Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions

3 Nov 2011

Is it right that Unison are calling a strike over pensions when only 29% of members bothered to vote?
Members of the Unison trade union have voted in favour of striking against the government's plans to change public service pension schemes.
There was a 78% majority, with 245,358 in favour and 70,253 against on a 29% turnout.
The vote means there is likely to be a huge national strike on 30 November.

3 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Is it right that Unison are calling a strike over pensions when only 29% of members bothered to vote?
Members of the Unison trade union have voted in favour of striking against the government's plans to change public service pension schemes.
There was a 78% majority, with 245,358 in favour and 70,253 against on a 29% turnout.
The vote means there is likely to be a huge national strike on 30 November.

This 29% turnout make the ballot look as if most can't be bothered to vote, but it is a questionable figure.
Does it mean 29% of the total membership of Unison ? Or 29% of the workforce in the effected workplace be they members of the union or not. Or 29% of issued ballot papers were returned ?
I think Unison has around 1,000,000 members, spread across a large range of industries / workplaces so the combined figure of @315,000 would suggest a fairly large return from the workplace ballots. I suggest most people would want to vote on this, not least as they would be losing a day's pay on the run-up to Xmas, not to mention the concern about future pensions.
I am not in the balloted group so have no direct involvment either way, but I certainly have loads of sympathy for those affected.
John

3 Nov 2011

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Is it right that Unison are calling a strike over pensions when only 29% of members bothered to vote?
Members of the Unison trade union have voted in favour of striking against the government's plans to change public service pension schemes.
There was a 78% majority, with 245,358 in favour and 70,253 against on a 29% turnout.
The vote means there is likely to be a huge national strike on 30 November.

This 29% turnout make the ballot look as if most can't be bothered to vote, but it is a questionable figure.
Does it mean 29% of the total membership of Unison ? Or 29% of the workforce in the effected workplace be they members of the union or not. Or 29% of issued ballot papers were returned ?
I think Unison has around 1,000,000 members, spread across a large range of industries / workplaces so the combined figure of @315,000 would suggest a fairly large return from the workplace ballots. I suggest most people would want to vote on this, not least as they would be losing a day's pay on the run-up to Xmas, not to mention the concern about future pensions.
I am not in the balloted group so have no direct involvment either way, but I certainly have loads of sympathy for those affected.
John
As John said, most of the major unions today are across many different industrial, trade, or sectors, thus giving them a high number of members. Unison is no exception..
Might be time to dig a little deeper than the headline, oh for the days of proper journalism rather than the twitter and 'lack of time' brigade some currently employ.
In local government, the votes were Yes 171,428, No 54,500 - 76% in favour.
In health, the figures were: Yes 73,930, No 15,753 - 82% in favour.
The civil service scheme ballot saw an 87% Yes vote
It's also worth noting that 7, yes 7, separate ballots were held for the :
Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland,
NHS Pension Scheme in England and Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland and
the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
with members ballotted including nurses, teaching assistants, social workers, care assistants, paramedics, police staff, school dinner ladies, probation workers and cleaners.
It's also worth noting that these ballots were conducted before yesterday's statement in Parliament, which was a marked improvement on earlier proposals.

3 Nov 2011

I do not know if it was 29% of the total membership of Unison ? Or 29% of the workforce in the effected workplace be they members of the union or not. Or 29% of issued ballot papers were returned ?
Which ever it was 71% did not vote
For info

3 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Is it right that Unison are calling a strike over pensions when only 29% of members bothered to vote?

no no and no again.
i would have thought that strike action would only be called if 51% of workers who voted are for a strike. 29% is surely not what was thought about when the union laws were changed?
they of course have the right to strike if after the secret ballot the majority vote for it but 29% hardly seems to be the magic number needed to strike surely?
there must be something missing in the information

3 Nov 2011

Of course.

3 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Of course.

so what ben?
strike under any circumstances?
what even if five peeple want to out of a thousand?
surely there has to be rules that peeple have to abide by for fairness?

3 Nov 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
Of course.

so what ben?
strike under any circumstances?
what even if five peeple want to out of a thousand?
surely there has to be rules that peeple have to abide by for fairness?
Yes there are Starlight, and they followed them otherwise they would of been declared null and void ballot by the Courts, under multiple pieces of predominantly Tory legislation.

