You are here: Home » Comment »

Why Labour people should back “The Great Strike”

November 16, 2011 6:59 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The Great Strike is just two weeks away. From headteachers to lollipop ladies, care assistants to university lecturers, hundreds of thousands of workers are set to take part in the biggest co-ordinated industrial action since the 1926 General Strike.

The Labour leadership is highly unlikely to back the strike: the best that can be hoped for is an “understanding” of why so many workers feel the need to lose a day’s pay, and for Ed Miliband to refrain from condemning the strike action. But there are elements in senior circles who – quite frankly – are hostile to unions full stop. At worst, figures at the top could join the chorus of condemnation.

But – whatever the positioning of our leaders – Labour activists have a major role in November 30th: in the build-up, on the day itself, and in the aftermath. We are, after all, the party of Labour: we were founded to give the labour movement a political voice. We need to be manning the picket lines and making the case for public sector workers however we can.

It’s not going to be easy. The Government and their allies (i.e. virtually the entire British media) are going to throw everything at the strikers. Expect a vitriolic, dirty propaganda campaign.

So we have to be prepared. I’ve compiled a list of common arguments and some suggested responses. The Tories have been so successful at transforming a crisis of market failure into a crisis of public spending because they have stuck to a script: they’ve repeated the same arguments whenever a microphone has been pushed in their direction. It has Labour supporters tearing their hair out – but it’s been terrifyingly effective.

Here we go:

Public sector workers are vested interests.

Public sector workers are pillars of our community. They collect your bins, they look after you when you are sick, they educate your children. They are librarians, nurses and dinner ladies. Without them, society would not function.

Public sector workers are overpaid.

Does £22,850 sound like being overpaid to you? That’s the average pay of a civil servant, and it’s about £2,000 less than the private sector average. Nearly a quarter of British workers being paid less than £7 an hour can be found in the public sector.

Public sector pay has been frozen, even as inflation soars to over 5%. That means public sector workers are – in real terms – experiencing major pay cuts.

Public sector workers are lazy.

Public sector workers do the equivalent of 120 million hours of unpaid overtime a year: that’s the equivalent of employing an extra 60,000 people. One in four public sector workers put in unpaid overtime worth almost £9 billion a year – compared to one in six in the private sector.

Public sector pensions are gold-plated.

If you take out the top mandarins, the average pension of a civil servant is about £4,000 a year; more than 100,000 earn less than £2,000 a year. In the public sector as a whole, most public sector workers get a pension of less than £5,000.

If you’re looking for gold-plated pensions, the private sector is a good place to start. One TUC survey of 346 directors from 102 of the UK’s top companies found that their average pension was worth £201,700: about 25 times higher than the average worker.

Public sector pensions are unaffordable.

Not true. As a proportion of GDP, public sector pensions are projected to peak at 2% in 2027-28 and will then decline. In an agreement with the last Labour Government, workers pick up the bill if people end up living longer than expected and pension costs overshoot projections. Public sector pensions will become more affordable.

In any case, the money raised by increasing workers’ pension contributions won’t go into pension schemes. It is a tax on public sector workers to help pay off the deficit.

Why should the rest of us pay for the pensions of public sector workers?

We could equally ask – why should the rest of us pay the wages of public sector workers? It’s because we all depend on them for our society to function. Pensions are just deferred wages, after all – they ensure that those who dedicate their lives to serving the public don’t spend their retirement in abject poverty.

Why should private sector workers with no pensions cough up for public sector workers?

Private sector pensions are one of the great scandals of our age. Only 40% of private sector workers are now in an employer-sponsored pension scheme. It’s even worse with low-paid workers: only 20% of those earning between £100 and £200 a week are in an employer-backed scheme. But the argument should not be to drag down the pensions of public sector workers: it should be to drag up the pensions of private sector workers. Why punish public sector workers for the bad practices of private sector employers? If we do, we end up in a race to the bottom.

We have a deficit caused by public spending.

Not true. The Tories backed Labour’s spending plans pound for pound until the end of 2008. The main reasons we have a deficit is that tax revenues collapsed in the aftermath of a financial crisis caused by under-regulated banks; and welfare spending went up because so many people lost their jobs.

Public sector workers didn’t cause the deficit, so they shouldn’t be made to pay it off. There are a whole range of other solutions: like cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance (which costs the Treasury up to £70 billion a year); a Robin Hood Tax on financial transaction; and promoting economic growth, which will increase tax revenues, boost consumer spending and cut welfare spending.

Unions are resisting a democratically elected government.

The Conservatives won only 36% of the popular vote in 2010, despite having everything lined up in their favour – a hugely unpopular Labour Government and the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. They did not put many of their more extreme policies – like cuts to front-line services and the de facto privatisation of the NHS – to the British electorate. The only reason they managed to form a Government is because the Liberal Democrats did major U-turns on promises that had won them votes: like tuition fees, VAT and cuts.

This Government has no mandate for its extreme programme, and workers have the right to resist them.

Union barons are sending their workers out on strike.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a “union baron”. Barons are unelected; union leaders are elected by the members. Secondly, all workers have been balloted to go on strike. It is they – not their leaders – who have decided to take action.

How do unions have a democratic right to go on strike when – in many cases – the majority of eligible voters did not vote to strike because of a lack of turnout?

If we apply this logic to Parliament, the vast majority of MPs have no mandate – and, after all, the Conservatives are transforming society having won just 36% of the vote on a 65% turnout (meaning less than a quarter of eligible voters opted for them). In virtually all strike ballots, a large majority have voted for strike action – demonstrating the strength of feeling out there. Many don’t get round to sending back their postal ballot – so the Government should allow balloting at workplaces to encourage turnout.

Pensions may be a tough deal, but is it enough to strike for when many of us are suffering from cuts?

We have some of the most restrictive anti-union laws in the Western world. Workers can only strike when they are in direct conflict with their employers. Pensions is one of the only issues that all public sector workers can strike over. It’s an important issue, but we shouldn’t see it as the only reason for the strike – even if it’s the official one given. Cuts affect us all – workers and service users; the welfare state is under attack; our public services – not least the NHS – face privatisation. All of these issues will be chanted about on demonstrations and picket lines on November 30th.

Public sector workers aren’t just striking for themselves: they’re striking for all of us.

Related posts:

  1. Unison members back strike action
  2. What is the right to strike?
  3. Strikes – we know we can count on Labour for support
  4. Counting the cost of the Leeds bin strike
  5. Counting the cost of the Leeds bin strike
  • Anonymous

    Simply, because not to do so is to betray the people that founded the Labour Party.

    Call it tribalism if you like, but simply put, the bosses do not share our interests.

    • normalbloke

      and that right there is whats wrong with Labour – the inability to make sensible judgements because of tribalism

  • GuyM

    The key point is that public sector pensions are dependent on private sector workers taxes to an unacceptable level.

    If you want public sector workers to have much better pension rights than the private sector then have public sector workers pay much more in terms of contributions than they do and have them retire later.

    You don’t have support for this strike amongst the public and especially amongst private sector workers.

