Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions

8 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
You have kind of answered your own question there Tweeky. Insurance Companies were the main providers of occupational final salaries in the private sector and Acturial evidence of life expectancy meant that premiums became too high to realistically continue and hence very few (if any) final salary pensions left in the private sector. Insurance Companies have their roots in the Bookmaker industry and take very good notice of Actuary evidence and compile their odds to make sure they are rarely exposed - be it house fires or pensions.
Incumbent Governments have for years ignored the evidence because of the effect on civil servant voting potential and Union intervention. So we are now in a situation far too late in the day and something has to be done unfortunately. Surely you can accept that as the population ages and lives longer it is impossible to continue to pay pensions from the public purse when the money for another 10 - 20 years of life has never at any time been accounted for?
I don't think that it is anything about envy. We live longer and the next generation will live longer still that means we all have to do a combination of working longer, contribute more whilst workling and exist on less when we are retired. It is very simple maths, painful as it may sound.

My job is to pay for a service not worry about where the funds or product come from. I pay for insurnace, pensions, gas, electric and I expect to get it. When I dont or they alter the terms so that I pay more and get less I get pissed off I also consider that my job lol

Quote by Bluefish2009
It may well piss you off, but it is a fact that many people will find it hard to sympathise with those loosing something they have never had. Is that shallow and based on envy? I do not think it is.

We should all just be equal? This is called communisum. Maybe if something ever happens to your house a homeless person will walk up to you and say "Well I never had one" and walk off.

8 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
My job is to pay for a service not worry about where the funds or product come from. I pay for insurnace, pensions, gas, electric and I expect to get it. When I dont or they alter the terms so that I pay more and get less I get pissed off I also consider that my job
Does this not happen with most things though, I pay more for fuel now and get less

It may well piss you off, but it is a fact that many people will find it hard to sympathise with those loosing something they have never had. Is that shallow and based on envy? I do not think it is.

We should all just be equal? This is called communisum. Maybe if something ever happens to your house a homeless person will walk up to you and say "Well I never had one" and walk off.
Don't like Communism, I like the system we have got.
I think your dead right regarding the tramp, he may well say, "Get over it"

10 Nov 2011

First time ever in their history the union of head teachers have held a vote on strike action. For the first time in their history they have voted strongly in favour of strike action. You can hardly call this union and its members...Militant !! When even they are willing to take action, maybe it is time to sit up and take note.

10 Nov 2011

I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

10 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

i think historically unions rarely stick together or support each other and also lack the solidarity that unions need to work
to much we're alright jack amongst members with union leaders being out of touch with what and how members want things done
like you say max less than 50% is hardly an over whelming majority

10 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I do believe its whats called democracy. You have the chance to vote, so you can hadly complain. Its exactly the same as in a general election.....any political party would be more than pleased with 76% vote in their favour !!!
The fact is this union had never even held a ballot for strike action before !!! As I said you can hadly call them a trouble making, rebel rousing, militant union.
So think it does show there is a strong sence of injustice amonst even the mildest of workers.

10 Nov 2011

Having never been a member of a union and never seen the numbers of other votes before I have no idea if this is the normal sort of turn out. But to my simple mind if less that 50% voted and of that 50% only 76% voted for action, that to me seams quite a small amount dunno

10 Nov 2011

i know this is slightly off the track here, but does anyone know the annual leave rules?
my employer has just made two peeple redundent and we are all entitled to 25 days a year annual leave. the employer had an argument with one of these peeple about how much holiday they had left. the employer thyen said yes he had 25 days a yeer holiday but he had to include bank holidays into that number, which meens this person in reality only has an actual 17 holiday a yeer as the other 8 days are bank holidays?
is this correct as everywhere i have ever work you had ether 4 weeks or sometimes 5 weeks holiday, and then you had bank holidays which were on top of your annual know what the usual procedure is?
i have alway taken my 25 days holiday and the bank holidays were on top of that number.

10 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i know this is slightly off the track here, but does anyone know the annual leave rules?
my employer has just made two peeple redundent and we are all entitled to 25 days a year annual leave. the employer had an argument with one of these peeple about how much holiday they had left. the employer thyen said yes he had 25 days a yeer holiday but he had to include bank holidays into that number, which meens this person in reality only has an actual 17 holiday a yeer as the other 8 days are bank holidays?
is this correct as everywhere i have ever work you had ether 4 weeks or sometimes 5 weeks holiday, and then you had bank holidays which were on top of your annual know what the usual procedure is?
i have alway taken my 25 days holiday and the bank holidays were on top of that number.

as faik bank holidays are paid at the discetion of the employer many include these in annual leave paid

10 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i know this is slightly off the track here, but does anyone know the annual leave rules?
my employer has just made two peeple redundent and we are all entitled to 25 days a year annual leave. the employer had an argument with one of these peeple about how much holiday they had left. the employer thyen said yes he had 25 days a yeer holiday but he had to include bank holidays into that number, which meens this person in reality only has an actual 17 holiday a yeer as the other 8 days are bank holidays?
is this correct as everywhere i have ever work you had ether 4 weeks or sometimes 5 weeks holiday, and then you had bank holidays which were on top of your annual know what the usual procedure is?
i have alway taken my 25 days holiday and the bank holidays were on top of that number.

The basics of holiday rightsThere is a minimum right to paid holiday, but your employer may offer more than this. The main things you should know about holiday rights are that:
•you are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave - 28 days for someone working five days a week (capped at a statutory maximum of 28 days for all working patterns)
•part-time workers are entitled to the same level of holiday pro rata (so 5.6 times your usual working week, eg 22.4 days for someone working four days a week)
•you start building up holiday as soon as you start work
•your employer can control when you take your holiday
•you get paid your normal pay for your holiday
•when you finish a job, you get paid for any holiday you have not taken
•bank and public holidays can be included in your minimum entitlement
•you continue to be entitled to your holiday leave throughout your ordinary and additional maternity leave and paternity and adoption leave

When it comes to what you are entitled to you would need to do some maths as you accrue holiday as you work during the year. I think it works along the lines of, if you were made redundant 6 months into the holiday year you would only be entitled to half you holiday allowance.

10 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I do believe its whats called democracy. You have the chance to vote, so you can hadly complain. Its exactly the same as in a general election.....any political party would be more than pleased with 76% vote in their favour !!!
The fact is this union had never even held a ballot for strike action before !!! As I said you can hadly call them a trouble making, rebel rousing, militant union.
So think it does show there is a strong sence of injustice amonst even the mildest of workers.
it may well be an interpretation of democracy, it's still not an overwhelming endorsement for strike action.

11 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I do believe its whats called democracy. You have the chance to vote, so you can hadly complain. Its exactly the same as in a general election.....any political party would be more than pleased with 76% vote in their favour !!!
The fact is this union had never even held a ballot for strike action before !!! As I said you can hadly call them a trouble making, rebel rousing, militant union.
So think it does show there is a strong sence of injustice amonst even the mildest of workers.
it may well be an interpretation of democracy, it's still not an overwhelming endorsement for strike action.
It has a lot in common with most (if not all) of the governments we've been suffering under the yoke of for the last 40 years then

11 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I do believe its whats called democracy. You have the chance to vote, so you can hadly complain. Its exactly the same as in a general election.....any political party would be more than pleased with 76% vote in their favour !!!
The fact is this union had never even held a ballot for strike action before !!! As I said you can hadly call them a trouble making, rebel rousing, militant union.
So think it does show there is a strong sence of injustice amonst even the mildest of workers.
it may well be an interpretation of democracy, it's still not an overwhelming endorsement for strike action.
It has a lot in common with most (if not all) of the governments we've been suffering under the yoke of for the last 40 years then
What will you be doing abaht it then Staggers? (controversially, as always)

11 Nov 2011

G I fully support everyones right to withdraw their labour .... this particular issue has absolutely no bearing on my life (that I can see). When the issue becomes state pensions I will be manning the barricades

11 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I believe the numbers were 76% of those who voted were in favour of strike action but only 53% voted. So it's fair to say that those who voted were strongly in favour of strike action but not of the union as a whole. Less than 50% is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I do believe its whats called democracy. You have the chance to vote, so you can hadly complain. Its exactly the same as in a general election.....any political party would be more than pleased with 76% vote in their favour !!!
The fact is this union had never even held a ballot for strike action before !!! As I said you can hadly call them a trouble making, rebel rousing, militant union.
So think it does show there is a strong sence of injustice amonst even the mildest of workers.
it may well be an interpretation of democracy, it's still not an overwhelming endorsement for strike action.
It has a lot in common with most (if not all) of the governments we've been suffering under the yoke of for the last 40 years then
yes, would agree with you Staggers but I'm not claiming that a minority vote can be claimed to be a strong vote in favour of whatever the motion may be

12 Nov 2011

Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

12 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

I believe that 53% of union members actually voted and of them, 76% voted in favour of the strike....that equates to 40% of all union members voting in favour, ie 4 in 10.

12 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

I believe that 53% of union members actually voted and of them, 76% voted in favour of the strike....that equates to 40% of all union members voting in favour, ie 4 in 10.
Thank you :thumbup:

15 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Another couple of questions;
Do you feel this strike action will continue to receive public support?
I ask this because there are so many of us who have not had pay rises at all in many years, and can not afford a pension at all. So when people are upset that their pay rise was too small and pension is worth less it could well put peoples backs up.
There are many people struggling in this country just to feed the family on a weekly basis.
If strike action does not have the country's support, is it still such a powerful tool?

Thought i may chip in as a Unison member who has voted to strike! the issue of public support is being undermined by the media and the govt saying it is better than the private sector. that may be true, but it is a deliberate attempt to turmn the public against against the public sector.
i entered the public sector many years ago, i did not do so eith the thought, oh great! good pension job for life, i did it because it was the type of work i wanted to do.
i have not had a pay rise for three years now, and am unlikely to receive one for some time to come.
When the economy was thriving, i would never criticise the private sector employees for large pay awards or perks, which the public sector do not receive. what is evident is that private companies have on the whole very bad pension schemes if at all, or they have been plundered by the directors, who award thenselves large payouts and give their employees nothing.
the local govt pension scheme is different from other public sector schems in so much as it is funded and does not rely on present subsriptions to fund the present pensions. In reality most public sector pensions are funding future employees pensions. I ma funding my colleagues pension who have retired. the myth that there is not enough to fund future pensions is based on the assumption that if everyone retired tomorrow there would not be enough funds to sustain the demand. Finally what you have to consaider also is the the increases in pension contributions is not going into the pension pot but is merely paying of the debt caused caused by the bankers. i know there are oyher factors, but look at the state of europe and the world economies, that failure was based on the banks overlending and countries borrrowing too much. OK rant over. love you all!

15 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

I believe that 53% of union members actually voted and of them, 76% voted in favour of the strike....that equates to 40% of all union members voting in favour, ie 4 in 10.
Or put another way...only 2 in 10 were against strike action !!
Double that amount... 4 out of 10 were willing to support strike action !!
The other 4 out of 10 didn't vote and so have to be content to go along with the majority.
Once again I would point out, this is a union that previously had never even got to the point of holding a ballot for industrial action let alone vote in favour of it.

15 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

I believe that 53% of union members actually voted and of them, 76% voted in favour of the strike....that equates to 40% of all union members voting in favour, ie 4 in 10.
Or put another way...only 2 in 10 were against strike action !!
Double that amount... 4 out of 10 were willing to support strike action !!
The other 4 out of 10 didn't vote and so have to be content to go along with the majority.
Once again I would point out, this is a union that previously had never even got to the point of holding a ballot for industrial action let alone vote in favour of it.
I think it's a fair guess that those that didn't vote were not in favour of the strike, or not sufficiently bothered either way to vote. So they have to go along with the MINORITY.

15 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Does any body know what these numbers mean?
So 76%, of less than a 50% turnout, voted yes for action.
I wonder what that equates too, one in how many workers?

I believe that 53% of union members actually voted and of them, 76% voted in favour of the strike....that equates to 40% of all union members voting in favour, ie 4 in 10.
Or put another way...only 2 in 10 were against strike action !!
Double that amount... 4 out of 10 were willing to support strike action !!
The other 4 out of 10 didn't vote and so have to be content to go along with the majority.
Once again I would point out, this is a union that previously had never even got to the point of holding a ballot for industrial action let alone vote in favour of it.
I think it's a fair guess that those that didn't vote were not in favour of the strike, or not sufficiently bothered either way to vote. So they have to go along with the MINORITY.
so you saying if the union should take the results as they had them...and said the result is we don't strike !!!! If the people that didn't vote really were against the strike,then why didn't they vote. Generally the people that abstain are not sure either way, and therefore are willing to accept the result of the majority of the others ! That result was twice as many people registered a desire for industrial action, than registered a desire not to. In my eyes thats a clear majority. if you really can't see that then maybe a trip a spec-savers would come in handy !!!!

15 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannoc
so you saying if the union should take the results as they had them...and said the result is we don't strike !!!! If the people that didn't vote really were against the strike,then why didn't they vote. Generally the people that abstain are not sure either way, and therefore are willing to accept the result of the majority of the others ! That result was twice as many people registered a desire for industrial action, than registered a desire not to. In my eyes thats a clear majority. if you really can't see that then maybe a trip a spec-savers would come in handy !!!!

So what you're saying is that just unnder half the union members couldn't be bothered to vote because they weren't bothered either way. Hardly militant is it?
What I'm actually saying, is that 40% of union members is not a majority, which ever way you dress it up.
Obviously the specs you have are the sort that make you see what you want to see rather than what is actually there. Glad I didn't go to specsavers!

16 Nov 2011

Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

The result may be legal but is it fair.....seeing as how you insist on fairness?

16 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

It's the 'British' thing tweeks. If your neighbour has a bigger better car than you, you get all upset about it and report him to the tax people 'cos he must be on the fiddle, mustn't he.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

The result may be legal but is it fair.....seeing as how you insist on fairness?
When twice as many people vote for industrial action than those that don't....I think thats very fair.
I really don't think these people bother that much about public support. They feel an injustice has been done, and they wish to take action to regester there displeasure at that. They have taken a vote, twice as many people voted in favour of industrial action. So they have every right to take this action.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
When twice as many people vote for industrial action than those that don't....I think thats very fair.
I really don't think these people bother that much about public support. They feel an injustice has been done, and they wish to take action to regester there displeasure at that. They have taken a vote, twice as many people voted in favour of industrial action. So they have every right to take this action.

If they are just making a protest to say how upset they are then that makes sense. But surely if they wish to change the governments mind, or at least sway them, they will need lots of public support to do that surely?

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

When twice as many people vote for industrial action than those that don't....I think thats very fair.
I really don't think these people bother that much about public support. They feel an injustice has been done, and they wish to take action to regester there displeasure at that. They have taken a vote, twice as many people voted in favour of industrial action. So they have every right to take this action.

If they are just making a protest to say how upset they are then that makes sense. But surely if they wish to change the governments mind, or at least sway them, they will need lots of public support to do that surely?
and lots of public to put their hands in their pockets to pay for public sector pensions...