4 Nov 2011

Scottish schools are facing their first strike in almost 25 years, after the country's largest teaching union backed a day of action.
EIS members voted overwhelmingly for the move, saying their patience had been exhausted by a pay freeze, budget cuts and proposed changes to pensions.
More than 82% of EIS members voted to strike on a 54% turnout.
The EIS strike is expected to be rubber stamped by the union's executive meeting and is likely to take place on 30 November.
The Scottish and UK government have clashed on the issue. In September the UK Treasury denied accusations by the first minister Alex Salmond that it had "threatened" the Scottish government over increases in public sector pension contributions.

4 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS
Scottish schools are facing their first strike in almost 25 years, after the country's largest teaching union backed a day of action.
EIS members voted overwhelmingly for the move, saying their patience had been exhausted by a pay freeze, budget cuts and proposed changes to pensions.
More than 82% of EIS members voted to strike on a 54% turnout.
The EIS strike is expected to be rubber stamped by the union's executive meeting and is likely to take place on 30 November.
The Scottish and UK government have clashed on the issue. In September the UK Treasury denied accusations by the first minister Alex Salmond that it had "threatened" the Scottish government over increases in public sector pension contributions.

Welcome to our world, the private sector wink

4 Nov 2011

its not just unison on strike on that day, im on strike that day for a different union. what are u saying here, that us people who have paid our pensions for years should just say, oh yea pay more, work later in life, n get less? somehow dont seem fair to me!
Allen.

4 Nov 2011

Quote by kaz_allen
its not just unison on strike on that day, im on strike that day for a different union. what are u saying here, that us people who have paid our pensions for years should just say, oh yea pay more, work later in life, n get less? somehow dont seem fair to me!
Allen.

but, the muppets, sorry puppets (selected politicians) borrowed money created out of thin air at interest from the private bank of england and gave it to the private banks to stop them going bust and pay record bonuses.
to pay it back from tax revenue, there will not be enough to pay pensions as was contractually agreed when the contributions were taken. this applies to the 98% only. you are too small to save you slave. now carry on working or unemployed till your 99 if you dont die first, then you might get a pension, whatever it will be worth by then.
but dont worry, i dont know what i'm talking about.

4 Nov 2011

thanks gulson,,,now i know some bankers moored in st tropez drinking champers n thinking.....what a load of numptys paying pensions,,,,job done n thankyou banghead

4 Nov 2011

oh and just a post script, you phuckers av gorra av austerity to pay for the international monetary crisis created by design by a small number of international banking families. as the gaff blown by the b.b.c. "governments dont run the world, goldman sachs does" in the interests of it's profit not you, you debt slaves. now shut up and watch the telievision and when we need you to pay for the destruction of syria, algeria and iran or any of the coming wars we have already decided upon, we will programme you to believe it's a good idea to bomb the bastards and pay for it with your taxes and young blood.
but i dont know what i'm talking about so dont take me seriously.

4 Nov 2011

Quote by gulsonroad30664
oh and just a post script, you phuckers av gorra av austerity to pay for the international monetary crisis created by design by a small number of international banking families. as the gaff blown by the b.b.c. "governments dont run the world, goldman sachs does" in the interests of it's profit not you, you debt slaves. now shut up and watch the telievision and when we need you to pay for the destruction of syria, algeria and iran or any of the coming wars we have already decided upon, we will programme you to believe it's a good idea to bomb the bastards and pay for it with your taxes and young blood.
but i dont know what i'm talking about so dont take me seriously.

Nobody does, don't worry :thumbup:

5 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Is it right that Unison are calling a strike over pensions when only 29% of members bothered to vote?
Members of the Unison trade union have voted in favour of striking against the government's plans to change public service pension schemes.
There was a 78% majority, with 245,358 in favour and 70,253 against on a 29% turnout.
The vote means there is likely to be a huge national strike on 30 November.

totally understand your point about the 29% bluefish...but a lot of unison members are not affected as they have never paid into the pension pot (so they wouldnt vote) but the point is here should we strike? well to me personally, yes is the answer we been pushed into a corner by the government!

5 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Scottish schools are facing their first strike in almost 25 years, after the country's largest teaching union backed a day of action.
EIS members voted overwhelmingly for the move, saying their patience had been exhausted by a pay freeze, budget cuts and proposed changes to pensions.
More than 82% of EIS members voted to strike on a 54% turnout.
The EIS strike is expected to be rubber stamped by the union's executive meeting and is likely to take place on 30 November.
The Scottish and UK government have clashed on the issue. In September the UK Treasury denied accusations by the first minister Alex Salmond that it had "threatened" the Scottish government over increases in public sector pension contributions.