    It is simply unnacceptable to have our income raided to provide pension schemes beyond what the vast majority of private sector workers can hope for.

    As to “support” for private sector pensions, how would imrpoving private sector pensions change the fact that private sector workers would continue to pay disproportionate amounts to public sector pension schemese through taxation?

    In fact all you’d do is leave private sector workers more out of pocket by having contributions to their own schemes increase whilst stil sunsidising public sector pensions.

    Last point, Labour won less of a share of the vote in 2005 yet governed with a big majority for 5 years imposing their policies on the country so drop the bullshit about the Tories share of the vote in 2010.

    This article was a pile of mutt of an argument looking for a home.

  • http://twitter.com/reddeviljp jaydeepee

    Just in case you’ve missed these comments from Cameron, in Opposition

    ”The Prime Minister has acknowledged that “local government is
    officially the most efficient part of the public sector” and that
    “Councils achieve well in excess of the sector’s spending review
    targets, beating central government savings by a country mile.” (Rt Hon
    David Cameron MP, Cutting the Cost of Politics speech, September 8th
    2009).’

    ‘Councils made savings of more than £3 billion between 2005 and 2008 and
    a further £1.7bn in 2008-09. In 2009-10 councils made efficiency
    savings saving of more than £4.8m every day. In addition, 9 out of 10
    councils now publish details online of all spending above £500, so that
    residents can see exactly how their local authority is spending its
    money.’

    Now, you wouldn’t be lying to get across your panic-inducing message would you Dave?

  • http://twitter.com/CJMortimer Caroline Mortimer

    Whenever I hear all the people critcising public sector workers on Question Time extra I’m always reminded of that bit in Monty Python Life of Brian where John Cleese is ranting about ‘What have the Romans ever done for us’   then listing the aquaduct, peace, the roads…

    People really need to learn what a merit good is before they start criticising others.

    • Anonymous

      Well said

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    The average public sector pension is significantly more that £4,000 for those who have worked their full career in the public sector.  You can only claim it is £4,000 by including everyone who has ever worked in the public sector, including those with only a couple of years of service.  

    The deficit started in 2001, 7 years before the financial crash.

    The tories and the Lib Dems together polled 59.1% in 2010.  For those who claim there is a democratic deficit, see Nick Clegg for answers.  Under our electoral rules, this coalition has more mandate than any Government since the second world war.

    • Hugh

       Labour also won only 35% of the popular vote in 2005.

      And you’re right, the “average pension is £4,000″ is a nonsense. It’s like dividing the earnings of someone who spends a year as a £30k teacher before moving to the private sector  by 40 to argue teachers are paid £750 a year.

      • Anonymous

        The median pension is less than £5,000 a year. Happier with that figure?

        • Hugh

          No, I think you’re missing the point. It’s meaningless without the median term of service. If I work for three years with a company I don’t expect it to pay for my 30 years’ retirement.

          A more useful and honest assessment of public sector pensions is to say that generally if you work your entire career there you’ll get half or two thirds of your final salary as an annual pension.

          • alex williams

            Half or two thirds, not likely in teaching unless you are getting some pretty heavy pay rises towards the end. Since the old pensions were based on 80ths you’d have had to work beyond 60 even if you started straight from uni to even get half.

    • Mccabe Roy

      Well arent you a paragon of virtue – what do you earn and how muh is your pension – I expect as an  A & E manager it is considerable unlike many of your low paid colleagues who keep the NHS going.

    • Anonymous

      That’s an excuss that never works

    • http://twitter.com/AndrewFisher79 Andrew Fisher

      The average public sector pension, quoted in the Hutton report, is £5,600 (p.26). Average time spent in the public sector varies, but the average time spent in the average scheme yields that median pension.

      Many workers work in the public and private sectors across their working lives, so why not base the debate on that reality. The tragedy is that 34% of private sector workers were in similar defined benefit schemes in 1997, but today it is only 11% – of those 11% the average pension is £5,800 – about the same as the average public sector pension.

      Oh and Jamie – our debt was lower in 2008 than in 1997 – so much as I think Gordon Brown was a neoliberal arsehole who wasted the best opportunity for real change Labour ever had, at least he was moderately competent (as chancellor anyway).

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Thank you Andrew,

        so (1) there’s a data point in the Hutton Report that talks about £5,600 rather than £4,000, and (2) there’s an admission that the figure is as you express an average, acknowledging that it includes people who spend only part of their working lives in such a scheme.

        I was also talking about deficit, not debt.  Gordon Brown was a reasonable Chancellor from 1997-2000, and then clearly got concussed by something as his performance after 2000 demonstrates.  Thankfully, the berk is now in hiding.  Actually, not quite true, my children and I had great fun painting his face from a cartoon onto the Hallowe’en pumpkins, which are now in the compost heap, rotting away in appropriate tribute to his accomplishments.

        • Anonymous

          The UK deficit was 2.7% of GDP in 2007, identical to France and 0.1% less than the one George W Bush was running. Ireland had a surplus through most of the noughties, fat lot of good it did ‘em.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            It was still a deficit, and it grew.  I don’t believe Chancellors should run overdrafts with the people’s money, far less than a level of overdraft that could never be paid off at no apparent impact due to GDP rising.  22% of Government spending put on the credit card in 2009.  It should be a net surplus, and if that means not spending our money on some of these politicians’ schemes, so much the better.

          • Anonymous

            When Labour took power in 1997, the National Debt was 42% of GDP. In 2008 after 11 years of extravagant spending and profligacy the National Debt was 36% of GDP.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            We’re talking about deficit, not debt.  Everyone apart from The Eds knows the difference.

          • Hugh

            Can someone explain when it became the norm to measure government’s economic competence by tracking public finances  to the eve of a recession and calling that the record?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Since time immemorial, I presume.  Gordon’s serial re-defining of economic cycles muddied the waters as well for many, but the reality-based still look at long-term trends over decades

      • Hugh

        That means the average public sector worker will, as well as being paid more than the average private sector worker, also have a far, far better pension than 90% of private sector workers. It would therefore be wrong to reduce the subsidy paid by those private sector workers for their better paid neighbours’ retirement because…

    • Homf

      In an area as right wing as yours that doesn’t surprise me and neither does the fact that you’re a scab

    • Daniel Speight

      If there’s a picket line, I’m going to deliberately walk across it to
      show that patients are a higher priority than striking.

      Will you organize the press to be there Jaime?

      I guess it’s Jaime’s 15 minutes of fame requirement. Not sure it has that much to do with patients though.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        No, I’ll just walk across it.  Most of those on it would I imagine be colleagues, and I’ll happily converse with them later to explain that I walked across it to demonstrate my belief that patients come first.  There’s no need to get any press involved.

        • Redroger

          Such a dirty scab!! You’re anti worker attacks make me sick.

          • CJ

            No.  People decide not to strike for all kinds of reasons and, even if we don’t agree with someone’s stated reasons in a specific incidence, that person is still entitled to do what is right for them without being on the receiving end of insults. Particularly insults tied to a history of violence and exclusion from social circles (to put it quite mildly, I think).

