Strikes; why?

[Timbuk2]

Yesterday saw the largest public sector strike the UK has had in many years.





29 unions were involved. Unions claim that 2 million people took part in industrial action, though that number seems too high.

In numbers;

Schools and colleges
Thousands of schools across the UK closed, or partially closed, for the day. Some 62% of the 21,476 schools in England closed, with a further 14% partially shut, the Department for Education has said. In Scotland around 98% of schools shut, according to local authority body, Cosla. Some 86% of schools in Wales reportedly closed. More than 50% of Northern Ireland schools closed

Hospitals and health
The strike hit non-urgent NHS care. Just under 7,000 of around 30,000 routine operations cancelled or postponed across the UK. Tens of thousands of routine appointments cancelled or postponed. NHS aiming to ensure patients needing critical treatment such as dialysis will be seen. Ambulance staff are on strike but will still answer 999 calls. The London Ambulance Service says it is under severe pressure.

Local councils and services
Around 32% of council employees in England and Wales were not in work, equating to around 670,000 staff, according to the Local Government Association. Council offices, libraries, community centres, museums, leisure centres, car parks closed or partially closed. Around 15% of driving tests in England were cancelled. Refuse and recycling collections affected.

Airports and border control
Heathrow and Gatwick largely unaffected. Some immigration desks manned by home office staff and trained police. Minimal disruption reported at other UK airports, many airlines offering free flight changes to reduce passenger numbers.
Staff from services company Serco on standby to man border control points.

Civil Service
Less than one third of civil servants went on strike, the Cabinet Office said. The FDA union includes tax inspectors, special advisers, government lawyers, crown prosecutors and diplomats.
Some court proceedings could be delayed or disrupted.
Weather forecasters from the Met Office are backing the strike, though emergency cover for aviation, shipping and defence is in place.


Ostensibly, the strike is over pension changes.

In summary;

The government wants most public sector workers to:

• Pay more into their pensions
• Work for longer
• Accept a pension based on a "career average" salary, rather than the final salary arrangement which many are currently on
• The government says the cost of funding public sector pensions is "unsustainable" as people are living longer
• Unions say the proposals will leave members paying more and working longer for less

~

How does going on strike help, in any way whatsoever?

The government cannot afford bloated public sector pensions any longer - they're unsustainable. Changes are needed.

Going on strike, shutting down public services, putting the strained economy under further strain, seems like just so much self-foot-shoot to me.

Everyone is affected by the economic downturn - most people are having to tighten purse strings and that includes the government. Public spending must be reduced so that the climate can be weathered and survived.

Striking pisses everyone off. It derails any modicum of sympathy anyone may have for people affected by pension reform.

It does fuck all for anyone.

So the only thing I can think is that it's just ranting? Showing the world that you're angry about your slightly more expensive pension? Pfff.

[Wraith]

How does going on strike help, in any way whatsoever?

The government cannot afford bloated public sector pensions any longer - they're unsustainable. Changes are needed.

Going on strike, shutting down public services, putting the strained economy under further strain, seems like just so much self-foot-shoot to me.

Everyone is affected by the economic downturn - most people are having to tighten purse strings and that includes the government. Public spending must be reduced so that the climate can be weathered and survived.

Striking pisses everyone off. It derails any modicum of sympathy anyone may have for people affected by pension reform.

It does fuck all for anyone.

So the only thing I can think is that it's just ranting? Showing the world that you're angry about your slightly more expensive pension? Pfff.

Striking can help and be a good idea. In fact, I'd say that the reasons for this one are far from the worst I've seen. That dubious honor would have to go to the some of the strikes that Greece and, further back, France saw - "The economy sucks and we're going to make it worse until it gets better!" These people are at least striking for something that they might reasonably expect to get.

