View Poll Results: Should public unions be allowed?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they should be allowed

    18 69.23%
  • No, they should not be allowed

    7 26.92%
  • Abstain

    1 3.85%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

  1. #1
    Earl Dibbles Jr's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    On a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to know.
    Posts
    1,526

    Default Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)



    A scene that has been all too common in recent years. Government unions on strike. Who exactly are they striking against? You, the people.

    If you don't have a grasp on Union history or what Unions are, they're basically groups of workers that are banded together to ensure that their employer doesn't take advantage of them. This system usually involves employees giving amounts of their paycheck to whatever Union they're a part of to ensure that they aren't abused (which, ironically, tends to backfire and lead to Unions abusing their members, but that's for a different thread). This makes sense in terms of the Private sector, since there's actually a set person or small group of people that run the business and are responsible for wages and work environment. But the public sector is tax money. Your tax money. There is no fat cat sitting in his chair smoking a cigar behind his desk in this sector, just you and the Government.

    Unions should not be allowed in the public sector. The money that goes to them comes from tax money, not free market money. The amount they get paid correlates with the amount of tax money that the general population is willing to give up. By allowing them to Unionize and strike, you're allowing them to take money from Towns, Cities, and States that need the money for other services. Allowing them to strike and raise their wages ludicrously also leads to many services not having enough supplies and having to cut a lot of programs.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MrZanyGaming View Post
    There is no fat cat sitting in his chair smoking a cigar behind his desk in this sector, just you and the Government.
    No, there is. Its the fat-cat that donated millions in campaign funds. That fat-cat will always want lower government wages because:

    1) lower wages > less taxes
    2) the government is always going to be one of the largest employers. Their wages have an effect on the wages in the private industry.
    Last edited by Braindead Colonel; July 06, 2014 at 05:00 AM.

  3. #3
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Speaking as a citizen whose country is regularly crippled by public sector unions going on strike, I'll say that I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be unions for public sector jobs. The state can be as fair or as unfair to its workers as the private sector can be, and so they should have the means address their grievances. Unfortunately in Greece, public sector unions are simply out of control and regularly blackmail the government and the citizenry at large, which is why there should be some way of limiting their influence especially when going on strike.

  4. #4
    Earl Dibbles Jr's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    On a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to know.
    Posts
    1,526

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Braindead Colonel View Post
    No, there is. Its the fat-cat that donated millions in campaign funds. That fat-cat will always want lower government wages because:

    1) lower wages > less taxes
    2) the government is always going to be one of the largest employers. Their wages have an effect on the wages in the private industry.
    1) Less taxes is better for the general population...
    2) The Government is beaten routinely by private companies in almost everything, yet they continue to 'compete' simply because of how many people they employ (guilt tripping people). Public Unions are contributing to the growing gap between Private and Public companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    Speaking as a citizen whose country is regularly crippled by public sector unions going on strike, I'll say that I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be unions for public sector jobs. The state can be as fair or as unfair to its workers as the private sector can be, and so they should have the means address their grievances. Unfortunately in Greece, public sector unions are simply out of control and regularly blackmail the government and the citizenry at large, which is why there should be some way of limiting their influence especially when going on strike.
    Public workers being paid too much was a huge factor in your country's economic collapse so I don't see how you could possibly side against getting rid of something that contributed to it.

  5. #5
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    I'm against removing unions altogether, but wouldn't mind seeing measures to limit their power. In any case, it wasn't the unions which caused the wages and benefits to get out of control, but successive governments and their populism.

  6. #6
    Earl Dibbles Jr's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    On a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to know.
    Posts
    1,526

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    It could be easily argued that Unions were a huge contributor to the rising wages in the public sector for Greece.

  7. #7
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Braindead Colonel View Post
    No, there is. Its the fat-cat that donated millions in campaign funds. That fat-cat will always want lower government wages because:

    1) lower wages > less taxes
    2) the government is always going to be one of the largest employers. Their wages have an effect on the wages in the private industry.
    lol By the logic of no1 they can just keep on employing and they'll always get more money because more wages > more taxes!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    Speaking as a citizen whose country is regularly crippled by public sector unions going on strike, I'll say that I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be unions for public sector jobs. The state can be as fair or as unfair to its workers as the private sector can be, and so they should have the means address their grievances. Unfortunately in Greece, public sector unions are simply out of control and regularly blackmail the government and the citizenry at large, which is why there should be some way of limiting their influence especially when going on strike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    I'm against removing unions altogether, but wouldn't mind seeing measures to limit their power. In any case, it wasn't the unions which caused the wages and benefits to get out of control, but successive governments and their populism.
    I don't know the situation in Greece but here it isn't so much removing unions but the unions here control the politics and policies of the party that just finished a 13 year reign (of terror! no I mean...) and we've had a 20 year time of Labour flip flopping between breaking historic ties and moving closer with them.

    Just like Big Business in politics it is disproportionate influence and if they can they will vote themselves anything htey can.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    1) Less taxes is better for the general population...
    Not necessarly.
    Or do you think state expenditure its not relevant to the general population. If you think its not, then you live in a dream world.
    Social security aka the social state is fueled by state income.

