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?

Would anyone miss us?  

Quoted from Threepwood

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.

You need to read the articles more carefully.

Quoted from greenmeanie61

Would anyone miss us?  

When the roads became gridlocked and there was nobody to raise the stuck barriers,then yes they would.  Perhaps you should strike then the public would understand how valuable you really are.

Quoted from greenmeanie61

Would anyone miss us?  

Yes! the cabbies are very happy,now you keep our ranks clear of nuisance parkers,for one thing.

Quoted from MoonPhoenix

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.

Most strikes are people trying to keep their jobs.  Take the miners strike.  The government wanted to close the pits.  There was still plenty of coal, the miners were not trained in anything else and there was no comparative job to go to.  The miners argued that if the pits closed, they would spend the rest of their working lives on benefit, which is what has happened.  A similar situation is now emerging, if you make hundreds of thousands of people redundant where do they go?  You are obviously unhappy about not earning a wage, and rightly so, yet you object to other people trying to keep their jobs.

Quoted from noobree

You need to read the articles more carefully.

Quoted from noobree

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/

Sure.


Threep.

I must really not understand something. As the thought of refusing to turn up for work, to retain it sounds a little odd.

Can I ask what prompted this topic btw.... Is somebody currently striking or threatening too?

Quoted from MoonPhoenix

I must really not understand something. As the thought of refusing to turn up for work, to retain it sounds a little odd.

Can I ask what prompted this topic btw.... Is somebody currently striking or threatening too?

Er, all government workers including police, fire fighters, teachers, town hall and benefits staff. doctors, nurses.  All of the trade unions which includes shops, supermarkets, train and tube drivers, bus drivers.  There are calls for pensioners and people unemployed who cannot strike to block the M25.

[quote=10]I must really not understand something. As the thought of refusing to turn up for work, to retain it sounds a little odd.

quote]

On a very basic level.  The government wants to cut jobs across all sectors by 25%.  An example would be 100 people working in the unemployment benefit office, 25% cut means only 75 people working but doing the jobs of 100 people for the same money.  As other parts of the government employees have also cut jobs by 25%, many thousands of people would need to register for unemployment.  The 75 left in the office would not only be doing the work load of 100 people, they would also have many more customers.  They are striking to show the government that they are needed and without them the country would go to the dogs and they hope to persuade the government to change its mind.

Quoted from jay

[quote=10]I must really not understand something. As the thought of refusing to turn up for work, to retain it sounds a little odd.

quote]

On a very basic level.  The government wants to cut jobs across all sectors by 25%.  An example would be 100 people working in the unemployment benefit office, 25% cut means only 75 people working but doing the jobs of 100 people for the same money.  

Oh no.... the 1 1/2 million that have never done a day's work in their lives won't get their benefits. How will the nation survive?

Quoted from jay

Er, all government workers including police, fire fighters, teachers, town hall and benefits staff. doctors, nurses.  All of the trade unions which includes shops, supermarkets, train and tube drivers, bus drivers.  There are calls for pensioners and people unemployed who cannot strike to block the M25.

The police can't strike. The idea of "scab" police baton charging striking police is an interesting one though.

Quoted from 26

The police can't strike. The idea of "scab" police baton charging striking police is an interesting one though.

If they don't strike. they may work to rule. That would be interesting.
The rules are you stop crime and catch the transgressors. That would show 'em.

Quoted from 26

Oh no.... the 1 1/2 million that have never done a day's work in their lives won't get their benefits. How will the nation survive?

And neither will tens of thousands who will shortly lose their jobs.  Take it your job is 100% safe.

I would have thought less staff would mean more people will unnecessarily receive benefits. Just because they won't have the resources to properly follow up individual cases.

You bring up some good points guise. I think I understand what your getting at.

Quoted from user23.3

What a bizarre post.

errmm.... Bizarre post.... Remember that MoonPhoenix is the poster who wanted every squaddie serving in Afghanistan/Iraq prosecuted for war crimes/murder....

The police force, like the armed forces, cannot strike.  The firemen can of course, which seems kinda bizarre as they are an emergency service and you would have thought were subject to the same Acts of Parliament which prevent the police from striking....  The police will however have to accept severe cutbacks to overtime payments....

While some may see this as a 'work to rule', it has more to do with only doing the hours that you're paid to do (and covered for as far as insurance and liability issues are concerned).  I know I've had a little pop at the fire service for their obvious commitments to their second jobs, but the amount of work currently done by serving police officers on an overtime basis is pretty much like THEM also having a second job.... (The second job being the overtime)

Football matches?  Mostly policed by officers on overtime..   No police cover and we have a potential situation every weekend for disturbances.....