Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
See this thread is still bumbling along.
Nothing has changed in the real world you know.
To pay for pensions for the longer lifespan that people now have requires more contributions. It is called maths.
Labour should have tackled this years ago (amongst many other things) when the Insurers were pulling the plug on private sector final salary schemes.
The maths don't add since life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 20 years - how is that extra 10 years supposed to be paid for? Is it not reasonable that you should contribute more if you are expecting to take more?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Yet, didn't the changes to the Public Pensions 3 years ago cover this? This was negotiated by the Unions and Government and the employee paid an increased amount.
Now are you saying they got their sums wrong 3 years ago or is it another way of grabbing money and blame it on austerity?
Dave_Notts

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

i personally feel I have to stand up for what i feel is right,

Are they going to stop paying you then?
You don't think they pay strikers do you?
Dave_Notts
No, I did not, this was the quote I was referring to, I believe I highlighted it

Quote by Onthebeach_1
As a self employed person, of which i was once, if you were working for a client and you felt you were not going to be paid, what would you do?

I then said; Are they going to stop paying you then?
Ahhh got you. Thought it was the green bit you highlighted
They will not stop paying the public workers but they are changing their pensions. The ones that they signed up for as part of their employment. Now to change it with no benefit to the person who has paid into it is not reasonable or fair. If the employees agree then they can remove or change what they want..........as happened 3 years ago. If they do not agree then they have the right to industrial action.
Are they asking for support from the public? Personally I do not think that government or employees care about public support. If they are a hinderence to the public then the public may want a faster solution to the negotiation and lobby their MP to hurry it along...........but as for support, I really don't think either side cares what the public thinks. The public is a tool in negotiation.
Dave_Notts

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
They will not stop paying the public workers but they are changing their pensions. The ones that they signed up for as part of their employment. Now to change it with no benefit to the person who has paid into it is not reasonable or fair. If the employees agree then they can remove or change what they want..........as happened 3 years ago. If they do not agree then they have the right to industrial action.
I do understand and feel some sympathy with this Dave, both my wife and her sister will be effected, but as things are, we are all loosing things we thought were worth more. It is tough for all of us, and as I said there are many so much worse off
Are they asking for support from the public? Personally I do not think that government or employees care about public support. If they are a hinderence to the public then the public may want a faster solution to the negotiation and lobby their MP to hurry it along...........but as for support, I really don't think either side cares what the public thinks. The public is a tool in negotiation.
Dave_Notts

They may not care Dave, but to me that is short sighted, I would wish for public support if it were me. he more public support the more power you have

25 Nov 2011

Moved this back here rather than hijack the pay thread.

Quote by Dave__Notts
My heart is with the ones you mention above, who have no pention, rather than those loosing some of what they thought they should get, does that make sense?

I agree to a point, then wonder whether those that start losing some of what they thought they should get puts them under the living allowance that they had saved for. Suddenly they find themselves having to go cap in hand to the government asking for benefit as the money they planned to retire on is no longer there.
So the money the government saves today, pays out tommorrow. If the pensions are stripped back then people will not take one out. This will then put the onus back on the government/taxpayer to provide in their old age.
Leaving a sustainable pension alone may save more in the future. Fiddle with it now and it could break something that wasn't broke.
Dave_Notts
What you say makes some sense to me Dave, but I have read other thing from annalists who do not agree and feel the pensions will have to be changed massively to be sustainable

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
See this thread is still bumbling along.
Nothing has changed in the real world you know.
To pay for pensions for the longer lifespan that people now have requires more contributions. It is called maths.
Labour should have tackled this years ago (amongst many other things) when the Insurers were pulling the plug on private sector final salary schemes.
The maths don't add since life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 20 years - how is that extra 10 years supposed to be paid for? Is it not reasonable that you should contribute more if you are expecting to take more?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Yet, didn't the changes to the Public Pensions 3 years ago cover this? This was negotiated by the Unions and Government and the employee paid an increased amount.
Now are you saying they got their sums wrong 3 years ago or is it another way of grabbing money and blame it on austerity?
Dave_Notts
Mixture of both I suspect

25 Nov 2011

Local government pensions are not funded.
They rely on the contributions made by current members and the employer to pay for the pensions.
The current promised pensions can not be maintained at a reasonable cost. It was predicted as far back as 1978 that this would come to pass.
Therefore summat has to be done, painful as it is.

