strike

[Marmora Man]

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."

So cancelling planned operations is OK? Failing to transport patients is OK? Treating NHS patients are a cost most taxpayers (ie those of us that do not work in the public sector) are prepared to bear. Treating puic sector staff to an early retirement and free pension is not. Even after the Coaltion proposals are adopted public sector staff will still have far more generous T&Cs than the private sector. I spent 20 years in the public sector - I'm content, not wildly happy, to accept the changes to my pension - CPI for RPI etc for the overall greater good.

[StraferJack]

Even allowing the recent ish economic collapse, this hostility to public sector workers is odd

To suggest that you are typical o public sector workers MM, is just wrong.

[ontheedge]

Oh get out of it.

The public sector pay taxes too.

I have worked in the NHS for the ast 26 years & wasn't lured away in the late 80's to the late 90's when all around me were deserting to work for private agencies with the short term promise of twice the salary and yes it was almost twice during those years, I tried to take a more long term view and yes that was the prospect of a promised pension and then for that to suddenly be threatened are we not allowed to be angry.

The last time nurses went on strike was in 1988 and yes I was out that day too although as a student but a salaried student.

Lives will not be compromised by the proposed strike on Wednesday as there will be a bank holiday service.

[DaveR]

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

And let me guess, you're taking your ball home too?

[DaveR]

"Even allowing the recent ish economic collapse, this hostility to public sector workers is odd"

This is not hostility to public sector workers. It is hostility to those public sector workers taking strike action to oppose a proposed pension provision that remains generous at a time of economic collapse. The clue is in the title of the thread.

[StraferJack]

.

[Alan Medic]

I can't help thinking that a strike is a bit like biting off the hand that feeds you. Prior to redundancy, the company I spent a good few years working for changed their pension scheme from being a finaly salary one to a defined contribution one. The aim was to reduce its massive pension deficit. I wasn't in a Union and just had to accept it.I could understand the reasons why though.

Watching a recording of Question Time last night, the guy who runs Sainsburies was asked what his salary was. It was over ?900k p.a. I don't think that guy could work any harder than I do but of course he has a more important job than me. However, I do wonder why he needs to be paid that much and that there are many others out there who get as much if not more. Is this capitalism gone wrong? Could he not live on say ?450k p.a. That's not a bad salary. There obviously is money out there but it's in the hands of the very few.

This post doesn't have an answer.

[Chippy Minton]

So cancelling planned operations is OK? Failing to transport patients is OK? Treating NHS patients are a cost most taxpayers (ie those of us that do not work in the public sector) are prepared to bear. Treating puic sector staff to an early retirement and free pension is not.

Yes, I do think that's OK because public safety will not be compromised. Also, they are not being "treated" and their pensions are not "free". Their pensions are agreed as part of their contracts/terms and conditions and they already pay into their funds throughout their careers.

The unions have already agreed to change this for new starters, but I do not think it's right that people who are already in the scheme, some for many decades, will have their pensions cut.

[Huguenot]

"Their pensions are agreed as part of their contracts/terms and conditions"

A few people have said this, but I'm not sure it's true.

In private sector contracts, the agreement will be to 'take part in the pension scheme', but not specify what the nature of that scheme is.

I suspect that public sector is the same, otherwise we'd be seeing legal action, not strike action.

So the strike is about a change in expectations, not contracts.

[Marmora Man]

Oh get out of it.

The public sector pay taxes too.

Can we put this one to bed once and for all? Public sector workers may pay tax but this is simply the recycling of government funds - it is not an income into the public purse. Public sector workers are paid from the public purse and any taxes they pay go back to the public purse, but do not add to it.

Whereas private sector workers are paid by their employers, or generate income by working for themselves. The taxes they pay fund the public purse.

[Marmora Man]

To suggest that you are typical o public sector workers MM, is just wrong.

Absolutely right SJ.

The Armed Forces are not a typical part of the public sector and have a far better case to make for a decent pension, but don't whine and don't strike.