        • Anonymous

          Are you suggesting nurses don’t care about their patients???

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Jo, most certainly not.  I have enormous respect for the professional behaviour, dedication and also very often simple human warmth of nurses, of any speciality.  My comments did not make that clear enough, so I apologise if that was the impression I inadvertently left.  My comments and views are purely from my perspective, not intending to judge others who hold different views.

            I am also sure from conversations that I have had with colleagues, a number of whom very much reflect your views, that this day of action is not a divisive issue between us.  Many have deeply held views on both sides, and I believe we respect others’ opinions either way.

            You also elsewhere ask me about your comments moving down the list.  I don’t know if you believe me to be responsible for that; please be assured that I am not.  I don’t know which internet browser software you have, but on mine there is the ability to sort by time or popularity rating of comments:  is it possible that your own browser is reordering posts as new ones come in?

          • Anonymous

            OK Jaime, that is reassuring to know.

            I ask because I noticed you had made other
            very similar comments on articles, eg on topic of unions.
            Eg talking about “cancer and maternity nurses” dealing with RTA’s.

            Likewise I have great respect for your role and speciality Jaime, but I would never presume to speak on behalf of your profession or know what specific tasks are involved in detail.

            Generally, I have always experienced good working relationships with colleagues across a whole spectrum of health and social care.Sometimes there can be communication difficulties between different sectors; eg social services; that can sometimes be due to a lack of understanding about what roles entail; it always helps to ask questions and break down barriers when there is an opportunity to do so.

            I am totally in favour of the union link and professional bodies’ support of workers and professionals.

            Under stressful and complex working conditions I believe it is necessary for staff to have some protections, advice and support; also a portal for information and updates.

            The RCN, for example, has been historically completely non political, but fantastic for education, research, and training; also supporting members.
            So if they are unhappy about negotiations and changes being imposed, I would trust the organization implicitly.

            Likewise, when I was a member of UNISON and CPHVA- they were fantastic.

            I have never heard any talk of striking; so this is all unprecedented in my view, and should be taken seriously.

            I don’t believe any member of staff would directly put a patient at risk;I would anticipate contingency plans have been being planned in advance?

            Anyway, I don’t want to go too far off topic here Jaime;
            I think it would be pertinent to hold back from going into great or personal details; let events take their course.

            I am sure that everyone is being responsible and thinking seriously.

            But I also hope that services run as smoothly as possible on the day Jaime; it’s probably quite fraught for many; also I think it’s very wrong has got to this stage.

            When I have heard some teachers interviewed- they seem quite desperate and at the end of their tether.
            I also think many are feeling devalued and ignored.

            Jo

            (PS- sorry can’t spend too much time here.)

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Thank you Jo for your generous response.  The one thing I do try to do is to keep politics out of my job, despite what I may say on here in my own time.  A&E is not the place for politics.

            I agree with you completely about no one wanting to put patients at risk.  The public have trust.  Even if I was a huge supporter of strike action – which I am not – and was demonstrating, if an ambulance pulled up I would throw away my sign and go to see how I could help.  I believe that my colleagues would do the same.  When I say “colleagues”,  I mean everyone on the medical side from the Medical Director to porters.  

            You are also correct in observing that the old hierarchical view is history.  For example, I am really rubbish at calibrating BOL monitors, which are a pervasive reality in A&E.  The software from either manufacturer is from the stone age.  My senior charge nurses can make those machines sing.  On the other hand, no one in my department can trace chemical pathways to deeper than the intestinal level (it’s not a need in A&E, more for anaesthetists), and I can go 2 levels deeper.  A really boring party trick, and that only exposes differences in emphasis in training regimes.  We’re a holistic team.  Where I do depart from the mainstream medical side is in taking a hands-on management role, covering selection of staff, mentoring, budgeting, a little bit of equipment selection, training, our internal organisation and shifting, triage policy (mostly with the Regional Trauma Team), and sustainability.  Before I took on this role, we had a department manager who nominally had responsibility for that, but when he took early retirement I said that I did want him to be replaced, but would take on the role myself.  I cannot run an efficient A&E without having my hands on all of the tillers that affect the overall outcome.  Whether I succeed or fail is up to my bosses, but so far they have not sacked me.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks Jaime,
            I’ll try to reply later on.

            J

          • Anonymous

            Interesting to hear of your field of experience, thanks Jaime.
            Mine has been in very different areas.
            I have great respect for the typs of work you do, and your colleagues across all disciplines.

            But as you say, A+E, or any other area of health, is probably not a good place for politics.

            My earlier reaction was pertaining to some of your similar posts about possible colleagues/different roles deciding whether to support strike action or not. 
            (Eg you added a comment to Grace FH’s “When people miss the point” on LL.)

            I got the impression you were trying to drive a wedge between eg nurses and doctors, and attempting to give out some sort of impression which I believed could be misleading. Also it assumes what other people’s thoughts and intentions actually are; I’m sure you’ll agree none of us have a monopoly over public opnion, or have the right to speak on behalf of other groups/professions?

            Also, this issue is likely to draw out emotive and fraught responses, especially if people directly involved.

            So I think all of us need to tread carefully
            and perhaps attempt to try to understand what is going on may be more nuanced and variable than simple black and white situations?

            This is likely to be a couple of weeks of constant announcements and some sort of a propaganda war against public service workers, in my view.

            We all need to be vigilant against exaggerated claims and misleading statements; especially when not coming directly from people involved themselves. 

            So I feel more than a little wary about all we are hearing on behalf of these workers, from any quarter, but especially via the likes of right wing tabloids historically.

            I certainly don’t wish to dwell on this, or for arguments to become polarized.

            All I’m interested in hearing are truthful
            accounts and genuinely expressed views; no hidden agendas.

            Thanks again- Jo.

        • alex williams

          I take you work for free Jaime?

    • Anonymous

      This is about the longer term impact of staff working conditions, impacting on quality of care for patients and services.

      An associated article:

      “Nurses’ strike over pensions edges closer….Royal College of Nursing threatens to call strike ballot in January if government dows not begin credible negotiations;”

      (I think, Guardian,10/11.)

      Nurses, teachers, etc have not traditionally striked- these are unprecedented steps.
      And I do not believe ANYONE would risk patient care; contingency plans are bound to be put in place.

      We are talking here about workers and professionals that have dedicated most of their 
      working lives on behalf of the the public and patients; and would NEVER take this action lightly.

      The RCN is a respected professional body, and is quite capable of speaking up on behalf of the nursing profession, and have been pioneering in raising standards in education, research, training and supporting staff.

      This issue has united many workers and professionals and has to be taken seriously.

      I am not interested in hearing gratuitous, biased, and non informed opinion from
      eg right wing tabloid sources, or vested interests/politically motivated individuals.

      This is about practicalities and pragmatic solutions; also respect for peoples’ roles and responsibilities.

    • Anonymous

      Patients are a high priority for ALL.

      • Winston Smith

        Clearly not.