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Local government pensions are not funded.
They rely on the contributions made by current members and the employer to pay for the pensions.
The current promised pensions can not be maintained at a reasonable cost. It was predicted as far back as 1978 that this would come to pass.
Therefore summat has to be done, painful as it is.

what not that horrid captain of industry that you would not and i quote from your good self
" I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.".
without those employers and captains of indusrty in many cases there would indeed be no jobs, and also on that basis no pensions ether.
sometimes being an employer is probably not worth the effort.

25 Nov 2011

Here we go................

25 Nov 2011

The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

25 Nov 2011

Nice link.

Quote by Max777
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

25 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
Local government pensions are not funded.
They rely on the contributions made by current members and the employer to pay for the pensions.
The current promised pensions can not be maintained at a reasonable cost. It was predicted as far back as 1978 that this would come to pass.
Therefore summat has to be done, painful as it is.

what not that horrid captain of industry that you would not and i quote from your good self
" I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.".
without those employers and captains of indusrty in many cases there would indeed be no jobs, and also on that basis no pensions ether.
sometimes being an employer is probably not worth the effort.
You make some very valid points :thumbup:

26 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that

26 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I agree.
But the money is still there at this moment in time. It is there if, from today onwards, nobody pays any more money in then the pensions are still payable for 20 years. This is scaremongering to achieve an end.........whatever that end is.
Year on year the payouts have been less than the money in by the employees. So on that basis, why is a well organised pension fund being tinkered with to make it not worth taking out. If people are put off joining it then the pension fund that invests in private industry will not be there. Private industry may just as well be hurt if the public workers stop putting into the fund.
Dave_Notts

26 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I agree.
But the money is still there at this moment in time. It is there if, from today onwards, nobody pays any more money in then the pensions are still payable for 20 years. This is scaremongering to achieve an end.........whatever that end is.
Year on year the payouts have been less than the money in by the employees. So on that basis, why is a well organised pension fund being tinkered with to make it not worth taking out. If people are put off joining it then the pension fund that invests in private industry will not be there. Private industry may just as well be hurt if the public workers stop putting into the fund.
Dave_Notts
have you got any independant evidence dave as the figures from max's link fall on the fact that for every two people working one will be retired
just so i can get a clean perspective :dunno:

26 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I think this is the REAL scary bit lol

How long have they actually known that? Math is math and it was still math 20-30 years ago. So its funny that they notice this NOW :dunno:

26 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k
if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that

I think this is the REAL scary bit lol

How long have they actually known that? Math is math and it was still math 20-30 years ago. So its funny that they notice this NOW :dunno:
this of course does not take into account the amount of unemployed in 20 years :eeek:

26 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I think this is the REAL scary bit lol

How long have they actually known that? Math is math and it was still math 20-30 years ago. So its funny that they notice this NOW :dunno:
Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

26 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k dunno

if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I agree.
But the money is still there at this moment in time. It is there if, from today onwards, nobody pays any more money in then the pensions are still payable for 20 years. This is scaremongering to achieve an end.........whatever that end is.
Year on year the payouts have been less than the money in by the employees. So on that basis, why is a well organised pension fund being tinkered with to make it not worth taking out. If people are put off joining it then the pension fund that invests in private industry will not be there. Private industry may just as well be hurt if the public workers stop putting into the fund.
Dave_Notts
Dave, the bit I have highlighted in red is at odds with the article I have provided a link to. It states
"Some are funded by investments. The local government scheme and the universities superannuation scheme are the main ones in this category, though they run large deficits and are topped up by extra employer (state) contributions. The rest, such as the civil service, police, NHS and teachers' schemes are funded directly by employee and employer contributions"
So if article is correct, it would appear that the Local Government Pension and Universities' superan schemes run at a deficit every year and have to be topped up by the taxpayer. The other schemes may currently run at a surplus but that is not just a surplus on employee contributions but both employer and employee contributions combined..........and the employer contributions are paid by both you and I out of the taxes we pay.
I'm also not sure of the validity of your claim that public sector pension funds have enough money to continue to pay out for another 20 years without receiving further funding? And why would people not paying into public sector pensions affect private sector pension funds?

