Summer of Discontent

[AndyHB]

The long-threatened 'Summer of Discontent' has come one step closer with the announcement that the NUT and ATL teacher unions have voted for strike action - apparently for June 30th - and a decision awaited, but expected, from the Public and Commercial Services' (PCS) Union for strike action on the same day.

Interestingly, the teachers' union call came from about 40% of the respective unions.

"PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka has warned that up to 750,000 public-sector workers in total could be taking co-ordinated strike action on 30 June, the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest in the public sector for many years.

He said of the NUT and ATL ballots: "These results send a clear message to the government that public-sector workers do not believe they should be made to pay with their pensions for a recession they did not cause, and we send our support and solidarity to all NUT and ATL members."  (BBC article)

I think it is very clear what the message is - that some teachers and civil servants don't want the economy to recover: after all, the whole pension issue is far bigger than merely helping to pay for the recession.  It's to do with making sure that the pension scheme is able to pay its way for decades to come.

The other question is should we be requiring all important public decisions - such as strike calls and elections across the board should need a minimum of 50% of the 'electorate', not simply a majority of those taking part in a vote?

[Boudi]

It should go on the percentage of those who bother to vote, otherwise we make assumptions about the non voters that may not be realistic.  If people are against the strike, they can vote against it.  We shouldn't assume automatically that they are opposed

[AndyHB]

It should go on the percentage of those who bother to vote, otherwise we make assumptions about the non voters that may not be realistic.  If people are against the strike, they can vote against it.  We shouldn't assume automatically that they are opposed

Could it also be that some are afraid of casting a vote against - especially in places of work where a closed shop mentality still exists?  I'm not 'assuming that folk are opposed', just wondering why we allow powerful elements - from both sides of any debate - to have their way.

[Boudi]

but when we have the recent ballots we now have the tories suggesting that a less than 50% turnout should make the vote invalid...in spite of the fact that most local councils etc should be disbanded !  This assumes that the people who didn't vote didn't approve, when if they didn't approve they should have voted against.
as for being afraid to cast a vote against...what century are you talking?  all the voting I take part in involves reams of paper to my home...and I usually vote against strike action...mainly because we took a day off work in support of the nurses in February.  Absolute waste of time and monmey considering we are gardeners, and there is no difference between striking and a downpour of rain.

[AndyHB]

as for being afraid to cast a vote against...what century are you talking?

I am a member of a union that chooses not to call for strikes, yet whenever there has been a vote by various other unions, I have often felt considerable antipathy against me.  Ironically, in almost every instance, the final agreement has been within a smidgen of what my union had originally asked for often quite a lot higher than the employers had originally offered.

[Boudi]

but no fear to vote against?

[AndyHB]

but no fear to vote against?

Well, since I wouldn't have been able to vote in one of the strike ballots (not being in a strike-calling union), that never occurred to me, but there were others I know - in unions who were willing to call for strike action - who felt pressurised to vote for one or be treated as outcasts.

[Boudi]

but all voting papers go to houses these  days............  certainly for somthing like a strike ballot

[Martin]

Strike action is the right of a worker, and often the only way for a worker to fight back when they are being screwed.

The teachers are quite right, they did not cause the economic situation we are all in, that was caused, in the main, by bankers who greedily went after business without due caution or probity.  Those people are still receiving bonuses.  In the meantime, our government tells us that we are all in it together. Strange that during the good years the rich got richer and the poor stayed poor. Now, when the bubble has burst, it is not the rich who are paying, No! Not them!  they are still getting richer and richer - the gap between rich and poor is still increasing at an accelerating rate.

So why can we 'no longer afford' decent pensions for people?  Yes of course the fact that people are living longer is an important point, but this 'inability to afford' is very much a choice, a choice made by those at the top, the rich, who are pocketing money as fast as they can.  These are the people who control what you are told, these are the people who tell you that there is no longer any money to support you in your old age.

It's the low paid who are really suffering and paying for the economic crisis. Inflation for poor people is much higher than for the rich.  Why? Because the major elements are the price rises in energy and food, both of which constitute a large proportion of a poor person's spending, so a poor household spends something like 9.4% of their household income on energy and 20% on food, while a rich household spends 4.4% on energy and 10.1% on food.  While investment bankers sun themselves by their swimming pools in the Italian hills, the poor are paying for their mistakes.

It's time for a real change.  But who can you vote for who will effect it?  When every party you can realistically vote for will do exactly the same thing, when there is nothing you can do to protect yourself.  Who can blame people for protesting?  Who can blame them for striking?  Even it they lose, even if they are doomed to failure because so many dim-witted sheep who constitute 'public opinion' repeat the mantra of their rich masters, that teachers are greedy, that they should be prepared to take 'their fair share', that their retirement can 'no longer be afforded'. 