    Public workers being paid too much was a huge factor in your country's economic collapse so I don't see how you could possibly side against getting rid of something that contributed to it.
    You are indicating a sign, not the reason...
    Or do you think weak not competitive and unbalanced economy, within the euro zone had nothing to do with it....
    i would argue the excessive public spenditure, in contrast to real economic growth, in the peripheral countries is a sympthom not the cause, in fact more of a result of this countries situations.
    Or do you think its coencidence that the crisis of soverign debt happened in several countries, at the same time, in various degrees? and its spreading troughout the EU in the form of social/political turmoil, and very high unemployement, along with allmost nonexistence GDP growth.
    Either Ireland Portugal, or Greece were very backward economicaly speaking, and as living standarts, when they entered the union, yet they were these countries that seen more growth within such short time frame then anyother in Europe, since then, i bet that is also a coencidence, also a coencidence the progessive deindustrialization had been happening in the south of Europe since they entered the EU.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; July 06, 2014 at 06:27 AM.

  9. #9
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MrZanyGaming View Post
    It could be easily argued that Unions were a huge contributor to the rising wages in the public sector for Greece.
    No, it was more a case of successive governments increasing wages, benefits in the public sector and massively increasing it by putting in their own people. The unions and the socialist government went hand in hand, but in essence the unions were just feeding off the demagoguery of the government. The government were the ones leading the charge, the unions were just along for the ride. Now the government is trying to put the public sector back in order and unions are naturally fighting back, and while at this point in the crisis they certainly have some just demands, they simply resort to extortion to get them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    I don't know the situation in Greece but here it isn't so much removing unions but the unions here control the politics and policies of the party that just finished a 13 year reign (of terror! no I mean...) and we've had a 20 year time of Labour flip flopping between breaking historic ties and moving closer with them.

    Just like Big Business in politics it is disproportionate influence and if they can they will vote themselves anything htey can.
    Well socialists and the unions were hand in hand until the socialists collapsed, and now the unions are basically relics trying to bring back the old ways, largely at the behest of Syriza, who basically speaks as though they're the new socialists and consider a bloated and overpaid public sector to be a good thing.

  10. #10
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    1) Less taxes is better for the general population...
    Unsupported assertion

    2) The Government is beaten routinely by private companies in almost everything, yet they continue to 'compete' simply because of how many people they employ (guilt tripping people). Public Unions are contributing to the growing gap between Private and Public companies.
    2 More, and the first is simply incorrect.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    lol By the logic of no1 they can just keep on employing and they'll always get more money because more wages > more taxes!
    Huh? I don't think you understood what I wrote. To reiterate:
    If wages are higher, then also taxes need to be higher, to cover the cost of wages.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrZanyGaming View Post
    1) Less taxes is better for the general population...
    Yeah... if the general population doesn't care about the quality of public schools, public libraries, national parks, army and police, firefighters, roads & bridges, health inspectors, etc... Basically the very reason why you have a government in the first place.
    Last edited by Braindead Colonel; July 06, 2014 at 08:41 AM.

  12. #12
    Count of Montesano's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    I'm a local government employee and really resent the idea that we all sit around and goof off on the taxpayer dime. From what I've seen many public employees work as hard if not harder than a lot of private sector ones. I'm just as busy from 8-5 as I was working at Microsoft, the only exception being that I no longer have a corporate overlord demanding I work 60-80 hours/week. But my productivity per hour has actually increased because I'm not super burned out and stressed about never seeing my family. In other words, if public sector employees are seen as "lazy and spoiled" it's because the private sector has gone insane and expects worker to be the equivalent of serfs.

    Getting back to the union issue, public sector unions do help protect workers in dangerous positions like firefighters, police, and to a certain extent road and repair crews. I do think there should be laws in place to prevent frivolous strikes but I'm not against collective bargaining.

  13. #13
    LoZz's Avatar who are you?
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northants, UK
    Posts
    10,021

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    as a national government employee (civil servant) i disagree.

    technically speaking its illegal for me to strike as i work in an "essential" service and like the police i am banned from doing so, however we have gone on strike
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtiaReNsHOo


    but on a serious note i disagree with what you say. private companies, at-lest in the UK, do a terrible job in running services or at best do it no worse then the public sector. they are no cheaper its just more money goes to the management and less to the troops on the ground. I will agree that so long as there isnt any bribes going about and there are alternative companies its easier to fix a failing service if its private but that's dependant on alot of things first.
    also alot of public sector employees do very important jobs that benefits you. no teachers then your kids grow up to be unemployable, no police officers to help you, no fire fighters to save you and no prison officers to keep the rapist and murderers behind bars. do these people not deserve decent working conditions and to be well paid for the risk they take to look after you? now i disagree with them being able to hold a government to ransom for excessive demanded but that's not the same as wanting to protect basic rights.

    When i went on strike illegally it was due to the fact that my pension what being made worse and i was asked to pay more in order to get less out of it and to work longer which in my job puts me at serious risk of being hurt. i didn't sign up to those conditions. i accepted the conditions as they where when i joined, what i take issue with is to them being changed to my detriment when i do a very important job and keep people safe. i think i am entitled to decent conditions because of this.
    Last edited by LoZz; July 09, 2014 at 09:00 AM.

