Public Sector Strikes

[Gerrard]

The thing is, I've never seen anyone present a sensible, workable alternative to the proposals.

....

Got a better idea? Spit it out then!

That grinds my gears as well!


However, that well may be the media's fault or mine for not researching it in more depth.

It's what confuses me about the Greeks protesting about the austerity cuts. Erm, the country is broke, wth else do you think they can do? (Although, they could just be protesting about the incompetence of their Government, in which case, fair point)

[roachcoach]

@Saracen: Pretty much, although that's what they're currently going mental about.

It absolutely does suck, but there's not really any viable alternative....which has been tabled yet. Imo there are alternatives, but the fearless leaders are too scared to do it. I won't detail here for a derail but I'm pretty sure most people could work out a couple of methods to raise cash.



edit:

It's what confuses me about the Greeks protesting about the austerity cuts. Erm, the country is broke, wth else do you think they can do? (Although, they could just be protesting about the incompetence of their Government, in which case, fair point)

I didn't quite get that either. Gov has no money, lets BREAK STUFF! That'll show them!

[Saracen]

....

It's what confuses me about the Greeks protesting about the austerity cuts. Erm, the country is broke, wth else do you think they can do? (Although, they could just be protesting about the incompetence of their Government, in which case, fair point)

Here's one way to look at it.

Suppose you are badly in debt. The bank has torn up your credit card, the mortgage company is repossessing your home, and you've got a huge stack of "final demand" bills, notifications of impending court action and the bailiffs at your door, daily.

Now .... a loan shark comes along and offers you enough to pay your bills for a few weeks. Is it doing it in your best interests? Will you end up not only owing the money you originally owed, but he'll be charging you 2000% interest, and has a bunch of bruisers with iron bars that are only too prepared to break your legs if you don't pay.

Perhaps, a better option would be just to refuse to pay the banks etc, and to go to court and declare bankruptcy. Yes, times are going to be hard, and yes, it'll be a long time (if ever) before you can borrow money again. But the first rule of getting out of a hole is .... stop digging.

If the Greek people think their problems will all just magically go away by refusing to take these austerity steps, and that things will go back to a comfortable free life, then they're living on cloud-cuckoo land, and are terminally stupid.

But I think what they're really saying is that further bailouts from the EU/IMF is in the EU and world economy's interests, not theirs, and that they really are aware that they're in a big hole, but object to the continued digging.

I think they're saying that their current system is really in a total mess, but it's better to clean up a bad mess than deal with an utter disaster, which is what they see further loans as. They know they have to declare bankruptcy, but don't want their government taking loans from the EU loan shark.

[badass]

The thing is, I've never seen anyone present a sensible, workable alternative to the proposals.

Everybody seems to want everyone else but them to pay.

Painful? Absolutely
Necessary? Absolutely
Got a better idea? Spit it out then!

Couldn't agree more.

The crux of most of these trade unionist arguments seems to be that in real terms they are getting pay and pension cuts.
Focussing on the pay for now, their proposed rises are less than inflation so they get poorer overall. Effectively they have become accustomed to a certain quility of life and they don't want to see that reduced. That's understandable.
However I don't remember these same unions rejecting the above inflation pay rises they have been getting for the last 15 odd years. They were moaning about not getting as much of a pay rise as the private sector and managed to secure above inflation pay rises. The same private sector that is getting pay cuts in real terms currently.
If they had focussed on inflation only when the economy was doing well, their overally pay right now would be lower even if they got inflation matching pay rises for now. If they focussed on private sector pay only, then they should be seeing these effective pay cuts.
They keep picking single metrics to argue their point and change the metric every time it goes against them. They are no better than MP's and their pathetic excuses that profession XYZ got a pay rise when they didn't, so they were told they were allowed to abuse the expenses. Except instead of dishonestly claiming pay, they are trying to hold the country to ransom to force the pay through.
I do not support any of these strikes at all. In fact, I hope all of the strikers lose their jobs and are forced to actually work for a living rather than do the public servant version of working.

[badass]

Here's one way to look at it. <snip>

I think that a lot of the protesters and people calling for Greece to default fast don't realise is that if greece defaults, it can no longer run a budget deficit as they can't borrow money from anywhere. That will be far worse for them in the short term than the currently proposed austerity measures. In the medium to log term it's arguable which is best for the greeks but the average person isn't looking at the long term at all any way.