On the face of it, your government's plan appears to be fairly reasonable. There's a reason pensions have mostly disappeared from the private sector. Making large financial commitments that extend past your ability to make financial forecasts and last for an indeterminate amount of time is a bad idea. The more you go around making such promises the bigger the fall you're setting yourself up for. I'll admit to not knowing much about UK pension plans, but the US government pension plans are extremely generous, and if yours are anything like ours, it makes sense to dial them back a bit.

[wiggin]

Presumably, they hope to demonstrate that they can make life miserable enough for everybody that public opinion will force a reevaluation of some of the proposed changes. More charitably, one might argue that by demonstrating how important their jobs are to the normal functioning of society, the public will be moved to accept more generous pensions for them.

I get the point of striking; I just don't happen to agree that they should demand anything more from the government which has made badly needed and fairly reasonable changes to the system.

edit: I do have to say that I kinda understand why public pensions exist. Without some 'floor' defined benefit system, people are taking all of the longevity risk (and market risk) on themselves. That opens a lot of people up to being dirt poor when they're very old. On the flip side, it probably encourages oversaving as people who don't want to be poor if they live longer than planned end up consuming less than they could have otherwise. So some income 'floor' in retirement isn't a bad idea. This can be done with annuities (though you're always subject to the risk that the company you buy it from will go under), but a much safer bet is a government guarantee that averages out the longevity risks. So I get pensions in general, though obviously it needs to be very carefully implemented (and raising retirement ages periodically is an obvious cost saving move). It's just that often people get unreasonable about pensions and feel entitled to a comfortable retirement from those pensions alone.

[RandBlade]

The highly amusing thing is that the shambolic immigration staff went on strike at border controls like at Heathrowe etc - the union warned it'd take 12 hours to get through border control as a result of the strike, though it normally takes a while lately anyway.

Volunteers and military staff replaced them without much training, as a result the delays were - negative. Travellers being interviewed on the news all said that they were moving much swifter and faster than normal.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't that to be expected?

[Flixy]

Presumably, they hope to demonstrate that they can make life miserable enough for everybody that public opinion will force a reevaluation of some of the proposed changes. More charitably, one might argue that by demonstrating how important their jobs are to the normal functioning of society, the public will be moved to accept more generous pensions for them.

That's my thoughts, too. I don't know the specifics in this case, so I don't know whether the unions actually have a point (sure, austerity is needed, and cuts are needed, but I don't know if they are being hit too hard). As long as strikes remain a last resort (after talks have failed) and they have a reasonable position they want to achieve with the strike, I'm not all against it.

Luckily, our proposed strikes for public transportation in the big cities has been postponed because talks have been resumed

[wiggin]

The highly amusing thing is that the shambolic immigration staff went on strike at border controls like at Heathrowe etc - the union warned it'd take 12 hours to get through border control as a result of the strike, though it normally takes a while lately anyway.

Volunteers and military staff replaced them without much training, as a result the delays were - negative. Travellers being interviewed on the news all said that they were moving much swifter and faster than normal.

Well, a lot of this might have to do with fewer people flying to Heathrow; my wife's company does a lot of transatlantic travel, and I spoke to a number of people this week who changed their travel plans so they wouldn't have to fly to Heathrow on Wednesday.

There's also the possibility that immigration control was either beefed up with more replacement staff than usual, or they were laxer (and thus faster) than usual - which is a bit of a hot-button issue in the UK currently, I understand due to some scandal in the Home Office. Not saying this is true, but it's a very possible explanation.

[Ominous Gamer]

Planes coming into Heathrow were also told to fly half full.

[Hazir]

Striking can help and be a good idea. In fact, I'd say that the reasons for this one are far from the worst I've seen. That dubious honor would have to go to the some of the strikes that Greece and, further back, France saw - "The economy sucks and we're going to make it worse until it gets better!" These people are at least striking for something that they might reasonably expect to get.

On the face of it, your government's plan appears to be fairly reasonable. There's a reason pensions have mostly disappeared from the private sector. Making large financial commitments that extend past your ability to make financial forecasts and last for an indeterminate amount of time is a bad idea. The more you go around making such promises the bigger the fall you're setting yourself up for. I'll admit to not knowing much about UK pension plans, but the US government pension plans are extremely generous, and if yours are anything like ours, it makes sense to dial them back a bit.

