UNISON vote for strike

[SteveT]

And as for the benefits of being in a union then scabbing - I pay to be in a union. I pay for the legal protection, I pay for them to help us. But I don't like striking, it is overly damaging.

 

I refer the honourable Gentleman to his own post dated 18.04.2008

 

Are you in a teachers union Simcfc73? If not then that teacher is wrong, if you are, you will likely be breaching your unions rules if you covered her lessons. Breaching the unions industrial action rules is normally referred to as being a scab, so yes she may be right to call you that.

 

Taken completely out of context of course!!!! :p:p

[sparkeh]

Ok but their opinion goes against most current ecconomic thought.

 

So because its the 'current thinking' its correct? We've been following the current (Gordon Brown) thinking for a while and it doesn't look too good.

[StewartKnight]

Well starting with how do you suggest people practically do this, ending with the fact that a pay rise is on the cards it's just UNISON are disputing how much it should be this is stupid suggestion! I also dislike the term scab. Surely it's every members right to make up his or her own minds whether they wish to participate in industrial action it's not like your paid by the hour miners, your job will still be there when you come in the day after the strike they aren't taking your job they just doing their own.

 

I disagree with you there, whats the point of a ballot if people aren't prepared to go along with the result (like the Irish 'no' vote the other week!)

 

As a member of a union, you have the protection that the union gives you. If the union said everyone had to strike because Jona has been unfairly sacked, you'd hope that your union collegues would support you.

 

Otherwise the union wouldn't have to ballot, they just say whoever want to go on strike, please do so (ok, I know the law doesn't allow that, but you get the idea)

[cookie_monster]

@ sparkeh: I was thinking of professional economists really not the have a go hero Gordon. Of course as a scientist i'm always open to new thinking but it needs to be proven. Edited June 24, 2008 by cookie_monster

[localzuk]

I refer the honourable Gentleman to his own post dated 18.04.2008

 

Are you in a teachers union Simcfc73? If not then that teacher is wrong, if you are, you will likely be breaching your unions rules if you covered her lessons. Breaching the unions industrial action rules is normally referred to as being a scab, so yes she may be right to call you that.

 

Taken completely out of context of course!!!! :p:p

 

Oh, I agree with my earlier statement - I would be a scab by crossing the picket lines. But I don't care.

[sparkeh]

@ sparkeh: I was thinking of professional economists really not the have a go hero Gordon. Of course as a scientist i'm always open to new thinking but it needs to be proven.

 

Ok lets talk economists.

 

During the Great Depression, America tried to apply Classical economics (the current thinking) to turn the situation around - actually making it much worse.

 

After this (and especially WW2), Keynesian economics became very popular with the resulting liberal and socially minded governments. There followed a period of low inflation and unemployment. Economists thought that this was the way forward and stuck to it and experienced a peak in the 60s.

 

However, the oil problems and economic problems of the 70s broke the Keynesian model (as to control recession and inflation, contradictory (in the eyes of Keynesians) policies had to be applied).

 

After this ecomists returned to more classical ideas, such as monetarism, supply-side economics and new classical economics.

 

Recently many economists have returned to Keynesian economics to model the way an economy works.

 

So, what does all this mean? To me, the current thinking might not be right. For example, perhaps Keynes' way of thinking would have helped in the Great Depression just as Classical economics did in the 70s when Keynesian fell apart. Why are we right this time.

 

Wow sorry straying right off topic there....er..go strike

[plexer]

Gibbo: I've seen plenty of people paid overtime for doing over and above their normal hours myself included.

 

Ben

[sparkeh]

Gibbo: I've seen plenty of people paid overtime for doing over and above their normal hours myself included.

 

Ben

 

True, if I am asked to stay for anything late like a parents evening, I am paid overtime.

[Hightower]

I've seen people have asked where the extra raise money will come from with the reply of tax!

 

Apparently education has never seen such grand budgets in decades - all good yes? Ask yourself where does this extra cash come from? Our tax possibly, but what other services of the UK have been restricted to give extra funds to schools?

 

The money has to come from somewhere!

[localzuk]

I've seen people have asked where the extra raise money will come from with the reply of tax!

 

Apparently education has never seen such grand budgets in decades - all good yes? Ask yourself where does this extra cash come from? Our tax possibly, but what other services of the UK have been restricted to give extra funds to schools?

 

The money has to come from somewhere!

 

Borrowing. We owe, as a country, a huge amount of money...

[somabc]

I know what could help this country if we weren't too soft, and I know there's a lot of you guys on here and I don't mean any offense to you (as you are all the hard working guys).

 

Cut the Scottish off. Out of 5 million residents in Scotland, 680,000 are working! that means more than 4 million are out of work. So how, being part of the UK have they managed to get free dental care, free uni fee's etc and we are left to foot the bill?

 

It costs the UK 64% more to keep the Scottish than what they can contribute? So why are we so soft.

 

Put the wall back up is what I say, let them fend for themselves!

 

People like you just make me keener on an independent Scotland. I'm sure you would have complained before about how Ireland is drain on the UK's resources and now look at them. An Independent Scotland in the Euro and with North Sea Oil would be much better placed to ride out this storm. The UK still produces more oil than it consumes, the problem is tax not the amount of oil available to the country.

Edited June 24, 2008 by somabc

[cookie_monster]

As i've said nothing is certain and there are no quick fixes but rushing to increase wages is probably not a good idea. The problem we currently have is that we are more sensitive to the global economy that ever so it is very difficult to control the situation with any economic model. Restraint still seems to be a good idea in the short term.

[somabc]

As i've said nothing is certain and there are no quick fixes but rushing to increase wages is probably not a good idea. The problem we currently have is that we are more sensitive to the global economy that ever so it is very difficult to control the situation with any economic model. Restraint still seems to be a good idea in the short term.

 

The problem is who exercises this "restraint" not the tanker drivers or any other group who can hold the country to ransom through strike action, not the many high level managers with their sizeable salaries who are able to shop round the world for the best jobs. No the people who are asked to exercise restraint are those on low wages such as most Unison members. At a time when their outgoings are undeniably rising due to higher fuel costs, higher food costs, higher debt costs (including mortgages). These are basic needs that they will not be able to meet. They are the people who should have their pay cut for the next 3 years?

[Hightower]

People like you...

 

People like me? And what are MY people like?

 

An Independent Scotland in the Euro and with North Sea Oil would be much better placed to ride out this storm.

 

And what if England were to take back their share of the North Sea? That would mean England owns 2/3 of the North Sea.

 

I didn't want to get started on this but you have to admit that Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

[JJonas]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Council staff agree strike dates

 

Its 16th and 17th of July

[somabc]

People like me? And what are MY people like?

 

 

 

And what if England were to take back their share of the North Sea? That would mean England owns 2/3 of the North Sea.

 

I didn't want to get started on this but you have to admit that Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

 

I simply mean people who hold the view that Scotland is some sort of waste of space that has cunningly attached itself to the UK in order to be feckless and sponge of billions of Treasury money (regardless of their race \ country of origin)

 

2/3rds of the North Sea! Look at a map! The UK (without Scotland) would have sovereign access to the southern half of the north sea, ie the bit with no oil! All the oil is between Scotland & Norway!

 

The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction

 

How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland - This Britain, UK - The Independent

[cookie_monster]

Unfortunately the tanker drivers had the ability to exert some pressure in the right places. There really aren't all that many high level managers compared to the number of 'ordinary' workers and while i'll agree that they should feel the economic pain it isn't going to happen. A few managers getting a large pay rise isn't the same a million people getting one.

If people want to see private sector pay then they need to work in the private sector and be subject to a more volatile market place but with the possibility of making allot of money.

 

 

somabc: the suggestion that scotland might of had more money than england probably doesn't factor in all the money we make selling arms around the world

Edited June 24, 2008 by cookie_monster

[somabc]

There really aren't all that many high level managers compared to the number of 'ordinary' workers

 

I disagree there will be a substantial amount spent on pay awards to people on higher incomes (say £60k+)

 

somabc: the suggestion that scotland might of had more money than england probably doesn't factor in all the money we make selling arms around the world

 

I didn't say that Scotland would have had more money than England (or the UK) merely that it would (and still does) have enough income in order to support itself.

Edited June 24, 2008 by somabc

[cookie_monster]

Some are very big awards but they are usually for managers at companies that have made a good return (probably due to that manager) so they get a good bonus but overall they are way in the minority campared to how many < £40k workers there are out there. I'm guessing as i haven't looked at the figures for a while but i'm sure it's only 5% of the working population that earns over £100k.

[tech_guy]

Yay, strike! We get to burn car tyres at the entrance to schools and shout 'scab' at our colleagues!

[somabc]

Some are very big awards but they are usually for managers at companies that have made a good return (probably due to that manager) so they get a good bonus but overall they are way in the minority campared to how many < £40k workers there are out there. I'm guessing as i haven't looked at the figures for a while but i'm sure it's only 5% of the working population that earns over £100k.

 

Out of interest I got these figures on average earnings for Men for 2007

 

Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1107.pdf

 

Men 2007 Annual

10% earn less than £14,268.80

25% earn less than £18,626.40

50% earn less than £25,911.60

25% earn more than £36,748.40

10% earn more than £52,499.20

[LeMarchand]

Some are very big awards but they are usually for managers at companies that have made a good return (probably due to that manager) so they get a good bonus

 

Or they totally screw over the company and their pals give them a big fat payoff to go away -that's one of the many reasons that the "common people" are getting increasingly pissed of.

 

BTW, if I've worked it out correctly (using the figures at National Statistics Online), the "average" worker earns £457/week (x52 = £23, 764). I appreciate that some of you guys (deservedly) are on this sort of wage, if not a higher one - but a hell of a lot of this would love to receive "average" wages.

 

PS, I'm assuming that's before tax - if it's take home some of us would probably kill to get an "average" wage.

 

Doh! Beaten to it!

Edited June 24, 2008 by LeMarchand
Beaten to the punch...

[cookie_monster]

So my guess was close ish then

 

 

@ LeMarchand: yeh i really hate the golden goodbys that you see, congratulations you f***ed up and lost your customers and shareholders a load of money here have a great big cheque.

Edited June 24, 2008 by cookie_monster

[somabc]

So my guess was close ish then

 

touché but I still think that if they are getting double digit pay rises, bonuses et al it will have an impact on inflation.

[cookie_monster]

Yeh you could be right, i'm not an economist just an opinionated blue puppet