Of course if one is a union member one doesn't have any obligation to withdraw ones labour other than a moral imperative regardless of the result of the vote eh?
I am annoyed by the spin doctoring and propaganda being employed to sway public sentiment against these people who after all are only doing what a lot of us would do when faced with a change to our employment reward terms.
They aint askin for more money they are asking NOT to suffer what is essentially a pay cut.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions
last reply
200 replies
6.2k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
Sex God
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
I'd of thought not actually. People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters. There are also fierce family and class bread allegances to particular partys. I am in Unite and I could have told the the result of todays ballot that we had prior to the result coming out. Thats because I'm talking to people all the time and know how the vote will go so thats probably part of the reason people dont vote, the resulr is already known so they let someone else do it. You could up the % by law but I beleive that will mean the % of voters will just go up as people will instantly be aware so would be a bit of a waste of time.
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
I'd of thought not actually. People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters. There are also fierce family and class bread allegances to particular partys. I am in Unite and I could have told the the result of todays ballot that we had prior to the result coming out. Thats because I'm talking to people all the time and know how the vote will go so thats probably part of the reason people dont vote, the resulr is already known so they let someone else do it. You could up the % by law but I beleive that will mean the % of voters will just go up as people will instantly be aware so would be a bit of a waste of time.
Not going by the above figures they dont
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Has anybody bothered to find out if the BBC figures were accurate?
have you ben?
Some people are always looking to spoil a good debate with facts!
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Has anybody bothered to find out if the BBC figures were accurate?
have you ben?
Some people are always looking to spoil a good debate with facts!
Sex God
i can confirm the bbc figures have been checked for accuracy 
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
I'd of thought not actually. People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters. There are also fierce family and class bread allegances to particular partys. I am in Unite and I could have told the the result of todays ballot that we had prior to the result coming out. Thats because I'm talking to people all the time and know how the vote will go so thats probably part of the reason people dont vote, the resulr is already known so they let someone else do it. You could up the % by law but I beleive that will mean the % of voters will just go up as people will instantly be aware so would be a bit of a waste of time.
Not going by the above figures they dont
Hang on
Now your saying that 65.1% turning out in the general election vs less than half of union members in the recent ballots is evidence that people dont get more wound up by political partys ....If I were you I'd do one of these
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
I'd of thought not actually. People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters. There are also fierce family and class bread allegances to particular partys. I am in Unite and I could have told the the result of todays ballot that we had prior to the result coming out. Thats because I'm talking to people all the time and know how the vote will go so thats probably part of the reason people dont vote, the resulr is already known so they let someone else do it. You could up the % by law but I beleive that will mean the % of voters will just go up as people will instantly be aware so would be a bit of a waste of time.
Not going by the above figures they dont
Hang on
Now your saying that 65.1% turning out in the general election vs less than half of union members in the recent ballots is evidence that people dont get more wound up by political partys ....If I were you I'd do one of these
I am saying the election drew a better percentage of voters than the union could muster from its paid up members.
Up their in dark red
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
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.
Blue,
but in answer to Star's point this still isn't the 70%, never mind the 51% election/ballot result that they'd like to see.
I do see and understand what you are saying Hns,
But to my simple mind they are not really comparable.
I would also have thought it much more difficult to rally support for an election than to get paid up members of a union to vote on strike action, action which will effect many thousands of people. directly and indirectly
I'd of thought not actually. People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters. There are also fierce family and class bread allegances to particular partys. I am in Unite and I could have told the the result of todays ballot that we had prior to the result coming out. Thats because I'm talking to people all the time and know how the vote will go so thats probably part of the reason people dont vote, the resulr is already known so they let someone else do it. You could up the % by law but I beleive that will mean the % of voters will just go up as people will instantly be aware so would be a bit of a waste of time.
Not going by the above figures they dont
Hang on
Now your saying that 65.1% turning out in the general election vs less than half of union members in the recent ballots is evidence that people dont get more wound up by political partys ....If I were you I'd do one of these
I am saying the election drew a better percentage of voters than the union could muster from its paid up members.
Up their in dark red
Then why are you putting this
People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters.
In bold. Sorry but your not making any sense.
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters.
In bold. Sorry but your not making any sense.
Having re-read what I wrote, your right I am not :haha:
Sex God
Quote by Max777
If anyone's interested in seeing where some of our money is going...tune into the programme on BBC 1 now...all about PFI.....truly frightening!
Max
You only just realised about PFI deals ?
:eeek:
The whole idea behind them is simple, it's the public perception of getting major infrastructure items off the immediate Government 'balance sheet' in one hit, therefore public spending is shown as coming down in 'big steps' and these projects are seen to be delivered much faster.
The counter-point to this is that these Projects actually have to be paid for eventually, hence why when these PFI projects are set up, then there is an annual fee paid and a long term agreement over use of the facility.
The idea being that if you looked at the Government 'books' they show lots of shiny new hospitals, police stations, etc. and each year they don't appear to be costing a great deal. However look at the total cost over the period of the PFI deal and it's an awful lot of money.
