Just been reading about the proposed coordinated strikes and got to wondering who I would miss if they went on strike.  Most impact on my daily life would be if supermarkets went on strike, but propbably would not notice if tax office had an industrial dispute.

You would if you started a new job.

Strike action will only make things worse. The best thing to would be if the public make it clear to their MP how unhappy they are with the cuts, and if they do not speak out, vote for somebody else at the next election.

If this is anything to go by there won't be anyone left to go on strike http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/09/the-whitehall-dash-for-the-exit.html

In any case it's difficult to imagine that there would be anything like the long term action (inaction?) of the kind we experienced during the winter of discontent.   These days strikes seem to last a day or three at the most and then the unions cave in: http://www.financenews.co.uk/economy/british-airways-reaches-agreement-with-union-and-cuts-500-jobs/

Quoted from richard.garvie

Strike action will only make things worse. The best thing to would be if the public make it clear to their MP how unhappy they are with the cuts, and if they do not speak out, vote for somebody else at the next election.

Problem is five years on the dole is not fun is it.  I think people will strike, even the Police are considering it, many of these people have nothing to lose.

Quoted from Greenham Common

You would if you started a new job.

I was hoping I would pass through undetected and I would much rather eat than pay taxes.

Quoted from noobree

In any case it's difficult to imagine that there would be anything like the long term action (inaction?) of the kind we experienced during the winter of discontent.   These days strikes seem to last a day or three at the most and then the unions cave in: http://www.financenews.co.uk/economy/british-airways-reaches-agreement-with-union-and-cuts-500-jobs/

With a quarterly loss of £164m, the union surely just accepted the inevitable.

Quoted from jay

many of these people have nothing to lose.

£136 per week on average more than a person who works in the private sector.

Quoted from 26

£136 per week on average more than a person who works in the private sector.

No, I meant they were going to lose there jobs, so what had they got to lose by going on strike.

I think this figure of public sector earning £136 pw more than the private is part of smoke screen to kick public workers.  I know that agency nurses earn a great deal more than NHS, doctors in Harley Street earn more than, say, Royal Berks, carers are just above minimum wage, as are dinner ladies.  Cannot see teachers at Eton earning less than the local comp teacher.  

Quoted from noobree

In any case it's difficult to imagine that there would be anything like the long term action (inaction?) of the kind we experienced during the winter of discontent.   These days strikes seem to last a day or three at the most and then the unions cave in: http://www.financenews.co.uk/economy/british-airways-reaches-agreement-with-union-and-cuts-500-jobs/

You may want to pick a different example.

B.A. announced last year that it wanted to cut 4000 jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/01/british-airways-pay-freeze-redundancies

As your link shows, after the dispute only 500 jobs have gone and of those 300 were by voluntary redundancies.

Sounds like bit of a victory so far for the Union doesn't it?


Threep.

They lost over 400 million quid.

http://www.britishairways.com/cms/global/microsites/ba_reports0910/financial/income.html

As they did the previous year.


Threep.

Indeed; volcanoes and strikes can be expensive!  

I'd miss the railways and airports. but I just love travelling all the time.
And supermarkets. I struggle to get more then a couple of days food at a time.

The volcano was a problem. I lost 2 flights because of that. 1 after each eruption.

I don't like trade unions and they're constant striking. Makes them look like an unnecessary one trick pony to me.
They're actions are inconsiderate to the general public, and the constant striking hurts the industries customers the most. If I had paid work I would be grateful enough of that to value my job and the pay packet I was bringing home. The constant striking seems greedy and makes people look ungrateful to have their jobs.

Personally I'd rather every striker be immediately dismissed and the position given to somebody who would actually appreciate the work. Or more ideally the perpetrators in charge of orchestrating these actions beheld as domestic terrorists. As at the end of the day they are holding whole industries hostage with the goal of extorting money from them.

Quoted from MoonPhoenix

I don't like trade unions and they're constant striking. Makes them look like an unnecessary one trick pony to me.
They're actions are inconsiderate to the general public, and the constant striking hurts the industries customers the most. If I had paid work I would be grateful enough of that to value my job and the pay packet I was bringing home. The constant striking seems greedy and makes people look ungrateful to have their jobs.

Personally I'd rather every striker be immediately dismissed and the position given to somebody who would actually appreciate the work. Or more ideally the perpetrators in charge of orchestrating these actions beheld as domestic terrorists. As at the end of the day they are holding whole industries hostage with the goal of extorting money from them.

What a bizarre post. You are aware there are hundreds of unions some never having advocated strike action in their entire history?

Do you really think everyone standing up for their rights should be sacked? Indirectly it's more than likely they help you get a better wage so giving them the sack seems a tad ungrateful. Why don't we go the whole hog though lock all protesters up too, just for good measure?