strike

[Chippy Minton]

*Bob* - why exactly do you think there's a "pervading feeling" the public sector should suck it up?

This poll - http://survation.com/2011/11/survation-survey-on-pensions-uncovers-huge-mistrust-and-misunderstanding-unite/ - published earlier this week, would suggest otherwise and next week up to three million people will strike over this issue. That's more than the number that were on strike during the big disputes from the 70s and 80s. In fact, it will be the biggest since the general strike of 1926. Not exacly a "pervading feeling" I would argue.

[*Bob*]

The pervading feeling lies outside of the public sector - amongst the other 60 million residents.

[Huguenot]

:))Ha ha - the 3 million on strike are in the public sector!! That's not a reflection of private sector concerns.

That survey likewise - they didn't give any indication about whether they filtered out public sector workers.

It's meaningless.

[Consequential]

Think of all the money we would've saved had HMRC not let Vodafone and Goldman Sachs off the tax hook so easily. Not to mention all the money we would've saved had we not got ourselves involved with toppling Gaddafi.

[the-e-dealer]

Good luck to the Public Sector Strikers.

[srisky]

"We pay your salary" is usually heard slurred by drunks at the police and staff at A&E as a prelude to further abuse - par for the cause.

Good to read it on this thread, too ;-).

[DaveR]

"Think of all the money we would've saved had HMRC not let Vodafone and Goldman Sachs off the tax hook so easily. Not to mention all the money we would've saved had we not got ourselves involved with toppling Gaddafi."

Definitely. Because that money would have paid for public sector pensions forever.

[david_carnell]

*Bob* - A third of my colleagues have just been made redundant. Try telling them to just "suck it up".

Huguenot - I don't get to retire till I'm nearly 70. Also you can't tell me the OBR's (that's an independent body btw) forecast is bogus because it refers to 2061 in one breath and then quote another part of it in another as a defence of your position. You're being as selective as you're accusing me of being. At least I'm consistent.

And I'm not suggesting the govt should put money into private sector pensions. I'm saying it is a disgrace of the highest order that they don't feel the need to speak out about the state of those pensions. And to say the money isn't there is spurious. It is, just not for the vast majority.

[Huguenot]

Of course I was being selective d_c: I was proving that the OBR doesn't uniformly hold up your assertions. ;-)

"In fact, it will be the biggest since the general strike of 1926. Not exacly a "pervading feeling" I would argue."

It's interesting to note that the General Strike of 1926 achieved absolutely nothing.

It's also noteworthy that the General Strike was also campaigning to keep unsustainable job numbers and perks (in that case in the mining industry).

All it demonstrates is the capacity of the average public sector worker to deny the crisis and refuse to restructure to meet changing conditions.

[Chippy Minton]

Otta - exactly. It's a myth that all public sector workers are going to get gold-plated pensions - and Hutton agrees with this by stating it in his report.

He finds the average public sector average pension is about ?7,800 per year, while the median payment is about ?5,600. In 2009-10, the average public sector pension payments were: local government worker ?4,052; NHS worker ?7,234; civil servant ?6,199; teacher ?9,806; and member of the armed forces ?7,722.

[the-e-dealer]

I'm not sure which private businesses don't rely on our money to pay salaries. Can anyone think of any?

[*Bob*]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> *Bob* - A third of my colleagues have just been

> made redundant. Try telling them to just "suck it

> up".

They will have have to though won't they? Sucking it up is going to be a major feature of life compared to how things used to be half a century ago. And my time will come - again and again, when I'll have to just suck it up. I have no job security, no pension, no guarantee of any income - and my income is subject to arbitary change. Indeed, it was decided that the source of where 2/3 of it came from would be - literally - halved - just a couple of years back. Bosh. Halved! But the fact was, there was a reason for halving it - and I sucked it up.

It's not a case wanting everyone else to be standing barefoot in the same puddle of piss that I'm standing in, it's just that there's so much piss around it's just not fair that some people get given free wellies.

Personally I think 'public sector' is a massively broad brush and it would be fairer to distinguish between different types of public sector work - and shift the system in favour of those in jobs which leave them a burned-out husk before they're 60.

[Huguenot]

I don't understand your question the-e-dealer?

Chippy Minton those figures are distorted by the length of time the employee was in the public sector.

Typically public sector pensions pay 2/3 of full final salary for a complete career. This obviously doesn't mean that this can be claimed by people who suddenly move into teaching at the age of 59.

So the 'average' comes down

[the-e-dealer]

Well People say "We pay your wages" to Public Sector workers. Yet I cant think of ANY Organisation where we dont pay the staffs wages. Maybe Playboy?

[*Bob*]

I should say, I don't actually oppose the strike.

I think people are entitled to have a crack at better something better for themselves if they feel it can be achieved - and within reason and as such, I think the strike is a reasonable action. If it succeeds I'm not going to be, like, all angry about it.

I just think broad sympathy/support is low - for very understandable reasons. And the chances of success are minimal.

[Huguenot]

What, you mean in the sense that if you buy a jar of Marmite you're paying the salaries of a Unilever employee?

Yes, in that sense, but you have the choice to make the purchase dependent on need and value.

Private sector taxpayers don't have any such choice, and they should be able to rely on the government to make sure they're get a fair deal on public sector employees.

[Consequential]

@ Huguenot. Unless a Freudian slip, what do you mean by "private sector taxpayers don't have any such choice, and they should be able to rely on the government to make sure they're get a fair deal on public sector employees." I don't understand.

[the-e-dealer]

Well there are exceptions . We have no Little or Choice About Water, The Telephone Network, The Gas Network, The Electricity Network, Airports, Television. Banks and Credit CArds Co. who operate a cartel re Interest Rates. Petrol Etc Etc.

Also I'm not sure but I think Public Sector Employees pay taxes towards Public Services Too.

[Huguenot]

Public sector employees in general don't generate any tax revenue because their original salary was tax revenue - all they're doing is recycling it.

So in effect it's the private sector taxpayers who are paying public sector workers.

Private sector taxpayers should be able to rely on the government to spend their money wisely. If the government is using the revenue to give perks to public sector workers that they cannot have themselves (*Bob*'s wellies for the piss puddles) then it's manifestly unfair.

[Chippy Minton]

Huguenot - obviously! I stated 'average' twice in my post i.e. they are not distorted.

[Loz]

But chippy, it is exactly that average that make is distorted. To clarify, you'd need to at least provide an equivalent average number of years service that those figures applies to.

[Chippy Minton]

Loz - agreed, but Huguenot seems to be implying I'm was trying to be misleading with the figures. I wasn't - I think I stated quite clearly they are average figures.

[StraferJack]

"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

[Huguenot]

I'm thinking by 'for many people in the private sector it's bonanza time' you actually mean for a tiny minority?

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.

I don't think it's reasonable to accept either premise.

[Otta]

Well said Strafer!

You've never met a retired teacher?

I've not met many who actually retire at 60, no. And I work in education with a load of teachers.