  14. #14
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Conditions do not exist in perpetuity and employers have a right to change how things work based on cost, demographics etc.

    In a private company you would have to accept it or get out, why do public employees feel they should be immine to change?

    Private companies are better, but public private partnerships do not work. That is why it should be full privatisation or nothing.

  15. #15
    LoZz's Avatar who are you?
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northants, UK
    Posts
    10,021

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Conditions do not exist in perpetuity and employers have a right to change how things work based on cost, demographics etc.
    private or public you are employed to work a certain job for certain hours and get paid X amount for it along with what else comes with it. you sign the contract based on that and no they can't/shouldn't be allowed to change it, if i was to not honour my end of it they would be the first to complain

    employee and employer should mediate and talk though if any issues come up which means the status quo can not be maintained. I know employers and employees have agreed to accept pay cuts rather then job loses in certain jobs. [/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    In a private company you would have to accept it or get out, why do public employees feel they should be immine to change?
    you wouldn't though, hence why you have employment law and tribunals which protect certain aspects of your terms and conditions of employment. if your employer turns around and say we want you to work above the 48 hour maximum or pay you less then minimum wage you would not have to accept it at all, they would be breaking the law.

    its not so much about being immune to change, its being against taking away what we are given in exchange for a hard days work. who wouldn't be against such things? who would not do the same if they could?

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Private companies are better, but public private partnerships do not work. That is why it should be full privatisation or nothing.
    i agree that public/private partnership is a disaster but i strongly disagree they are better. they are only better when competition exists in the industry they work in. 3/4 of the 5 worst perform prisons in the UK are all privetly run.

  16. #16
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LoZz View Post
    private or public you are employed to work a certain job for certain hours and get paid X amount for it along with what else comes with it. you sign the contract based on that and no they can't/shouldn't be allowed to change it, if i was to not honour my end of it they would be the first to complain
    There is always the ability for ab employer to change the deal based on changing circumstances. In extreme cases they might have to offer redundancies and if the cost saving is enough they will.

    This is not an honour bargain this is not forcing an employer to never be able to change anything and is completely rational.

    A lot of the time in public services these deals are changed for new employees not old, does not usually stop the strikes.

    But lemme guess! Everyone in the world should have a 60 year retirement and final salary pension irrespective of changing costs and demographics? Thought you were a smart guy, be amazed if you really think this.


    employee and employer should mediate and talk though if any issues come up which means the status quo can not be maintained. I know employers and employees have agreed to accept pay cuts rather then job loses in certain jobs.
    I see it all the time in the private sector. I see the RMT getting £50k a year and 40 days holiday for tube drivers, unskilled work. I see FBU going into negotiations and striking for not getting a 40% pay rise (settled on 16%) this isnt mediated negotiations, its hostile demands. Every time I see a so called "negotiation" with a union it gives me visions of a negotiation in union ran UK in the 1970's where they took what they wanted or shut down the UK. The only thing that has changed is what they can get away with.

    you wouldn't though, hence why you have employment law and tribunals which protect certain aspects of your terms and conditions of employment. if your employer turns around and say we want you to work above the 48 hour maximum or pay you less then minimum wage you would not have to accept it at all, they would be breaking the law.

    its not so much about being immune to change, its being against taking away what we are given in exchange for a hard days work. who wouldn't be against such things? who would not do the same if they could?
    Who would not ask for a 500% pay rise if they could.

    Getting pretty irrational at this point.


    i agree that public/private partnership is a disaster but i strongly disagree they are better. they are only better when competition exists in the industry they work in. 3/4 of the 5 worst perform prisons in the UK are all privetly run.
    prisons are a public private partnership, how do you not get that? That is not a market.

    Where it makes sense would have been a full privatisation of royal mail with no restrictions on them to see how the market evolves, either way it is better.

    The rail network? Public/private partnership. PFI's? Public private partnerships (though if not abused by labour, could have been good).

  17. #17
    LoZz's Avatar who are you?
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northants, UK
    Posts
    10,021

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    There is always the ability for ab employer to change the deal based on changing circumstances. In extreme cases they might have to offer redundancies and if the cost saving is enough they will.

    This is not an honour bargain this is not forcing an employer to never be able to change anything and is completely rational.

    A lot of the time in public services these deals are changed for new employees not old, does not usually stop the strikes.

    But lemme guess! Everyone in the world should have a 60 year retirement and final salary pension irrespective of changing costs and demographics? Thought you were a smart guy, be amazed if you really think this.



    I see it all the time in the private sector. I see the RMT getting £50k a year and 40 days holiday for tube drivers, unskilled work. I see FBU going into negotiations and striking for not getting a 40% pay rise (settled on 16%) this isnt mediated negotiations, its hostile demands. Every time I see a so called "negotiation" with a union it gives me visions of a negotiation in union ran UK in the 1970's where they took what they wanted or shut down the UK. The only thing that has changed is what they can get away with.



    Who would not ask for a 500% pay rise if they could.