They have instead a 24/7 commitment that takes routinely takes them away from home for months on end, its staff may get weekends off - but this is not an entitlement - only the 6 weeks leave a year is (tho' often foregone). For many these days violent death or injury is a real possibility. Members of this service do enjoy a pension based on 1/60 but few ever get to serve for more than 30 years - so maximum pension is seldom even 50% of final salary.

And, of course, this atypical part of the public sector will again be expected to turn to and support critical public services while the more pampered element are indulging in a strike on Wednesday.

[katie1997]

d_c, Otta and Straferjack from page 1 of this thread reminding me of the type of posts that lured me into this forum in the first place.

Very, very well said and best of luck to ontheedge and all others on strike next week.

[taper]

It is about contracts in so far as there is no question that what people have accrued under their current contracts will be preserved. I think that differs from private pensions. I might be wrong.

[OttaSE22]

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> d_c, Otta and Straferjack from page 1 of this

> thread reminding me of the type of posts that

> lured me into this forum in the first place.

>

> Very, very well said and best of luck to ontheedge

> and all others on strike next week.

I am glad what you are saying reminds you the same type of post on the first place

but non of you have stop since and have not listen our request and this time I been serious.

Once more put your jokes to one side as I have had the support of my husband to do this

you are not authorize to gather information from some else without their concern and distress them

in that manner.

[Alan Medic]

As I previously wrote I had a private pension which was altered. What was accrued remained valid. What changed was how it operated afterwards. Thus I have two different pensions.

[Undisputedtruth]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> I can't help thinking that a strike is a bit like

> biting off the hand that feeds you. Prior to

> redundancy, the company I spent a good few years

> working for changed their pension scheme from

> being a finaly salary one to a defined

> contribution one. The aim was to reduce its

> massive pension deficit. I wasn't in a Union and

> just had to accept it.I could understand the

> reasons why though.

>

> Watching a recording of Question Time last night,

> the guy who runs Sainsburies was asked what his

> salary was. It was over ?900k p.a. I don't think

> that guy could work any harder than I do but of

> course he has a more important job than me.

> However, I do wonder why he needs to be paid that

> much and that there are many others out there who

> get as much if not more. Is this capitalism gone

> wrong? Could he not live on say ?450k p.a. That's

> not a bad salary. There obviously is money out

> there but it's in the hands of the very few.

>

> This post doesn't have an answer.

I don't have a problem with Justin King, Chief Executive of Sainsbury's,being paid ?900,000 a year as the figure is not as excessive as that belonging to senior staff at our UK banks which are supported with public money. For example, the top 50 Barclays staff takes home ?400m in bonuses. Anyway, I suspect one day Justin King will carve a career in politics just like Archie Norman.

Moving on, I think it's time the dispute over pensions is ended as there have been so much misinformation thrown by the government and press that the public doesn't have the full facts at hand to know what's right from wrong. Even Sir GOD was alarmed by the myths and have wrote an article in the Guardian last year.

[sophiesofa]

I'll be striking on Wednesday. I'm with the NUT and although I am new to teaching when I first decided to plan for leaving my job to re-train, a major factor was the pension. I was in a better paid job with much shorter hours (even if you do include holidays, although I realise that's not true for a lot of private sector jobs). I don't want to be in the classroom until I'm 68 - would you want your child taught by a knackered 67 year old?

[Pugwash]

I wil lbe striking on Weds - as a Public Sector worker, this is the first time I have been on strike in my working life

(42 years) I intended to retire at 66 so the new retirement age does not worry me. Just had my pension forecast - if I retire at 65 - will get just under ?13,000 lump sum for a 20 year service.

I am a front line worker and work frequently from 10 am - 7./7.30 pm most evenings. Since earlier this year we have lost 4.5 posts in our team and the work load has increased 25%. In order to catch up with our paperwork, it is nothing unusual to find people in the office at weekends just to keep on top of things. We do not get paid overtimem. As we deal with very vulnerable people, often palliative, others disabled, others being abused, it is also emotionally draining. We frequently have to visit homes which are covered in faeces, blood and vomit, sometimes infested by vermin and fleas. We have been threated with violence and verbally abused, but are not allowed to seek redress from our employers. I and my colleagues have good salaries, but under the new proposals will need to pay another ?1000 plus per year and get a lower pension. We accept that we need to pay more and are willing to do so, but when you are advised that the pension you may eventually get in 10/15/20 years time, is significantly lower, than what is quoted for today........ -

This is why I am striking.

[Huguenot]

"I don't want to be in the classroom until I'm 68"

Well that's kind of the issue in a nutshell sophiesofa - you just don't fancy it do you?

You'd far prefer that every other b*stard out there works themselves to the bone so you can have a nice early freebie ;-)

Stike if you must, but don't expect any sympathy from private sector workers when you're striking because you just don't fancy working, and you'd prefer they paid you for it.

Pugwash - you just don't get it do you?

"I and my colleagues have good salaries, but under the new proposals will need to pay another ?1000 plus per year and get a lower pension."

The point is that the money has to come from somewhere - what you're saying is that YOU don't want to pay it, so you'd prefer a private sector worker pays it for you. You are quite simply taking ?1000 out of their pocket and putting it in yours whilst saying 'I have a really hard life, me'.

You can get as self-righteous as you like about how put upon you are. The reality is you're using that as justification for taking money from someone else.

[StraferJack]

Again, a teacher complains a bit and Huguenot gets all righteous on their ass

A multi millionaire threatens to leave the country and not a peep

But yes the money has to come from somewhere

But an army of 68 year old teachers sounds ideal doesn't it. And for a bonus it stops young teachers getting a job

And all because some people are jealous.

[Huguenot]

I'm not getting righteous - I'm sure that teachers don't want to work until they're 68, but to be brutal neither does some poor fecker working in a car indicator light factory.

And I don't think the fecker in a car indicator light factory should have to work until they're 68 just because a teacher doesn't fancy it.

I'm not supporting the banker Sean, I'm supporting the guy in the factory.

As usual you're trying to turn this into a 'banker' issue.

[Huguenot]

As for 'Jealous' - hardly.

If you retire at 60 these days, it's perfectly likely that you will live longer 'retired' than you ever worked.

Who the hell is going to pay for this?

No REALLY, who the hell is going to pay for this?

Your kids? Someone else's kids?

[StraferJack]

The guy in the factory is bolloxed because he gave up on his union, not because civil servants have stuck by theirs

You but the banker word in my mouth last time and when I called you on it you ignored it, so I used one as an example this morning. You bit

[StraferJack]

And if the guy in the car factory is getting screwed

It's nowt to do with public sector.

And yes I'm aware his salary wouldn't pay for a pension fund and well done to him for turning ford around, but the workforce should see some of the success too. But workforce are all too aware that it's one rule at the bottom and another at the top

[Huguenot]

The guy in the factory isn't screwed because he gave up on the union, he's screwed because when retirement at 60 was envisioned, most people died before they were 70.

Now the average current age is over 80 years, a large number live into their 90s, and by the time our generation pops its clogs it would be surprising to see most people live into their 90s.

Despite your insistence that it is, this is not an issue about the bottom or the top, and the teachers vs. the bankers.

Unwittingly your link demonstrates the foolishness of trying to make this a bottom vs. top issue. Ford employs around 300,000 globally, so if you took alll the money away from the (65 year old) CEO, each worker would get an extra $1.60 per week.

Guess what? It won't solve the pension problem!!!

I should also add that the CEO in question is credited with bringing Ford back from bankruptcy in the last 5 years, to make it the No.4 motor manfacturer in the world. He took Ford from $1 per share in 2008 to $15 today - and in the process made $35 billion for its shareholders - who include the companies workers. His reward is small in contrast.

If you ask those 300,000 people whether they think the $1.60 per week is worth it to actually have a job, I think they'd say it was.