[Closed] Public Sector Strike 30/11

no party that represents my views

oh, go on

I'm sure there's a home for you somewhere

As to the welfare state, I'll not get all Daily Mail on you, but it is very detrimental to the human condition being paid to do nothing. If they were not paid they would have to do the sort of work that we are currently having to ship in other nationalities to do.

Wow.

Public sector worker here. Won't be striking, won't be supporting those who do. Turning up as usual to do the job I am paid for.

I doubt Ernie has any more of a clue about how to fix this than the rest of us, up to and including the 'leaders of the free world'.

You make it sound as if I hold a unique point of view. I can assure you that my opinions are shared with a very great many people, even though they might not be aired much by the British media. You could look at Nouriel 'Dr Doom' Roubini for starters.

it is very detrimental to the human condition being paid to do nothing

Ooh I dunno; it's not done this young lady too much harm:

[img] [/img]

Laurence Summers makes good points in today's FT (especially in terms of the distressing polarisation of these debates that leads into the usual merry-go-rounds!):

Why has the top 1 per cent of the population done so well relative to the rest? The answer probably lies substantially in changing technology and globalisation. When George Eastman revolutionised photography, he did very well and, because he needed a large number of Americans to carry out his vision, the city of Rochester had a thriving middle class for two generations. By contrast, when Steve Jobs revolutionised personal computing, he and the shareholders in Apple (who are spread all over the world) did very well but a much smaller benefit flowed to middle-class American workers both because production was outsourced and because the production of computers and software was not terribly labour intensive.

[b]There is no question that this will be more important to the politics of the industrialised world than its response to a market system that distributes rewards increasingly inequitably. To date the debate has been distressingly polarised.[/b]

[b]On one side it is framed in zero-sum terms and the disappointing lack of income growth for middle-class workers is blamed on the success of the wealthy. [/b]Those with this view should ask themselves whether it would be better if the US had more entrepreneurs like those who founded Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook, or fewer. Each contributed significantly to rising inequality but it bears emphasising that companies with a single owner, such as a private equity firm, pay successful CEOs more than public companies do. Where great fortunes are earned by providing great products or services that benefit large numbers of people, they should not be denigrated.

[b]At the same time, those who are quick to label any expression of concern about rising inequality as misplaced or a product of class warfare are even further off base.[/b] The extent of the change in income distribution is such that it is no longer true that the overall growth rate of the economy is the principal determinant of middle-class income growth – how the growth pie is distributed is at least as important. That most of the increase in inequality reflects gains for those at the very top at the expense of everyone else [b]further belies the idea that simply strengthening the economy will reduce inequality.[/b]

FT 21/11/11

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/66102f44-11db-11e1-a114-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1eLQoPILP

Derek, reasonable, well thought out post. I mostly agree with you. Not sure about the Europe thing, but thats more to do with a lack of understanding about the issue on my part, than any problem with what you said.

As for the the borrowing thing, Too true! Exceedingly clever of the huge corporations and mega rich to obtain all that money, whilst making individuals, small businesses and the tax payer foot the liability for the credit.

welfare state, necessary, but bloated and abused in my experience. I have no clue if its fixable without hurting the wrong people though.

it's not done this young lady too much harm:

Wrong.

Rescue provided by the taxpayer...public and private sector alike.

Wrong. The bailout was provided by the government. The government is part of the public sector. The government is funded by the taxpayer, like other parts of the public sector.

Teamhurtmore, thats a very interesting and seemingly fair article. But whats the answer? Where do we go from here?

Laurence Summers makes good points in today's FT

Do you think so? It seems like yet another bout of advocacy for trickle-down theory.

binners - Member
Lifer - I seem to recall that Greenspan was told that he was wrong and better be quiet if he knew what was good for him

Ah okay, I remember seeing it in 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace' gonna have to watch it again now! Dammit! 😀

The government is part of the public sector. The government is funded by the taxpayer, like other parts of the public sector.

We're all part of the public sector then?

Thats where I remember seeing it. I recall they patted him on the head and told him to go away and rethink everything, and come back with the answers they'd asked for in the first place.

A bit like what's going on in Brussels at the moment. Which will doubtless end equally as well

yet another bout of advocacy for trickle-down theory.

We're all part of the public sector then?

If you live in somewhere outside the M25, then according to the Daily Mail; yes

AndyP

Are you in a union?

I won't be striking either, as I couldn't live with my conscience.

I am very disappointed at the lack of information and guidance from my union, Unison, who have not given ANY information in this regard AFAIK to front line ambulance staff.

There does need to be a general sort out, there needs to be an ideology to unite the protests, right now, nobody except the odd banker and politico is very happy with the situation as we find it. We need a latter day Marx with a viable alternative.

Enough needs to be defined, how rich does anyone really need to be, a day of a mans labour should be the same value the world over, it could be based on energy value, certainly in the none too distant future energy considerations are going to be very important.

Right now so many folk are protesting for so many different reasons, change is certainly in the air, wish that it were somebody could come up with the definitive article, some thing worth revolting over.

But it does seem very unfair the global distribution of wealth and it aint getting any better and here in the good old cradle of democracy - what have we got? More clones in suits difficult to define a difference in value between them, all self serving career politicos without an ounce of conviction between them.

I do despair.

Mods - can we ban derekrides please?