    Getting pretty irrational at this point.
    i am not going to defend what is indefensible, im not going to say that every strike is rational or even right. however the right to strike is so important, the right to organise in a union is the right of EVERY employee public or private (bar i think the army). its part of the reason why we are not working 6 days a week for 12 hours in some Victorian mill.

    however not every public sector strike or union is in the same place. not all of us have the envious T&C's of the tube driver. when we went on stike we where not asking for a payrise all we are asking was for our pensions not to be destroyed. alot of new public sector workers are actually low paid. a new police officer earns around £19,000 and the maximum a prison officer can now earn is around £25,000. the national average salary is around £27,000. it is so wrong and out of date to assume we are all well paid and enjoying large amounts of time off.

    when the government change the pensions they didn't look at each service, they just made a blanket change to everyone. there is no way a prison officer can fight some 20 year old prisoner when he is nearly 70. but on the governments plan up untill 68 we will have to. to retire at 60 id have to pay something stupid and unaffordable (bare in mind the low wages i mentioned above) of i think 15-18% of my salary. so its an unrealistic goal and they are smart enough to know this. i accept that a final salary pension is unaffordable, i accept this, fine.

    but what i do not accept is that those who do some of the most dangerous and important jobs in the country should have to be forced out due to failing a fitness test, health, injury or death because the government has changed the goal posts so most won't reach retirement because they got sacked. its alright for someone sitting in an office, public or private, but not for the firefighters, the prison officers, the police officers etc etc etc. and i think for the public service they give to keep us all safe they deserve a little perk of retiring early, its not as if they are well paid anymore!

    that's the only reason we went on strike, not for a 400% pay rise but to not be killed or injuries before we retire and that's the same reason alot of the fire fighters are doing it. loads of people tell me " that" when i tell them what my day consists of, thats fine but i dont think im asking too much to have reasonable and decent conditions for the work i do. it would be different if i joined up knowing this, but i didn't, it changed after i joined, so yer that is a very bitter pill to swallow and i wont give up on it. thats why unions and the right to strike is so important.

    now i agree with alot of what this government does, im not massive fan or supporter of the examples you gave, i even support the idea that for a strike to be lawful 50% of the union members must actually take part in the vote. but just because some abusive that right doesn't mean it should be taken away. we deserve better.



    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    prisons are a public private partnership, how do you not get that? That is not a market.
    no they are not. the private prisons are run solely by G4S or whoever, HMPS has no involvement in there running what-so-ever. there staff are not classed as "prison officers" because of this. they have to operate within perimeters set by the MoJ of course but they run it themselves. what you talk of is a "hybrid" prisons and none of the ones i refer to are hybrids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Where it makes sense would have been a full privatisation of royal mail with no restrictions on them to see how the market evolves, either way it is better.

    The rail network? Public/private partnership. PFI's? Public private partnerships (though if not abused by labour, could have been good).
    i wouldn't class the rail network as a success, its another monopoly like the gas industry is. not saying that public would be any better but privatisation of public services need better regulation then what it currently has to be successful, otherwise corporation greed wins out everytime
    Last edited by LoZz; July 09, 2014 at 12:49 PM.

  18. #18
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LoZz View Post
    i am not going to defend what is indefensible, im not going to say that every strike is rational or even right. however the right to strike is so important, the right to organise in a union is the right of EVERY employee public or private (bar i think the army). its part of the reason why we are not working 6 days a week for 12 hours in some Victorian mill.

    however not every public sector strike or union is in the same place. not all of us have the envious T&C's of the tube driver. when we went on stike we where not asking for a payrise all we are asking was for our pensions not to be destroyed. alot of new public sector workers are actually low paid. a new police officer earns around £19,000 and the maximum a prison officer can now earn is around £25,000. the national average salary is around £27,000. it is so wrong and out of date to assume we are all well paid and enjoying large amounts of time off.
    I see no reason why a prison officer particularly should be paid more than a nurse who has gone through 3-4 years 40 hours a week degree level training. Now a new police officer with ZERO experience starts on £19000 but an experienced officer starts on 22 or 23k rising without promotion up the pay points to £37k per year, whilst new officers pay was cut the amount of points to reach the top pay scale was also cut, meaning a lower starting point but a faster progression, please see here for reference:

    http://www.policeoracle.com/pay_and_...ay_scales.html

    I certainly don't assume that every public sector worker is having a good time, but generally are better off in the UK than in the private sector. That is why over the last seven years of hell the majority have been watching pay drop whilst the public sector bemoans a 1 or 2% rise. The private sector has been hit just as hard or harder in the pensions area with no guarantees to safeguard amounts coming in a lot of the time and seeing expected returns from falling annuities plummet.

    But yeah fine the right to unionise and strike is a good thing. The presence of unions in politics though is where we are in the UK. Honestly I hope the last 18 years of Labour and the Unions and the back and forth does change things and breaks that historic link.

    when the government change the pensions they didn't look at each service, they just made a blanket change to everyone. there is no way a prison officer can fight some 20 year old prisoner when he is nearly 70. but on the governments plan up untill 68 we will have to. to retire at 60 id have to pay something stupid and unaffordable (bare in mind the low wages i mentioned above) of i think 15-18% of my salary. so its an unrealistic goal and they are smart enough to know this. i accept that a final salary pension is unaffordable, i accept this, fine.
    Boohoo! I've made a career change and I'm a plasterer I've got 30 years maximum (till 60) before my shoulder goes, or my knees go and as trades people go I've perhaps got it easier (good luck if you are a labourer or bricky, you've got till 50 max). Why is it that the public sector should get some special provision that the private sector do not? Is the public sector the only group that has to deal with rising retirements and a tough break?

