[Closed] Strikes to cost UK £500m.

Fantasy figures.

The government said it, so it must be true.

Kenny Senior - Member
According to this

So if the public sector, or whatever proportion of it that is striking, will cost the UK £500m by not turning up for work next week, then they must either create £500m a day, or save the UK £500m a day.

The government won't be paying a hefty number of people so they'll recoup a bit of the alleged £500m there.....

So we save the Ecconomy £500m a day, i want a pay rise then, and i think private sector workers better start paying more tax for my services.

Economy

Let's pull a figure out of the air! Double it! And add a hundred million quid! 🙄

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

The shops should do well, as will the car park attendants as people will think theyre on strike, but most are privatised.

Well surely as its a dispute between two parties, the public sector workers and the government, then the Government are equally to blame for any losses.

so how much did the bank holiday for the royal wedding cost us, not to mention the extra holiday next year for queenies big celebration?

bollucks argument if you ask me

I would believe this figure if all[b] private[/b] sector workers were on strike.

Wonder how much they'll save in not paying wages?

Vodafone bill?

I'd lose £50 if I didn't go to work

Now if 10000000000000000000 of me don't turn up does that work?

£10 an adult head... 🙄

Always have been shit at maths I blame the teachers for striking in 80's

Now if [i]10,000,000,000,000,000,000 [/i]of me don't turn up does that work?

Ermm! Your maths is out but I take it your around band 2 NHS wage, some of us are on higher.

Hopefully Big (hitters') Society will mobilise to rescue UK plc.

I do not understand why he's said this... Even assuming it's correct, which I doubt, why would it support his argument? The striking public sector workers facilitate £500m of benefit per day? That's fantastic, good for them, we should recognise that rather than penny pinch. We can't afford the strike? Negotiate better then. Strikers are worried it won't be effective? Not any more.

Sure, some people will add it to their "greedy public sector, costing us a fortune" ideas but those people think that already.

It is a figure from the Treasury. The same Treasury whose growth projections couldn't be trusted according to Osborne, which is why he created the OBR. Who you can trust, but they get it wrong.

I'm sure all the loony lefties will have a great day marching, and the bigger group of slackers will all have a great day in the pub. However, given even most union members don't support the strikes, I expect UK plc will mainly be business as usual on the day.

A few parents and elderly people will suffer. And they will all vote Dave and George in again next time. So the unions will be even less likely to have any say in things.

However, given even most union members don't support the strikes

Well they didn't vote not to strike, so how do you work that out?

However, given even most union members don't support the strikes

LOLz

So using the Ford Prefect argument for the construction workers to not knock down Arthur Dent's house. If we assume the strike will go ahead the cost UK be £500M, instead H R Gov accept this, stick the £0.5B in to the Public sector pension fund and jobs a good un.

Simplest and the Government actually came up with the solution! Who'd have think it?

dmjb4 - Member

I'm sure all the loony lefties will have a great day marching, and the bigger group of slackers will all have a great day in the pub. However, given even most union members don't support the strikes,

Big turnouts, huge majorities even among staff groups that have never struck before

OOP North they have decided to walk out from manning the mersey tunnels so no buses to liverpool,from the Wirral,no ferries, and a privatised railway running 30 year old trains that probably want be able to cope.

dmjb4 - Member

given even most union members don't support the strikes

That's a particularily gigantic lie there, congratulations.

dmjb4 - Member
However, given even most union members don't support the strikes.

Given that most people in the UK didnt vote for the Tories why dont we just ignore them.

Oh we are, great. Keep it up.

Mr Strutton said the turnout was 33% owing in part to a large proportion of lower-paid members having not signed up to the pension scheme.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15764343 ]Reference[/url]

Mr Strutton is GMB national secretary. Less than 1/3 of his members back the strike. 2/3 of them are pretty cheesed off that the union is proposing that the majority of members should hand over an obscene amount of money so that a small minority can live in luxury.

The 2/3 will turn up to work as usual.