Interesting you say these people have got something reasonable to strike for but Greeks are unreasonable because they strike after being upset over actual pay cuts.

I was surprised at what a sweet deal these civil servants get in the UK. It should be as clear to them as it is to me that their pension rights need to be clipped in order for the sustainability of the system.

Where I work - at the moment - you at least have to work untill you're 62, but they are steadily moving up that age limit and your pension is based on the years you have paid contribution and an average of the income you had over those years (with compensation for inflation).

[Wraith]

Interesting you say these people have got something reasonable to strike for but Greeks are unreasonable because they strike after being upset over actual pay cuts.

I did make sure that I added that qualifier because not all of the Greek strikers were just being complete idiots, but I do remember some strikes that were reported on early on that didn't seem to be demanding anything they could possibly get.

[Lewkowski]

They strike because they are mad that they don't get to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Too high benefits of public sector employees = theft from taxpayers.

[Asmodian]

Seems natural to me, maybe not logical but natural. These people have a deal they provide certain needed services are compensated probably at below private sector levels in exchange they get a greater degree of job security as well as retirement benefits. It is quite natural when one side renegades on the deal, no matter how reasonable its justification is, for the other side to be outraged. The fair approach would have been to offer the new deal to new hires to public sector but I suppose goverment can not afford it. But I don't see why its so surprising a group of people is being asked to sacrifice for the good of all, and the figure heads asking to sacrifice are usualy financialy better of then they are.

[RandBlade]

The life expectancy of a 60 year old today is 10 years longer than the life expectancy of a 60 year old in the 1970s but retirement age has not changed (has been 65 since the 40s in fact).

By one definition*, people could be asked to retire at 75 instead of 65 and the "deal" would be the same.

*Looking at expected years of retirement benefits, not simply age.

[Steely Glint]

Mostly in the anti-strike camp here, but I'd be dead curious to see a poll of the general publics view to see which side is carrying the argument.

[RandBlade]

I bet that it depends upon how the question is phrased, but you could get most people blaming both sides and happy with neither.

Anti-strike personally obviously.

[GGT]

The life expectancy of a 60 year old today is 10 years longer than the life expectancy of a 60 year old in the 1970s but retirement age has not changed (has been 65 since the 40s in fact).

By one definition*, people could be asked to retire at 75 instead of 65 and the "deal" would be the same.

*Looking at expected years of retirement benefits, not simply age.

But that doesn't reflect the year(s) their contracts were negotiated and legally sealed. Like it or not, this boils down to legal employment contracts. Today's employers want to be released from their previous contractual promises, while employees want to enforce those contractual promises. These are legal issues, only recently deemed political, when it involves any tax payer/public money...or subsidy.

[RandBlade]

That's ridiculous - how can public sector employees be considered as not having been regarded politically?

This is. It an issue with private sector employees or employers. Even the new law would be better that private sector contracts.

[GGT]

That's ridiculous - how can public sector employees be considered as not having been regarded politically?

This is. It an issue with private sector employees or employers. Even the new law would be better that private sector contracts.

What?

[RandBlade]

What?

This is about public sector employees only. Private sector employees are worse-off than public sector ones currently - and worse than their new (and still very generous) offer.

[Timbuk2]

UNISON are in uproar and demanding Clarkson's head over this ...

[RandBlade]

Jeremy Clarkson is great.

Have you been insulted by Jeremy Clarkson? call Insultlawyers4U. Our team of dedicated legal experts will soon get you back on your feet after such a traumatic and shocking experience. Judy: I was watching Top Gear when Jeremy Clarkson insulted chavs. I called Insultlawyers4u and was awarded enough money to buy a belly button ring and more weed than I could smoke in a year! thanks Insultlawyers4u!
Call Insultlawyers4U on 555-getoverittwats.