    Yeah I'm sure the police constable on £36k a year is really struggling in comparison to the Labourer, or heavy goods worker on £8 an hour. I'm not saying it isn't tough I'm saying I find it ridiculous to bemoan the plight of public sector workers, it is better even if it is still tough. If I had my time over I'd take guaranteed income and a guaranteed pension at £36k a year and I'd have joined the police force when younger or the fire service alternatively.


    but what i do not accept is that those who do some of the most dangerous and important jobs in the country should have to be forced out due to failing a fitness test, health, injury or death because the government has changed the goal posts so most won't reach retirement because they got sacked. its alright for someone sitting in an office, public or private, but not for the firefighters, the prison officers, the police officers etc etc etc. and i think for the public service they give to keep us all safe they deserve a little perk of retiring early, its not as if they are well paid anymore!
    Most dangerous jobs eh? That is what you think?

    Builder
    In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period.
    Who is keeping us safe? Who is keeping us warm with a roof over our heads? Who is getting a REDUCED pension because they are self employed instead of a guaranteed one, so not only a lower state pension but a risky non guaranteed private pension where they'll hit by every stock market fall and fall in annuities.

    Farmer
    Agriculture, forestry and fishing is the riskiest industrial sector; accounting for approximately one in five fatal injuries to workers. Of the 29 workers fatally injured between 2012 and 2013 almost half were farmers, while another 17 per cent were hired hands in the industry. Five of these were killed by animals, while five more died by drowning or asphyxiation.
    Lets check some other sites? According to this site public jobs don't even come into it.



    What is it for police? 11 per year? http://www.policememorial.org.uk/ind...page=roll-2013

    For firefighters we are averaging 1 per year:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...12_to_2013.pdf

    Compared to 133 in the roofing industry:

    http://roofingtoday.co.uk/news.php?story=1360

    http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-...m#.U72DufldUvk

    Hell even being a mechanic is more likely to get you killed than being a firefighter.

    that's the only reason we went on strike, not for a 400% pay rise but to not be killed or injuries before we retire and that's the same reason alot of the fire fighters are doing it. loads of people tell me " that" when i tell them what my day consists of, thats fine but i dont think im asking too much to have reasonable and decent conditions for the work i do. it would be different if i joined up knowing this, but i didn't, it changed after i joined, so yer that is a very bitter pill to swallow and i wont give up on it. thats why unions and the right to strike is so important.
    Well gee it must be nice. It wasn't a 400% though, it was 40% originally which is still pretty ridiculous. As I have proved, I hope but if not I can keep pulling statistics all day long that while there is a perception of risk, a great deal of psychological stress no doubt it pales in comparison to even the risk of injury I have when working on scaffolding rendering an exterior building. So you might not like the change, but boohoo it happens. You are certainly (if a firefighter) much less at risk than I. Probably earning an equivalent sort of wage for less risk, a guaranteed income and a guaranteed pension and much better working conditions (probably lower hours too).

    now i agree with alot of what this government does, im not massive fan or supporter of the examples you gave, i even support the idea that for a strike to be lawful 50% of the union members must actually take part in the vote. but just because some abusive that right doesn't mean it should be taken away. we deserve better.
    I'd agree that the right to strike should be there. I am of the opinion that unions should be smaller though, not multi industry and not in politics as stated above. I'd also agree that the ballot figure should be higher as you say.



    no they are not. the private prisons are run solely by G4S or whoever, HMPS has no involvement in there running what-so-ever. there staff are not classed as "prison officers" because of this. they have to operate within perimeters set by the MoJ of course but they run it themselves. what you talk of is a "hybrid" prisons and none of the ones i refer to are hybrids.
    No that is not what I mean. When you have private firms operating exclusively within the domain of a public service providing services exclusively for the government that is part privatised government partnerships and is exactly what I call a public private partnership. Without the government provision then the private bodies would not exist. It is part privatisation of a public service. They aren't proper private businesses serving a market with competition.


    i wouldn't class the rail network as a success, its another monopoly like the gas industry is. not saying that public would be any better but privatisation of public services need better regulation then what it currently has to be successful, otherwise corporation greed wins out everytime
    Its also a public private partnership. Corporation greed only tends to win out when given monopolies (or natural monopolies) but often helped along by government.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/regulatio...cient-railways

    If rail was truly privatised perhaps it would have been better, I'm not 100% swung either way but I know this dodgy public partnership swing isn't working well.