Welcome to our world, the private sector wink

Blue,
always worked in the private sector, just a shame that so many 'responsible', 'well regarded', household name companies got away with either plundering their pension funds and/or taking pension fund contribution holidays so as to boost their results, share price, and pay unwarranted bonuses and dividends.
usually these were the first companies to start making substantial changes to their pension funds once they finally realised that they were running at significant deficits, usually rather than paying in 'what they owed', they started to slash benefits, cease final salary schemes, make staff work longer, etc. and this 'pioneering' ethos is now sweeping into the other sectors.
be nice to throw a spotlight onto both the respective Directors of these firms and their pension arrangements, together with the bonuses paid, company contributions made, etc. during the same period, together with the monies made by Pension Fund Mgmt firms during the same period.
it's also very illuminating to track the pensions of those old public 'firms' privatised during the 80's and look at the relative declines in their once massive pension funds since that time that they became private firms. Some one has been making money there, way in excess of what was happing pre-privatisation, and it certainly isn't those who paid into their pension fund during this period.

5 Nov 2011

It is only sensible that pension arrangements are reviewed every decade or so. Problem that we humans have is that we don't like perceived bad change and want everything to always be the same - we welcome change for good but just can't cope with "negative" change.
Unfortunately Acturial evidence proves that we live longer now than we did in the previous generation and the next generation will live longer than us. How can the same calculations then be applied to three generations each of whom will live longer than the previous.
It is perfectly sensible to review these arrangents and no tax payer - private or public can argue with that because extra payments and/or a longer working life is needed to make up for the extra payments needed in later life as a resulted of an extended lifespan.

5 Nov 2011

As I understand it, the proposed strike isn't just about pensions.

5 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
It is only sensible that pension arrangements are reviewed every decade or so. Problem that we humans have is that we don't like perceived bad change and want everything to always be the same - we welcome change for good but just can't cope with "negative" change.
Unfortunately Acturial evidence proves that we live longer now than we did in the previous generation and the next generation will live longer than us. How can the same calculations then be applied to three generations each of whom will live longer than the previous.
It is perfectly sensible to review these arrangents and no tax payer - private or public can argue with that because extra payments and/or a longer working life is needed to make up for the extra payments needed in later life as a resulted of an extended lifespan.

Hang on, isn't the health lobby always saying that the next generation will die earlier than it's parents due to obesity / alcohol comsumption / never moving from the couch / drugs / superbugs / global warming etc etc ??
J & S

6 Nov 2011

Quote by noladreams
As I understand it, the proposed strike isn't just about pensions.

This is true

7 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
As I understand it, the proposed strike isn't just about pensions.

This is true
I am in Unison. Just recived a ballot paper on strike action ref Pay. Having recieved measley rises of 0.1 and 0.4 percent in recent years I have voted for both types of action strike and other i.e. working to rule etc.
I am lucky as the measley pay rises have not had so much of a bearing on me. 3 years back my employer re evaluated all of its staff due to multiple pay structres in various areas which meant some staff doing almost identical jobs could be earning saleries 20k different. I came out well from the re-evaluation my pay increased quite significantly however that has now been counteracted by the measley pay rises. Given with one hand taken away with the other over the next 3-4 years. Must be terrible for those who got down graded as well as getting measley pay rises sad

Additionally we have also had to increase our pension payments with no added bennefit. The final salery scheme is now closed to new employees which is always the death nail so just getting in as many final salery years as I can. My employer was one of those that took payment holidays when times were better for themselves when times were better.

7 Nov 2011

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?

7 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?

I have no idea if the strike will get public support.
But it has mine. Admittedly my opinion is somewhat biased as I work in local government and am signed up to the pension scheme. And, personally, I'd prefer to get what I signed up for rather than the watered down crap that the government want to give me. Especially as the local government scheme is securely funded for the next few decades. And the payouts are hardly extravagant.
It does piss me off when people say "Well my wages and terms are crap so why should yours be any better?" Why not say "What are they doing right that they have decent pensions and terms to defend?"
Oh, and local government workers have had a pay freeze for the last couple of years. So, yes, I'd say that our (non-existant) pay rises have been too small.

