Strike

[njmcfc1894]

I work at the civil justice centre and have been on strike today,my grandad was involved in strikes and ive always said I won't cross picket line,there is a half day strike on 5th April,I actually think that will cause more disruption,I'm on lowest pay scale got debts but lose a days pay now or have them fuck you over time and time again?

 

[George Hannah]

 

[Matty]

Any change to the terms and conditions of a contract, whether it be in relation to hours worked, pay, pensions or anythign else, should be done in consultation between the employer and the employees (or their legal/expert representatives). If the opportunity to contribute to the dialogue and to negotiate a more equitable solution hasn't been offered then a strike seems to me to be the only way forward.

Having said that I think it needs to be recognised by Public Sector workers, as much as it is by Private Sector workers, that this is 2013 and the employment market, the financial state of the planet, and society as a whole have changed significantly over the last half century or so. A contract signed in 1981 will have been based on how the employment market, and how the world in general, worked in 1981. 32 years later virtually everything has changed, it's unrealistic to expect that decisions made over 3 decades ago would still be appropriate now.

Take pensions as an example. In 1981 men were expected to live, on average, until they were 70.8 years old, women until they were 76.8. Pensionable retirement age (for company pensions, not state ones) was 65 (lets assume it was 65 for all, as opposed to 60 for women, which it may have been in some cases).
Now, lets assume these people had a pension of £15,000 a year.
That means 15,000 x 6 years for men = £90,000 per man for his pension.
That means 15,000 x 12 years for women = £180,000 per woman for her pension.

Now, in 2011, men were expected to live, on average, until they were 78, women until they were 82.1. Using the same figures (£15,000 pension, 65 retirement age) you get the following.
£15,000 x 13 years for men = £195,000 per man for his pension
£15,000 x 17 years for women = £255,000 per women for her pension.

So, without any changes to the pensions at all, there now needs to be an additional £105,000 per man and £75,000 per woman found to fund their pensions, for no other reason than people are living for longer. Where does the extra money come from? If the terms and conditions of those employees can't be changed then it can't come from the employee, so therefore it comes from the taxpayer. Why? Why, when the pensions of a large number of taxpayers are being decreased, should they be asked to foot the bill so public sector workers pensions can remain at their very high standard? The solution seems simple, either change the terms and conditions of public sector employees so they have to contribute more (thus keeping the pension they have now) or else decrease the pension they will get (by changing from Final Salary to Average Salary, or Money Purchase, by increasing the retirement age etc).

 

[mackenzie]

With you in spirit all the way.
I took early retirement nearly 7 years ago to get out of the madhouse that HMRC was becoming, having served for 35 years.
In 1981, when Herr Thatcher was the Fuhrer, I was on strike for 6 weeks in the dispute over the tearing up of our pay agreement, so I can fully empathise with you.

If you worked in Manchester you may have known my Uncle. He worked in that department from about 1960 to just a few years ago. In fact if the 'g' in your username is the beginning of your surname then you might be him lol!!

I joined the old Dept of Employment in 1981, right in the middle of the strikes of that summer.

 

[johnmc]

Any change to the terms and conditions of a contract, whether it be in relation to hours worked, pay, pensions or anythign else, should be done in consultation between the employer and the employees (or their legal/expert representatives). If the opportunity to contribute to the dialogue and to negotiate a more equitable solution hasn't been offered then a strike seems to me to be the only way forward.

Having said that I think it needs to be recognised by Public Sector workers, as much as it is by Private Sector workers, that this is 2013 and the employment market, the financial state of the planet, and society as a whole have changed significantly over the last half century or so. A contract signed in 1981 will have been based on how the employment market, and how the world in general, worked in 1981. 32 years later virtually everything has changed, it's unrealistic to expect that decisions made over 3 decades ago would still be appropriate now.

Take pensions as an example. In 1981 men were expected to live, on average, until they were 70.8 years old, women until they were 76.8. Pensionable retirement age (for company pensions, not state ones) was 65 (lets assume it was 65 for all, as opposed to 60 for women, which it may have been in some cases).
Now, lets assume these people had a pension of £15,000 a year.
That means 15,000 x 6 years for men = £90,000 per man for his pension.
That means 15,000 x 12 years for women = £180,000 per woman for her pension.