[TheAnimus]

Here's one way to look at it.

Suppose you are badly in debt. The bank has torn up your credit card, the mortgage company is repossessing your home, and you've got a huge stack of "final demand" bills, notifications of impending court action and the bailiffs at your door, daily.

Now .... a loan shark comes along and offers you enough to pay your bills for a few weeks. Is it doing it in your best interests? Will you end up not only owing the money you originally owed, but he'll be charging you 2000% interest, and has a bunch of bruisers with iron bars that are only too prepared to break your legs if you don't pay.

Damn, I'm going to take my own thread OT!

Its not a fair comparison, at all, in fact the loan shark is offering to provide a short term refinancing for less than some of the interest your already paying. Because the main loan shark has a vested interest in not letting you go completely under.

And if its right to stop digging? Well that is an interesting issue, which I think we've already had a thread on recently...

I think they're saying that their current system is really in a total mess, but it's better to clean up a bad mess than deal with an utter disaster, which is what they see further loans as. They know they have to declare bankruptcy, but don't want their government taking loans from the EU loan shark.

I don't think so, I think far too many are having the "anyone but me" attitude, tax evasion has risen in the last year, they are suggesting cutting taxes as the main popular argument, as many feel the imposed levels are too high, hence why they don't pay. As someone who believes in a flat rate model I can see their POV a little.

But my understanding, based on one greek person showing me news articles is that most people are angry about the situation in an unconstructive manner, its just venting, a lot of them have already lost their jobs and have nothing to do.

[kalniel]

They are not thou. Find any company that gives 50,000 employees defined benefit?

I can't see it. The suggestion that its the effect of having a lower pay doesn't make sense in this context either because ultimately general taxation is making up the pension fund, and as on median average public sector workers are better paid than private sector that is just incredibly wrong imo.

Yep it is the comparable total renumeration that we debated before - regardless of legal constraint imposed by a contract, the pension arrangements were part of people's reasons to take public sector jobs, just as improved hear and now salary are part of other people's reasons to take private sector jobs. There's free market transfer between the two, so one can't complain about higher salaries in private sector as it's open to be worked in as well, likewise one can't complain about higher pensions in public sector from a point of unfair renumeration when it's also open to be worked in as well.

its running a massive defecit, the report merely suggested we can continue to pay interest on that I thought..... That is not considered affordability in a private sector....

It was chosen to be run that way - one of the strikers points is that there are many things you can cut to change the way the budget is organised, and I think whatsits report was suggesting that the current pensions are affordable (but see my earlier point about that not being an excuse not to look for further savings).

As Saracen said, Gordo made them swallow a silly bank, now these little guys are going to loose out.

These little guys that we pay for? You cited it as an example of private sector loosing out - I'm suggesting it's an example of public sector loosing out again, given who owns them

Of course, striking now is a little odd, but I guess they wanted to pre-empt the summer holiday when it'd be a little less effective

[oolon]

They know they have to declare bankruptcy, but don't want their government taking loans from the EU loan shark.

Thanks for that I now have a picture of Angela Merkel with a crowbar going... where is my money?... give me my money...

AGH!

[TheAnimus]

Yep it is the comparable total renumeration that we debated before - regardless of legal constraint imposed by a contract, the pension arrangements were part of people's reasons to take public sector jobs, just as improved hear and now salary are part of other people's reasons to take private sector jobs. There's free market transfer between the two, so one can't complain about higher salaries in private sector as it's open to be worked in as well, likewise one can't complain about higher pensions in public sector from a point of unfair renumeration when it's also open to be worked in as well.

No they aren't directly comparable, because quite simply a defined benefit vs a defined contrabution is a risk, the risk has a varying price which has been shown historically to be very wrong. Then we have the old efficiency issue, a good example is BA, they are loosing ground hand over fist to other airlines, if I'm going East, Cathy hands down, their economy is better than BA club for service and staff attention. But I digress, the point is BA is loosing because they are inefficient. They also happen to pay their staff more, and provide more staff on their planes, but it never shows. This is a reason why BA are loosing out hand over first. You then have the lower cost ones collecting their business.

When a public sector worker is overpaid and under-productive, there is no 'natural' reduction going on. As such I'm sure its a case of how we pick and choose examples. Public sector teachers earn considerably more than most private sector, the argument being the the kids are harder to work with etc. My aunt considered it retirement going to the private as a teacher.

