Public sector strikes

[Old Skier]

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.

 

[SocketRocket]

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.

I believe that those in the old scheme will keep their same pensions. Also it is a matter of what can be afforded, as I said there is this massive black hole of £550 billion in the pension fund which in its self points to a scheme that is impossible to keep unless the tax payer is prepared to cough up more.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

What really surprised me was how poor/patchy was the support for the strike.

In our village neither of the schools was effected and our bins were emptied and the march in Birmingham, at which the organisers had predicted a turnout of thousands, was attended by only a few hundred. Similar reports elsewhere in the country.

Were the hearts of many public sector workers not really in it?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.

Why? Private companies do it all the time. I've had at least 4 changes to my terms and conditions and I just accept it as part of being employed.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.

I had a serious H&S management problem with the Council I was working with.
We had a change of conditions which made me, and not the Director responsible.
I refused to sign the new agreement.
6 months later I was told that as I had continued to work I had automatically agreed the new contract.
Shortly afterwards I resigned.

 

[Foxholer]

Another consideration is that the current journey we have set out on whereby we have decided on a policy to create a very large increase in the population which will have to be funded, these additional people will need to use public services so the bill will get even bigger.

Eh? What 'policy' is that?

Have MP's started a breeding program? Or are you talking about 'immigration'!

Agree ^ but it's time for those in the position of writing contracts of employment for staff to look at what they are writing. I have no problem with new T&C going out for new employees but to change your conditions once you are employed IMHO is a bit underhand.

Totally agree! It's more than a bit underhand imo. Contracts should be such that there is a periodic review - where T&Cs can be changed, but without affecting the value of anything in the previous 'version'.

That is not the case in many of the changes being imposed on Public Servants - and Private sector employees - currently.

 

[SocketRocket]

Eh? What 'policy' is that?

Have MP's started a breeding program? Or are you talking about 'immigration'!



Totally agree! It's more than a bit underhand imo. Contracts should be such that there is a periodic review - where T&Cs can be changed, but without affecting the value of anything in the previous 'version'.

That is not the case in many of the changes being imposed on Public Servants - and Private sector employees - currently.

Population increase, I thought that was obvious! And yes they have started a breeding program by increasing the population by around 4 million and with people who are mostly of child bearing age and also from cultures that tend to have large families. They also pay benefits that encourage the feckless to have more children so they can claim benefits that mean they dont need to work.

This is not about some small company its about a pension scheme that is £550 billion in the red. How exactly do you propose to resolve that while not changing T&C

 

[Foxholer]

Population increase, I thought that was obvious! And yes they have started a breeding program by increasing the population by around 4 million and with people who are mostly of child bearing age and also from cultures that tend to have large families. They also pay benefits that encourage the feckless to have more children so they can claim benefits that mean they dont need to work.

This is not about some small company its about a pension scheme that is £550 billion in the red. How exactly do you propose to resolve that while not changing T&C

That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole!

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable.

 

[Papas1982]

That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole!

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable.

having not read all the current changes, isn't that generally what happens. People within certain range of retirement not affected. IMO, if your more than a decade from retirement changes should be acceptable. I'm sure all the public sector workers who have benefitted (along with everyone else) from the changes in holiday entitlement increase over the years did put up a fight and turn it down as it was a change to their contracts?

 

[SocketRocket]

That's hardly a 'policy' though! Your different prejudices (meant in the best possible way) are simply showing!

And, in fact, it's a reasonable argument that (if not a fundamental requirement) that (working) population increase, at higher salaries, is exactly the way to 'balance' that mythical black hole!

As I posted, changing T&Cs is generally reasonable, so long as the effects of those agreed to earlier are not affected. But as an example changing the rules for retirement age and benefits for someone about to retire would be obscene! Having those same T&Cs for new starters is quite reasonable.

The policy was engineered by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Increasing the population will not solve anything, you would have to expand it at an exponential rate for that but they would all become ill, need housing, have children who need educating, grow old so it just wont work.

The new T&Cs don't apply to people within 10 years of retirement.
This link explains the offer, see section 2.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...120524_-_Final_Agreement_-_Fire_-_FINALv2.pdf

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?

 

[SocketRocket]

So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?

Population increase is not only about immigrants. All I want is a sensible Immigration policy in place of an open doors one that will become unfundable and unmanageable. You may be happy to live in an overcrowded country where public services will not be able to cope and the national standard of living will be forced down by poverty due to the national debt spiralling further out of control. I'm not.