Basically the hospital might of cost £500 million if paid for by the Government 'up front', however via PFI it's showing as costing £24m per year, however over the the typical 25year PFI contact life that adds up to £600m.
Was this a Government idea ?
Well sort of, the proposals were put forward after 'internal' debate by Government, so technically yes. However lets not think that Ministers and MPs were clever enough to think these up, rather it was typically 'government advisors' leading these internal debates. But where did these advisors come from ? The simple answer being industry and banking as secondees, etc. So the very companies who are now profiting from owning Projects via PFI are the very ones who's senior people when seconded to government as advisors who suggested it in the first place, oh and they all usually earned 'fees' as well when each PFI project is being agreed/negotiated.
Beyond developing the infrastructure and providing finance, private sector companies operate the public facilities at a higher cost, despite in many cases using former public sector staff who have had their employment contracts transferred to the private sector through a process intended to protect their entrenched rights, designated TUPE. Every PFI deal has its own particular one-sided characteristics.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative government of John Major and the National Audit Office felt that it provided good value for money overall, however more recently the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee found that "Higher borrowing costs since the credit crisis mean that PFI is now an ‘extremely inefficient’ method of financing projects"
OK, all the above being a simplification and possibly cynical, but you get the idea.
The age old adage about if you see something that looks too good to be true ........ springs to mind. Just that those who've been decrying these deals since their introduction were being drowned out by those in favour.
Sex God
Oh you've got to love the P.F.I.
Quote by HnS
If anyone's interested in seeing where some of our money is going...tune into the programme on BBC 1 now...all about PFI.....truly frightening!
Max
You only just realised about PFI deals ?
:eeek:
No, but I have just watched the Panorama programme.
The whole idea behind them is simple, it's the public perception of getting major infrastructure items off the immediate Government 'balance sheet' in one hit, therefore public spending is shown as coming down in 'big steps' and these projects are seen to be delivered much faster.
The counter-point to this is that these Projects actually have to be paid for eventually, hence why when these PFI projects are set up, then there is an annual fee paid and a long term agreement over use of the facility.
The idea being that if you looked at the Government 'books' they show lots of shiny new hospitals, police stations, etc. and each year they don't appear to be costing a great deal. However look at the total cost over the period of the PFI deal and it's an awful lot of money.
Basically the hospital might of cost £500 million if paid for by the Government 'up front', however via PFI it's showing as costing £24m per year, however over the the typical 25year PFI contact life that adds up to £600m.
Was this a Government idea ?
Well sort of, the proposals were put forward after 'internal' debate by Government, so technically yes. However lets not think that Ministers and MPs were clever enough to think these up, rather it was typically 'government advisors' leading these internal debates. But where did these advisors come from ? The simple answer being industry and banking as secondees, etc. So the very companies who are now profiting from owning Projects via PFI are the very ones who's senior people when seconded to government as advisors who suggested it in the first place, oh and they all usually earned 'fees' as well when each PFI project is being agreed/negotiated.
Beyond developing the infrastructure and providing finance, private sector companies operate the public facilities at a higher cost, despite in many cases using former public sector staff who have had their employment contracts transferred to the private sector through a process intended to protect their entrenched rights, designated TUPE. Every PFI deal has its own particular one-sided characteristics.
In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative government of John Major and the National Audit Office felt that it provided good value for money overall, however more recently the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee found that "Higher borrowing costs since the credit crisis mean that PFI is now an ‘extremely inefficient’ method of financing projects"
OK, all the above being a simplification and possibly cynical, but you get the idea.
The age old adage about if you see something that looks too good to be true ........ springs to mind. Just that those who've been decrying these deals since their introduction were being drowned out by those in favour.
I fully understand the principle of PFI......just this programme was highlighting some of the specific examples. As you state, John Major implemented PFI, but Blair and Brown embraced it in a major way. Oh and the figures were a damn site more frightening than the example you give
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters.
In bold. Sorry but your not making any sense.
Having re-read what I wrote, your right I am not :haha:
Quite glad about that, was begining to wonder if it was me
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
People get much more wound up by the political partys than they do by union matters.
In bold. Sorry but your not making any sense.
Having re-read what I wrote, your right I am not :haha:
Quite glad about that, was begining to wonder if it was me
Been talking crap since we joined in 2009, people would think the wife was typing if I started making sense now! :lol:
A banker, a nurse, a Tory MP and a Daily Mail reader are sat around a table having a cup of tea. In front of them is a plate, on which there are ten biscuits. The banker scoffs nine of the biscuits, then the Tory turns to the Daily Mail reader and whispers in his ear, "Watch out - that nurse is after your biscuit".
Sex God
personally id rather go with out in the hope there will be something for my kids when they need it
Sex God
Pension switch ruled lawful by High Court
Sex God
Public sector workers use pensions strike to go Christmas shopping
I would not have been so hard on people if I had known it was all for a jolly
Shopping centres up and down the country were “absolutely heaving”, with up to seven per cent more visitors than usual. At the same time there were paltry turnouts at many picket lines, despite two million teachers, health workers, civil servants and other public sector employees taking part in the biggest mass strike since 1979.