Now, in 2011, men were expected to live, on average, until they were 78, women until they were 82.1. Using the same figures (£15,000 pension, 65 retirement age) you get the following.
£15,000 x 13 years for men = £195,000 per man for his pension
£15,000 x 17 years for women = £255,000 per women for her pension.

So, without any changes to the pensions at all, there now needs to be an additional £105,000 per man and £75,000 per woman found to fund their pensions, for no other reason than people are living for longer. Where does the extra money come from? If the terms and conditions of those employees can't be changed then it can't come from the employee, so therefore it comes from the taxpayer. Why? Why, when the pensions of a large number of taxpayers are being decreased, should they be asked to foot the bill so public sector workers pensions can remain at their very high standard? The solution seems simple, either change the terms and conditions of public sector employees so they have to contribute more (thus keeping the pension they have now) or else decrease the pension they will get (by changing from Final Salary to Average Salary, or Money Purchase, by increasing the retirement age etc).

Good post - so why can't the strikers see this? Or has it never been explained in such easy to understand prose?

Those contracts were suitable for 1981. They are not suitable for 2013. However the contracts were also probably not suitable for 1991 or 2001 I suppose. If the changes were made to the contract in more affluenent times we wouldnt see these strikes - hindsight and all that though

 

[mackenzie]

In that case they can review the shite pay I've had for the last 32 years, the salary I accepted on the understanding that there were certain compensations eg a decent pension.
If I start to pay more towards that pension then they can compensate me by paying some arrears on that shite salary.
Works both ways, but of course that won't happen.

 

[crazyg]

With you in spirit all the way.
I took early retirement nearly 7 years ago to get out of the madhouse that HMRC was becoming, having served for 35 years.
In 1981, when Herr Thatcher was the Fuhrer, I was on strike for 6 weeks in the dispute over the tearing up of our pay agreement, so I can fully empathise with you.

If you worked in Manchester you may have known my Uncle. He worked in that department from about 1960 to just a few years ago. In fact if the 'g' in your username is the beginning of your surname then you might be him lol!!

I joined the old Dept of Employment in 1981, right in the middle of the strikes of that summer.

Afraid not. The "g" is for George. My nickname in the office was Crazy George - I don't know why! I never worked in a Tax Office, being firstly in Internal Audit, then via a 4 year stint as a Collector of Taxes, moved into PAYE Compliance, but knew many people in the Manchester area from my first posting, so I may well have bumped into him over the years.

 

[johnmc]

In that case they can review the shte pay I've had for the last 32 years, the salary I accepted on the understanding that there were certain compensations eg a decent pension.
If I start to pay more towards that pension then they can compensate me by paying some arrears on that shte salary.
Works both ways, but of course that won't happen.

That pension was based on life expectancy at the time was it not?

 

[mackenzie]

With you in spirit all the way.
I took early retirement nearly 7 years ago to get out of the madhouse that HMRC was becoming, having served for 35 years.
In 1981, when Herr Thatcher was the Fuhrer, I was on strike for 6 weeks in the dispute over the tearing up of our pay agreement, so I can fully empathise with you.

If you worked in Manchester you may have known my Uncle. He worked in that department from about 1960 to just a few years ago. In fact if the 'g' in your username is the beginning of your surname then you might be him lol!!

I joined the old Dept of Employment in 1981, right in the middle of the strikes of that summer.

Afraid not. The "g" is for George. My nickname in the office was Crazy George - I don't know why! I never worked in a Tax Office, being firstly in Internal Audit, then via a 4 year stint as a Collector of Taxes, moved into PAYE Compliance, but knew many people in the Manchester area from my first posting, so I may well have bumped into him over the years.

His surname was Grace. He would have been in middle management in 1981 and I know he went on strike. He agonised over it but followed his conscience in the end.

 

[mackenzie]

In that case they can review the shte pay I've had for the last 32 years, the salary I accepted on the understanding that there were certain compensations eg a decent pension.
If I start to pay more towards that pension then they can compensate me by paying some arrears on that shte salary.
Works both ways, but of course that won't happen.

That pension was based on life expectancy at the time was it not?

Their actions have nothing to do with life expectancy and everything to do with attacking the Public Sector. They have always been the same.