We don't want to be interrupting the cyclical ranting and specification of FACTS from entrenched positions, with the like of him, coming round here with his reasoned arguments

Peston makes some interesting observations ...not so much were ****ed but more ...its going to take a long time to turn around this crisis. Don't expect a pay rise any time soon!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15820601

binners - Member
Mods - can we ban derekrides please?

We don't want to be interrupting the cyclical ranting and specification of FACTS from entrenched positions, with the like of him, coming round here with his reasoned arguments

Not to worry, they tend to do that fairly frequently, in fact whilst I'm on that subject where do all the banned folk go, I notice it's quite a regular occurrence, got quite upset the first time, now realise it's a bit like school here and that's kind of like detention, anyone would think the place was run by an ex Physics teacher..

We're all part of the public sector then?

Most of us are taxpayers. Those taxes are used to fund the activities of the public sector, which includes bailing out part of the private sector.

It's not a contentious point.

I'll vote Derekrides... He hasn't got any more of a clue how to fix it than the rest of us, but at least he admits as much. 😀

[i]AndyP

Are you in a union?[/i]

No. I disagree with the very concept of them.

I won't be striking either, as I couldn't live with my conscience.

I couldn't live with my conscience if I crossed a picket-line, unless I was a designated essential service. Because that would make me a scab.

What's not to like?

[img] [/img]

😀

I couldn't live with my conscience if I crossed a picket-line, unless I was a designated essential service. Because that would make me a scab.

I say do you still live in the 80's?

Oh blimey! Its all getting a bit 1980's. Quick! Hide!

[img] [/img]

Edit: Frodo beat me to it!

....here in the good old cradle of democracy

You live in Greece ? ......no wonder you're so despondent 😐

No. I disagree with the very concept of them.

Summers gives three idea - here are the bullets. For details see FT:

What then is the right response to rising inequality?

First, government must be careful that it does not facilitate increases in inequality by rewarding the wealthy with special concessions.

Second, there is scope for pro-fairness, pro-growth tax reform.

Third, the public sector must insure that there is greater equity in areas of the most fundamental importance.

At the same time, in many parts of the country a gap has opened between the quality of the private school education offered to the children of the rich and the public school educations enjoyed by everyone else. Most alarming is the near doubling over the last generation in the gap between the life expectancy of the affluent and the ordinary.Neither the politics of polarisation nor those of noblesse oblige will serve to protect the interests of the middle class in the post-industrial economy. We will have to find ways to do better.

He does address the over-confidence in trickle down in original post

I like Bob Crow.

Mainly because he really pisses off the up their own arse can't see further than the end of their own noses selfish blinkered idiots who seem to think transportation systems would be better off without properly trained and qualified people to do the jobs...

[i]Could you expand on what you think their concept is, so we know what you're disagreeing about. [/i]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union ]HTH[/url]

AndyP

No. I disagree with the very concept of them. (unions)

How bizarre, this needs exploring further. What part of the 'concept' of unions do you disagree with? Is it the ability of workers to collectively strive to maintain or improve the conditions of their employment? Or is it that you think employees should have no say in their conditions of employment, and trust that employers have their employee's best interests at heart?

Edit, (very) beaten to it... AndyP, that link is to a wikipedia description of Trade Unions and doesn't prove that you've actually understood it.

Bless.

Interesting link AndyP

As you disagree with the concept of unions, what is your alternative? A return to feudalism perhaps?

Unions became obsolete thanks to employment legislation. They won the argument and are no longer needed.

Not sure how this can be likened to a return to feudalism.

Unions became obsolete thanks to employment legislation. They won the argument and are no longer needed.

funny that, because I've needed and been glad of my union several times in my own 12 year employment history, both personally and collectively. Employment legislation wouldn't have covered it, but my union subs did.

They won the argument and are no longer needed.

So you ask what he disagrees about Unions and he posts a wiki page. So we're none the wiser.

I won't be striking I'd work to rule but I will not withdraw the service I provide.

5E + 1

Trade Unions promote collective bargaining which is against the best interests of talented and hard working employees.

[i]AndyP, that link is to a wikipedia description of Trade Unions and doesn't prove that you've actually understood it.[/i]
It gives a nice precis to those who aren't sure about what Trade Unions are about. I don't have to *prove* anything to you, just as I don't *have* to work somewhere where I am unhappy. Oh, and Wikipedia has a capital W. Bless.

[i]Or is it that you think employees should have no say in their conditions of employment[/i]
Not at all. Don't know about anyone else, but I got a contract when I started my job, and I could choose whether to sign it or not. Also, if something changes which I don't like, I can leave and look for a different job. Meanwhile, I'll continue to work in my office, rather than standing outside with a bunch of cronies, looking miserable and shouting abuse at anyone who wants to fulfill the terms of their contract.

So Andy, according to your link you're genuinely against the concept of people collectively trying to improve their working conditions?

Seems a bit of an odd thing to be against the concept of.

If you'd said that you were against their support of political parties, or something else more tangible then I could understand where you might be coming from.

Beats me why they need to be arguing now then

Trade Unions promote collective bargaining which is against the best interests of talented and hard working employees.

No, it's against the interests of those best able to negotiate themselves a higher wage. Not the same thing.

You also seem to be unaware that most public sector jobs are graded, which renders your argument entirely superfluous.

No. I disagree with the very concept of them. (unions)

Lord above. For real? 😯

Are you actually aware of things that trade unions have given you?

I take it you don't believe in weekends, maximum working hours, equality in the workplace, stuff like that.... 😉