  19. #19
    LoZz's Avatar who are you?
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northants, UK
    Posts
    10,021

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    I see no reason why a prison officer particularly should be paid more than a nurse who has gone through 3-4 years 40 hours a week degree level training. Now a new police officer with ZERO experience starts on £19000 but an experienced officer starts on 22 or 23k rising without promotion up the pay points to £37k per year, whilst new officers pay was cut the amount of points to reach the top pay scale was also cut, meaning a lower starting point but a faster progression, please see here for reference:

    http://www.policeoracle.com/pay_and_...ay_scales.html
    fair point on the police. im not saying who should be paid more or less. no a nurse shouldn't be getting less but they should all be getting a decent wage as should everyone. but point is, and its just personal opinion but those people who look after us should be looked after in turn. that doesn't mean being a millionaire or even a final salary pension but after 30 or 35 odd years of decent service to the public they should be able to retire and enjoy a decent standing of living. i think that's deserved, 60 is a reasonable age. 68 is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    I certainly don't assume that every public sector worker is having a good time, but generally are better off in the UK than in the private sector. That is why over the last seven years of hell the majority have been watching pay drop whilst the public sector bemoans a 1 or 2% rise. The private sector has been hit just as hard or harder in the pensions area with no guarantees to safeguard amounts coming in a lot of the time and seeing expected returns from falling annuities plummet.
    but they are not though. this is the point. its a misconception. its actually very mixed. some public sector workers are well looked after, even after recent cuts. you would be offended im sure if you knew what senior civil service management got. but this is the point, its not like that across the board. a 1% pay-rise is nothing, to a lower paid public sector worker its even less. im not that fussed about those who are looked after, its those who are not. the pension was the last good thing these jobs had, not any-more. there is very little difference now if i was to switch from the new public sector pension which i am being forced into next year or this year, can't remember then and a private one. if i knew this when i signed up 4 years ago, different story id have no right to complain, but no one did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    But yeah fine the right to unionise and strike is a good thing. The presence of unions in politics though is where we are in the UK. Honestly I hope the last 18 years of Labour and the Unions and the back and forth does change things and breaks that historic link.
    i always thought the link between unions and labour was a bad think tbh.



    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Boohoo! I've made a career change and I'm a plasterer I've got 30 years maximum (till 60) before my shoulder goes, or my knees go and as trades people go I've perhaps got it easier (good luck if you are a labourer or bricky, you've got till 50 max). Why is it that the public sector should get some special provision that the private sector do not? Is the public sector the only group that has to deal with rising retirements and a tough break?
    personal medical situations to one side. no one is asking you to put yourself in harms way though. you ask the police and the fire service to put themselves in harms way for your benefit so you don't have to. you may say "well they choose to do that job" and your correct, so they can't complain about that risk. what i argue is that yes, they do deserve a better deal then the rest. doesn't have to be massive, but i think they should be allowed to retire a bit earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Yeah I'm sure the police constable on £36k a year is really struggling in comparison to the Labourer, or heavy goods worker on £8 an hour. I'm not saying it isn't tough I'm saying I find it ridiculous to bemoan the plight of public sector workers, it is better even if it is still tough. If I had my time over I'd take guaranteed income and a guaranteed pension at £36k a year and I'd have joined the police force when younger or the fire service alternatively.
    and ive often wished i had tried my hand at being a tree surgeon grass greener i think applies to everyone. if i was paid £36k i wouldn't be arguing with you right now.




    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Most dangerous jobs eh? That is what you think?
    honestly, id say the solider. but they are not "civil servants" and there terms and conditions are delt with in a different way and seeing as they can't strike or be in a union they dont really apply to this debate. but in terms of deliberate harm, yes i would. i dont see a bricky needing a stab vest. we could argue who has the most dangerous job all day, it comes down to personal opinion. but i know that two of the examples given on that list are deep sea diver and PMC - both of which pay STUPID amounts of money, more so then the public sector get.


    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Who is keeping us safe? Who is keeping us warm with a roof over our heads? Who is getting a REDUCED pension because they are self employed instead of a guaranteed one, so not only a lower state pension but a risky non guaranteed private pension where they'll hit by every stock market fall and fall in annuities.



    Lets check some other sites? According to this site public jobs don't even come into it.



    What is it for police? 11 per year? http://www.policememorial.org.uk/ind...page=roll-2013

    For firefighters we are averaging 1 per year:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...12_to_2013.pdf

    Compared to 133 in the roofing industry:

    http://roofingtoday.co.uk/news.php?story=1360

    http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-...m#.U72DufldUvk

    Hell even being a mechanic is more likely to get you killed than being a firefighter.
    death isn't the only thing that can happen at work. the jobs frankly do not compare. an accident is totally different to an assault or deliberate act and i would argue far more traumatic.
    your link http://blog.careerbuilder.co.uk/2012...angerous-jobs/ states that 1061 people where injured in british farms.

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_...very_day-29168 2957 staff where assaulted in uk prisoners in 2012-13, and that does not include accidents at work ether.
    also while your link states overall deaths and injuries are now
    http://converseprisonnews.com/catego...-prison-staff/ they have increased by 45% on prison staff

    the poor police http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409...police-soaring 19,670. thats one officer assaulted ever 27mins acording to the website. again this does not include injury at the work place.

    assaults obviously range from being pushed. to being stabbed, or a personal favourite from prison having human waste (pee and poo) put in cup or bottle and then thrown on the officer. Or another nice one from prison is having sugar and boiling water mixed together and thrown in your face, the boiling sugar sticks and causes deep burns, given the very unimaginative name of being "kettled". all for 25k a year and a naff pension. not just the physical but the physiological impact form these is far worse then what most people have to deal with

    the two do not compare, not by a million miles.