Ah GMB well with there that lack of numbers no one will notice anyway.

dmjb4 - Member

Less than 1/3 of his members back the strike

Your reference gives no evidence of this nor does it support your argument in any way. I'm sure you must have some more though? Some seperate ballot of all members that show that every single one of the 67% of members who didn't vote, are against the strike?

Northwind: [b]I've quoted the general secretary of the union in question![/b]

By the way, here is the nice "neutral position" material sent with the ballot paper:

In materials sent with the ballot paper GMB members are advised that the government is attacking public sector pensions. Members are being asked whether they object to paying more to subsidise employers. They are also asked if they oppose having to work longer to get their pension. They are being asked whether they think it’s wrong to have the pension they have expected cut without their consent. They are told that if their answer to these questions is ‘yes’ then they should vote yes for industrial action

[url= http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/latest_news/gmb_public_services_ballot.aspx ]Reference, GMB website[/url]

For the loony types reading this, the above is clearly not neutral. It does not set out both sides views. I suspect a more free campaign is permitted in Zimbabwe and Syria.

 

I suspect a more free campaign is permitted in Zimbabwe and Syria.

Keep it up. Comedy gold. 😆

dmjb4 - Member

Northwind: I've quoted the general secretary of the union in question!

And the quote doesn't support your argument at all, or indeed relate to your argument at all.

"neutral position"

Why do you think the unions should be neutral?

Well it's obvious ...... because they shouldn't be taking sides in this dispute.

They should remain neutral ...... just like the government is.

What's the matter with you 'loony types' ffs ?

i'm rather liking the fact that the government, having had quite some time to prepare for this, have done almost nothing. except that is offer, what was it, £450 for the day for managers to do the border thing. which they've turned down. sweet.

which means the government is saving even more money given that they're not actually paying any of the strikers. that means they must've saved a chunk of money. maybe they could spread that around a bit to compensate businesses seeing as they've failed to sort out the negotiations. or does that only happen if they're bailing out their banker pals?

[IMG] [/IMG]

I suspect a more free campaign is permitted in Zimbabwe and Syria

We voted for it,despite anything you are trying to claim;however if your chat on here is anything to go by,the teachers strike will barely affect you,as there is no danger you will have kids.

Nice response from behind the protection of your keyboard there duckman. No need to start getting nasty, try adding to the debate 🙄

Debate with someone who has been insulting from their first post?

Why is it okay for dmjb4 to insult people but not for duckman to respond in kind?

Could it have something to do with which argument* you support?

* 😆

dmjb4,

Mr Strutton is GMB national secretary. Less than 1/3 of his members back the strike. 2/3 of them are pretty cheesed off that the union is proposing that the majority of members should hand over an obscene amount of money so that a small minority can live in luxury.

Very simple question dmjb4,

If 2/3 of the union are against the strike, why didn't they just vote against it when balloted?

No need to start getting nasty, try adding to the debate

Try [i]following[/i] the debate, if you had, you would have noticed who [i]started[/i] the nastiness 💡

If a days strike by public sector workers cost 500 million it just shows how valuable they are

Or it could be a simple piece of tory propaganda

No need to start getting nasty, try adding to the debate

You are right; and [b]I[/b] didn't start the getting nasty bit.However trying to debate with somebody who compares a legal strike (trust me on this one, The Tories would love the strike to be unlawful)to Zimbabwe doesn't really deserve much else.And for the record, I would say it to his face.
One thing I find amazing on these threads is the fact that a lot of the people are acting as if it is a suprise. We were balloted on strike action in September. This was not a national secret kept by us "loony leftys" It was also no secret we would vote yes, So...you have had what,two months to make other arrangements? I wonder who you are going to blame it on when your kids can't play sport,go on trips etc,do the DoE award,get music lessons,all the stuff we do over and above our agreed contracts (not that they seem to mean much to Dave). Will that be our fault as well? Look on this as a trail run for the next year.

For the record, Neither I, nor any of the folk I work with, want your sympathy.We want our agreed terms and conditions of service.

If a days strike by public sector workers cost 500 million it just shows how valuable they are

Or it could be a simple piece of tory propaganda

Aaah, so you're not valuable after all. 🙂

This tread is useless without kittens!