27 Nov 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k
if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that

I think this is the REAL scary bit lol

How long have they actually known that? Math is math and it was still math 20-30 years ago. So its funny that they notice this NOW :dunno:
this of course does not take into account the amount of unemployed in 20 years :eeek:
Did it also not take into account all the boom times then? Seems to me its been a pretty up and down time over the last 30-40 years those should nulify each other

Quote by Bluefish2009
Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

I dont think you do, I think you adjust as you go along to an extent, more on that below.

Quote by Max777
The below link is to a very interesting article in the Guardian. It was written in December 2009 under a Labour Goverment, would be interesting to see their take on this now.

i think this was the scary bit max
They say pensions are only "affordable" today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.
how could two workers fund a someone retired on a final salery of 40k :dunno:
if these pensions as they look are unfundable then sommething has to be done . if the omney is there it isnt there cant people see that
I agree.
But the money is still there at this moment in time. It is there if, from today onwards, nobody pays any more money in then the pensions are still payable for 20 years. This is scaremongering to achieve an end.........whatever that end is.
Year on year the payouts have been less than the money in by the employees. So on that basis, why is a well organised pension fund being tinkered with to make it not worth taking out. If people are put off joining it then the pension fund that invests in private industry will not be there. Private industry may just as well be hurt if the public workers stop putting into the fund.
Dave_Notts
Dave, the bit I have highlighted in red is at odds with the article I have provided a link to. It states
"Some are funded by investments. The local government scheme and the universities superannuation scheme are the main ones in this category, though they run large deficits and are topped up by extra employer (state) contributions. The rest, such as the civil service, police, NHS and teachers' schemes are funded directly by employee and employer contributions"
So if article is correct, it would appear that the Local Government Pension and Universities' superan schemes run at a deficit every year and have to be topped up by the taxpayer. The other schemes may currently run at a surplus but that is not just a surplus on employee contributions but both employer and employee contributions combined..........and the employer contributions are paid by both you and I out of the taxes we pay.
I'm also not sure of the validity of your claim that public sector pension funds have enough money to continue to pay out for another 20 years without receiving further funding? And why would people not paying into public sector pensions affect private sector pension funds?
I am in a university pension scheme one of the super anuation ones. About 18 months ago we voted to increase our contributions in order to keep the same end bennefits. At the same time the university agreed to make a one of lump sum payment to the scheme and increased future payments to keep the scheme viable. I am in no doubt that within 5-7 years it will close its already had the first death nail in being closed to new members I just try to get as many years into it as possible. I went to the meetings about this and I found three things particularly interesting.
1: The governing body for pensions (excuse my ignorance on the correct title) basically told the uni this was what it had to do due to the way the scheme had been run.
2: During the boom times the uni took payment holidays the members did not get that luxury. So I deem what they have to pay now only to be a fair compensation for the time they took off.
3: Probably most interesting is the actuaries told us although this is deemed neccasary its is not out of the question at all that the whole scheme could have turned its self around with no extra input from anyone just the right economic conditions over the next 30 years.
Just from my own experience it seems the calculations on pensions are so long range they just are not reliable.

27 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
I am in a university pension scheme one of the super anuation ones. About 18 months ago we voted to increase our contributions in order to keep the same end bennefits. At the same time the university agreed to make a one of lump sum payment to the scheme and increased future payments to keep the scheme viable. I am in no doubt that within 5-7 years it will close its already had the first death nail in being closed to new members I just try to get as many years into it as possible. I went to the meetings about this and I found three things particularly interesting.
1: The governing body for pensions (excuse my ignorance on the correct title) basically told the uni this was what it had to do due to the way the scheme had been run.
2: During the boom times the uni took payment holidays the members did not get that luxury. So I deem what they have to pay now only to be a fair compensation for the time they took off.
3: Probably most interesting is the actuaries told us although this is deemed neccasary its is not out of the question at all that the whole scheme could have turned its self around with no extra input from anyone just the right economic conditions over the next 30 years.
Just from my own experience it seems the calculations on pensions are so long range they just are not reliable.