    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Well gee it must be nice. It wasn't a 400% though, it was 40% originally which is still pretty ridiculous. As I have proved, I hope but if not I can keep pulling statistics all day long that while there is a perception of risk, a great deal of psychological stress no doubt it pales in comparison to even the risk of injury I have when working on scaffolding rendering an exterior building. So you might not like the change, but boohoo it happens. You are certainly (if a firefighter) much less at risk than I. Probably earning an equivalent sort of wage for less risk, a guaranteed income and a guaranteed pension and much better working conditions (probably lower hours too)
    .

    i strongly disagree, id rather work on scaffolding then a prison wing if we are talking about "risk" alone.
    but you have a point about the hours, cant argue with that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    I'd agree that the right to strike should be there. I am of the opinion that unions should be smaller though, not multi industry and not in politics as stated above. I'd also agree that the ballot figure should be higher as you say.
    i always laughed when the tube shut down because 30% of there membership had a vote.....




    [QUOTE=Denny Crane!;13947483]No that is not what I mean. When you have private firms operating exclusively within the domain of a public service providing services exclusively for the government that is part privatised government partnerships and is exactly what I call a public private partnership. Without the government provision then the private bodies would not exist. It is part privatisation of a public service. They aren't proper private businesses serving a market with competition.
    i



    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Its also a public private partnership. Corporation greed only tends to win out when given monopolies (or natural monopolies) but often helped along by government.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/regulatio...cient-railways

    If rail was truly privatised perhaps it would have been better, I'm not 100% swung either way but I know this dodgy public partnership swing isn't working well.
    i agree.
    Last edited by LoZz; July 09, 2014 at 03:30 PM.

  20. #20
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Unions should not be allowed in the public (Government) sector (U.S.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LoZz View Post
    fair point on the police. im not saying who should be paid more or less. no a nurse shouldn't be getting less but they should all be getting a decent wage as should everyone. but point is, and its just personal opinion but those people who look after us should be looked after in turn. that doesn't mean being a millionaire or even a final salary pension but after 30 or 35 odd years of decent service to the public they should be able to retire and enjoy a decent standing of living. i think that's deserved, 60 is a reasonable age. 68 is not.
    What is this "decent service to the public" they already get a good wage in many cases, if you don't work for the government you don't also give a decent service to the public? I mean possibly not if you work in a banking investment company. But al private security guard, a roofer or any other person (in a more dangerous job even) is just as liable for special reverence as any other person.



    but they are not though. this is the point. its a misconception. its actually very mixed. some public sector workers are well looked after, even after recent cuts. you would be offended im sure if you knew what senior civil service management got. but this is the point, its not like that across the board. a 1% pay-rise is nothing, to a lower paid public sector worker its even less. im not that fussed about those who are looked after, its those who are not. the pension was the last good thing these jobs had, not any-more. there is very little difference now if i was to switch from the new public sector pension which i am being forced into next year or this year, can't remember then and a private one. if i knew this when i signed up 4 years ago, different story id have no right to complain, but no one did.
    A 1% pay rise might be nothing but the person that took a 5% cut or more is looking at it thinking it is pretty sweet.

    And with the public sector pensions thing. This isn't a random adhominem but I'm very strongly getting the impression it is a very shaky topic for you. Because you've said once or twice about not wanting to work until 68, I mean you are forgiven, pensions is not a sexy topic. Where did this figure for public figures having to retire at 68 though? Firefighters are on strike about having to retire at 60! Yes 8 years before the roofers, and brickies and anyone else privately employed but still needing fitness to work.

    Here are differences between public and private pensions:

    -5.6% contributions public, average of 8.9-11% private contributions (minimum 8% under new auto enrollment legislation), comparison is current 2014

    -5.1 million public sector members are still in line to receive final salary pensions (no change from since pre 2007 crash/2006), private sector dropped from 3.2 million to 1.6 million.

    - NHS workers are retiring at 65 under new rules unlike private sector workers (67)

    - All this talk of big hits, the career average actually benefits those with lower salaries as opposed to the older arrangement.

    - So how much of a hit did an average NHS worker take:

    NHS swap scheme: how it works

    As an example, NHS worker Peter retires after 20 years of service with an average salary of £25,000.

    Under the pre-reform scheme, Peter would receive a pension of £6,250 (calculated as 1/80 x 20 x £25,000) plus a tax-free lump sum of £18,750 (3/80 x 20 x £25,000).

    Under the new scheme, Peter would receive a pension of £9,259.25 (1/54 x 20 x £25,000) with no automatic lump sum.

    Peter would be able to voluntarily commute pension for a lump sum at the rate of £12 of lump sum for £1 of pension.

    This means he could receive the same lump sum in the pre-reform scheme (£18,750) if he gives up £1,562.50 of pension.