Far from bringing the country to a halt, the protest over pension arrangements had little or no impact on travel across most of the country, and almost four in 10 state schools remained open in England.
While tens of thousands of striking workers took part in marches, at least as many seemed to have made a beeline for the shops. They included Tracey Hammond, 50, a teaching assistant from Essex, who used the opportunity to visit the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, east London. She said she had voted against the strike, but decided that when her school in Hornchurch, Essex was shut by the walkout she “might as well make use of it”. She added: “I got the last Christmas pudding in Waitrose so it is worth having the day off.”
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I would not have been so hard on people if I had known it was all for a jolly
Shopping centres up and down the country were “absolutely heaving”, with up to seven per cent more visitors than usual. At the same time there were paltry turnouts at many picket lines, despite two million teachers, health workers, civil servants and other public sector employees taking part in the biggest mass strike since 1979.
Far from bringing the country to a halt, the protest over pension arrangements had little or no impact on travel across most of the country, and almost four in 10 state schools remained open in England.
While tens of thousands of striking workers took part in marches, at least as many seemed to have made a beeline for the shops. They included Tracey Hammond, 50, a teaching assistant from Essex, who used the opportunity to visit the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, east London. She said she had voted against the strike, but decided that when her school in Hornchurch, Essex was shut by the walkout she “might as well make use of it”. She added: “I got the last Christmas pudding in Waitrose so it is worth having the day off.”
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Quote by Bluefish2009
Public sector workers use pensions strike to go Christmas shopping
I would not have been so hard on people if I had known it was all for a jolly
Shopping centres up and down the country were “absolutely heaving”, with up to seven per cent more visitors than usual. At the same time there were paltry turnouts at many picket lines, despite two million teachers, health workers, civil servants and other public sector employees taking part in the biggest mass strike since 1979.
Far from bringing the country to a halt, the protest over pension arrangements had little or no impact on travel across most of the country, and almost four in 10 state schools remained open in England.
While tens of thousands of striking workers took part in marches, at least as many seemed to have made a beeline for the shops. They included Tracey Hammond, 50, a teaching assistant from Essex, who used the opportunity to visit the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, east London. She said she had voted against the strike, but decided that when her school in Hornchurch, Essex was shut by the walkout she “might as well make use of it”. She added: “I got the last Christmas pudding in Waitrose so it is worth having the day off.”
Good to see the public sector keeping private business afloat! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Public sector workers use pensions strike to go Christmas shopping
I would not have been so hard on people if I had known it was all for a jolly
Shopping centres up and down the country were “absolutely heaving”, with up to seven per cent more visitors than usual. At the same time there were paltry turnouts at many picket lines, despite two million teachers, health workers, civil servants and other public sector employees taking part in the biggest mass strike since 1979.
Far from bringing the country to a halt, the protest over pension arrangements had little or no impact on travel across most of the country, and almost four in 10 state schools remained open in England.
While tens of thousands of striking workers took part in marches, at least as many seemed to have made a beeline for the shops. They included Tracey Hammond, 50, a teaching assistant from Essex, who used the opportunity to visit the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, east London. She said she had voted against the strike, but decided that when her school in Hornchurch, Essex was shut by the walkout she “might as well make use of it”. She added: “I got the last Christmas pudding in Waitrose so it is worth having the day off.”
All very basic info
People strike they dont have to pickett
Of the schools open how many had class's shut? Ours was open my kid was in but it was one of the few class's open.
There was a huge march in Bristol, police advised avoiding the city centre.
Strikers were not the only ones at the shops. We were out and saw plenty of the hard done by had to take a day off work and loose money so must spend more money today club out with their kids .... shopping.
All rather pointless. You strike to withdraw from work thats it.
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
Public sector workers use pensions strike to go Christmas shopping
I would not have been so hard on people if I had known it was all for a jolly
Shopping centres up and down the country were “absolutely heaving”, with up to seven per cent more visitors than usual. At the same time there were paltry turnouts at many picket lines, despite two million teachers, health workers, civil servants and other public sector employees taking part in the biggest mass strike since 1979.
Far from bringing the country to a halt, the protest over pension arrangements had little or no impact on travel across most of the country, and almost four in 10 state schools remained open in England.
While tens of thousands of striking workers took part in marches, at least as many seemed to have made a beeline for the shops. They included Tracey Hammond, 50, a teaching assistant from Essex, who used the opportunity to visit the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, east London. She said she had voted against the strike, but decided that when her school in Hornchurch, Essex was shut by the walkout she “might as well make use of it”. She added: “I got the last Christmas pudding in Waitrose so it is worth having the day off.”
All very basic info
People strike they dont have to pickett
Of the schools open how many had class's shut? Ours was open my kid was in but it was one of the few class's open.
There was a huge march in Bristol, police advised avoiding the city centre.
Strikers were not the only ones at the shops. We were out and saw plenty of the hard done by had to take a day off work and loose money so must spend more money today club out with their kids .... shopping.
All rather pointless. You strike to withdraw from work thats it.
A club most would rather not have joined