Thing is Tweeky, the University's contributions are by and large taxpayers contributions. Universities do raise private funds but in the main are funded by the taxpayer.

27 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky

Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

I dont think you do, I think you adjust as you go along to an extent, more on that below.

I think this is what they are doing now, or at least the beginning of

27 Nov 2011

I work in the public sector and will be working on the 30th November, not because I agree with the changes in pensions but because I don't beleive that striking will make one little bit of difference to the outcome. The time to make changes is on election day and even then it seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

27 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Thing is Tweeky, the University's contributions are by and large taxpayers contributions. Universities do raise private funds but in the main are funded by the taxpayer.

Various sources the ones always being sold to ourselves as important are the amount of fee paying foreighn students each year. Also reaserch funding and private funding. Next year the new fee's will also have a large impact the two uni's round here being different the one I work for predictin an increase sue to good repuation and the other predicting a large decrease. Once money is provided unless as a contributor in whatever capacity you stipulate where it is to be used then you cant really complain

Quote by Bluefish2009

Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

I dont think you do, I think you adjust as you go along to an extent, more on that below.

I think this is what they are doing now, or at least the beginning of
Begining of, thats my point its too late already or not neccasary dunno

They knew the borth rates since well when we were born lol

27 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky

Thing is Tweeky, the University's contributions are by and large taxpayers contributions. Universities do raise private funds but in the main are funded by the taxpayer.

Various sources the ones always being sold to ourselves as important are the amount of fee paying foreighn students each year. Also reaserch funding and private funding. Next year the new fee's will also have a large impact the two uni's round here being different the one I work for predictin an increase sue to good repuation and the other predicting a large decrease. Once money is provided unless as a contributor in whatever capacity you stipulate where it is to be used then you cant really complain

To repeat myself, Universities do raise private funds but the in the main are funded by the taxpayer.
I have no say whatsoever in the way my taxes are spent but am at liberty to complain if it's not spent to my liking.

27 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky

Thing is Tweeky, the University's contributions are by and large taxpayers contributions. Universities do raise private funds but in the main are funded by the taxpayer.

Various sources the ones always being sold to ourselves as important are the amount of fee paying foreighn students each year. Also reaserch funding and private funding. Next year the new fee's will also have a large impact the two uni's round here being different the one I work for predictin an increase sue to good repuation and the other predicting a large decrease. Once money is provided unless as a contributor in whatever capacity you stipulate where it is to be used then you cant really complain

Quote by Bluefish2009

Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

I dont think you do, I think you adjust as you go along to an extent, more on that below.

I think this is what they are doing now, or at least the beginning of
Begining of, thats my point its too late already or not neccasary dunno

They knew the borth rates since well when we were born lol

Better late than never I always say wink

27 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
See this thread is still bumbling along.
Nothing has changed in the real world you know.
To pay for pensions for the longer lifespan that people now have requires more contributions. It is called maths.
Labour should have tackled this years ago (amongst many other things) when the Insurers were pulling the plug on private sector final salary schemes.
The maths don't add since life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 20 years - how is that extra 10 years supposed to be paid for? Is it not reasonable that you should contribute more if you are expecting to take more?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Yet, didn't the changes to the Public Pensions 3 years ago cover this? This was negotiated by the Unions and Government and the employee paid an increased amount.
Now are you saying they got their sums wrong 3 years ago or is it another way of grabbing money and blame it on austerity?
Dave_Notts
The labour Government should have dealt with this not just three years ago but long before that. Actuaries employed privately by Insurance Companies proved almost 12 years ago that the increasing lifespan meant the privately funded schemes were under funded and that was the beginning of the end for final salary schemes in the private sector.
The then labour government did not tackle the problem because it would have meant dealing the bad news to traditional hard core labour supporters and so it was, like many things, just put off.
Like it or not, this Coalition Government is facing up to difficult decisions and tackling them head on.

27 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

Thing is Tweeky, the University's contributions are by and large taxpayers contributions. Universities do raise private funds but in the main are funded by the taxpayer.

