflect modern social and economic realities' then you will support it. I don't.

And in response to SJ

"if that's the case, then why don't all those people in the private sector apply for the public sector jobs they are so jealous about?"

They do - in their thousands. Ask anyone who has been recruiting externally into the public sector recently.

[Chippy Minton]

Whilst I agree the turnout isn't high, far more than those that actually voted to strike will not go to work on Wednesday.

Not voting is not a "no" vote, a number of non union members will not cross picket lines and a great deal of those that voted no to the strike in the ballot will still choose to strike on the day.

The bigger picture is that the turnout is more reflective of the current apathy when in comes to voting - just look at the turnouts out this year's referendum, local elections, even the general election last year.

It's also interesting to note that both this government and the last, have refused to consider trade union lobbying/suggestions that would make it easier to vote, thus increasing turnouts. At a time when many people are criticising the turnout in elections, if they allowed the trade unions to implement some of their ideas it would provide an opportunity to learn how we could increase turnout in elections etc.

[david_carnell]

I also refuse to take lectures on a democratic mandate from this government.

[James Barber]

I work for a private company. Today ends a 90 day consultation about changing the occupational pension for those of us who have worked there long enough to have one. We're moving from an accrual rate of 1/60 pa to 1/85 but keeping the normal retirement age of 60 years of age. Original proposal was 1/75 retiring at 65.

The actuaries had stated that keeping it at 1/60 60 years of age retirement would cost the company each year 33% of the salary pa. So I presume the govt has had similar advise.

As for Labour understanding. Locally they've changed the date of full council assembly and have made it clear they won't be crossing any picket lines.

[JahSE22]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "If the government is using the revenue to give

> perks to public sector workers that they cannot

> have themselves "

>

> Whilst is should indeed be noted that many in the

> private sector have indeed seen many "perks"

> decimated (the pain of reading my last pension

> update still smarts), it's fair to say that

> phrases "public" and "private" sector are too

> broad brush

>

> What many people (from the Occupy protesters and

> the strikers) have noted is that for many people

> in the private sector it's bonanza time still.

> Simply put, money is out there. And whilst any

> attempt to suggest those well off could contribute

> more is met with "politics of envy!!" or "they

> will leave the country! leave them alone!!",

> whereas any time a meagrely salaried person does

> something to keep what they have been

> contractually promised is met with "tough

> titties"

>

> So yes, there is a big pool of piss, but it's not

> impossible to disperse. But the people with the

> hose are inside and don't want to get dirty

Straferjack I have to disagree with your post !:-$

[StraferJack]

No need to apologise

[Annette Curtain]

ViviPR/PM22 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Annette Curtain Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Exactly ????'s

> >

> > I will of course be "self-employing" myself.

> >

> > I could make the 32nd though, if that helps

> >

> > NETTE:-S

>

>

> Sorry for interrupting this thread.

>

> Hi! Annette

>

> I have send you a PM.

>

> Cheers!

> Vivi

Well double excuse me

Here's your PM ( Pathetic Message ) back

Hi! Babe

Money is not too important nothing can be more important than seing you happy

darling and if we need to talked we can, I am not fussy. What about next week,

the same as we said let me know.

Hugs,

LM/Kath

Everyone else; as you were.

NETTE:-S

[Marmora Man]

A practical contrast to support the Hugenot position:

On the day I'll be running a 100 bedded private hospital - delivering services to a predominantly NHS patient base (roughly 80%) at sub NHS tariff rates.

None of the staff will be striking but they're all in the private sector and are all on 1/80 non final salary pension schemes, as the final salary pension scheme became unaffordable under changes made by the last administration. Current company retirement age is 65 and rising to 67 in accordance with recommendations.

To ensure we keep the hospital running staff have planned:

a. A voluntary creche service to cover for the schools and nurseries that won't open (public sector staff on strike to protect their final salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60) so that parents can get to work to deliver an essential service

b. To share cars (or stay overnight in spare beds) as public transport won't run (public sector staff on strike to protect their final salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60)

In the next door NHS hospital staff of all specialties and grades will be striking - even including nurses. They won't provide to us essential Patient Transport Services (we'll pay for taxis), deliver blood for operations or loan out sterile supplies for theatres - all to protect salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also refuse to take lectures on a democratic mandate from this government.

I believe the coalition is the first government for quite a long time that can at least say they represent the majority of voters. First since the second world war, at the very least.

[Chippy Minton]

To be clear, all of the unions involved in this action have made it very, very clear that their members, inc nurses, have been asked NOT to put patients at any risk. The unions always believe that the NHS should run services which guarantee patient safety and their members understand their professional obligations in this regard. The unions are certainly not seeking to undermine this.

The NHS employers have discussed the cover with the union reps and agreed what is considered to be a safe service - cover will follow the principle of "public holiday cover determined by professional and skilled staff."