    • Anonymous

      Why does my reply keep being moved down thread??

      I feel entitled and able to comment, having worked in the NHS for nearly 3 decades, and have significant experience working across sectors.

      J

      • Anonymous

        That’s it then, fine.

        Will be not be commenting further.

        Jo

      • Anonymous

        Change the ordering of the comments to newest/oldest first and it won’t happen. If the comments are in order of the most popular then yours will get moved down everytime another comment gets more “likes”.

        There’s no conspiracy to silence you just like there was no conspiracy to respond to your posts when you’re not here.

        Learn a bit more about the technology you’re using before you let your paranoia run wild.

        • Anonymous

          A)My replies to Jaime were being moved automatically downthread immediately after posting, so my query is aimed at the moderator of this site/thread- not Jaime or anyone else.
          It was exasperation on the spur of the moment.

          B)MB 5000 it is none of your business to pore over other people’s comments some time later or take out of context/assume anything about other posters for your own purposes; you have in the past been quick to use the opportunity of these kind of posts to personally attack me- and you know it.

          C)It is not funny or clever to crack jokes about mental illness.

          Having actually worked with people who suffer from paranoid delusions,
          I would never use that as an insult or reference towards anyone.

          As for your strange references about “conspiracy to silence” I haven’t the faintest idea what you are on about, and have no desire to pursue, since you have been rude and aggressive constantly to me on this site.

          • Anonymous

            A) If you have a query that is only meant to be read by the moderator, don’t post it in public – send it to the mod.

            B) You’ve just done exactly what you’re accusing me of doing. You assumed that I’m “poring” over you’re comment instead of just reading it and that I’m deliberately doing it when you’re not online. It’s simply the nature of the technology.

            C) You seemed to be atributing some kind of malicious intent to the way the site organises comments. I believe paranoia is a suitable term for that.

            D) Saying that I “may work” in IT would be implying rather than stating. I have done neither.

            As for your strange references about “conspiracy to silence” ”

            What’s so strange about it? You were asking why your comments were being moved and saying that you had a right to comment. You clearly seemed to think that the repositioning of your comments was preventing you from commenting ie someone was trying to silence you.

            As for rude and aggressive: everyone who disagrees with you is rude and I’m only as aggressive as you are sanctimonius.

          • Anonymous

            A)If I wish to make an observation or query with the moderator, that is between me and him; not there as an opportunity for others to attack or mock people.

            Posters make comments all the time; sometimes in the heat of the moment; sometimes misunderstood by others.
            You appear to be highly selective in picking out my comments out of the blue, with no previous dialogue, and making something out of it which is totally unneccesary, and I believe for your own purposes.
            It’s as if you are looking for an excuse to have a go.
            I say this because it’s happened on other occasions in the past; usually similar dynamics.
            I have made it very clear I do not wish to engage, and yet still you continue to pursue like this on occasions.

            B)As above- I certainly get the impression you are picking out my comments selectively for you own purposes.
            If you are not, then please prove this by refraining from behaviour towards me.
            There are many people on LL you could discuss things with, as you well know.

            C)You use the words”malicious” and “paranoia.”
            These are strong indeed- and your description, not mine.

            I expressed mild irritation in the heat of the moment that my responses to Jaime appeared to be automatically moved downthread the minute I had posted them.
            (At the time- has since been OK.)

            I actually believe Mark to be a fair and reasonable moderator, and I apologise to him for expressing irritation at the time.This was beacuse dialogue was not flowing smoothly, and comments being moved around.
            I can understand possible reasons for this, and I have always tried very hard to keep within the bounds of civility between posters.Not everyone does that, and there are times quite frankly when I’d like to log off permanently.
            Online blogging seems to encourage a great deal of rudeness and ignorant behaviour; presumably because of anonymity.Most of us wouldn’t put up with it in everyday life, so no reason to online in my view.

            D)”Conspiracy of silence.”
            Again, strong words, which mystify me in context.
            All I said was “why are my comments being moved downthread.”That was a simple straightforward query.
            And yet you go out of your way to twist this and exaggerate.

            And then you accuse me of being “sanctimonious” for challenging what you have written about me.

            People agree and disagree with each other all the time
            on LL and elsewhere on political sites, but not everyone feels the need to equate difference of opinion with attacking someone personally.

            Let’s face it, none of us knows anything about each other here, so usually best to err on the side of caution- and hopefully assume some basic respect as in any area of life.

            I have no idea what your beef is MB5000, but I can assure you you are barking up the wrong tree in making wrong assumptions.

            I hope that makes things clearer; may I also say I think views have been aired, and probably time to move on; as you say- this is a public site; and out of consideration to other readers not to dwell over this stuff.

            I am genuinely not interested in the politics of blogging, but the issues themselves.

            I will continue in trying to show respect towards other posters, regardless of their views; but will not tolerate any form of mocking or deliberate nastiness.

            If people are genuinely writing/posting in good faith; which will sometimes involve disagreements also-I think dialogue is more meaningful, and opens things up instead of shutting them down.

            That’s all I’ve got to say.

            J 

          • Anonymous

            A) If it’s posted in a public forum, it’s not just between you and him.

            B) You asked a question in a public forum. I addressed the question.

            C) If you’d bothered to read the entire sentence instead of just scanning it for words to complain about, you’d see they were completely within context.

            D) The obvious implication of your question was that your comments were being deliberately pushed down the thread to stop you being involved in the debate. I’m not twisting or exaggerating anything.

            And then you accuse me of being “sanctimonious” for challenging what you have written about me.

            You’re not challenging what I’ve written about you. You’re ranting about my supposed evil intentions, seeing vicious personal attacks where there are none and taking it upon yourself to be the internet’s moral police.

            That’s all I’ve got to say.

            I highly doubt it.

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

      And 59.1% of those who voted, not the electorate. Revisionism as usual.

      And I would refuse to be treated by you. Bluntly, someone who backs the destructive reforms which will SEND many to hospital is nobody who I can trust. Period.

  • Hugh

    As a proportion of GDP, public sector pensions are projected to peak at 2% in 2027-28 and  then decline if the move to CPI for indexation is implemented – the move the unions are currently challenging in court; and if the proportion of public sector workers doesn’t grow.

    The “race to the bottom” argument is equally weak: a career average scheme that will still give  mid income earners the equivalent of about two-thirds of their final salary is in not danger of fuelling a race to the bottom. What it does do is slightly ease the pressure on taxpayers, many of whom are putting more towards public sector workers’ retirements than their own. And, of course, those taxpayers are, on average, being paid less.

    Finally, since we were running a deficit between 2002 to 2007, it’s not solely down to lower tax receipts is it?

    • http://twitter.com/AndrewFisher79 Andrew Fisher

      Not true. It actually peaks next year and falls to to just under 1.4% by 2050 (the level it was in 1985). See p.22 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/hutton_final_100311.pdf

      Yes, the Hutton report assumes the CPI change imposed last year, but the National Audit Office report of December 2010 did not and found Labour’s pensions deal in 2007 saves £67bn or 14% of costs, more than stabilising costs.

