Peter T Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 The only way it affected me, was shopping at one of the large stores. It was packed with people and their kids. :twisted: :twisted: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 The last time I was on strike back in the 90's I was stood on a freezing cold picket line outside Kelloggs in Manchester for days with all my fellow strikers (I even turned the milk float away that was delivering milk for the cornflakes!!). I have just driven past my little boys' school which is closed because the teachers are on strike, and there is no-one there....... striking isn't like it was in my day!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I'd guess that back then Kelloggs was a closed shop, which is illegal these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 That was in the days of serial strikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Kelloggs wasn't a closed shop at all Fugs.... I was a contractor for a JIB registered company which meant Union membership was as good as compulsory anyway!! Our strike was because we had an agreement with our employer (Not Kelloggs) who agreed that the union rep for the 120 odd electricains we had on there would only be moved off the site when there was less than 20 men left. They moved him off to another site with over 110 men still on there.... We "hit the gate" as they say. Our boss came down....sacked us all on the spot..... then reinstated us when he realised he couldn't do that (plus he had a bit of pressure from the Kelloggs chaps) Then we got the local EETU rep down; a chap called Dermody. He got us all together and his opening line was.... "look lads, I know you have a genuine greivance, but we have just got the ETU recognised in Kelloggs and we don't want to rock the boat..... so can you all go back to work"!!! I never had anytime for the union after that.... the usual ..too much self interest for the union leaders and representitives and no respect for the workers that pay their wages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Like you say Baz, it was as good as, very different to today's union landscape. I was on strike today, some of my colleagues, even some in the same union, were not. My pension isn't gold plated, in fact, as a negotiated agreement, it looks quite modest. And now, I'm being told to pay more for less, and I have to work for longer, without negotiation. To help clear the mess made by the bankers. They're not getting that off me without a fight. Btw, I worked at Massey Ferguson (where ASDA now stands) for 15 years, was on a picket line there once or twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 That's a myth. You DON'T have to work longer, just make up the difference between now and when you want to retire. Baz, spot on. The leaders of the unions are massively overpaid, with perks and pensions to boot. Strikes NEVER hurt them. And the stupidity of these people, is that they do it to bring the Tories down expecting that Labour will look after them. Didn't they learn anything from the Bliar years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 What's this "when you want to retire" buisiness Peter? The age of retirement for State Pension and for Public Service schemes IS being increased, on the grounds that folk are "living longer" thus claiming a pension for longer. When the State pension was originally introduced after WW1, retirement was set at 65, on the basis that (on average) folk would live for about 18months longer. Since then, and despite an awareness that folk were "living longer", no ammendments were made to the scheme, to gradually phase in change. As for public sector schemes, employees don't have a choice when starting work, they sign up to pay super-an, paying towards their pension; something the private sector tend not to do, as they are less organised and probably enjoy spending their full pay; which will make them vunerable in old age if/when they have to rely on the "State" pension. So instead of being tricked into a divisive arguement between public V private conditions, the object should be to improve pension arrangements for all, not level everyone down. Rather than looking down the ladder all the time, perhaps it's time the peasants started looking to the top of the ladder where the real money is, and demanding that, in this period of austerity, the biggest burden of pain was carried by the broadest shoulders. The evidence for the obscene disparity in wealth in our society is out there to be seen, the problem is, a myopic peasantry don't want to see it (and certainly havn't got the "arab spring" gonads to do anything about it anyway); and niether have the politicians from the relative safety of their high end salaries and gold plated pensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 All well and good Obs, but aren't you ignoring the theft of a large amount of private sector pensions by the loveable destroyer Gordon (I'm alright Jack) Brown as one of his first actions as Chancellor. My pension is disappearing faster than I can pay into it, so I'm understandably annoyed that I'm being expected to fund public sector pensions without some small (and it is small) effort by those recipients of my contributions to help themselves maintain a reasonable pension. Don't come back with your soak the rich mantra because it aint going to happen. :wink: :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 obs, you would be amazed at how many people have a year planned for their retirement, and that has very little to do with Government "age and pensions". It's all about investment and saving for the future. Something that most "working class/middle class" people never think about. You can't have it both ways. Either plan for the future and be sensible in your younger days, or go out on the ale every night and loads of holidays abroad. People tend to get what they deserve in life, and no amount of pontificating will change things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 I just look at my mum to see how private sector pensions are doing. When my dad died 18 years ago; mum was entitled to a percentage of his Crosfields pension. 18 years ago, that amounted to just over £420 a month... now, and after Browns raid and 13 years of a Labour administration, as Asp has said, she now gets £152.00 a month.... Fugs, I have had a pension since I was 18. Unfortunately, due to the economic climate I have had to reduce the contributions I pay in and so no doubt I will suffer and have to work longer and all that nonsense, but look at it this was; in 100 years time, none of us will be here to worry about any of this and so I am dedicating what time I have left to generate wealth for my kids so I can leave them something to at least get them off the bottom rung of the ladder.... now if that is a few classic cars a house or two and a few quid in the bank; then so be it. I won't be downsizing at any time in the future either as I intend to pay off my mortgage and then rent my house out and use the money to rent a smaller place and leave the big house to the kids... My life isn't about me anymore..... so unless things take a really dramatic turn for the worse that is the way it will be! You can't afford to be stubborn and let your kids make their own way in life anymore; if you can help them out then I think that should be every parents right I don't care about bankers... taxing a few millionaires isn't going to solve the problems of the world... there are far more workers than there are bankers and bosses and so logic dictates that 20 million workers will generate more tax revenue than 500 millionaire bosses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I accept "it ain't going to happen" Asp - precisely because of the docility of the peasants, who'll now be played off against each other, as they scramble over the crumbs from the rich man's table. With 10% of our population owning 90% of it's wealth, the money is out there Baz, enough to pay off the deficit 10 times over. The reason pension scheme take up is so low in the private sector, is simply the astronomical levels of investment required, plus the fact that most schemes invest in the stock exchange (which can go down as well as up), with the very gamblers who caused this mess. So with higher contribution levels, with longer delivery times, delivering less pension; many will no doubt drop out all together, making benefit dependency for the future OAPs a crisis in the making; unless of course, we just say it's their own fault and leave them to beg in the street. If that's the kind of future you want, your welcome to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 We're all in it together?? So obs, are you happy to pay more tax to support those out of work or the very low paid? because that's what you want the rich to do. The journey from cradle to grave, is normally a long one, and what you do on that journey determines on how well off or poor you are. Everyone has a choice as to how they travel. The biggest failure with pensions is that their importance is not drummed home when you are young. I never thought about a pension until I was in my late 40's as I was in the company one. Same with Life Insurance. But the attitude of hitting the rich, is typical of the less well off. It's jealousy. Most of them have worked hard for their money and assets, and probably contribute more to the economy than you or I. Mind you, a good starting point would be the Inland Revenue. Stop making mistakes and CLOSE the loop holes, thereby creating a level playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What does peeve me a bit about the dispute is when individuals and/or unions claim they are fighting to save the NHS. education system etc. - if you're in it for your own finances fair enough but don't pretend it's part of some great crusade for the soul of public services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Not jealousy at all Pierre; it's about creating a fair and just society, at peace with itself and the rest of the world, which is what governance is all about. Just one example I heard on the radio today: Capello want's to sign on again for the England job - for £6million a year. Now are you seriously telling us that Capello, or while we're at it - Jeremy Clarkson are worth more per year to our econonomy or our society than our emergency service workers; they are in superficial jobs that happen to pay well. As for this peasant's myth about "working harder", with some of these CEOs now on more than 40 times average pay, are you seriously telling us that these characters work 40 times harder than the rest? Now while capping their pay may not be realistic, taxing their excess pay at 99.9% is. btw I'm quite happy to pay my taxes into a progressive tax system, on the basis that it effects redistribution, so that the growing wealth gap is closed, we can argue of course, as to how Government spend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 And how many people would actually pay themselves so much that they would have to pay your 99.9% tax rate? And do you really think capping anyone's pay will raise anybody else's pay by so much as 1 penny? Dream on Obs :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Do you work Obs or are you retired ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I don't disagree with what you say,buuut, it's down to the TV companies who must have idiots in charge who pay these crazy figures. And I am talking the BBC and Sky. They get rid of Parkinson who had a good show, and then employ the tosser for millions who doesn't have a brain cell above his waist. Sky have taken over the "sports" world and given clubs too much money that they can pay people between £100k and £200k a week for a few hours work per week. The really annoying thing is that all the people who ok these deals don't see the bigger picture, only their own 5 minutes of fame. Back to topic, if the members took enough interest in their unions, why aren't they asking about the earnings and pensions of these people. Their are NO winners of strikes except the union bosses, who don't lose any pay!!! :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Asp, if you read my post properly, you'll discover I dismissed the possibility of "capping" the pay of "the rich"; which doesn't really matter IF we had a Gov that would tax everything above £1million per year at 99.99% - you tell me of anyone who is worth more than £1million per year? Pierre your back to commiting the same tired old comparisons, like the peasants compararing the size of the crumbs they've wrestled in the scramble beneath the rich man's table - start looking to the top of the ladder instead of down it. If we're really "all in it together", like any desperate bid for survival by a group of people, everyone turns out their pockets in order to see what assets/resources can be put to the common aim of survival - as a group; this will inevitably mean that some will contribute more than others; and I'm merely pointing out, that in a society with more disparity in wealth than we've had since the 19th century; the money is out there; unfortunately the Gov just ain't taxing it. As for "strikes", as I've said, it's only the ovine nature of our population that's saving us from rioting in the streets (as in Greece); and the irony of any strike is that it's masochistic, in that the strikers finish up losing money, which is a measure of the desperation and commitment of the strikers. Another irony of course, is that these Unions fund a Party that has tried to sit on the fence throughout and virtually tried to deny them even vocal support; hence the need for those Unions and Union Members to wake up and start funding their own political voice to parliament, which is basically how the Labour Party was created originally, before it became a career path for woolly liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Peter - You DON'T have to work longer, just make up the difference between now and when you want to retire. I'm gonna send that in to Viz for one of their Top Tips (don't worry, I'll credit you). Simples! asp - Getting you back to work to pay for our pensions Heh, they're not though, are they: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086 The number of public sector jobs set to be lost by 2017 has also been revised up from 400,000 to 710,000. And that's just the public sector. Let's see how the old "divide and rule" tactic works, if this place is anything to go by, I fear the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not forgeting of course, that public sector workers pay taxes too - kick 'em onto the dole and they become tax consumers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 But the salaries from which that tax is deducted and / or from which they use the money to spend and thus raise tax (VAT etc) comes from taxes paid by the private sector in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not sure why all the public v private debate, one sector couldn't survive without the other, and upto about 10 years ago pensions in companies like ICI were second to none. I would think the extra payments would be accepted by more people if they knew it was being channeled into their pensions, but it's being used to pay of the debt that bankers got us into in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 The structural deficit was already out of control before 2008 when the banking crisis hit. The banks made it worse but didnt necessarily cause it. As we didnt have any cash put away from the boom years we didnt have any money to soften the blow and had to borrow yet more. I think what galls me most is the demand to retire at 60. Everyone is living longer and doing this puts a greater strain on the pension pot as it is. No union has yet conceeded this part of the package despite acturial evidence universally supporting this. Everyone whatever business is going to have to work longer end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.