Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions

18 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Militant teaching union members are threatening a return to the sustained industrial action of the 1980s that caused havoc in schools for years.
Teachers and teaching assistants will refuse to hold nativity plays, put up Christmas decorations, photocopy hand-outs for class or supervise out-of-hours games sessions.
They will not prepare lessons, mark homework, write reports, chase up truants, track pupils’ progress or stream youngsters. And they will work a strict 6.5-hour day, a 32.5-hour week and a 194-day year, and refuse to cover the class of a sick colleague.
Read more:

Sounds terrible doesn't it Blue ... so why do you think they may feel this is necessary ??
And more pertinently given your source ... where have the teaching unions said this??
They would of course if they did this be working to rule,i.e. fulfilling their contractual obligations, something in most jobs would be considered perfectly acceptable,why not for teachers ??
I know why they are doing it. But I do not have to agree with it

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.

19 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Onthebeach_1
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.
So we in the private sector might also benefit? It's a shame that the public sector workers didn't take action when Gordon Brown ( and his then lacky Ed Balls) decided to implement an annual £5 billion raid on private pension schemes back in 1997, a move which contributed to the closure of many final salary schemes and the complete closure of other pension schemes.
Of course it didn't affect them then but they now expect our support!

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.
So we in the private sector might also benefit? It's a shame that the public sector workers didn't take action when Gordon Brown ( and his then lacky Ed Balls) decided to implement an annual £5 billion raid on private pension schemes back in 1997, a move which contributed to the closure of many final salary schemes and the complete closure of other pension schemes.
Of course it didn't affect them then but they now expect our support!
So Max if YOU were in work at the time, did YOU go on strike against it?
J & S

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.
So we in the private sector might also benefit? It's a shame that the public sector workers didn't take action when Gordon Brown ( and his then lacky Ed Balls) decided to implement an annual £5 billion raid on private pension schemes back in 1997, a move which contributed to the closure of many final salary schemes and the complete closure of other pension schemes.
Of course it didn't affect them then but they now expect our support!
So Max if YOU were in work at the time, did YOU go on strike against it?
J & S
I was in work then and am now. My pension is with Equitable Life ( I'm totally fucked!) and is privately funded. Who could I have gone on strike against?

19 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.
So we in the private sector might also benefit? It's a shame that the public sector workers didn't take action when Gordon Brown ( and his then lacky Ed Balls) decided to implement an annual £5 billion raid on private pension schemes back in 1997, a move which contributed to the closure of many final salary schemes and the complete closure of other pension schemes.
Of course it didn't affect them then but they now expect our support!
So Max if YOU were in work at the time, did YOU go on strike against it?
J & S
I was in work then and am now. My pension is with Equitable Life ( I'm totally fucked!) and is privately funded. Who could I have gone on strike against?
You would withdraw your labour for a period of time against a decision made by the Gov. same as all the Teachers etc are doing. If your job is important they might reverse their decision. But they might not. But at least you'd be fighting it. To shrug and accept it means you don't care what happened to your pension.
J & S

19 Nov 2011

You do understand the glaring difference?
Public sector workers are withdrawing their labour from their employer..namely the government. How could I justifiably withdraw my labour from my employer? Gordon Brown had decided to remove the tax relief on pension funds. How was that in any way the fault of my employer? Are you really suggesting that any time the government does something we don't like, private sector workers should withdraw their labour from their employers? Union mentality gone mad methinks!
I did care what happened to my pension and made sure that Labour did not get my vote at the next election.

19 Nov 2011

"starlightcouple" they have a right to vote and i think over half chose not to. where is the fecking sense in that? putting an x on a piece of paper? is it reely that much of a hardship?