      As 1/4 of a million public sector jobs have been culled in the last two years (110,000 in the last quarter alone) it is safe to assume the public sector will be smaller. BUt remember, that is a double-edged sword: fewer public sector workers paying in today means a larger funding shortfall for today’s pensioners with public sector pensions in payment – as these are largely pay-as-you-go schemes.

      No union that I have heard objects to moving to career average schemes (the civil service moved to career average in 2007 in agreement with Labour). But union members do object to that meaning paying more and working longer for a worse pension.

      • Hugh

        I copied and pasted the figures from the article. If you think it safe to assume the public sector won’t grow over four decades projected forward – or that the growth figures assumed in any estimate stretching that far ahead are reliable you’re fairly brave.

        No unions object to moving to a career average scheme – as long as no one losses out, which is really the same as objecting to moving to a career average scheme unless you want us to put more money to public sector pensions. And someone is going to have to pay more and work longer to pay for these pensions; can you tell me why it shouldn’t be the people benefiting from them?

    • Owen

      ‘Taxpayers’ is now a category exclusive of public sector workers or, indeed, anyone that buys anything, ever?

      • Winston Smith

        If the money they are paid with and buy things with is raised by taxes then what’s the net result…?

  • Anonymous

    many of these statistics are bogus (as others have pointed out above).

    The test is simple, if I, as an employer, were to try to purchase these same benefits for my employees they would cost me about 35% of salary. Outside of some extreme examples no private sector business could afford this without going bust.

    Thus those in the private sector simply cannot expect these sorts of generous term – this is not a race to the bottom – it is simply reality – and I don’t accept that private sector salaries are materially differrent to those in the Public sector.

    That being the case I and my emplyees are paying taxes to buy much better pensions for those in the public sector than we can in reality expect ourselves. This is simply unfair and no amount of argumentative contortion can make it right.

    We have also had no pay rises for almost four years now, and we have all agreed this to preserve jobs, not to maximise profits.

    This is not a rant against those in the public sector, I greatly respect what they provide, I simply cannot, on behalf of those who work in this business accept the continuation of such unfairness.

    Time my friends to get in the real world.

    • Hugh

      Not just the statistics, the rhetoric, too: public sector workers are pillars of our community in much the same way private sector workers are. They serve you at the check out in Tesco; they accept your payment for fuel; they process your banking transactions; they make bread; they ensure the electricity supply and enable you to make mobile phone calls and access the Internet. Without them, society would not function.

      • Anonymous

        A good point.  If Labour continues to laud public sector workers as angels in our midst, the implication and indeed not just implication, is that private sector workers are on the `dark side of the force’, ie eager participants in the evil empire.  A huge turn off from Labour for all those, ie the  majority, including myself and the 600 people with whom I work, who make their living  in the private sector.

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

      So your answer is to destroy.  To rend and crush. To ensure that everyone is brought down to your level.

      I’m sure you chear when you hear about pensioners unable to afford heating bills and freezing.

  • Lisaansell7

    Actually Jaime, you may want to check that. Most people in receipt of public sector pensions do not get a full career of entitlement. They are mostly women. The public sector is attractive because the private sector is fairly hostile to mothers and carers. So work is often part time or comes with taken years out to do the work that keeps society going so everyone else can work.  Women who havent earned enough to make other arrangements. The £4k average changes when you go across the sector. In some departments it is less than £3k. The same women who have also lost the welfare that bridged the same economic inequality(Labour forgotr why welfare mainly paid to women). I know political debate forums have a carefully fostered air of nasty misogyny when women are mentioned and this is sufficient reason for those who cannot see outside Westminster to forget they exist, but yes, that average is in fact average.  I know  I’ll get ten tossers moaning about how motherhoood and caring for our older people, people with disabilities, is no contribution to society, while blethering economic gibberish about how we are somehow going to reduce our deficit by making the kind of  cuts that only ever increase it but hey ho…when all our political parties are uttering the same gibberish, it is to be expected. Labour wont refrain from condemning strikes. The cuts that provoked them are mainly Labour policy.

  • Owen

    Good stuff, but why allow the neoclassical economic narrative of the right to frame some of these responses?
    Pension affordability: our govt is not revenue constrained – affordability simply is a non-issue.

    Funding of pensions: there is (for a sovereign, floating currency) no direct link between tax revenues and govt funding – our taxes don’t pay for stuff, in fact the causality is the other way round (govt spending provides the money that enables tax to be paid ).

    Deficits: Yes, caused by financial crisis, not public spending – but not, in and of itself, problematic, nor worthy of the degree of focus it gets.  A deficit tells you bugger all without contextualising information (other than the fact that there must be a net surplus in the non-govt sector – so who’s got it all?). We have a ‘bad’ deficit at the moment in so far as it is indicative of high and climbing unemployment – /that/ is the problem, not an accounting statement. Govts are in deficit most of the time, and so they should be; they should also be utterly focused on establishing full-employment.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll be backing the strike and I’ve  never ever crossed a picket line and I’ll be damed if I do now. I’m sad to see so few people voting for strike action or not bothering to return the vote.

    But people have to fight otherwise we just give up, the problem for Labour is the same for the Toreis most are rich, most have never done a days work in their lives and Milibands problem he’s to weak and scared to speak.

  • Seancm675

    Where do you get this stuff from?

  • Anonymous

    Labour needs to use its voice to set this strike in its proper social context not get drawn into a narrow discussion about whether the pensions are good or bad compared to others, the scheme’s  affordability etc. Leave that to those striking (if those in control of the media don’t stiifle their voices that is).

    Labour’s job is surely to focus on the bigger picture: that we seem to have enough money to pay an average wage of around £270,000 a year to the hundreds of staff at Barclays Capital Bank and the same per week to some of our footballers. Oh and let’s not forget the pension pot millions that had to be honoured for Fred Goodwin for wrecking RBS because he had a contract (I guess it must be a different one to the guaranteed pension contract public service workers signed up to).

    If we didn’t live in such a highly unequal society then I think public service workers and their private sector colleagues would be a lot more willing to accept a lecture and a cut. If Labour should be doing anything then surely it’s sort out our ridiculous levels of inequality!?

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a lack of understanding by the writer about the difference between debt and deficit.  I suggest the writer reads up about this before writing any further articles on this subject.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy

    Before you jump to conclusions about the Labour Leadership backing the strikes, I might add that ALL the candidates for both Scottish leader and deputy leader HAVE backed the strikes, and I know many candidates will be joining workers on the picket lines.

    Labour (and Green) MSPs at Holyrood voted against a motion for a special sitting of the chamber on November 30th, St. Andrews day, and will not be crossing picket lines that day. 

    • Anonymous

      Typical Scots… living off  English taxes…

      Ungrateful lot.

  • http://twitter.com/itsjn Its Just Natural

    jaime taurosangastre candelas is right. I worked for 30 years in the public sector. I was forced into redundancy last March with just 24 hours notice to leave – all because of government cuts.  I’ll get a pension of just over £9,000. Boy am I looking forward to living it up on my yacht from here on in.