And to answer your first point: I don't want non Brits living here for any extended time. I would hope they would become Brits.

 

[Foxholer]

The new T&Cs don't apply to people within 10 years of retirement.

But the guys with 10 years an 1 day or more (as of April 2012 too, so in reality, much less!) get shafted.

And there's a 'guarantee' that the 'new' scheme will last 25 years!

Seems to me that pretty much the reverse (those who have contributed for 50% of there expected career see no change) would be much 'fairer' - and more appropriate!

As for the Blair/Brown 'policy', you are indeed showing your other prejudices!

And no. Simply maintaining the number in work would suffice - but an increase would help more. It's not the immediate cash-flow that's the 'problem' (yet). It's increased life expectancy that warps the cost balance - a problem that has been around for 25+ years, but failed to be addressed!

In the case of Fire-fighters, there's also the requirement to be fit enough to be able to do the job! So there's where the greater conflict arises - not something that is a consideration for the likes of the Armed Forces!

 

[DaveM]

The whole country should back the strikes. Then just maybe things would get better for all.
All you bleating idiots out there make me laugh. Talk about being brainwashed into knowing your place.
As for the idiot who wanted that woman back. We are still suffering from her legacy.

 

[rosecott]

No, a fire fighter will have to will have to work past 60 to get his term in. To get mine i would have to work until im 63. Which was fine as i could move sideways into another less physically demanding role. But no more

However if you was lucky enough to land the job early and get your 35 years in by the age of 56. You still can't collect that pension until your 60. the youngest ff a have seen recruited is 22. They really dont like to take on 18 year old boys so the above will rarely happen

Surely it was a major mistake not to model the fire service recruitment and conditions policies on those of the armed forces. Contracts for 12 or 22 years would provide the necessary "cannon fodder" for frontline operations without perpetuating the problem of personnel becoming too old or unfit for purpose. Those who had the qualities to either continue physically or to progress to management positions could have their contracts extended.

 

[Hacker Khan]

So it appears with its moved onto immigrants again.

Do you want any non Brits living in this country ? or a screening process ?

Seems most threads end up talking about immigration, Celtic/Rangers or dress codes given enough time. As they are all apparently in their own way the root of all evil.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The whole country should back the strikes. Then just maybe things would get better for all.
All you bleating idiots out there make me laugh. Talk about being brainwashed into knowing your place.
As for the idiot who wanted that woman back. We are still suffering from her legacy.

And now I suppose you are going to tell us how all these things can be paid for.

Get real and don't tell me we should tax the bankers, because we should, but it would not go even part the way towards funding the pay and conditions that the public sector wish to retain.

 

[MegaSteve]

And now I suppose you are going to tell us how all these things can be paid for.

Ensuring 'big business' paid the correct amount of taxes would be a start....

 

[WeekendHacker]

As someone who works in the public sector, people need to realise public services are going to be slaughtered due to the Tory agenda to privatise the country, and everyone who uses public services will suffer.
Here's the thing. The strikes are from people who had nothing (at least directly) to do with the collapse of the banks and subsequent bailout of western economies. Governments and big business sleepwalked incompetantly/arrogantly and greedily into the disaster and now they will happily take it back from the workers who had nothing (directly) to do with it. Individual workers salary & pensionvcontracts have been re-written without choice so money is simply "stolen" back.
That's why people are annoyed. The government wants people to fight amongst themselves over the scraps (private vs public sector workers) whilst they line their pockets and delude people.
If there's no money, what about £50 billion for a railway line, £40 billion spent on illegal wars, foreign aid money increasing, money to royal family increasing, money for an imminent MP salary rise etc etc. In Northern Ireland £500 million has just been paid out in compensation for hearing loss problems 30 years ago when at the same time old people are dying on trolleys on hospital wards because there's "no money". When the government needs money it always finds it or invents it (£375 billion created a couple of years ago for "quantitive easing". If people have to share the burden together then that's fine, but everyone should share it equally and ideally the people who caused the problem should be accountable first. The burden is not being shared equally. The poorest are paying back a far larger proportion of the debt relative to their income, and the poorest had the least to do with the problem. Hence the increasing disparity between rice and poor.
Next time the government gets itself into a war and needs "cannon fodder" to protect the country's wealth, people have long memorys.

 

[WeekendHacker]

.....and breathe . But I suppose if you spend your whole life dwelling on it you spend your whole life pissed off. So now that the rants done, i'll move on.....