Star
goose and gander to some extent.
Most political parties would consider the turn out these Unions achieved in their ballots very good when compared against those that occur for most non-parliamentary elections in the UK, e.g. local government, regional devolved government/assembly elections, European Elections
e.g.
2011 Scottish Assembly elections, inc local government and referedum was 50.6%
2011 Welsh Assembly elections was 41.8%
2011 Local Government was 36% in Nuneaton and Durham County being 35%
2009 European Parliamentary elections in the UK was 34.5%
I agree with you, it's been a historical hard won fight for people to have the right to vote, in many types of election, and look at the so called Arab Spring where people have fought and died so as to be able to have a vote.
Having got it, it up to people to use it

20 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
As one is who affected by this, i think it is also worth pointing out that the present govt proposals will also affect private sector pensions. last year the govt effectively reduced existing pensions from RPI to CPI, ok so it may not make seem a lot. However 1/4 % reduction compounded over the life of your retirement is no small is also the basis that they wish to pay benefits in the future. So everyone in reciept of any benefit/s will be affected. In addition a nunber of private companies also follow the Govt lead in respect of wage increases and pensions, so therefore in future these will be based on the the lower CPI. Effectively the proposed strike may actually benefit those in the private sector too. One other thing i would add is that i will lose a days pay when i strike, i am prepared to do so. However, i can guarantee you, my work will not be done by a.n. other and will be waiting for me on my return. It is not like making widgets where production is lost by my absence. No matter how much people argue against the action and unions, one should always remember that most of the "good" working conditions that all employess enjoy are predominately because of unions.
So we in the private sector might also benefit? It's a shame that the public sector workers didn't take action when Gordon Brown ( and his then lacky Ed Balls) decided to implement an annual £5 billion raid on private pension schemes back in 1997, a move which contributed to the closure of many final salary schemes and the complete closure of other pension schemes.
Of course it didn't affect them then but they now expect our support!
As you say the £5 billion may have been a contributory factor, but the Govt was not wholly responsible for collapse of those employers should also bear some responsibilty for under funded schemes and the willingness to close schemes as the law permiited them to do at that time.
It was also GB that put more than £8 billion in to private sector pension schemes, funded by you and i, the taxpayer, i did not complain that my tax was being used to support private sector pensions.
It seems that this strike is now becoming "Tory" govt is being devisive in its use of comparing private to public sector pensions, and it is working, unfortunately.
The strike is not about left and right. I would still strike whatever Govt put forward these proposals.

20 Nov 2011

Quote by Onthebeach_1
As you say the £5 billion may have been a contributory factor, but the Govt was not wholly responsible for collapse of those employers should also bear some responsibilty for under funded schemes and the willingness to close schemes as the law permiited them to do at that time.
It was also GB that put more than £8 billion in to private sector pension schemes, funded by you and i, the taxpayer, i did not complain that my tax was being used to support private sector pensions.
It seems that this strike is now becoming "Tory" govt is being devisive in its use of comparing private to public sector pensions, and it is working, unfortunately.
The strike is not about left and right. I would still strike whatever Govt put forward these proposals.

It was £5 billion PER YEAR, which equates to some £90 billion to date and was THE major factor in the closure of many final salary pension schemes.
Sorry to disillusion you, but my view on this matter has nothing to do with this "Tory" government, as you put it. Having said that, why shouldn't public and private sector pensions be comparable?
When did GB put £8 billion into private sector pension schemes?

20 Nov 2011

Quote by tweeky
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

Does anyone know what the threshold is where action becomes legal?
I dont think people look, or are bothered that much by what others may get. However, perhaps when those same people are striking over loosing some thing that the onlookers already do without they may feel less inclined to support that action.
I worded my point in several instances rather badly. I dont care what people get that I dont. That said if I see someone or a group of people getting something that I do not and having it unfairly removed then I wouldent go against their action. I dont go as far as saying I will support it as I probably wont actually do anything. In a political instance if I thought that group was particularly hard done by it might effect my voting. Works in reverse too if I see a group getting less than I do having something taken away I would act the same. So Blue I dont support your view of not supporting people cus I didnt have that anyway.
This is a good way of looking at things, but not all will be as far minded as your self

23 Nov 2011

My wife who will be effected by the strike has to go into work for an hour on the day of the strike or she will not be paid. (she is not a member of the union)
The lolly pop Lady's have also been told they have to go in if they wish to be paid, even though there will be no children to help across the roads!!!!
I do feel for the parents who now have to find child care for their children or take time of work them selves