  • LabourVoter

    Good post Owen. The Tory led government are pressing ahead with marketisation of as many  aspects of community life as they can get away with, this eventually could crush the cohesive human values on which the labour movement is founded.
    As Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman has said: “The Emperor has no clothes, all you have to do is look.” So let’s call it as we see it: naked opportunist greed that benefits only the few.
    Time for the old heave-ho, all hands to Nov 30th.

  • Anonymous

    I love reading articles like this. It just emphasizes the ineptitude of the 3rd rate writer who believes himself to be a 1st rate journalist.

    The main thrust of his whole argument is “as you were folks”, as if nothing had changed. 
    Note to Owen Jones – Labour are not in power now, things will be done differently.

    I wonder what the state of affairs will be the day after the (ahem) Great Strike. Will anything have changed? Will I, and all those in the private sector, be more sympathetic to the cause of the public sector and its workers? Will be interesting to see the reaction.

    • Anonymous

      I think he know labours are not in power, the coalition is we hope.

  • peckhampulse

    Private pensions cost taxpayer £37.6bn

    Private sector pensions cost the taxpayer more than public sector
    pensions in 2007/08, Richard Murphy, founder of Tax Research LLP says.

    In a damning new report, Murphy breaks down data from 2007-08 and finds total pensions payments made in the UK by both the public and private sector was £177.6bn.

    Murphy claims £57.6bn in state pensions was paid, £25bn was paid to
    public sector pensioners, and £35bn was given out by private sector
    pension providers.

  • Spicetrader

    The unions have had about a fifth of union members actually vote for a strike. Thats a lot less than the current Conservative bunch got at the election.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone who writes:
    “We have a deficit caused by public spending.
    Not true.”

    Is either seriously deluded, financially illiterate or a liar.

    So Mr Owen should stop writing and take up a post more suited to his lack of talent.. He appears ideally suited…seriously deluded, financially illiterate or a liar .. to becoming an MP.

    • Anonymous

      Interesting a Tory attacking the Labour activist.

      • Homf

        Again. Happens all the time on here. Really, who cares what Tory trolls think?

  • Lefehandedlondoner

    Complete circularity in your argument about public spending causing the deficit. Doesn’t really matter what the causes for the deficit are, but Britain simply can’t afford a level of spending that makes the deficit larger . . .

  • Hugh

    Murphy’s talking about tax relief presumably (which public sector workers also get on their pension contributions). Its purpose is to avoid double taxation so that people aren’t taxed on the income paid into their pensions and then taxed again when they draw it out. If you consider that “pensions are just deferred wages, after all” – to borrow a phrase – it makes perfect sense.

    As it is, though, we should scrap it (and certainly at the upper rate)  – immediately after we reduce public sector pensions significantly. Both savings can then be put towards a massively increased state pension, which would be the best way to avoid pensioner poverty.

    • Peter Barnard

      Indeed, Hugh (“Both savings can then be put towards a massively increased state pension, which would be the best way to avoid pensioner poverty.”) We should be aiming for European levels of state pensions, paid for out of general taxation. Get rid of shuffling all this money around via tax relief, which is ultimately paid for by those employees who don’t have a pension scheme, whether personal or employer-operated.
       
      Commentators above are mistaken when they write that “the cost of public pensions is x per cent of GDP” using the Hutton Report estimates. Roughly speaking, public sector employees (most, that is, but not the Civil Service or the Armed Forces, if I remember correctly) pay about 7 per cent in out of their wages and the employing authority pays about 15 per cent in – collected from the taxpayer.
       
      One could say, perhaps, that the cost to the taxpayer of public sector pensions for the employer’s contribution is about 12 per cent of public sector wages (= £20 billion in 2009/10? See PESA 2011, Tables 6.5 and 7.8) plus an additional £5 billion in 2009/10 (Budget 2011, Table C.4). The employees’ contributions may be £12 billion in aggregate.
       
      (nb – these are very much “back of the envelope.”)
       
      In a similar way, when people shop at Tesco (who run a occupational pension scheme), they actually pay for Tesco’s contribution to the pension scheme that it operates for its employees.
       
      I did write something about pensions a couple of years ago : http://labourlist.org/2009/07/labour-needs-to-make-a-bold-statement-on-the-state-retirement-pension/

      • Hugh

        Good point; I hadn’t thought of that.

      • Anonymous

        I presume this is exacerbating the problem isn’t it? when, in practice, public pensions are paid out of current expenditure, and if the armed services, to take the example, are shrinking, then you have less “current” income (from current servers’ contributions) and more “current” expenditure (from longer-living former servers’ withdrawals).

        Put another way: I suppose we have effectively spent money that we had already promised to be used for payment.

      • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

        Sure, but let’s not pretend that this government are, as Hugh suggests, going to boost the pensions to anything like that degree. I expect them to back down from their promised rise, indeed, and will only keep the inflation link because they know breaking THAT would cost them the vast majority of their grey vote.

        • Hugh

          Hugh didn’t suggest this government were going to massively cut public sector pensions and scrap tax relief to boost the state pension; he suggested they should. More surprising to the casual observer is that Labour – you remember, the moral crusade or nothing lot – have yet to back it. Rachel Reeves, when shadow pensions minister backed scrapping tax relief but only for those paying the 50% rate. Anything to do with the 40% taxpayer vote do you think?

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

      Given it would need to support 95%+ of pensioners as a sole income, yes.

      Except of course nothing of the sort will happen in terms of boosting pensions (or cutting the deficit, it’ll go on another Tory pork-barrel scheme), and pensioners will simply freeze over the winter in 30 years as a *routine* occurrence. Heating’s for the rich, after all.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for laying out the facts and dispelling myths Owen.

    Always enjoy your writing and perspective, and usually vastly in agreement.

    These are unprecedented times, and time for Labour and the unions to shine
    on behalf of ordinary working people.

    Jo

  • GuyM

    Ahh, so now Jaime is a class enemy?

    A trained doctor/surgeon etc. with the best needs of his patients first in his mind and working in the NHS rather than going private.

    But of course he’s “management” isn’t he, so nothing more than another easy target for the class war dinosaurs of the Labour left to attack.

    Anyone in any doubt about this strike, the unions and the leftwing of Labour in general should come and read some of the comments on this thread attacking an NHS A&E Doctor for having the temerity to keep his A&E open rather than risk patient lives.

    • Anonymous

      The NHS is made up of many professions- ALL working on behalf of patients.

      We’ve moved beyond the days of an hierarchical “medical model” world view.

      Also, most of the medics and GP’s I’ve worked with would be very likely to support colleagues.

      J

  • GuyM

    There are far more private sector taxpayers than public sector.

    Hence the burden of paying for public sector pensions falls far too heavily on private sector taxpayers than it should.

    • Owen Green

      Neither of which have any bearing on why one would declare that public sector workers or (say) unemployed consumers somehow don’t qualify as payers of tax, despite quite evidently paying tax. It’s a nasty, divisive and above all mendacious framing move.

