So the Unions (who bankroll Labour and seem to be who decides its leader) are complaining about cuts that need to be made because the previous Labour government were reckless with public spending?
I'm sure that the highly paid union leaders (does the new leader of Unite also get a grace and favour home like his predecessors did?) will be worried to the bone about the thought of fewer workers paying union dues.
The aim of strike action is to make a public declaration against the scale and speed of public sector spending cuts which will cause misery to thousands who will be made unemployed with little prospect of alternative work and robbing communities of services needed by the most vulnerable. If that's not a cause worth protesting about I don't know what is.
So sorry if the services and livelihoods of millions of people cause a little disruption but tell it to the government who are destroying our public sector. The unions are merely representing their members who care both about the services they provide and of course their own ability to support their families.
This.:)
At the TUC conference this year coordinated strikes were discussed and the RMT has already done this previously when supporting the FBU by closing down tube stations when the Fire Service striked. I have no issue with my union calling a strike at the same time as PCS
The aim of strike action is to make a public declaration against the scale and speed of public sector spending cuts which will cause misery to thousands who will be made unemployed with little prospect of alternative work and robbing communities of services needed by the most vulnerable. If that's not a cause worth protesting about I don't know what is.
So sorry if the services and livelihoods of millions of people cause a little disruption but tell it to the government who are destroying our public sector. The unions are merely representing their members who care both about the services they provide and of course their own ability to support their families.
nothing representative of the public, just the vested interest of the unions. pretty selfish really.
they will just have to find work like everyone else in the private sector and grow up ( yes there really are jobs if you look)
the unions have had their day, plain and simple and they know this.
You seem to think that in the public sector you have a job and pay rises by right. You may care to reflect that it is the private sector that has so far been hit hardest and had massive job losses. And in case you don't know it is the private sector that generates the wealth that keeps you in the job you think is your divine right.
I've had no rise in my income for two years and that's true of many others and I see no reason why public sector "workers"
shouldn't take their share of the pain where necessary.
After all it is YOUR useless Labour government that borrowed vast sums of money AND encouraged the banks to lend recklessly that we ended up like this.
I didn't vote for the idiot Brown but I'm paying the price for his woeful incompetence. :mad:
How have you decided that I believe that as a public sector worker I have a job and pay increase as of right. I've already said elsewhere that I think a redundancy for anyone is a tragedy, particularly when other jobs are scarce. I don't expect a pay increase - indeed we are in the middle of a four year pay freeze.
I know the private sector has been hit hard - and I think governments should do far more to protect those who are affected - as I've said elsewhere.
It wasn't MY Labour government - it was the elected government of this land. And I didn't support all of their decisions although I do support their commitment to public services.
You clearly didn't hear that there was a global economic and financial crisis or is Brown so powerful he was able to destroy the economies of Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland etc etc. Public spending was too high and some reduction is needed. Almost everyone accepts that - but it's the speed, scale and nature of the cuts which I oppose because it will create maximum unemployment and damage to services and communities.
I hope you aren't employed in a business which needs customers having money to spend - there will be a lot of us who won't very soon.
I can't help but laugh at this faux-outrage at the prospect of strikes.
I thought these were the overpaid, underworked, lazy public sector that need to be cut?
Well here is a good way to cut the budget. Everyone take a few days off over a few months. Call it 5 days, which will amount to a 1.3% cut in salary across the board.
If none of these people provide a valuable service, and 20% cuts across the board are "necessary" then surely getting more people to stay at home is a good thing. The paperwork backlog would be recovered in no time, if as you all say, they are underworked and the Departments or organisations that employ them could survive 20% cuts.
Hmmm, my local council is going on strike through Unison, they held a ballot for action, only 16% of those entitled to voted in the ballot, and only 9% voted for strike action, that means we will have a 5 day strike with no council services because 9% of council workers actually want it.
The thing with Unions is its only militants who tend to vote, a bit like Student Union reps.
Your local council is NOT going on strike - the concils employees are - against the council
But the strikes will have no effect locally, the only way they could succeed is to bring the govt down with a national strike 1930s style, and that would be pretty much impossible these days.
Load of stupid Communists. The only thing they ever think of is their latest pay rises and how to work fewer hours for more money, and if they can ruin a national event (especially anything to do with the Royals) they will gleefully strike.
Public sector workers are MASSIVELY out of touch with public opinion on this matter. The truth is, there is a lot of people unemployed that could do their jobs for a lot less money. They really don't realise how good they have compared to people that work in the private sector.
That implies the strikes will be co-ordinated and unrelated to specific issues other than an opposition to spending cuts. That rather sounds like the bad old days of the winter of discontent.
We have redundancies laws in this country which already mean people are legally entitled to thousands of pounds if that were to happen.
If those laws aren't striong enough (I think they could do more to compensate young people for example) then tighten them too then. My dad got 'laid off' in the mid-nities and got £30k, he paid of the mortgage and for new windows and simply took on more hours in his other job. Anyone who has 10-20 years service somehwere should WANT to get laid off tbh.
Unions, Quangos etc wouldn't need to exist if we simply had laws that prevented these things in the first place.
I'd love to live in this fantasy land
people dont have 20-30 years service anymore since since the neo-liberal "flexible" labour market kicked in
So the Unions (who bankroll Labour and seem to be who decides its leader) are complaining about cuts that need to be made because the previous Labour government were reckless with public spending?