24 Nov 2011

Looks like a costly affair to me, add to that those who will have to be of work for child care....
Public sector strikes next week could cost the UK £500m and lead to job losses, say ministers - as unions accuse them of "fantasy economics".
The Treasury made the estimate based on lower public sector output and knock-on effect on the private sector, including closed schools.
The PM's spokesman said there was "no question" large-scale strikes over pension changes would hit the economy.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Looks like a costly affair to me, add to that those who will have to be of work for child care....
Public sector strikes next week could cost the UK £500m and lead to job losses, say ministers - as unions accuse them of "fantasy economics".
The Treasury made the estimate based on lower public sector output and knock-on effect on the private sector, including closed schools.
The PM's spokesman said there was "no question" large-scale strikes over pension changes would hit the economy.

And you expect the Gov to say anything else ?? Be it true or untrue ??
John

24 Nov 2011

that being the case....maybe the government should be getting round the table as we speak and sorting out a compromise, so that the strike doesn't go ahead. Instead they are on radio, spoating off propoganda, to suit themselves.
It was funny actually today when the one MP said a majority of union members had not voted for action, if you added in the non voters !! the interviewer then pointed out that in the general election the turnout was only 57% and in his own area, he was only elected by less than 26% of the total voters....if you added in those that didn't vote !! he changed the subject very quickly..lol

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Looks like a costly affair to me, add to that those who will have to be of work for child care....
Public sector strikes next week could cost the UK £500m and lead to job losses, say ministers - as unions accuse them of "fantasy economics".
The Treasury made the estimate based on lower public sector output and knock-on effect on the private sector, including closed schools.
The PM's spokesman said there was "no question" large-scale strikes over pension changes would hit the economy.

I wonder why the same ministers weren't so worried about cost when they made a public holiday for a Royal Wedding that could easily have been held on a Saturday? Do you really believe a politician's figures?

24 Nov 2011

Quote by northwest-cpl
Looks like a costly affair to me, add to that those who will have to be of work for child care....
Public sector strikes next week could cost the UK £500m and lead to job losses, say ministers - as unions accuse them of "fantasy economics".
The Treasury made the estimate based on lower public sector output and knock-on effect on the private sector, including closed schools.
The PM's spokesman said there was "no question" large-scale strikes over pension changes would hit the economy.

I wonder why the same ministers weren't so worried about cost when they made a public holiday for a Royal Wedding that could easily have been held on a Saturday? Do you really believe a politician's figures?
I would suggest that the Royal wedding will bring the country money rather than cost it any

24 Nov 2011

Looks like some ground has already been given
Anyone who is within ten years of retirement will be able to retire on their current terms." Many people, including pensions expert Michael Johnson of the Centre for Policy Studies, think the Government has been too generous. He has accused Francis Maude of surrendering to the unions.
Mr Cameron's central message to public sector workers is that it's unfair for them to disrupt the lives of private sector workers when those private sector workers receive less generous pensions.
These two articals were also of interst to me

Public-sector retirement promises have become a "Madoff-style pyramid, now collapsing under the weight of insufficient contributions, rising longevity and an ageing workforce", Michael Johnson said in his report for the Centre for Policy Studies, "Self-sufficiency is the key".
Unless the problem is addressed, Britain faces a "societal division" caused by the gulf between private and public-sector pension provisions, and the "disproportionately high pensions paid to high earners" in the Civil Service. Without reform, the divisions will be entrenched between the generations, he added, warning of "looming generational inequality manifests itself as a rising tax burden on today's workers, who then save less for their own retirement".