      I’m not going to reward your changing of the subject beyond pointing you below to my point vis-a-vis taxation and government expenditure.

      • GuyM

        It’s nothing of the kind.

        You used “everyone pays tax” just justify the public sector pension funding arrangements.

        In reality it would be unfair on private sector workers if 99% of workers worked in the public sector and only 1% the private.

        If public sector workers want pension the like of which the private sector can only dream about then they should bear the majority of the burden through increased contributions not drop responsibility onto people who will not benefit in the slightest from them.

        How about we have equal pension contributions from all workers, private and public at a set %, equal contributions from all employers, state or private, at a set % and the same pension for everyone?

        If you do that of course your public sector workers will take a big cut in pensions. Which shows how unfair the funding is.

      • Hugh

        You’re quite right, I never should have said public sector workers don’t pay taxes: I’ve googled it and they do! I’m sorry to have misled people; I’ve made a mental note to be more careful before making wild declarations again.

        How mendacious of me.

        And that does frame things entirely differently. I see now we’re really all in the same boat: some just happen to pay taxes for public sector pensions and have a public sector pension; and some pay taxes for public sector pensions and don’t. It’s much the same really – apart from the income in retirement part.

        We’re all Unison now.

        • John

          HMRC figures in 2010 showed that whilst public sector pensions cost the taxpayer £9bn, tax relief on private sector pensions was at £40bn. So, as taxpayers we all pay into a pool, and we are not always aware of what that pool  is used for. The TUC wants fair pension provision for all – the private sector have been more aggressive than governments in reducing employee benefits, is all. And whether the reason, or coincidence, I leave to others – but the Trade Unions in the public sector have been more successful in maintaining membership, and fighting through industrial action to protect those benefits. Union membership in the private sector is at approx 25% – but is twice to three times that denisty in the public sector. The message to the private sector is simple – get organised people, start resisting!   

        • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

          So your answer is to push more people in the public sector into not having pensions, since keeping the cash under the bed is a better long-term investment.

          And that WILL inflate the bill for the private sector. Why do you hate the private sector?

          • Hugh

            Yes, because a career average scheme is the same as having no pension, after all.

            As reasoned and nuanced as ever.

          • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

            The problem is of course, in a rational world – that is, not yours, not the salary average.

            The problem is paying *far* more and getting *far* less.  To the degree that keeping the cash under the bed, as I said, is a better investment.

            Gotta make sure that nobody can have a deacent retirement except the 1%, don’t you.

          • Hugh

            “keeping the cash under the bed, as I said, is a better investment”

            Yes, you did say that; it hasn’t stopped being a silly claim.

          • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

            Yes, I know, math is SO hard for the right, after all.

            The deficit is hard to tackle…

          • Hugh

            I got my GCSE – can you run me through the maths please? I’m struggling to see how a defined benefit scheme that will frequently give members 1/2 their average salary and to which the member contributes less than one tenth of the pot works out worse than stuffing that cash under a mattress.

    • alex williams

      The ‘burden’ it makes it sound like the public sector worker is some kind of charity case. Perhaps there is a symbiotic relationship between all workers. The public sector allows the private sector to function effectively. It is all interconnected. The pension/pay thing should be seen as a combined payment. Question is not if contributions cover cost of pension, but whether or  not we consider the package as a whole is fair recompense for the job being done. Personally I’d take it case by case. One factor for example is the stress/demands of some jobs in the public sector have an impact on health/capacity of a human being to fully enjoy their life. They are all consuming and emotionally and intellectually demanding. Similar jobs in the private sector may reward these demands with high instant payment/bonus. In the case of a public sector worker this is deferred. (I am not saying that anyone not on high wages is automatically not doing a demanding job but generally this is the case).  

      The problem is that not all public sector jobs are the same or are of a similar demand on your life. Also there has been a massive growth in the managerial classes within the public sector and they seem to receive a higher reward and still are inlcuded in some of these pensions. That is where one problem lies.

      I would like to see a strong rewarding public sector pension, but capped at a fixed income figure. Income above this figure would not accrue any benefit in the scheme, and instead the employee can top up with a private additional pension if they see fit.

      I see little justification for managers retiring on pensions higher than the earninings of most who do the work. They have benefitted from higher income all through their working life so why should this continue into retirement unless it is paid for out of their additional earnings.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s another example of a myth dispelled, Owen:

    “Who exactly are the “bureacrats” wrecking the NHS?…..while it may suit Andrew L
    to describe jobs such as mine as unnecessary, to do so devalues the vital work we do.”

    Guardian, (RS) 14/11.

    Also for related, please see:

    “Cameron seeks to push one million workers out of the public sector;”
    Independent, (MC) 13/11.

    I believe all this to be an ideologically motivated onslaught, partially “sold” through
    right wing sections of the tabloid press.

    Even if we were not experiencing recession, I think similar policies would be being pursued,
    in an attempt to “roll back the state” as they define it.

    Could you make a list sometime Owen- of what comprises typical right wing/Tory
    beliefs and ambitions?!

    I feel almost incandescant with rage over how workers in the public services are being falsely represented and treated; almost with contempt.

    What about quality of essential and frontline services to the public?
    How is that valued, and how will be sustained with a demoralized and depleted workforce?

    Let’s think about some of these workers and professionals.
    Who are they and what do they do; let’s hear from people directly;
    not just spoken about as if invisible or ignored.

    I can think of:

    Low paid ancillary/support staff; carers in social care setting; health care assistants,
    teaching assistants, social work support staff; mental health and disability care workers;
    social workers, child protection professionals, probation staff in prisons and the community;
    youth workers; emergency services: fire, ambulance, police, health.
    Nurses, allied professions in the NHS such as midwives, occupational therapists, physios,
    HV’s, community staff in primary care;
    Community services: eg libraries, museums, local government.

    As someone commented on QT a couple of weeks ago, these services are the bedrock
    of our society functioning….we are all reliant on these, and depend on good quality services, delivered by well trained, experienced and dedicated staff.

    Why is all of this being devalued?
    Simply because it involves paying a relatively miniscule amount of tax shared as a collective pot?

    Also- is it the fault or responsibility of relatively low paid workers in demanding jobs and often working unsocial hours of taking the lion’s share of burden of cuts- caused by irresponsible practices of large parts of the fincancial and banking sector?

    And why are they being villified and scapegoated?

    It’s despicable!

    J

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately the “neo classical economic narrative of the right” has indeed framed
    much of the commentary Owen.

    Jo

  • Anonymous

    That is an interesting economic viewpoint.  Can you explain how you came about it?

  • Gill Malik

    My NHS pension will be less yjan £1,800 per year!

  • Anonymous

    Nearly a quarter of British workers being paid less than £7 an hour can be found in the public sector.

    And? That statistic doesn’t really tell us anything on it’s own. You could equally say that over three quarters of British workers being paid less than £7 an hour can be found in the private sector.

    That makes it sound like the private sector are worse off than the public, but it tells us nothing of any use. It’s just rhetorical statistics.