7 Nov 2011

Quote by PilotMoonDog
Especially as the local government scheme is securely funded for the next few decades. And the payouts are hardly extravagant.
It does piss me off when people say "Well my wages and terms are crap so why should yours be any better?" Why not say "What are they doing right that they have decent pensions and terms to defend?"
Oh, and local government workers have had a pay freeze for the last couple of years. So, yes, I'd say that our (non-existant) pay rises have been too small.

1) How can the scheme be securely funded? The Govt and country is broke because of a failure to address problems like this years ago.
2) The world has changed and we all have to accept that it has changed - the sums no longer add up because people live longer - it is just a fact of life.
I agree with you that it is pretty shallow (and based on the politics on envy) for people to say that if they have to struggle - so should you. My opinion is that the world has simply changed and we all have to change and not hang on to how things used to be.

7 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Especially as the local government scheme is securely funded for the next few decades. And the payouts are hardly extravagant.
It does piss me off when people say "Well my wages and terms are crap so why should yours be any better?" Why not say "What are they doing right that they have decent pensions and terms to defend?"
Oh, and local government workers have had a pay freeze for the last couple of years. So, yes, I'd say that our (non-existant) pay rises have been too small.

1) How can the scheme be securely funded? The Govt and country is broke because of a failure to address problems like this years ago.
2) The world has changed and we all have to accept that it has changed - the sums no longer add up because people live longer - it is just a fact of life.
I agree with you that it is pretty shallow (and based on the politics on envy) for people to say that if they have to struggle - so should you. My opinion is that the world has simply changed and we all have to change and not hang on to how things used to be.
So then if my house burns down I wont want a payout from the insurance that I have paid for as there is no money. Just like I am not supposed to want the pension I paid for? I know its all drawn up differently but when it comes down to it both are something I have paid for. I wouldent accept half the money for the house or half a rebuild cus times are tough.
I doubt anything will actually change strikes or not. Blue is right the country has lost its ability to back each other and instead worrys about what your getting that I'm not. Ive seen this first hand. When I started my job over 5 years ago all the staff were old school most having been in the one job for at least 5 years and up to 26 years. They worried about the job the conditions was it fair and were they being fairly treated. If there was an issue with management they banded just like a union united front. Today I only have one of my original staff left. The younger staff that have replaced them come in tow main types. The first is doesnt care and resigned to never getting anything better. The second group worry that Tracey might have a slightly harder job than Sharon and that Sharon takes an extra tea break. They rarely challenge management about anything and cant show a united front due to the divisions they have amungst themselves. On the few occasions we have had a senior figure over to dicuss issues they have ended up bickering amungst themselves in front of them rolleyes

8 Nov 2011

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.

8 Nov 2011

Quote by PilotMoonDog
It does piss me off when people say "Well my wages and terms are crap so why should yours be any better?" Why not say "What are they doing right that they have decent pensions and terms to defend?"
Oh, and local government workers have had a pay freeze for the last couple of years. So, yes, I'd say that our (non-existant) pay rises have been too small.

Quote by Too Hot
I agree with you that it is pretty shallow (and based on the politics on envy) for people to say that if they have to struggle - so should you. My opinion is that the world has simply changed and we all have to change and not hang on to how things used to be.

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.

8 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
1) How can the scheme be securely funded? The Govt and country is broke because of a failure to address problems like this years ago.
2) The world has changed and we all have to accept that it has changed - the sums no longer add up because people live longer - it is just a fact of life.
I agree with you that it is pretty shallow (and based on the politics on envy) for people to say that if they have to struggle - so should you. My opinion is that the world has simply changed and we all have to change and not hang on to how things used to be.

Well I'll grant you it's hardly an unbiased source. But here's my union's take on the subject:

Your questions are addressed in the first two points on the page.

8 Nov 2011

Quote by PilotMoonDog
1) How can the scheme be securely funded? The Govt and country is broke because of a failure to address problems like this years ago.
2) The world has changed and we all have to accept that it has changed - the sums no longer add up because people live longer - it is just a fact of life.
I agree with you that it is pretty shallow (and based on the politics on envy) for people to say that if they have to struggle - so should you. My opinion is that the world has simply changed and we all have to change and not hang on to how things used to be.

Well I'll grant you it's hardly an unbiased source. But here's my union's take on the subject:

Your questions are addressed in the first two points on the page.
Interesting link, thank you