I'm sure that the highly paid union leaders (does the new leader of Unite also get a grace and favour home like his predecessors did?) will be worried to the bone about the thought of fewer workers paying union dues.
and if they can ruin a national event (especially anything to do with the Royals) they will gleefully strike.
I'd say it was more an excuse to have a long holiday. Those that are quickest will have already booked off the 4 days between the two long weekends so they get 12 days off in a row. Nice way to encourage the members to vote for a strike.
Funny how strike dates coincide with long weekends, England football matches, etc. isn't it?
Well here is a good way to cut the budget. Everyone take a few days off over a few months. Call it 5 days, which will amount to a 1.3% cut in salary across the board.
It will be interesting if the general public actually notice if many are on strike.
As I say, they really don't realise how good they have compared to people that work in the private sector.
The average private sector worker changes job how many times in 30 years? It seems the only place the "job for life" ethos remains is in the public sector, to the benefit of it's workforce, but to the detriment of the taxpayer.
It will be interesting if the general public actually notice if many are on strike.
Depends on how targeted their strikes are. I can tell you for certain that, if the right time is picked as regards our department, it would have a massive impact on business and industry.
I'm not a union member, have never been a member in my 20 plus years in the public sector, and don't intend to start now. However, remember any action has to be at the request of the union membership, not any union leader or rep. To be honest, while I have been critical of them over time, I can understand some of what they are saying here because what the government is trying to put over as regards dealing with the unions, and trying to agree compromises, isn't the full story.
Comments
I'm sure that the highly paid union leaders (does the new leader of Unite also get a grace and favour home like his predecessors did?) will be worried to the bone about the thought of fewer workers paying union dues.
Let's hope the public will have none of it.
This.:)
At the TUC conference this year coordinated strikes were discussed and the RMT has already done this previously when supporting the FBU by closing down tube stations when the Fire Service striked. I have no issue with my union calling a strike at the same time as PCS
nothing representative of the public, just the vested interest of the unions. pretty selfish really.
they will just have to find work like everyone else in the private sector and grow up ( yes there really are jobs if you look)
the unions have had their day, plain and simple and they know this.
Ha ha, OK then
How have you decided that I believe that as a public sector worker I have a job and pay increase as of right. I've already said elsewhere that I think a redundancy for anyone is a tragedy, particularly when other jobs are scarce. I don't expect a pay increase - indeed we are in the middle of a four year pay freeze.
I know the private sector has been hit hard - and I think governments should do far more to protect those who are affected - as I've said elsewhere.
It wasn't MY Labour government - it was the elected government of this land. And I didn't support all of their decisions although I do support their commitment to public services.
You clearly didn't hear that there was a global economic and financial crisis or is Brown so powerful he was able to destroy the economies of Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland etc etc. Public spending was too high and some reduction is needed. Almost everyone accepts that - but it's the speed, scale and nature of the cuts which I oppose because it will create maximum unemployment and damage to services and communities.
I hope you aren't employed in a business which needs customers having money to spend - there will be a lot of us who won't very soon.
Who are "they"? The membership or the TU leadership?
By unions do you also mean the BMA and other professional organisations?
I thought these were the overpaid, underworked, lazy public sector that need to be cut?
Well here is a good way to cut the budget. Everyone take a few days off over a few months. Call it 5 days, which will amount to a 1.3% cut in salary across the board.
If none of these people provide a valuable service, and 20% cuts across the board are "necessary" then surely getting more people to stay at home is a good thing. The paperwork backlog would be recovered in no time, if as you all say, they are underworked and the Departments or organisations that employ them could survive 20% cuts.
(apologies if this has been said before)
Get it right!!
dont you mean 1920's style
Is this comment for real?
And thats a bad thing?
people dont have 20-30 years service anymore since since the neo-liberal "flexible" labour market kicked in
I'd say it was more an excuse to have a long holiday. Those that are quickest will have already booked off the 4 days between the two long weekends so they get 12 days off in a row. Nice way to encourage the members to vote for a strike.
Funny how strike dates coincide with long weekends, England football matches, etc. isn't it?
It will be interesting if the general public actually notice if many are on strike.
Well they do at my local council where I work.
The average private sector worker changes job how many times in 30 years? It seems the only place the "job for life" ethos remains is in the public sector, to the benefit of it's workforce, but to the detriment of the taxpayer.
Depends on how targeted their strikes are. I can tell you for certain that, if the right time is picked as regards our department, it would have a massive impact on business and industry.
I'm not a union member, have never been a member in my 20 plus years in the public sector, and don't intend to start now. However, remember any action has to be at the request of the union membership, not any union leader or rep. To be honest, while I have been critical of them over time, I can understand some of what they are saying here because what the government is trying to put over as regards dealing with the unions, and trying to agree compromises, isn't the full story.
Ah! The "normal" Hawk again!
Do you really think being "normal" is to be selfish and vindictive, as you are?
Also, do you realise the extent of the public sector? Health, education, police, armed forces, pensions etc?
If your on here spouting off, your either: on holiday, retired, at work not doing your real job, unemployed or off sick. -
... but you have enough spare money to have a PC and Broadband access ,,
I'm Alright Jack