Public sector strike 30th November

[DeletedUser5582]

I really dont want to get into this too much, might get into trouble and all that.....

But - its not about hearts and minds. I dont really give two hoots what you or anyone else thinks of me for being a civil servant and going on strike to be honest (no offence intended). What matters to me is that my employer is so willing to break the terms and conditions of my employment with them when I have stuck to my end of the bargain for every single working day of my career to date, and will continue to do so. There is an awful lot more going on in the public sector than I would like (or dare) to go into, but take my word for it, things are not good.

Look this discussion was never about liking or disliking state sector workers. I do understand why you and your colleagues are angry and also said I would be too. I merely pointed out that in some aspects they are very very lucky. Is my view am sorry if it disagrees with what you are experiencing.

I only replied to this (damn you Gargareth) to tidy up the points made on pensions. I shall bow out now as is an emotive topic and have said my bit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Awesome eh.....

All those parents who had to take day's off work to look after there kid's and lost a day's wage. ( this climate and this close to Christmas :/ )

Medical appointments and operations canceled ? Nice one, thumbs up there guy's :icon_biggrin: !

Wonder how much those union boss's get paid for rallying people up to strike......suppose it keeps them in a job huh!

Also...Left your crappy placards lying all over the street's!!


Such a selfish act, complete disregard for anyone else......:icon_rolleyes:

I also work in the public sector btw.

 

[DeletedUser]

I see your logic, but i want to switch the table around:

Should not the Public sector be cut last, as it is not made to be competitve and are the least section that have done anything wrong? >:

It is probably the private sector, or the right political parties which support that important private sectors like banks should maintain themselves without any goverment interference (both probably), are the side that originally started this mess (at last it is so in the us). What i see is that different goverments around the world have let different private banks and other important sectors/buisnesses can gamble without control, and then mess up. Then all other people, who havent danced with this gambling, are the ones that will pay for almost all of it. The section which have never been responsible for anything in this is the public section.

Public sector is not the lucky or anything like that, it is path that people choose for safety. You can get much more money in the private sector than you ever will in the public sector (with pension included), then i believe it is fair that the public sector is the section that pays the price first.

If you are working in a private sector, then it is your choice to do that. Public sections havent done anything to trigger the crisis or be a part of the private business, why should the public sector pay for what the private sector have done? The only way for the public sector to say this is by protesting/striking, as it is unfair...more unfair than it is for the private sector to pay for it, which are more quilty regarding this mess. The private buisnesses can go bankrupt, which is also a risk you are taking to get more money.

I personally believe that Social-democracy with strong regulations on the important parts of the private sector would be the best. I actually believe that the private sector shouldn't have any mayor power (like banks have) at all. If the public sector fails, then you can regualte it with democratic elections, its not that simple with private buisnesses as its impossible to have them under control once they get to much power (which it looks like they have right now).

Those who eat moldy bread tried to get more than just a cream cake, and never choose the path of safety where you dont gamble away your cream cake to get cream cake with delicious chocolate on.

 

[DeletedUser]

Public sector are payed by private sector workers.

Private sector works have less money.

Therefore they shouldn't have to pay as much to public sector workers.

If public workers did the same job but for private firms then individuals would consume less of their goods/services, essentially because the public sector provides public goods this doesn't happen, consumers can't stop their consumption because of the nature of a public good and therefore to account for the fact that public provision doesn't allow a market and adjustments based on consumers new marginal utility of consumption it makes sense to reduce the price they pay for it, as that would move the market back to an equilibrium where consumers would consume the same amount as they used to based on their new incomes. Because the price you pay for a public good is the amount of your tax that goes into it's provision the government has to cut funding to maintain a "fair" market equilibrium where public sector workers aren't being paid more than their service is valued. If you cut things that effect quality then consumers are paying less for a worse service and so you're not moving yourself back to the old equilibrium. Instead you cut fringe benefits that don't effect performance, like pensions.

Of course the unions will (and are) say(ing) that this will prevent talented people going into teaching because the money is worse. But given that the cuts should be proportional to the amount poorer that everyone else is, the average wage an agent could receive outside the public sector is still the same in relative terms and so arguing that people won't go into teaching because of the change in income is just wrong.

TL;DR: Economics.

 

[DeletedUser]

Public sector workers also pay for public sector workers, public sector workers give free/cheap services to both public and private sector workers and public sector workers payment is mostly paid with tax money, the amount of money you pay in taxes scales with the amount of money you gain with the job(s) you have, this also occurs % (low paid workers have lower % taxation than people with more wages). Private companies thend to get foundings from the goverment for different things, and public sector workers thend to buy stuff from private sector workers, so public sector workers and private sector workers pay for private sector workers.

If public sector workers get more payment then i would assume that it was much harder to get work in the public sector before the economic crisis came to britain? If you think about it just now, when britain is in a pinch with their economy and not when there was no such problems, then it sounds kind of silly: It should not be that the private sector get more money in the good years and not less payment during the bad years, public sector workers are gets the shortest straw then. I'm kind of amused if your statement is true that private workers gets less paid overall, silly british people.

I be tierd, i shall go forth with thas reply after sleep.

 

[DeletedUser]

The strikers have a point - they were promised a product, paid for that product, and now the government has decided to charge them more for a vastly inferior product. Comparisons to private sector pensions are irrelevant. If a private sector employer said to its employees: "Money's a bit tight, and the public sector workers are getting paid an average of 5% less than you, so we're going to reduce your salaries accordingly and claw back the overpayment we've been making since you started working for us." - you'd expect those workers to strike too!

Having said that, they are lucky to have jobs. They have the right to withhold their labour for any reason (they are not slaves), but they do not have a right to employment. Personally, if I worked in the public sector, I would be furious with the government for stealing my pension, but would not strike over it.

 

[DeletedUser6603]

Good post onetruth. Thats exactly my problem with it. I don't disagree that were lucky to have a reasonable pension when we retire, but I take exception to having to pay more in, work for 10 years longer than I was originally told, and after working those extra ten years of paying more in, I will get less than what I was originally entitled to. Why would anyone in their right mind take that lying down? As far as I am concerned my employer is breaking the terms of my contract with them, and I have a right to tell them of my disgust, and the only way public sector workers have of doing that is industrial action.

As for job security, I would have agreed with you five years ago, but not now. Where I work a third of the workforce will be gone within four years. I know plenty of people in the private sector have a similar axe hanging over them, but its not a nice feeling wherever you work!

 

[DeletedUser]

At a slight tangent (though related), what do people think about the furore over Jeremy Clarkson's comments?

I think there's been a big overreaction, what he said really wasn't that bad. I imagine if he'd said we should shoot all the bankers there'd have been no mention of it whatsoever.

 

[DeletedUser282]

He was mocking the BBC's neutrality by giving them 2 entirely different views. But the Unions went "rawr!" then the media reported his words completely out of their context in order to sell papers, and because of this everyone is hating on him. But I agree that it was a fairly stupid thing for him to say. Not because it was wrong, as I maintain that it was just mocking the BBC. But the overreaction everywhere was inevitable, as the unions were still being all militant.

 

[DeletedUser]

At a slight tangent (though related), what do people think about the furore over Jeremy Clarkson's comments?

I think there's been a big overreaction, what he said really wasn't that bad. I imagine if he'd said we should shoot all the bankers there'd have been no mention of it whatsoever.

Let's round up all the media and have them shot eh?

It's how we solve things in Doncaster. Firing squads.

 

[DeletedUser]

He was mocking the BBC's neutrality by giving them 2 entirely different views. But the Unions went "rawr!" then the media reported his words completely out of their context in order to sell papers, and because of this everyone is hating on him. But I agree that it was a fairly stupid thing for him to say. Not because it was wrong, as I maintain that it was just mocking the BBC. But the overreaction everywhere was inevitable, as the unions were still being all militant.

Yeah, the other side of his comment was something like "Oh it's great, the streets were all cleared up and I got to drive around at 100mph".