Unison press releases, government press releases? They're both biased. Audit commission? Great. Lord Hutton's report? Great.
So far, no evidence has been presented to show me that everything is fine and dandy, as the unions are trying to say. What I am seeing all over the place is that public sector pensions are running in deficit (some right now, some will be soon), so change is needed. I also see that our government's finances are in a mess through a decade of mismanagement. And finally, I see that the private sector, the part that generates wealth and increases our GDP, has had a rough time, and are still being expected to fund pensions in the public sector that they themselves can only dream about.
So, all of that combined just screams that unions need to wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, it sucks for us. Yes, it affects me, and my colleagues but as it stands it is affecting a lot more than us.
I'd rather they fix the pensions properly now, and make them fair, sustainable and unlikely to suffer similar issues again in the future, rather than make a tiny tweak and just have to approach the subject again in 20 years.
Has anyone seen the notice from the DFES about people living longer so thats the need to change the pension scheme (no arguement with basic principle - its just maths)
It states (AFAICR) that the average male teacher can expect to live another 30 years when they retire!!!!
A. Teaching is a lot easier/less stresfull in other schools
B. Most of them jump ship at 40
I can't see that being true
Let's face it, the country is nearly bankrupt. I completely agree that we should share the pinch with the rest of the country. It's not right that the taxpayer should pay for Teachers, Policemen etc to be able to retire in their fifties with a pension many times better than any other industry. In that sense, what the unions are asking for is unfair on the rest of the country.
My stance on it is that I am a paying member of a union to protect the rights of ALL of my colleagues in the public sector. This is not exclusive to the pension, but all past and future cases too. As a result of a democratic vote, the union has instructed it's members to strike (As stated by other people, the people who CNBA to vote count for nothing).
Being part of a trade union is about solidarity and collective action. If there is a democratic mandate for a strike, even those who lost should usually support the strike.
Am I the only person that believes that it would be immoral for a non-striking member of a union to gain the rights and benefits that result from the strike? If you are a member of a trade union and feel so strongly against striking, should you not leave the union and join a non-striking union?
What gets me is that the people who will gain the most from the strike are those not prepared to support the rest. Not only do they gain the resulting improved pension offers, but they also have an extra days pay over every other striking member of the union.
Surely it would be more ethical for people who refuse the request of the union to donate the proceeds of the strike to charity or something?
Last edited by Gardinho; 6th November 2011 at 11:48 AM.
I'm in unison but I'm not striking, 'fat cat' union bosses on a decent wage encouraging their lower paid members to strike and loose a days pay - I don't think so. I know so many single wage families working like crazy struggling to last a month on low wages there's no way they could afford to strike and loose money.
Pyroman (7th November 2011)
Until then, the entire system of voting for union industrial action is one sided and nonsensical.
Pretty much. Also the people who are a for strike action are more likely to bother voting than those who aren't. It's usually a foregone conclusion that when a union ballots it's members, a yes result will be returned. Those that care about the issue are more likely than those who don't really care to vote yes. This is why turnout is so low.Until then, the entire system of voting for union industrial action is one sided and nonsensical.
As I keep banging on over and over in this thread, those members pay towards to the union just like everybody else, thus they are "supporting" the union in a sense. If all non striking members left then the union's finances would suffer massively, so ya, we can all leave if you want.that it would be immoral for a non-striking member of a union to gain the rights and benefits that result from the strike?
Last edited by DrCheese; 6th November 2011 at 12:45 PM.
So long as such a law extends to General and Local elections and divisions/votes in Parliament too...
hah yeah. I admit I do find it ironic that the Tory party moan about the low turnout + low amount of votes required for "Yes" yet are quite happy to defend the FPTP system for general elections which leads to governments being formed with 20%+ of the vote...
They should allow prison inmates to vote, that's what's keeping the % down.
General elections generally get a decent turnout, but it seems that many councillors were elected with a turnout of 35-45% in years without a General Election.
What's more concerning is the amount of business that gets through Parliament with a very small number of MPs voting on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)