Grandad.Malky Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 If I stop working then that creates another job for someone, if I continue working then it doesn't! Perhaps our “experts” could tell us why it makes sense making someone work longer that as probably got their “house in order” while paying someone not to work that probably also needs loads of other benefits to get by. Is it better to pay someone a pension for 20 years or a package of benefits for a lifetime for an entire family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Well that's Serapis for you, set's himself up as an authority on one subject, then goes and put's his foot into again on another topic:rolleyes:. So the mines were closed down BECAUSE of the strike were they? Don't think so pal, they went on strike because of what they suspected the Tory govt was going to do to them wrt pit closures (+ a pay claim if my memory serves me right). As it turned out by the time Heseltines pit closure programe of the early '90's had been enacted what were far FEWER pits than even Scargill had forecast back in 1994! They were in the days when we didn't need to import coal! The net effect of the strikes was closures. Yorkshire mines were made an example of. You only need to look at the mines that did not take part in for example Nottingham to see how they out lasted those in Yorkshire. I'm not saying it right but Yorkshire paid a heavy price for siding with Scargill who was itching for a fight with the new conservative government, him being an ex member of a communist group and an open Marxist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Ok you are being pedantic but you are right! I'll re-phrase it just for you: It will free up more jobs for those looking for work! Opening up a job that is already there and creating a job are totally different. Its not pedantic as your earlier statement was utterly false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 They were in the days when we didn't need to import coal! Like I have said, neither side is blameless. I see no winners coming out of the whole affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Would being forced to retire at 65 be more acceptable to most? I don't know enough about this to make a judgement call as yet personally. I'm a long way from retirement and its not something that has crossed my mind much. How about more people becoming semi-retired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Opening up a job that is already there and creating a job are totally different. Its not pedantic as your earlier statement was utterly false. They aren't totally different if you are looking for a job! I know if I was unemployed and trying to find work I'd be less than impressed with the idea that people will be staying in work for a year longer! People want to work and I want to retire as early as possible, but Mr cameron has decided today to make me work for another year and to keep another unemployed soul unemployed for another year. Not one person is defending this on here, not one person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 How about more people becoming semi-retired? Excellent idea and I've suggested the same myself in the past! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 They aren't totally different if you are looking for a job! I know if I was unemployed and trying to find work I'd be less than impressed with the idea that people will be staying in work for a year longer! People want to work and I want to retire as early as possible, but Mr cameron has decided today to make me work for another year and to keep another unemployed soul unemployed for another year. Not one person is defending this on here, not one person! There is one now. A year or two ago we had virtual full employment - apart from the feckless, work-shy or hopeless. So difficult it was to find the right person for a job, that we had to import people from all over the world to fill jobs (now I know some of you will twist this round - so for the purposes of clarification I do not approve of what we did) as a result, we now have people from all over the world here with jobs - a very short sighted thing to do. If we manage to get back to virtual full employment, then making people work an extra year before they retire will not only save the economy money, it will keep experienced and valuable staff in good positions and it will mean that newer can get jobs without having to import plumbers from poland, taxi drivers from Pakistan, chamber maids from portugal or any of the other varieties we seem to have welcomed onto our tiny little island over the past 12 years. Comprendez? Oh, and they should be able to spell and add up too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 The net effect of the strikes was closures. Yorkshire mines were made an example of. You only need to look at the mines that did not take part in for example Nottingham to see how they out lasted those in Yorkshire. I'm not saying it right but Yorkshire paid a heavy price for siding with Scargill who was itching for a fight with the new conservative government, him being an ex member of a communist group and an open Marxist. That is utter rubbish. The NCB declared their intention to close economic pits when they went for Cortonwood. The clossure plan became clear then, that was the reason for the strike. To blame the strike for clossures is to have the cart before the horse. The reason Nottinghamshire collieries didn't strike was because Joe Gormley established the precedent in the High Court that it didn't require a National Ballot to make national decisions, something that cost miner's dearly everywhere else in the country aside from Nottinghamshire. A precedent that was then overturned at some cost to the NUM, when they followed the same principles that the High Court had upheld when it came to a National Ballot. If Scargill was so itching for a battle why did he not speak in favour of the national strike at the conference where the decision for regions to take strike action was agreed? Scargill maybe many things but he was not to blame for being right about what the Tories had planned for mining, and right to stand up for what the membership had decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Would being forced to retire at 65 be more acceptable to most? I don't know enough about this to make a judgement call as yet personally. I'm a long way from retirement and its not something that has crossed my mind much. How about more people becoming semi-retired? Employers shouldn't be able force people to retire at 65, but unfortunately the Age discrimination court case was lost last week. There is still some hope in the review planned for next year. http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/forced-retirement-release-250909.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.