However, Centre for Policy Studies research fellow Michael Johnson (pictured) says a future Government will be forced to revisit public service pension reform unless the Coalition puts in place long-term plans to introduce a “pure” defined contribution framework.
He says: “Full implementation of Lord Hutton’s proposals, let alone anything weaker, would not fulfil the most fundamental of Lord Hutton’s own criteria. The new arrangements would not be sustainable, from both affordability and fairness perspectives.
“Cutting the cost of public sector pensions by 25 per cent would save taxpayers billions of pounds every year, stretching into the future. The present value of such an annuity saving would be over £100bn in today’s money.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
that being the case....maybe the government should be getting round the table as we speak and sorting out a compromise, so that the strike doesn't go ahead. Instead they are on radio, spoating off propoganda, to suit themselves.
It was funny actually today when the one MP said a majority of union members had not voted for action, if you added in the non voters !! the interviewer then pointed out that in the general election the turnout was only 57% and in his own area, he was only elected by less than 26% of the total voters....if you added in those that didn't vote !! he changed the subject very quickly..lol

This is funny, bet he felt silly :twisted:

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I would suggest that the Royal wedding will bring the country money rather than cost it any

Wouldn't it have brought the country more money on a Saturday when there wouldn't have been a fraction of the lost production of giving everyone a day off on a Friday?
Surely having the whole country idle for a day must have cost more than the £500 million that the strike is "going" to cost but the government didn't seem too bothered then. I wonder why that might be.

Quote by CBI Report
The CBI, the business lobby group, has previously calculated that each bank holiday costs the British economy £6 billion in lost productivity, though many experts hope that in the case of the Royal Wedding, £1 billion of that will be clawed back in extra tourist revenues and sales of memorabilia.

Taken from here

24 Nov 2011

Quote by northwest-cpl
I would suggest that the Royal wedding will bring the country money rather than cost it any

Wouldn't it have brought the country more money on a Saturday when there wouldn't have been a fraction of the lost production of giving everyone a day off on a Friday?
Surely having the whole country idle for a day must have cost more than the £500 million that the strike is "going" to cost but the government didn't seem too bothered then. I wonder why that might be.

Quote by CBI Report
The CBI, the business lobby group, has previously calculated that each bank holiday costs the British economy £6 billion in lost productivity, though many experts hope that in the case of the Royal Wedding, £1 billion of that will be clawed back in extra tourist revenues and sales of memorabilia.

Taken from here
Most weddings blow a hole in the happy couple's finances, but the royal extravaganza is predicted to have delivered a much needed boost to the UK's beleaguered economy.
The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers.
In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.
The British Retail Consortium forecast that shops and pubs will benefit by nearly £500m. With 5,500 street parties in full swing the biggest beneficiaries were the supermarkets, as people piled their tables with patriotic nosh such as sausage rolls, Coronation chicken and Victoria sponge. Sales of Wills and Kate merchandise, which ranged from mugs and tea towels to union flag contact lenses, were put at £26m.

How much will the strike bring to the country?
Being self employed running my own business, bank holidays are just another working day for me

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
How much will the strike bring to the country?

Your figures seem similar to the link I quoted ie. £1 billion in to the country, but you don't mention the estimated £6 billion out for the bank holiday.
No one would suggest that the strike will bring anything into the country - a reason maybe that the government should be working harder to avert it?
However, it still doesn't answer my ponderings - I wonder why the government were so happy to sanction an extra bank holiday this year at a possible net cost to the country of £5 billion, yet a tenth of that in a strike will apparently bring the country to its knees.

24 Nov 2011

See this thread is still bumbling along.
Nothing has changed in the real world you know.
To pay for pensions for the longer lifespan that people now have requires more contributions. It is called maths.
Labour should have tackled this years ago (amongst many other things) when the Insurers were pulling the plug on private sector final salary schemes.
The maths don't add since life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 20 years - how is that extra 10 years supposed to be paid for? Is it not reasonable that you should contribute more if you are expecting to take more?

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I would suggest that the Royal wedding will bring the country money rather than cost it any

Wouldn't it have brought the country more money on a Saturday when there wouldn't have been a fraction of the lost production of giving everyone a day off on a Friday?
Surely having the whole country idle for a day must have cost more than the £500 million that the strike is "going" to cost but the government didn't seem too bothered then. I wonder why that might be.

Quote by CBI Report
The CBI, the business lobby group, has previously calculated that each bank holiday costs the British economy £6 billion in lost productivity, though many experts hope that in the case of the Royal Wedding, £1 billion of that will be clawed back in extra tourist revenues and sales of memorabilia.