Various sources the ones always being sold to ourselves as important are the amount of fee paying foreighn students each year. Also reaserch funding and private funding. Next year the new fee's will also have a large impact the two uni's round here being different the one I work for predictin an increase sue to good repuation and the other predicting a large decrease. Once money is provided unless as a contributor in whatever capacity you stipulate where it is to be used then you cant really complain

Quote by Bluefish2009

Some point you have to reach critical mass I guess

I dont think you do, I think you adjust as you go along to an extent, more on that below.

I think this is what they are doing now, or at least the beginning of
Begining of, thats my point its too late already or not neccasary dunno

They knew the borth rates since well when we were born lol

Better late than never I always say wink

Yeh for those who have made the mistakes to foot the bill. Any pension contributor be it me you or joe bloggs has in good faith paid what we have been asked to and as advised by actuaries and forecasts. Goverments have come and gone and none so say have acted until now yet month after month I have paid my contribution. Now my pension at the moment is allegedly ok but if it were not as a contributor acting under crap advice why should I pay more or suffer at some point? Let those that fucked it up foot the bill. In my own case its been a bit of both employer contributes more and so do I, I considered the amount minimal for the bennefit. Thats all good but I have a long memory if they ever come back to say that I am not getting what I paid for. Ive paid extra on the advice they gave so I'll be expecting my final amount end of.

28 Nov 2011

any teecher who strikes this week, who puts money in there pockets above the teeching of there pupils is not fit to do the job they are doing i teechers should fall into the same group that cannot strike for what i beleeve to be obvious reesons. how many children will be walking the streets today, or how many parents will have had to take time unpaid off from work? it should be illegal.
the majority of union members did not even bother to vote. what does that tell you?
once again i beleeve that once this strike is over this government will look at further ways to tighten up union laws. i beleeve that a minimum of 70% of the workforce should have voted before any strike is allowed to go then 51% and above then have to vote for strike action.
i hope the peeple who will strike this week have there labour brothers and sisters standing right by the side of them.
i bet that other old union work horse will be there in his wheelchair screaming for the demise of the 1970,s leeder. who is he again?
this strike has angered me and i am not even effected by it.

28 Nov 2011

Nice to see that Education, Education, Education has worked Star.
As for the 70% and 51% idea, love to see that for ALL ballots - and that would include all elections as well.
Looking at a different thread,
Moving on, whilst it's possible to determine the numbers voting per constituency last year and the % turn out, sooner do as you suggest and go out rather than add them together , so in 2010 General Election as a whole there was a 65.1% turnout (
looking at the stats
Age Turnout
18-24 44%
25-34 55%
35-44 66%
45-54 69%
55-64 73%
65+ 76%
i.e. 44% of every 18-24 year old turned out to vote but 56% of that age group did not vote
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/401521.html
and earlier in this thread on % voting (aka 'turn out')
2011 Scottish Assembly elections, inc local government and referendum was 50.6%
2011 Welsh Assembly elections was 41.8%
2011 Local Government was 36% in Nuneaton and Durham County being 35%
2009 European Parliamentary elections in the UK was 34.5%
Nice to hear several MP's who've jumped 'on a soap box' to spout their views on the subject go quiet and change the subject, when asked what their vote and turnout was at the last election.
A BBC poll shows overwhelming support for the strike and overwhelmingly people feel that Gove's government is mishandling the economy. Gove's speech smacks more of desperation than opinion and will fall on deaf ears.
If the Pension 'deal' under discussion is such a good deal, when will MPs debate having the same pension rather than the one they have now ?
Why is it jjust Teachers you seem to be singling out as well ?
This dispute also includes :
- immigration and passport officers,
- NHS staff ranging from nurses to radiographers,
- refuse collection and street cleaning,
- libraries,
- leisure centres,
- swimming pools will close,
- in some areas parking tickets will not be issued because traffic wardens will be on strike,
- Northern Ireland's public transport system will be shut down,
- the Tyne and Wear Metro will be hit,
- Jobcentres will close,
- Government departments will operate on skeleton staff
- Court staff will also join the day of action,
- and MPs might have problems buying food in the Commons because catering workers are among those taking action.

28 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS
so in 2010 General Election as a whole there was a 65.1% turnout

So over half voted then, more than what the union could muster from paid up members.