Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

[turbobloke]

Banker induced? That mistaken view is new on here, we've never seen it before.

[turbobloke]

BOR said:

Plus, it could wipe literally hundreds of pounds off the budget deficit.

Which of course is not the aim.

You might have added that striking basically because the incompetent muppets aka Labour are no longer in office will wipe off even more.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

Banker induced? That mistaken view is new on here, we've never seen it before.

OK, it was strikers that did it then, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Banker induced? That mistaken view is new on here, we've never seen it before.

OK, it was strikers that did it then, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

Take a look through the relevant threads, there's a lot of accurate information on the several contributory causes mixed in with the mindless banker bashing.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

Take a look through the relevant threads, there's a lot of accurate information on the several contributory causes mixed in with the mindless banker bashing.

No more mindless than striker bashing is it?

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Take a look through the relevant threads, there's a lot of accurate information on the several contributory causes mixed in with the mindless banker bashing.

No more mindless than striker bashing is it?

Yes, of course it is, plenty more - such criticism isn't mindless.

There are also several threads covering strikes, particularly teachers, doctors and civil servants, over the still-very-generous public sector final salary pension schemes, where (curiously) the mindless banker bashing transforms into mindless support for out of touch union activism unrelated to the reality of life after Labour and the remarkable generosity of the actual pensions still on offer.

[Johnnytheboy]

This thread has got wierder and wierder.

There's a world of difference between having a right to strike, and a right to be paid by the government to strike.

It's even wierder if you're a state employee (as most strikers seem to be these days, having killed most of the unionised industries): you're being paid to strike by your employer.

[turbobloke]

Yes, but the payment is from the taxpayer as we fund the employer, which further puts the situation into perspective. Expecting the taxpayer to subsidise or incentivise strikes in any way is ludicrous.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

Yes, of course it is, plenty more - such criticism isn't mindless.

There are also several threads covering strikes, particularly teachers, doctors and civil servants, over the still-very-generous public sector final salary pension schemes, where (curiously) the mindless banker bashing transforms into mindless support for out of touch union activism unrelated to the reality of life after Labour and the remarkable generosoty of the actual pensions on offer.

Doesn't say it'll only be taken off people striking to protect their pension rights though does it? And why wouldn't you want to defend your pension rights anyway? Should you be punished for trying to defend that? These aren't wildcat strikes like in the 70s, employers are well covered (and rightly so) in employment law against illegal strikes. It's a cheap headline and scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. Would you spend a tenner to save 20p ?

[sinizter]

Excellent ....

I see no reason why someone should be paid to strike.

They are still free to strike, only the strikes are not free any more.

[z4me]

sinizter said:

Excellent ....

I see no reason why someone should be paid to strike.

They are still free to strike, only the strikes are not free any more.

Free strikes, how does that work? Notice there's no cost or savings mentioned in this stuff?

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Yes, of course it is, plenty more - such criticism isn't mindless.

There are also several threads covering strikes, particularly teachers, doctors and civil servants, over the still-very-generous public sector final salary pension schemes, where (curiously) the mindless banker bashing transforms into mindless support for out of touch union activism unrelated to the reality of life after Labour and the remarkable generosoty of the actual pensions on offer.

Doesn't say it'll only be taken off people striking to protect their pension rights though does it? And why wouldn't you want to defend your pension rights anyway? Should you be punished for trying to defend that? These aren't wildcat strikes like in the 70s, employers are well covered (and rightly so) in employment law against illegal strikes. It's a cheap headline and scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. Would you spend a tenner to save 20p ?

That's one way of looking at 20p.

Another way is that if the 20p was index linked with inflation at about 3% per year and paid out between the ages of (say) 67 and 84 to millions of people it would save a lot, while the people on the receiving end will have put in a lot less than 20p each year along the way and even less than the 33p it would become.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Yes, of course it is, plenty more - such criticism isn't mindless.

There are also several threads covering strikes, particularly teachers, doctors and civil servants, over the still-very-generous public sector final salary pension schemes, where (curiously) the mindless banker bashing transforms into mindless support for out of touch union activism unrelated to the reality of life after Labour and the remarkable generosoty of the actual pensions on offer.

Doesn't say it'll only be taken off people striking to protect their pension rights though does it? And why wouldn't you want to defend your pension rights anyway? Should you be punished for trying to defend that? These aren't wildcat strikes like in the 70s, employers are well covered (and rightly so) in employment law against illegal strikes. It's a cheap headline and scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. Would you spend a tenner to save 20p ?

That's one way of looking at 20p.