Taken from here
Most weddings blow a hole in the happy couple's finances, but the royal extravaganza is predicted to have delivered a much needed boost to the UK's beleaguered economy.
The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers.
In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.
The British Retail Consortium forecast that shops and pubs will benefit by nearly £500m. With 5,500 street parties in full swing the biggest beneficiaries were the supermarkets, as people piled their tables with patriotic nosh such as sausage rolls, Coronation chicken and Victoria sponge. Sales of Wills and Kate merchandise, which ranged from mugs and tea towels to union flag contact lenses, were put at £26m.

How much will the strike bring to the country?
it is estimated the govt will save 2-300 million in salaries and i assume overheads next wednesday which
Being self employed running my own business, bank holidays are just another working day for me
it is estimated the govt will save 2-300 million in salaries and i assume overheads next wednesday which this is not included in their scaremongering tactics, it is strange that the deal that was offered only came about once the results of the union ballots started coming in.
i do think people need to realise that this is just part of another element of the erosion of not only public but private pensions.

What worries me is that we already see the division between the private and public sector employees being created by the present govt policies within the country.
i personally feel I have to stand up for what i feel is right, the only way to do that is by withdraing my labour, its all i have. There is too much apathy in this country, we are too accepting of what our masters do. As a self employed person, of which i was once, if you were working for a client and you felt you were not going to be paid, what would you do?

24 Nov 2011

Quote by northwest-cpl

How much will the strike bring to the country?

Your figures seem similar to the link I quoted ie. £1 billion in to the country, but you don't mention the estimated £6 billion out for the bank holiday.
No one would suggest that the strike will bring anything into the country - a reason maybe that the government should be working harder to avert it?
However, it still doesn't answer my ponderings - I wonder why the government were so happy to sanction an extra bank holiday this year at a possible net cost to the country of £5 billion, yet a tenth of that in a strike will apparently bring the country to its knees.
I can only assume because of the good feel factor it will produce, we need some happy events.
The strike however will bring nothing but misery to so many. As my wife is not in the union, she has to go into work for a time if she wishes to be paid, this means we now have a child care issue. Our small issue will be the tip of the iceberg compared to the hoops many will have to jump through.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Onthebeach_1
it is estimated the govt will save 2-300 million in salaries and i assume overheads next wednesday which this is not included in their scaremongering tactics, it is strange that the deal that was offered only came about once the results of the union ballots started coming in.
What about the cost to people who have to take time of work for child care?
i do think people need to realise that this is just part of another element of the erosion of not only public but private pensions.
Yes you are right, many sacrifices will have to be made in times of hardship
i personally feel I have to stand up for what i feel is right, the only way to do that is by withdraing my labour, its all i have. There is too much apathy in this country, we are too accepting of what our masters do. As a self employed person, of which i was once, if you were working for a client and you felt you were not going to be paid, what would you do?

I respect that
Are they going to stop paying you then?

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

i personally feel I have to stand up for what i feel is right,

Are they going to stop paying you then?
You don't think they pay strikers do you?
Dave_Notts

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts

i personally feel I have to stand up for what i feel is right,

Are they going to stop paying you then?
You don't think they pay strikers do you?
Dave_Notts
No, I did not, this was the quote I was referring to, I believe I highlighted it

Quote by Onthebeach_1
As a self employed person, of which i was once, if you were working for a client and you felt you were not going to be paid, what would you do?

I then said; Are they going to stop paying you then?

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
See this thread is still bumbling along.
Nothing has changed in the real world you know.
To pay for pensions for the longer lifespan that people now have requires more contributions. It is called maths.
Labour should have tackled this years ago (amongst many other things) when the Insurers were pulling the plug on private sector final salary schemes.
The maths don't add since life expectancy has increased by 10 years in the last 20 years - how is that extra 10 years supposed to be paid for? Is it not reasonable that you should contribute more if you are expecting to take more?

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
why is it on so many occasions you are the only ones that talk sence on here?
the paragraph above that i have highlited is the end of this argument. this is another reeson why this country has very little money. how if peeple are living so much longer and pay almost the same as they were say five yeers ago, not be expected to pay more?
maths is reely that easy, and that is maybe the reeson why the vast majority are rubbish at it.