These little guys that we pay for? You cited it as an example of private sector loosing out - I'm suggesting it's an example of public sector loosing out again, given who owns them

No we don't, we have a share in the bank, which has gone up, thats the limit of our involvement. They are private sector workers, and they've been cut, because quite frankly as a company they desperately need to.

[roachcoach]

Oh one detail oft overlooked about Ltsb these days is this:

Some 40k jobs gone, but they've not hit the branches yet, just wait until that happens!

Edit: Also, the majority of [staff] losses are not coming from the Lloyd staffing side.

[kalniel]

When a public sector worker is overpaid and under-productive, there is no 'natural' reduction going on.

I'm not sure what you mean - I don't have experience of every type of contract, but the public sector jobs I've had have been as much performance related as the private sector ones.

As such I'm sure its a case of how we pick and choose examples. Public sector teachers earn considerably more than most private sector, the argument being the the kids are harder to work with etc. My aunt considered it retirement going to the private as a teacher.

And yet there is a chronic shortage of public sector teachers. Shouldn't we pay people according to demand in the public sector as well as the private sector?

[planet436]

What annoys me is the screaming right-wing media (Times and Telegraph I'm looking at you) which blatantly misinterprets pension data. There are claims of 500k pension pots going around under defined contribution schemes which are usually calculated at a staggering 7% annual rate of return assumption. Further, arguing on affordability is disingenuous since the projected benefit payments as a % of gdp is projected to decrease over the next 30-40 years, see here.

By all means argue over the 'fairness' of tax payers contributing to public sector pensions but some of the arguments being bandied around out there are wrong. This article by Ben Goldacre is a bit old but good reading nonetheless link.

[oolon]

I would be interested to know what the graph is exactly of. For example does it take into account, the length of time people are living and also, does not take into account the fact we will need more teachers if we increase in population. As also read somewhere that the "affordability" was if we could afford to service the debt it produced which seemed a bit strange, think I heard that on today as well.

From the fairness angle it is complex, the tax player should be contributing something because they are the "employer", also as the money as not be "invested", it could be argued that the tax payer should also make up for the fact, or it should be invested by the government (they would claim it has been ... ie in UK Plc).

I think however if Kainiel is right, if there is the a storage of teachers we need to attract more, one of the ways of doing this is buy paying more and offering an attractive package to them. This is an example of why all public sector workers should not be treated the same. So I think perhaps the fight with teachers is the wrong one to have.

[oolon]

It's what confuses me about the Greeks protesting about the austerity cuts. Erm, the country is broke, wth else do you think they can do? (Although, they could just be protesting about the incompetence of their Government, in which case, fair point)

I always loved the irony of an good riot, your smashing the place up... in fact you are smashing YOUR place up, who exactly do you think will be paying for all that damage? The government... right thats you... The insurance companies... right thats also you..... businesses... yup they will get the money back from you in salary and prices changes.... Doh! The final option is of course no one, in which case, enjoy your new home.

[Unique]

Yep it is the comparable total renumeration that we debated before - regardless of legal constraint imposed by a contract, the pension arrangements were part of people's reasons to take public sector jobs, just as improved hear and now salary are part of other people's reasons to take private sector jobs. There's free market transfer between the two, so one can't complain about higher salaries in private sector as it's open to be worked in as well, likewise one can't complain about higher pensions in public sector from a point of unfair renumeration when it's also open to be worked in as well.

pension arrangements may be why some people took those jobs, but i think it's not the case for the vast majority

and some of the people in question aren't paid badly at all. teachers can get pretty decent wages compared to what many people get. so as well as a decent wage they get a decent pension. so they aren't getting much sympathy from those paid less with less or no pension

and someone mentioned minimum sick pay entitlement earlier, but his employer is actually paying more than minimum. minimum is no pay for the first 3 qualifying days, then SSP. it sounds like your employer is paying full pay from day one to day 6, which isn't bad at all as most absences are for one or two days, a week max

[oolon]

it sounds like your employer is paying full pay from day one to day 6, which isn't bad at all as most absences are for one or two days, a week max

No... you miss understand that is 6 days a year total. Thats 6 lots of 1 day or 3 lots of 2 etc. They do however accrue from year to year. I think that is actually what most people misunderstand about sick days and what employers HAVE to pay, is not the first X days.