Another way is that if the 20p was index linked with inflation at about 3% per year and paid out between the ages of (say) 67 and 84 to millions of people it would save a lot, while the people on the receiving end will have put in a lot less than 20p each year along the way and even less than the 33p it would become.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. if you gave me a tenner , and I gave you 20p back, would you consider that a sound use of your tenner?

[0000]

z4me said:

Doesn't say it'll only be taken off people striking to protect their pension rights though does it? And why wouldn't you want to defend your pension rights anyway?

Punished? By not being paid for work they haven't done? Punished?

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

Yes, of course it is, plenty more - such criticism isn't mindless.

There are also several threads covering strikes, particularly teachers, doctors and civil servants, over the still-very-generous public sector final salary pension schemes, where (curiously) the mindless banker bashing transforms into mindless support for out of touch union activism unrelated to the reality of life after Labour and the remarkable generosoty of the actual pensions on offer.

Doesn't say it'll only be taken off people striking to protect their pension rights though does it? And why wouldn't you want to defend your pension rights anyway? Should you be punished for trying to defend that? These aren't wildcat strikes like in the 70s, employers are well covered (and rightly so) in employment law against illegal strikes. It's a cheap headline and scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. Would you spend a tenner to save 20p ?

That's one way of looking at 20p.

Another way is that if the 20p was index linked with inflation at about 3% per year and paid out between the ages of (say) 67 and 84 to millions of people it would save a lot, while the people on the receiving end will have put in a lot less than 20p each year along the way and even less than the 33p it would become.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. if you gave me a tenner , and I gave you 20p back, would you consider that a sound use of your tenner?

How is that relevant?

If I gave you a cucumber and you gave me a parsnip, what has that got to do with the colour of Dave Prentis' boxer shorts?

We're talking about lots of people not being given incentive or subsidy to strike. The full cost-benefit analysis cannot be simplified to suit your political aims, nor mine, but then I'm not trying to do as much.

[Murph7355]

z4me said:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. if you gave me a tenner , and I gave you 20p back, would you consider that a sound use of your tenner?

If you gave me a tenner and a million people were going to give me back 20p a year for 20yrs index linked, then yes. Drop me your address and I'll send you a fresh tenner tomorrow. (Incidentally, I have no idea how much this will really cost to
implement nor how much it might save. I imagine not much in both cases but suspect the balance might well be positive to the taxpayer).

I have nothing against people defending their rights. But why should the rest of the taxpayers help fund that? If you have a beef large enough to strike over, do so fully at your cost/risk. If you are justified, you will win and the benefit will be greater than you gave up. If not, you learn a lesson (pick your fights better).

The latest strikes/threats are not really any different to those in the 70s, no matter how we label them.

[sinizter]

z4me said:

Free strikes, how does that work? Notice there's no cost or savings mentioned in this stuff?

Tongue in cheek comment - because it is 'free' for the worker to strike as they lose no income.

They bloody well should not be paid for the time spent striking.

[turbobloke]

Surprisingly, the numbers 20p and £10 chosen are arbitrary, baseless and irrelevant.

[z4me]

turbobloke said:

How is that relevant?

If I gave you a cucumber and you gave me a parsnip, what has that got to do with the colour of Dave Prentis' boxer shorts?

We're talking about lots of people not being given incentive or subsidy to strike. The full cost-benefit analysis cannot be simplified to suit your political aims, nor mine, but then I'm not trying to do as much.

of course it's relevant, as it'll cost the Government a tenner to recoup 20p, where's the value in that? Looking on the DWP website, if you're working 30 hours or more a week, over 25, single and earn £14k a year, you receive zero tax credit. Let's say this person has the cheek to strike for better conditions, goes on strike for a month which takes his salary to £13k. Now , that does take him into tax credit territory, and he be entitled to the princely sum of £15. That's a year by the way. Setting aside the whole question of whether people should receive tax credits or not, would it really be in anyone's interests to persue him for £15 ? Does that sound like an incentive to strike to you?

[turbobloke]

z4me said:

turbobloke said:

How is that relevant?

If I gave you a cucumber and you gave me a parsnip, what has that got to do with the colour of Dave Prentis' boxer shorts?

We're talking about lots of people not being given incentive or subsidy to strike. The full cost-benefit analysis cannot be simplified to suit your political aims, nor mine, but then I'm not trying to do as much.

of course it's relevant, as it'll cost the Government a tenner to recoup 20p, where's the value in that?

Do you have a credible source for that precise comparison as representative of the full cost-benefit analysis of this situation? If so - genuine question - what/where is it? Or are the numbers arbitrarily chosen, by you?