    If he takes this option, his new pension is £7,696.75 (£9,259.25 - £1,562.50) and that is
    still 23 per cent higher than his pension under the old scheme.
    None of this is open to the whims of falling stock markets, these are promises. Governments can change the deals but they always put in place protections - anything paid in before these changes is paid at the old rate and anyone in the scheme due to mature within ten years is unaffected. But it has to be this way because one government could sign up to guarantee each public pension holder a million pounds at retirement, under a different economy in a different time. With 1 pound in ever 7 in the UK being spent on public pension deficits or unfunded liabilities as economists like to refer to them it is a time bomb that needed addressed. This unfunded amount by the way is £1500 a year per family: "Judging from some of the reports, the UK’s potential unfunded pensions ‘blackhole’ is large – estimates range from £1 Trillion to £3.8 Trillion and is largely due to an unaccounted for increase in life expectancy beyond retirement age. This wouldn’t be an issue if we had a pension scheme like Norway’s Government Pension Fund. The Norwegian GPF is a Sovereign Wealth Fund worth $737.2 Billion which equates to $141,379 per capita. If we assume that the UK’s pension blackhole is £3.8 Trillion, it works out as 263% of GDP which is nearly quadruple the national debt and equates to £146,153 per household or £60,567.42 per person."

    (and even that is conservative, the ONS would have us believe 7 trillion is a truer figure).

    i always thought the link between unions and labour was a bad think tbh.

    personal medical situations to one side. no one is asking you to put yourself in harms way though. you ask the police and the fire service to put themselves in harms way for your benefit so you don't have to. you may say "well they choose to do that job" and your correct, so they can't complain about that risk. what i argue is that yes, they do deserve a better deal then the rest. doesn't have to be massive, but i think they should be allowed to retire a bit earlier.
    I'm sorry but if you ask me to do your roof or render the upper part of your house you are asking me to put myself in harms way since statistically I am much more likely to die or receive a debilitating injury doing that than the other.

    I really don't get why you think they deserve to retire earlier...and what the hell man is 8 years earlier not enough!

    and ive often wished i had tried my hand at being a tree surgeon grass greener i think applies to everyone. if i was paid £36k i wouldn't be arguing with you right now.
    An equally dangerous job, frequently in top ten of most dangerous jobs, definitely most likely to lose a limb or use of limbs.

    honestly, id say the solider. but they are not "civil servants" and there terms and conditions are delt with in a different way and seeing as they can't strike or be in a union they dont really apply to this debate. but in terms of deliberate harm, yes i would. i dont see a bricky needing a stab vest. we could argue who has the most dangerous job all day, it comes down to personal opinion. but i know that two of the examples given on that list are deep sea diver and PMC - both of which pay STUPID amounts of money, more so then the public sector get.
    Aye there is compensation to those but then again none of the civil service jobs ever make it into the top ten most dangerous as far as I am aware. This really isn't personal opinion by the way, it is mathematical fact.

    death isn't the only thing that can happen at work. the jobs frankly do not compare. an accident is totally different to an assault or deliberate act and i would argue far more traumatic.
    your link http://blog.careerbuilder.co.uk/2012...angerous-jobs/ states that 1061 people where injured in british farms.

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_...very_day-29168 2957 staff where assaulted in uk prisoners in 2012-13, and that does not include accidents at work ether.
    also while your link states overall deaths and injuries are now
    http://converseprisonnews.com/catego...-prison-staff/ they have increased by 45% on prison staff

    the poor police http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409...police-soaring 19,670. thats one officer assaulted ever 27mins acording to the website. again this does not include injury at the work place.

    assaults obviously range from being pushed. to being stabbed, or a personal favourite from prison having human waste (pee and poo) put in cup or bottle and then thrown on the officer. Or another nice one from prison is having sugar and boiling water mixed together and thrown in your face, the boiling sugar sticks and causes deep burns, given the very unimaginative name of being "kettled". all for 25k a year and a naff pension. not just the physical but the physiological impact form these is far worse then what most people have to deal with

    the two do not compare, not by a million miles.
    Psychological impacts, you may have something there. But there are not many police officers or prison guards unable to walk. By the numbers on debilitating and most especially death, the numbers don't lie.

    And comparing a firefighter to a roofer being 132% more likely to die and I haven't got these figures but exponentially more likely to be seriously injured...there is no comparison there.


    i strongly disagree, id rather work on scaffolding then a prison wing if we are talking about "risk" alone.
    but you have a point about the hours, cant argue with that.
    Well I'm sorry but I think you got problems if you want to work on a prison ward anyway, crime and punishment in this country are a deeply immoral war on the mentally ill and poor as can be empirically proven (looking at mental health and drugs as two separate or linked factors the evidence is inescapable).

    But yeah risk alone...zero prison officers dead for how many years now? None of it sounds pleasant and of course the conditions create the problems from both national policy and the guards themselves. Honestly if they choose to work in a broken system then more fool them. See if Norway's staff get attacked the same way.

    In this sense you'd have more luck gaining a sympathy vote not referring to police and prison officers, lets talk NHS, teachers or firefighters....all of whom are getting so much of a better deal its crazy lol. I am aware that we do actually need them but at the same time I can't believe people are getting paid to enforce laws that actively increase the suffering of a nation, abusing mentally ill people and punishing people for victimless crimes. Of course it is the politicians fault but I could not work in that system, not when there is evidence around the world of better ways to do things.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •