[Update] Strike action on 30 November 2011

[Arthurgray50@blu]

www.skynews.co.uk Unemployment rises by 80.000 and strikes being balloting.

Employment minister states that there is work out there, so why the increase in unemployment, he states that there is work there to cover the amount of jobseekers unemployed - would you be prepared to get a job that pays only £15.000 per year.

A ballot by several unions today, looks like an autumn of strike action in regards to jobs, pensions etc and this time according to a Union leader yesterday, it will be the biggest ever strike.

Labour have stated that it is wrong to strike, whilst talks are still going on, l was under the impression that Labour was the working class party that takes funds from the unions to keep them running.

I will be glad when this year is over, or is it just a dream.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Labour have stated that it is wrong to strike, whilst talks are still going on, l was under the impression that Labour was the working class party that takes funds from the unions to keep them running.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that you want Labour to support strikes? How about Labour supporting something which the Unions appear to have forgotten in their desire to strike? Workers Rights.

Unions are supposed to be there to protect the rights of the workers. There are ways to do this that do not involve striking. It's called negotiation.

[Chris]

Yep, what an autumn coming up. An autumn in which the Union muppets discover their pensions can't have money paid into them that doesn't exist and end up getting a well-deserved Thatcherite kicking. I can't wait.

[denphone]

It would be nice for all parties to have reasoned discussions instead of this political tit for tat we seem to have all the time but l suppose thats too much to ask for when both political ends of the spectrum are so entrenched in their positions to start with.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I am not saying that Labour support strikes or anything like that.

When l was younger, the Labour Party would fight the Tories on every angle to protect the worker, most of the revenue that the Labour Party has comes from the unions, This is why Milaband was booed yesterday on his speech.

Unemployment is rising to a scale, that will lose control, all parties come out with this argument, that there is work out there, when l was unemployed, the jobs that was on the JS site, wasn't worth looking at, no party can expect any person to take a job that doesn't pay.

My neighbour drives to Stansted each day and does 100 miles per day, and onkly manages to makes ends meet, this cannot be right, you have to judge between cost of travel, food budget etc before deciding for a job,

Strike action is a last resort, but this is what everyone is entitled to do, you have to fight for yoiur rights.

I put it to you this, would you, if you have a family go for a job that pays £15/16.000 per year ?

[Chris]

As a self employed person I am currently earning rather less than that. However I have my eyes on the future and see my current low-earnings status as a stepping stone to better things. It's a pity some of our nation's dole-dwellers don't think likewise, but then if the wage isn't going to earn you the latest flat screen telly in time for Christmas, it's a breach of your human rights, innit.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

As a self employed person I am currently earning rather less than that. However I have my eyes on the future and see my current low-earnings status as a stepping stone to better things. It's a pity some of our nation's dole-dwellers don't think likewise, but then if the wage isn't going to earn you the latest flat screen telly in time for Christmas, it's a breach of your human rights, innit.

Some people are just ungrateful idiots. I'd have no problem taking a minimum wage job right now.

[Gary L]

If you're a council tenant you can factor in the cost of rent/council tax/travel when considering a job.
all these would have to be paid out of your weekly wage.

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I put it to you this, would you, if you have a family go for a job that pays £15/16.000 per year ?

I would rather earn 15-16k a year than sponge off of the state. I dont think I would sleep that well knowing I was a sponge. I would even work at McDonalds!

[denphone]

l for one would love to work but that will never be possible unless l have a transplant.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

would you be prepared to get a job that pays only £15.000 per year.

Yes I would. There are plenty of jobs out there. Sadly a big chunk of the current unemployed are either virtually unemployable or think they should waltz into a 30k a year job and anything else is beneath them when they could be sitting at home playing an xbox instead.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Derek, l for one disagree with you, I had my own business, and lost it due to foreign workers under cutting me.

I looked for work, and there wasn't anything out that paid what l needed to survive, l went for agency work, but then found out they were getting more than me from the employer, l then sat in my car on the A4 taking down trade vehicles details, contacted them, and got MORE interviews from that, than anything else, luckily l got the job that l do now and love, but that is now under threat due to coalition cuts. so you cannot win.

We are the workforce that keeps this country running, people that are self employed, l feel sorry for more than anything, as they have to struggle against competition to survive, l would never work for supermarkets or burger chains, as there pay is not suitable for a family person due to overheads that they pay.

It will be a long hard Autumn and Winter, and l can see major problems for this country in the months ahead.

I believe the cuts that are happening, are just biting now, and l feel they are too fast.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yep, what an autumn coming up. An autumn in which the Union muppets discover their pensions can't have money paid into them that doesn't exist and end up getting a well-deserved Thatcherite kicking. I can't wait.

The government appears to be able to find plenty of money that doesn't exist and just make it appear out of thin air via the printing presses to bail out the banks. Apart from averting a major banking crisis, at astronomical cost, those countless billions have not empowered the growth or lending to business which supposedly would have put this country back on track.

I have sympathy for the affected union members because during the career part of my life I had supposedly cast iron contractual two way obligations which were reneged upon by my employer. It cost them dearly to buy out of their obligations but nevertheless I still feel slightly bitter (almost 20 years later) even though the deal I got was brilliant.

Thatcher gave a right royal kicking to the miners but as was known at the time and proven subsequently the miners were on a loser right from the get go because the entire industry was in decline and affectively rapidly becoming redundant. They were also after more pay during times when their demands were considered excessive which meant that public sympathy was not generally with them.

The unions involved in these disputes are involved in every part of the workings of the country which implements every facet of the running of the country. If they co-ordinate strikes the country cannot function so a Thatcherite style stand-off over months is just not feasible. If a protracted stand-off was to occur the country will rapidly become ungovernable and Cameron and co will go the way of Heath and have to visit the palace.

I put my suspicions in this forums months ago and have never had any doubt that the coalition policies would lead to their early demise as they were adopting a plan (Canadian plan) which could never work work without global growth of which in the western world there is none and not likely to be much for years. A good idea at totally the wrong time in history and as it carries the strong risk of causing us a depression, I consider that a change of direction may be beneficial.

Government actions have destroyed the pension prospects of millions with age related delays and nasty twists to calculation factors. They have managed the process, so far, because although individuals are cheated and may feel less than pleased they have no collective voice. The employees involved with the unions do have a collective voice and as their choice of employment was, as with with the path I took was to seek lifelong security at lower pay than the private sector. They are being cheated as much if not more than I was and will exercise their rights to display angst.

I do not buy into the live longer, work longer garbage because the mind may be willing but at post 65 the body will be far less capable of obliging the mind's wishes. Neither my wife or myself would want or be able to withstand the rigours of work other than the choice of when were and how. I have been my own master for almost 20 years and would last seconds if subjected to the demands of an employer and have no desire to undergo the stresses of employing staff again as an employer.

I also believe in integrity and if an employee joins with terms and conditions laid out and agreed it becomes a contract with no end. Changes can be made for new employees but not for old agreed contracts. The government wants to tear up agreements and restart the clock albeit not with retrospective action. It is not acceptable and if I was a recipient of these changes I would be furious.

Workers in the private sector are being right royally shafted in a true employers rule manner. Sure they will scream out loud at the preferential treatment for the public sector but had they the intelligence they may look and compare with just how little they get for their efforts. All around me when I talk to the younger generation (in private employment) I ask what they will do when they reach my age. Following a blank look the answer is "don't know" but as the clock relentless ticks they will find out one day and I guess suffer in the extreme.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

l would never work for supermarkets or burger chains, as there pay is not suitable for a family person due to overheads that they pay.

So even if they pay the minimum wage that's not enough to live on and you would rather be unemployed on benefits?

If that's the case then it shows just how mental the welfare system has become if staying at home is a better option than actually working.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I believe the cuts that are happening, are just biting now, and l feel they are too fast.

I'm sure this has been asked before but how would YOU deal with the huge deficit the country has run up?

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Derek

So even if they pay the minimum wage that's not enough to live on and you would rather be unemployed on benefits?

If that's the case then it shows just how mental the welfare system has become if staying at home is a better option than actually working.



I'm sure this has been asked before but how would YOU deal with the huge deficit the country has run up?

Depends on where you live. I believe there is an old saying that if you have a penny more than you need you are OK but if you have a penny less you are poor.

I live in the South East not far from from London and minimum wage is paupers money around here. The further North one goes the less is needed and although I am not sure about Scotland, I think that the differences may be extreme.

Police around here consider themselves very poorly paid and for costs they are but in Scotland I guess they may have a good lifestyle?. It is true of all walks of life that carry national wages with an example that a doctor up North on £100K is very nicely off but around London just somewhat average.