    Public sector pay has been frozen, even as inflation soars to over
    5%. That means public sector workers are – in real terms – experiencing
    major pay cuts.

    Private sector workers are in the same position. Personally, I’ve never had a pay rise unless I’ve moved to a different job.

    If you take out the top mandarins, the average pension of a civil
    servant is about £4,000 a year; more than 100,000 earn less than £2,000 a
    year. In the public sector as a whole, most public sector workers get a
    pension of less than £5,000.

    As before, this doesn’t tell us anything unless you include the equivalent figure for the private sector.

    If you’re looking for gold-plated pensions, the private sector is a
    good place to start. One TUC survey of 346 directors from 102 of the
    UK’s top companies found that their average pension was worth £201,700:
    about 25 times higher than the average worker.

    Again, these numbers in isolation are meaningless. What do the top civil service mandarins get in pension payments? If they get around £100k, then the ratio of mandarin/worker pension payments is the same as in the private sector.

    But the argument should not be to drag down the pensions of public
    sector workers: it should be to drag up the pensions of private sector
    workers.

    Then call a strike demanding better pensions for private sector workers.

  • Registration_id

    Don’t just withold your labour, withold your capital. On the 30th of Novemebr support he International Consumers’ Strike by not buying anything on that day.

  • Anonymous

    A good article and I agree with most of it.  I do not think that Labour politicians should support or condemn strikes.  They should, however, stress the importance of employers negotiating with their employees, who have a right to withdraw their labour.

    I hope that private sector workers realise that their inferior pensions are largely due to the collapse of trade union membership in the private sector over the last 30 years.  They should join a trade union! 

  • Pingback: Scottish Socialist Youth » STRIKE

  • http://twitter.com/sykobee Graham Briggs

    Unfortunately this post falls into the error of using averages and not providing the full details. First, use the median, second, compare like for like, and third assume a reasonable career length when providing figures, e.g., 30 years.

    Not doing so waters down the argument and that affects people’s opinion.

    What is the median pension for someone who has worked in the public sector for 30 years? What is it for someone who has worked in the private sector for 30 years? How much did each contribute? How much did each earn whilst employed (as a common argument is that public sector employees earn less than private for the same type of work, hence the pension makes up the difference).

    With final salary pensions someone forging a 30 year career in the public sector may be 50% or higher as the pension. Assuming some promotions during that career, that can be very significant – £20k+. Many would say that is gold plated. Not a lot of gold, but compared to a private sector pension it’s a lot. And yes, private sector workers should be fighting more for their rights, so maybe the unions would like to work out a way of allowing private sector workers more rights to join unions, etc.

    But I am 100% against contracts and promises being broken, if you signed up for a final salary pension, then it shouldn’t be taken away from you. At the very least what you’ve earned so far should stay. So it is good that people are striking for these core beliefs.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Graham, this might be of interest too as a bigger picture about pay disparity
      between sectors and tiers of management etc:

      http://www.highpaycommission.co.uk

      “Cheques with Balances. Why tackling high pay is in the national interest.”

      According to N’Night last night, public service/sector salaries pale into insignificance by comparison. And yet of what comparitive intrinsic value to society?

      Why should the lowest paid be hit the most for mistakes made by others?

      I’m just thinking along wider lines, as there is bound to be a lot of hype over the
      public service workers/pensions’ issue over next week;
       it would be useful to see in context.

      Thanks, Jo.

    • Hugh

      ” At the very least what you’ve earned so far should stay.” As indeed it will under the reforms proposed. As far as I know, benefits accrued are unaffected.

  • http://twitter.com/sykobee Graham Briggs

    How long have you worked in the NHS, and what grade are you? Pensions are linked to service length, e.g., 50% * (Max((years worked / 30), 1) * career average wage).

    If you’re on £20,000 and work for 10 years, the above scheme would give you an annual pension of £3,333 per year. And the shorter time that you work, the fewer times you will be promoted, so the average wage (or final wage) will be lower.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I’d prefer to work for the day rather than join in a strike I do not believe in, nor will I be  frightened off by any personal intimidation some strikers might think is inherent in a picket line.  If anyone wants to intimidate me, they can try.  I’m very proudly not a selfish unionist.  I stand up for myself, and negotiate my own terms and conditions.  I don’t need some unionist to do that for me, and the results are that I have more freedom than a union member.
    As for “scab”, your words illustrate well how cogently worded the current dispute is from a union perspective.  It’s about as advanced as a dinosaur’s grunt. Even the spineless Miliband has enough awareness not to try to support this “day of action”.

    • alex williams

      I am a proud nonselfish unionist if that is allowed. As are many of my colleagues in their last 5 years of work since they will be largely unaffected by any changes but who believe standing up through this action is valid, for those who come after them. You want people to respect your decision, but please try not to rubbish others people’s decisions to strike by using silly phrases like ‘selfish unionist’.

  • Pingback: November 30 « Mr Adam Richards

  • Pingback: Four myths about today's strike: Busted. | Left Foot Forward

  • Pingback: To November 30 #nov30 « Though Cowards Flinch

  • Pingback: A mass strike in Britain – is this a new era for organised labour? — National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts

  • Pingback: LabourList: Why Labour people should back ‘The Great Strike’ « jonesblog

  • Pingback: LabourList: This is a historic day « jonesblog

  • Anonymous

    Typically, the basic facts of our ecomomy are ignored, so let me enlighten you…

    Facts:
    1. Government Income is from Private Companies and Private Sector Employees.
    2. Income from VAT is mainly spent on our Euro Membership.
    3. Public Sector Workers are paid from the taxes collected from the Private Sector.
    4. Effectively, any Tax & NI payments from Public Sector Employees are a paper exercise and have no benefit for HMRC as the GROSS Salary Paid comes from the Public Purse, therefore any tax & ni paid is for show, it stays in the Governments Coffers.  This means that the ‘employer’ pension contribution is also paid from the public purse at a higher rate than private employers pay towards their staff pensions.

    5. With an aging population cost to the Government will continue to rise in Healthcare and other Benefits as their number outstrips those in the Private Sector Workplace.

    6. With the exception of a couple of Depts such as HM Land Registry and DVLA that are funded by the fees charged and take no monies from the public purse, all other Govt Depts are a net loss to our economy.

    If you want equality in life, you have to take a few steps back in order to move forward.

    a. People need to be responsible for themselves and their kin and stop expecting everyone else to pay their bills.  This means that if you cannot afford to have children, stop having them.

    b.

Latest

  • Featured This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    By Emma Burnell

    Life can come out and shock you. The events of yesterday are unimaginable. The family of the poor victim are in indescribable pain. Those who knew the men who have done these terrible things will also be suffering. They too are victims of this awful crime. Over the next few days and weeks we will see the best and the worst of humanity. As John Lydon once sang, anger is an energy. Well directed anger is healthy. We should be [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    In a statement this evening, Ed Miliband said: “This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. “All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim. “The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand. “The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    By Kirstin Hay

    With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    By Mark Seddon

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →