And another thread disintegrates into a Brian and Roz bun fight. *yawn*

Is it past your bedtime then?

If you haven't seen it, I think you will like the Shock Doctrine Roz.

Strikes used to be a great way of getting the publics opinion to raise an issue. They are a great example of all that is good in a democracy as opposed to the countries run by the likes of Pinochet where people who protested just disappeared.

FD Roosevelt once met with a group of activists who sought his support for bold legislation. He listened to their arguments for some time and then said, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."

There were over 4000 strikes in the USA that year. Sweeping changes and reform followed.

Strikes are a great way of highlighting issues, raising problems and getting the message across to gather public support to get their employees a fairer deal. Some unions have abused this position, some haven't bothered to support their employees, some seem to be self serving.

It's up to the unions to put forward their case to the general public. If they really want 'change' they have to get us (the general public) on side too, not just their members.

They would be better off doing that than making silly statements like the one about Jeremy Clarksons silly statements.

Isn't this whole pension issue about change?

Large institutions (businesses and unions included) don't like change and don't deal with it very well.

A good example was the recent tube union industrial action about TFL wanting to reduce ticket office services. Shock, horror, we must stop this outrage. But hang on, I can't remember the last time I used a TFL ticket office to buy a ticket. A thing called Oyster came along and changed things.

Ditto pensions. When someone dies aged 75 we don't think that is particularly old these days. We are all living much longer and living longer comes at a cost.

If we are going to have a debate about pensions let's do it properly and publicise the exact cost of public sector pensions job by job.

That way we can compare public sector packages (wage and cash value of pension) with private sector packages (wage and cash value of pension).

For those of you saving for a private pension a visit to the FSA annuity website may prove a salutary lesson. This will give you an insight into the true cost of pensions:

http://tables.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/...Annuities/

Simply type in the amount of money you have saved up in your private pension to see how much retirement income (AKA an annuity) you might end up with when you come to retire.

As a rough guide a £100,000 pension pot might get you £3,500 pension a year depending on your age and whether or not you want any indexation to guard against inflation. The current state pension is about £5,300 per year for a single person.

Clarkson is a buffoon. His only use is to smoke out sanctimonious fools who take him seriously.

154027
I could not have put in better.

sydenham central, you say that the Unions need to make a better case to garner more public support. I suspect they have already made a considerable case over the last century as most of us have benefitted from their endeavours and no longer have to work 80 hour weeks in dangerous conditions with no holiday. The retention of such benefits under pressure of market forces therefore needs our continued support.

The fact is that Clarkson went on pre watershed, in fact, tea time, TV and suggested that people ought to be executed for striking. This is a public broadcasting service. No doubt he was 'joking' however please excuse me if I do not find that funny. Of course I do not take him literally but there has to be boundaries around of this and he has broken them with bells on.

Slashing public sector pensions won't improve the situation of private sector pensions. If you lower the bar for the sector which has generally had good practice, you will have open season for an attach on everything else. I welcome a more thorough comparative exercise but think that these have already been done and found that public pensions are hardly gold plated. I think we should remember the tax breaks and interest relief given to people years ago which was actually paid for substantially at the expense of Council and housing association tenants. Everyone thinks they are paying for families to live on housing benefit, when actually it has usually been the other way round. And then there are the other economic and fiscal subsidies given to business, ( and banks- dont forget them) out of the public purse.

Private pensions are suffering as they rely on the market performance which has been notoriously poor over the last decade or so. It is the correction of the capitalist system that has caused this problem, not public sector workers taking funds out of private pension pots.

I think you mis-interpreted my post Roz.

Unions have been a force for good and not so good. They sullied their reputation in the 1970's with the likes of Red Robo, and more recently the transport union isn't endearing itself to the general public is it? Which is why you tend to get lots of negative comments. Certainly many unions rolled over and did nothing when the utilities companies were sold off and were also useless when it came to council employees and home helps.

But I think even Jeremy Clarkson would admit that Unions have been a force for good with working hours, pensions, health and safety etc.

What I meant was that Unions need to make a better case now for public support. On a case by case basis. I never meant that unions had never made a good case for public support. I'm not sure where you go that from.

But anyway, like I said, look up the film 'The Shock Doctrine', I think you will like it. It's based on Naomi Kleins book. Infact anyone will probably like it unless you think Milton Friedman is god.

Roz
Slashing public sector does help the private sector as they are the one who pay for them.

Tell that to the bloke who owns the cafe next to the now-closed HSE site near where I used to live. Or the newsagent, or the pub. If you can find them, that is, they've shut down.

Strikes me that if you work in the public sector you probably want to keep this perk of the job and if you are in the private sector you are more likely object to having to work more and be taxed more to pay for it. Both are rational positions so no point in arguing about it. The fact is though, at a time of recession, we have to look at costs to the economy and try to save money. The private sector has been shedding jobs like billy-o and cutting pensions over the last 10th years. Both of my employers and those of my family have closed their final salary schemes or changed the conditions. If they didn't take action they know that the liabilities they create would outweigh the assets in the fund, profits would have to go into the fund, not to investors or new investment and the firm would either go bust (as many do) or lose competitiveness and slowly go bust. Either way the current workers lose, so most understand why changes are needed. It is a shame that the public sector unions can't be a little more constructive and acknowledge that there is a problem.

Yes, those untaxed public-sector workers, eh? Terrible. There they are, not paying any tax for years, the untaxed swines, while those in the private sector pay loads of tax, the heavily taxed martyrs.

I don't think anyone's been particularly constructive on this. The government is appealing to its hard-right yapping dogs, the line being swallowed as usual by the sort of people who used to tell you never to believe all you read in the newspapers (until they started believing everything that was in the Daily Mail); the unions to their own equivalent. The numbers don't appear to back either side's case quite as much as they say they do.

In any case, this thread appears to have fallen victim to the usual he said she said nonsense. I wonder why. To return it to its origins, I would humbly suggest that Clarkson of all people should be wary of flights of fancy involving the shooting of people whose politics he doesn't like, given his extensive appearances in Breivik's dossier. He has belatedly appreciated this. Unison are entitled to be concerned byhis words, but should probably have kept their concerns rather quieter.

Hm.

'Strikes me that if you are a slave owner you probably want to hang on to your slaves and if you are a slave you are more likely to object to being somebody's chattel. Both are rational positions so no point in arguing about it.'

In other words, can't one legitimately argue about the justice of the present position?

Good point Robin. I was trying to make the point that both parties feel strongly about their own position because they are both profit maximisers. Ironically, public sector workers act just like private sector workers in this respect. I guess we elect Governments to take difficult decisions on public sector pay. Personally, representing a household where both sectors are present, I believe that the public sector needs to reform. Fact is, they are a cost to the economy, and although they pay tax, they don't create wealth like the private sector. Like them or loathe them, it is the private sector that actually makes our nation money.

A more in depth response will be forthcoming but comments such as the public sector doesn't create wealth is way off beam. Council services and funding can enable businesses to expand and even just continue. I think of my department which supports private childcare businesses to grow and develop to meet a social need as well as increasing their profits. To make such bold statements illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the supportive nature of much of the public sector , completely ignored the cooperative council model that is expanding in the UK as a response to the cuts, and falls into the trap that the government would very much like you to. I think people should have a closer look at the recent changes in the sector and think more carefully about the facts.

In response also, do you really think the private sector doesn't rely on public support and funds to go about it's businesses? There are considerable direct and indirect subsidies abound for this sector and it can't really operate effectively without it.

In response to comments that council workers should wake up and smell the coffee all I will say us that this sector has taken a bashing in the last few years and there isn't anyone currently working in it has been immune from something generally having to do the work previously done by at least two other people . It is therefore wrong to allude that people are reluctant to accept change or whatever; we see the impact of cuts to childrens services all the time. Please don't fall for or allow this government to demolish this sector for no reason other than political advantage. You talk about cutting expenditure whilst this government rolls out millions of pounds of public funds on its free school ideologically at the expense of the majority and the school estate in general.

PS Since when did wages become a 'perk' of a job. Pension payments are a contractual right and are an integral part of an overall salary package. People who have worked for years in the public service with for what they understood to be the 'package' should get what they have earned.

Hands up how many of you would like to volunteer to give up 4% of your salary for what is alleged to be the 'common good' when the rich still are disproportionately unaffected by all of this.

My employer scrapped the final salary pension ages ago as it was unaffordable. Now I have to decide each month to put significant sums aside to pay for a pension far less than the public sector get. Everyone on the final.salary scheme have also just had to contribute more - so the public sector isn't being asked to do anything that your private sector counterparta haven't already done.

On the point about wealth creation, I wasn't arguing that the folk in the public sector don't do a good job, or can't make a difference. Far from it. I was just making the point that it is all paid for out of tax. So regardless of its efficiency or its return on investment, it is a net cost. The private sector on the other hand, unleash propped up by govt spending, generates wealth.

Well put Deano , but doubt you will convince everybody.

Can you imagine the return on your pension if Clarkson invested the money? Huge I should imagine. He would invest with tabacco companies, weapons firms, biochemicals etc. Money would roll in. I would even suggest he would call it "The B@stard fund".

Must give him a call whilst he is in China and see if he can stirr up a bit of interest while he is over there.

Clarkson for PM?

Much as I dislike Clarkson, I feel that I should point out that it was actually a very feeble attempt at humour. He was actually in favour of the strike, but because he works for the BBC he clumsily attempted to balance his favourable view!

The full transcript is available here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15993558