Public Sector Strikes

[andikay]

You can't assume that outcome though, maybe the company is very profitable and the change would just reduce that profit.

 

Originally Posted by Cynic View Post

I've not had ANY pay rise in 5 years. The only pension I have is one funded by myself. I know plenty of others in the private sector in the same boat. If everyone at my company decided to strike we would be replaced as soon as possible.

 

It’s a reasonable assumption that Cynic’s company is struggling if it hasn’t given its employees a pay rise in the past five years, yes his employer could just be greedy and don’t want to give him a pay rise despite making millions.

I haven’t given myself a pay rise for years despite my costs increasing, because I would become uncompetitive and ultimately become unemployed.

[Cuey]

trade union law needs reform. I think that before a strike can go ahead at least 50% of the membership should be voting in favour. Any less is unrepresentative of the majority's feelings.

 

I assume if that is your view on the democratic process, you also believe it should apply to elections. Although the current government have the majority of votes they only represent 45% of the electorate because not everyone voted. Under you insightful plan on voting the whole thing should be rerun.

 

Most bills in parliament are passed with less than 60% of MPs voting. So if you want any bill passed it would need to get around 80% of the vote (very rare) to be passed. There you go your fully thought out idea just toppled a government and stop almost all acts of parliament.

 

But then i doubt you thought it through really did you. You just repeated the daily mail because it sounded good. people are balloted, people vote, a majority of those who voted means its passed. If its good enough for a government then its good enough for a union.

[wednesday1]

I assume if that is your view on the democratic process, you also believe it should apply to elections. Although the current government have the majority of votes they only represent 45% of the electorate because not everyone voted. Under you insightful plan on voting the whole thing should be rerun.

 

Most bills in parliament are passed with less than 60% of MPs voting. So if you want any bill passed it would need to get around 80% of the vote (very rare) to be passed. There you go your fully thought out idea just toppled a government and stop almost all acts of parliament.

 

But then i doubt you thought it through really did you. You just repeated the daily mail because it sounded good. people are balloted, people vote, a majority of those who voted means its passed. If its good enough for a government then its good enough for a union.

 

 

 

Indeed, voter turn-out in the recent AV referendum was only 42%. Funny how some people seem to view what is an acceptable participation figure or not, for a ballot depending on its outcome!

[sharrowman]

I relish a chance to tun this nasty old phrase on it's purveyors, to the naysayers -

 

the politics of envy!

[sharrowman]

Public sector workers also pay taxes.

[sharrowman]

I wonder if this is a strategy to reduce the cost of the public sector to warm up potential private investors? At least to encourage increased investment in private sector pension schemes, further suring up our friendly city boys?

[Cyclone]

Public sector workers also pay taxes.

 

They're paid 100% by tax and then pay 30% of that income back as tax.

That makes them a 70% net drain of their salary.

[sccsux]

It’s a reasonable assumption that Cynic’s company is struggling

 

Or that it puts profits above the people that create those profits:|.

[sharrowman]

They're paid 100% by tax and then pay 30% of that income back as tax.

That makes them a 70% net drain of their salary.

 

Less any positive contribution their work might make to society.

[L00b]

Less any positive contribution their work might make to society.

Fair point, but is the contribution of, e.g., a teacher

• as positive,
  
• more positive, or
  
• less positive

than that of a, e.g., "young lesbian and bisexual women's health worker" (London borough of Waltham Forest, £26,121 p.a. for "improving the mental, physical and social well-being of young women who are lesbian, bisexual or questioning their sexuality")

 

So, at substantially equal salary and benefits (equal cost to the taxpayer), is the health worker underpaid, overpaid or fairly paid relative to the teacher

 

Rethorical question, don't answer

 

The issue is not of recognising the positive contribution that the public sector makes to society (the private sector contributes just as positively), but recognising that that portion of society which by and large pays for the public sector today, does not have the means anymore that it had a few years ago. It really is as simple as that - posters can keep moaning about bankers and the Gvt, at the end of the day banks are paying their dues, bankers on stratospheric pay deals are but a mere statistical blip on the national scale, and the Gvt does not contribute to the tax pot, it only takes from it.

 

By and large, it's the millions of Joe Average employees who pay for it and, for the majority in the private sector, they've been eating their s**t sandwich awhile.