[Hazir]

They strike because they are mad that they don't get to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Too high benefits of public sector employees = theft from taxpayers.

I could care more about that argument if the socalled mouth pieces of 'the tax-payers' would really have optimal government as their target. I doubt that very much.

Seems natural to me, maybe not logical but natural. These people have a deal they provide certain needed services are compensated probably at below private sector levels in exchange they get a greater degree of job security as well as retirement benefits. It is quite natural when one side renegades on the deal, no matter how reasonable its justification is, for the other side to be outraged. The fair approach would have been to offer the new deal to new hires to public sector but I suppose goverment can not afford it. But I don't see why its so surprising a group of people is being asked to sacrifice for the good of all, and the figure heads asking to sacrifice are usualy financialy better of then they are.

You know, that almost sounds right, if it weren't for the fact that the two sides striking a deal were pretty much doing so out of the paycheck of a third party that wasn't around yet when the deal was made. Now that the third party is coming to understand what has been agreed upon; basically, that they pay for someone else to get a better pension deal than they themselves can ever hope for, they are throwing down the gauntlet. And they are right to do so.

This is about public sector employees only. Private sector employees are worse-off than public sector ones currently - and worse than their new (and still very generous) offer.

Well, maybe 'you' should consider scrapping the entire idea of a 'Civil service' and outsource what can be outsourced. In most countries I personally would be a tenured civil servant, doing the job I do. Here in Holland I am technically working in the private sector with a job-security that lasts as long as there is work for me. Every year I, and all my collegues are waiting for the new budget and formation numbers. There have been times I was seriously surprised when I got the news I would still have a job the following year.

[RandBlade]

Well, maybe 'you' should consider scrapping the entire idea of a 'Civil service' and outsource what can be outsourced. In most countries I personally would be a tenured civil servant, doing the job I do. Here in Holland I am technically working in the private sector with a job-security that lasts as long as there is work for me. Every year I, and all my collegues are waiting for the new budget and formation numbers. There have been times I was seriously surprised when I got the news I would still have a job the following year.

That sounds good to me.

[Hazir]

Just happened to see a letter from one of the unions to its members about pensions. A long technical letter about possible ways of dealing with the effects of the financial crisis and on the long term problems with the present system. Even though they (obviously) think the company should cough up the difference in funding they admit that it is necessary to reform the system in such a way that it is sustainable in the longer run, including raising the retirement age over time.

Meaning they are taking a rather matter-of-fact approach to the negotiations.

[ImAnOgre]

Planes coming into Heathrow were also told to fly half full.

Source please? Not that I'm skeptical, but you just can't take an international flight and say, cancel half the seats.... it's just not feasible.

And as NYC to LHR is the largest commercial passenger international market, me thinks this is probably an exaggeration.

[RandBlade]

Agreed, it wouldn't surprise me if some people were switching by their own choice - and I do believe the airlines were allowing people to switch dates at no cost, but I do find it hard to believe that they'd cancel half the seats. That'd force a load of people who'd already booked it to suffer.

As far as I know, I believe London Heathrowe is the worlds' busiest airport (London is definitely the worlds most congested airspace), so to just slash half is a major impact.

[Timbuk2]

Largest number of passengers served annually is at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Atlanta.
Hartsfield-Jackson also has the most aircraft movements annually.

Largest number of international passengers served annually is indeed Heathrow.

London's Gatwick has the world's busiest single-use runway.

[rumrunner]

They strike because they are mad that they don't get to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Too high benefits of public sector employees = theft from taxpayers.

That seems to be the point, Defining what is too high. When you're the taxpayer that number would tend to be lower than if you were the person who worked hard, risked life and limb in some cases, to the benefit of society for all or most of your life. I agree that changes and sacrifices must be made. Not sure if the proposed changes in this instance are unreasonable.

[earthJoker]

It actually suprises me that the UK still has a civil servant status. Aren't you supposed to be Europeans shiny example of a liberal job market?