Here you go Tiger:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Less than 1/3 of his members back the strike

What percentage of the electorate voted for this Tory government?

Come on grum that's completely different!

So using the Ford Prefect argument for the construction workers to not knock down Arthur Dent's house. If we assume the strike will go ahead the cost UK be £500M, instead H R Gov accept this, stick the £0.5B in to the Public sector pension fund and jobs a good un.

Simplest and the Government actually came up with the solution! Who'd have think it?

I would suggest the alternative proposal: every day you strike "we" take 0.5B out of the pot... ...having given you the best offer and you are now damaging the economy! That would focus a few minds on the fact there isn't some giant endless pot of cash!

Now, is 0.5B realistic? Well UK GDP was £1453 Bn last year. So if every day generates equal value that is approx 4 Bn per day (since it a week day it is probably more). I would suggest if a significant proportion of public sector workers going on a coordinated strike for a day with the objective of maximum disruption, doesn't impact the GDP by at least 10% then there's possibly a lot of people we don't need - now that could really save the country money.

Some figures were suggesting that the snow last year cost the economy £1.2 Bn a day, and presumably the Unions' aim is for maximum disruption to public services to make a point. So whilst the unions continue their power struggle they might want to remember they are only about 1/3rd as effective as a few flakes of frozen water!

So using the Ford Prefect argument for the construction workers to not knock down Arthur Dent's house. If we assume the strike will go ahead the cost UK be £500M, instead H R Gov accept this, stick the £0.5B in to the Public sector pension fund and jobs a good un.

Simplest and the Government actually came up with the solution! Who'd have think it?

I would suggest the alternative proposal: every day you strike "we" take 0.5B out of the pot... ...having given you the best offer and you are now damaging the economy! That would focus a few minds on the fact there isn't some giant endless pot of cash!

Now, is 0.5B realistic? Well UK GDP was £1453 Bn last year. So if every day generates equal value that is approx 4 Bn per day (since it a week day it is probably more). I would suggest if a significant proportion of public sector workers going on a coordinated strike for a day with the objective of maximum disruption, doesn't impact the GDP by at least 10% then there's possibly a lot of people we don't need - now that could really save the country money.

Some figures were suggesting that the snow last year cost the economy £1.2 Bn a day, and presumably the Unions' aim is for maximum disruption to public services to make a point. So whilst the unions continue their power struggle they might want to remember they are only about 1/3rd as effective as a few flakes of frozen water!

[img] [/img]

I would suggest the alternative proposal: every day you strike "we" take 0.5B out of the pot... ...having given you the best offer and [b]you[/b] are now damaging the economy! That would focus a few minds on the fact there isn't some giant endless pot of cash!

Is it really that hard to grasp that in a dispute between two parties [b]both[/b] are equally responsible for any losses to the country. To just blame the public sector workers shows a complete bias in you thinking.

having given you the best offer

I think you'll find that the unions don't want any offer, they want things as they are.

If we assume the strike will go ahead the cost UK be £500M

opposition propaganda.. plain and simple.. 90% of any political issue these days is fought by using propaganda to sway public opinion..

what a load of bolleaux

what a load of bolleaux

Is that some kind of Belgian cake?

In the scheme of things £500m isn't all that big a deal

£500m? Doesn't that represent about half a millisecond of Greek interest payments?

Just have your strike. Its OK.

Is that Ernie's cat?

I think you'll find that the unions don't want any offer, they want things as they are.

<wotz he on about?>

Of course another way of looking at it is to think that that £500 M of productivity isn't "lost" at all - it's just delayed for a day.

What we need is a general strike to force the government to legislate to properly deal with the the biggest issues - public sector pensions are wee niggles compared to the issues in the whole economy. Pensions are more easily paid in a strong economy - ignoring population demographics for a moment.

I am more militant about the bonds between business and politics crippling democracy, than just about any other subject under the sun.

Of course another way of looking at it is to think that that £500 M of productivity isn't "lost" at all - it's just delayed for a day.

that is lost over the course of the year though, as the next day's productivity is 'lost' and so on. Unless everyone's going to come in on a saturday and make the time up, I think lost is a pretty good description..

fwiw, my other half is going on strike, as she just fancies an (unpaid) day off

If we can keep this hot until the Olympics start, a few well timed strike days then could be interesting.

what a load of bolleaux

Is that some kind of Belgian cake?

that is lost over the course of the year though, as the next day's productivity is 'lost' and so on. Unless everyone's going to come in on a saturday and make the time up, I think lost is a pretty good description..

So what is it that is "lost" then?

What do you think will happen other than some figures in some accounts being slightly different?

Do you think that people will go hungry because of it, or become homeless?

Most of our industry is regulated by demand, not supply - we can make plenty stuff without much bother, which is why there isn't much money in it.

The only things that in short supply are services (health, education etc) because they can only be provided by people, largely in the public sector.

Alas, we currently have a Govt that sees the provision of services not for their own sake, but as a potential revenue stream for their mates in private industry. The real agenda is that they want to do their very best to deskill and cheapen services prior to selling them off in order to secure the highest profits for future private providers.

Obvious.

well every person who's striking is getting their pay docked by a day. lets say that's an average of £100 per person. That money then won't be spent on christmas presents, or whatever, so a bunch of shops have lower takings.

Yes, its all very slight, but for every scenario theres a 'straw that breaks the camels back'. Will it make a difference to me? no, but it could make a difference to some people.

using your logic you could claim it doesn't matter when a country is in recession, as we've all got an excess of everything anyway..

[b]MSP[/b]Is it really that hard to grasp that in a dispute between two parties both are equally responsible for any losses to the country. To just blame the public sector workers shows a complete bias in you thinking.

I'm really not sure what the Unions consider to be a viable alternative - since the "status quo" is clearly not on the table. Perhaps they would like to keep the status quo and loose a stack of jobs as a better way of saving money?

I don't profess to being a pension buff or an expert at picking our the reality from the propaganda - but prima facie a 1/60th scheme based on Average salary would seem to benefit a big proportion of the public sector (the 'grafters doing the work') whilst penalising the fat cats who finish their careers on high salaries. I'm not sure why the Unions are quite so opposed to a model which actually redresses the balance in favour of those lower down the scale. However I wasn't really looking for an argument on pensions. I'm just amazed that on the one hand "public sector workers" claim to be critical to the effectiveness of the country and the other the seem astonished that a day designed to cause disruption would actually affect the country.

every person who's striking is getting their pay docked by a day. lets say that's an average of £100 per person. That money then won't be spent on christmas presents, or whatever, so a bunch of shops have lower takings.

Well using your logic I would say that Britain can't afford to have low paid public sector workers.

Nor can Britain afford to have retired public sector workers on low pensions....maintain their purchasing power !!!

[url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/roubini43/English ]The Instability of Inequality[/url]

[img] [/img]

well every person who's striking is getting their pay docked by a day. lets say that's an average of £100 per person.

Someone in a completely different part of the country told me he was "refusing to tell his boss if he was striking or not" so he couldn't do the payroll in time for the end of the month to dock his wages, and will probably forget about it in December. The implication was his boss was also going on strike and they were complicit in this...

Well using your logic I would say that Britain can't afford to have low paid public sector workers.

Nor can Britain afford to have retired public sector workers on low pensions....maintain their purchasing power !!!

Apparently, at the local schools if they don't strike they have to turn up at school and they will be found work to do. which seems fair..

Apparently, at the local schools if they don't strike they have to turn up at school and they will be found work to do. which seems fair..

Your vast misunderstanding of what it might be like to be a teacher comes shining through.

It's not like working in a pie factory. You don't just stop at 3 p.m. and go home. Every teacher I know does loads of hours outside of school anyway. Teachers don't need to be "found work" - they are largely self directed and highly motivated. I don't suppose many will be bothered either way whether they have to be at the school or not, but I'm sure that plenty (even those on strike) will be using at least some of the time for planning or marking.