Each time they whittle away at people's pay, each time they shave a bit off someone's overtime rate or figure out a way to force them to work longer hours, they create the conditions that will mean that when it comes to your own pay and conditions, and you try to protect yourself, there will be a baying crowd telling you that you must take your 'fair share' of the misery, while the rich few quietly pocket their saving.

[AndyHB]

The teachers are quite right, they did not cause the economic situation we are all in, that was caused, in the main, by bankers who greedily went after business without due caution or probity.

Conveniently forgetting the problem that the economic situation that we find ourselves in currently actually dates back to the early noughties in the UK - not as recently as 2007.  In fact, and Labour Party analysts accept this, the problems started as early as 2002 and Blair and Brown's claim to have **** the boom/bust cycle.  In doing so, the 2 decided that they could afford to increase the nation's government borrowing far faster than the economy could cope with, which meant that - when the banking crisis hit in mid-2007, the economy didn't have the strength that many other European economies had to resist the downturn and bounce back quickly.

Those people are still receiving bonuses.

and this fact is iniquitous, so we need to be writing to the Chancellor and the PM insisting that - at least in the banks that are publicly owned - such bonuses should be paid to match the performances of the businesses (and lost where appropriate).

...  the gap between rich and poor is still increasing at an accelerating rate.

  and this is important: the gap never began to close under Labour which was contrary to their promises in 1997.  This is not to say that the current Government is any better.

So why can we 'no longer afford' decent pensions for people?  Yes of course the fact that people are living longer is an important point, but this 'inability to afford' is very much a choice, a choice made by those at the top, the rich, who are pocketing money as fast as they can.  These are the people who control what you are told, these are the people who tell you that there is no longer any money to support you in your old age.

That is a fairly simple question to answer, and has very little to do with the 'people at the top'.  The State Pension is - and always has been - paid for by the next generation.  In recent years, the birth rate in the UK has dropped, thus ensuring that fewer people in the 20s and 30s age bracket are paying into the pot that pays for today's pensions and those that most of us will be anticipating in the next 10-15 years.  On top of that, medical advances are ensuring that an increasing number of people live for longer after retirement.  When most of us were born, the average length of life after retirement was 11 years; it is now 21 and counting.  The result is a smaller pot that has to go further than before.

While investment bankers sun themselves by their swimming pools in the Italian hills, the poor are paying for their mistakes.

As I said earlier, don't blame the bankers alone; politicians across the world are probably as much to blame - not to mention the massive increase in individual, personal debt.


If the unions had any real concern for the welfare of their members, they would be striking on behalf of the thousands of women who will be caught in the trap that is the increased age of retirement and increased age of payment of the state pension, without the opportunity to build a pot to tide them over.  This is largely the 57-62 year-olds who weren't allowed by successive Governments to have a permanent personal pension plan, and who are being caught by the acceleration in the change of both UK and European legislation on retirement and pension payments.

[administrator]

Strike action is the right of a worker, and often the only way for a worker to fight back when they are being screwed.

The teachers are quite right, they did not cause the economic situation we are all in, that was caused, in the main, by bankers who greedily went after business without due caution or probity.  Those people are still receiving bonuses.  In the meantime, our government tells us that we are all in it together. Strange that during the good years the rich got richer and the poor stayed poor. Now, when the bubble has burst, it is not the rich who are paying, No! Not them!  they are still getting richer and richer - the gap between rich and poor is still increasing at an accelerating rate.

So why can we 'no longer afford' decent pensions for people?  Yes of course the fact that people are living longer is an important point, but this 'inability to afford' is very much a choice, a choice made by those at the top, the rich, who are pocketing money as fast as they can.  These are the people who control what you are told, these are the people who tell you that there is no longer any money to support you in your old age.

It's the low paid who are really suffering and paying for the economic crisis. Inflation for poor people is much higher than for the rich.  Why? Because the major elements are the price rises in energy and food, both of which constitute a large proportion of a poor person's spending, so a poor household spends something like 9.4% of their household income on energy and 20% on food, while a rich household spends 4.4% on energy and 10.1% on food.  While investment bankers sun themselves by their swimming pools in the Italian hills, the poor are paying for their mistakes.

It's time for a real change.  But who can you vote for who will effect it?  When every party you can realistically vote for will do exactly the same thing, when there is nothing you can do to protect yourself.  Who can blame people for protesting?  Who can blame them for striking?  Even it they lose, even if they are doomed to failure because so many dim-witted sheep who constitute 'public opinion' repeat the mantra of their rich masters, that teachers are greedy, that they should be prepared to take 'their fair share', that their retirement can 'no longer be afforded'. 

Each time they whittle away at people's pay, each time they shave a bit off someone's overtime rate or figure out a way to force them to work longer hours, they create the conditions that will mean that when it comes to your own pay and conditions, and you try to protect yourself, there will be a baying crowd telling you that you must take your 'fair share' of the misery, while the rich few quietly pocket their saving.

Agree, The problem is we have a debt based monetary system , what the banksters like to politely call fractional-reserve banking, this is where money is created out of thin air then loaned to us, money made like this actually puts us all into debt to the banks, this is why even though we pay more and more tax, there never seems to be enough to pay for the vital services such as the NHS and education ect. having the monetary system controlled by these unelected and therefor unaccountable sharks is extremely dangerous as it allows them to manipulate the economy to suit their greedy money making schemes.
We need to get rid of this evil debt based system that favours the rich and put the power back into the hands of the people we elect to run our economy.
 

[AndyHB]

We need to get rid of this evil debt based system that favours the rich and put the power back into the hands of the people we elect to run our economy.

When were we last not controlled by such a system?  How could we get rid of it?

[administrator]

We need to get rid of this evil debt based system that favours the rich and put the power back into the hands of the people we elect to run our economy.

When were we last not controlled by such a system?  How could we get rid of it?

You have to go way back to the tally sticks issued by King Henry and used for over 700 years.
Simple, the government starts issuing a new currency, the Americans did it once with Abraham Lincoln's popular greenback dollars.
 
 

[ecuworrier]

We need to get rid of this evil debt based system that favours the rich and put the power back into the hands of the people we elect to run our economy.

When were we last not controlled by such a system?  How could we get rid of it?

You have to go way back to the tally sticks issued by King Henry and used for over 700 years.
Simple, the government starts issuing a new currency, the Americans did it once with Abraham Lincoln's popular greenback dollars.

hmmm somehow a change in governance as far as the monetary is concerned would be nice.... to finish off corporate britain that would be good also.... would i trust the er first past the post and therefore undemocratically mandated gov to do the bizz? need i bother to answer?

we have become so international now and not sure which Henry your refer to... how would it work with like all the essential services like bin collections water lecky and who knows what else in foreign ownership or investment ... never mind all the people here there and everywhere...

the bit i don't quite get is... well it sounds a bit like a credit suystem (i haven't read your article) and well isn't that where all of this went wrong?

someone on the radio it was someone phoning in don't know who she was but she made sweeping comparisons with the german industrial systems and ours and refered also to the chinese systems of state intervention and control..... what she pointed to in the german systems were the high pensions (well no doubt that would be affected somewhere at least potentially) and also the high union participation ... that the unions and the roles of the unions in germany took on a whole different complexion they were valued politically as well as within managemetn structures of industry workers themselves sat on the boards ... here she implied we saw unions as nuisance factors and something to be despised... like as we are hearing in current debates from various tories there is a desire to rescue corporate britain and small busainess britain by squeezing the poor ....  coprorate britain favours the rich and foreign investors and financial services small business britain will affect or impact loads of people of all sorts

so where really are the seat of the problems?  are we content to create a virtual slave econonomy  where people are forced into labour without being able to afford food lecky bills transport and accomodation?

even the Vineyard owner made sure that his helpers were paid the right amount to live tomorrow

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

hmmm somehow a change in governance as far as the monetary is concerned would be nice.... to finish off corporate britain that would be good also.... would i trust the er first past the post and therefore undemocratically mandated gov to do the bizz? need i bother to answer?

So, I assume you won't be trusting any Labour Government to deal with the issue, either, ecu?  ;-0

It wouldn't only finish off corporate Britain; it would finish off corporate 'world' as well, as it would need more than the UK to do this to fully work.

what she pointed to in the german systems were the high pensions (well no doubt that would be affected somewhere at least potentially) and also the high union participation ... that the unions and the roles of the unions in germany took on a whole different complexion they were valued politically as well as within managemetn structures of industry workers themselves sat on the boards ... here she implied we saw unions as nuisance factors and something to be despised... like as we are hearing in current debates from various tories there is a desire to rescue corporate britain and small busainess britain by squeezing the poor ....  coprorate britain favours the rich and foreign investors and financial services small business britain will affect or impact loads of people of all sorts

  Interesting that high pensions seems to be the business in Germany, since it is the very same issue that is causing such a problem throughout Europe, and Greece, Portugal and Ireland especially.

I'd also disagree with your interpretation of the value given to the unions here.  Some are absolutely brilliant, whilst others seem determined to undermine the Government (of whichever colour that Government might be).

so where really are the seat of the problems?  are we content to create a virtual slave econonomy  where people are forced into labour without being able to afford food lecky bills transport and accomodation?

even the Vineyard owner made sure that his helpers were paid the right amount to live tomorrow

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,
[/quote]