Yes Yorkie - I am in central Government and whilst budgets reduce the commitments never do. In fact more often than not you end up having to deliver in a shorter timescale. We do it of course but something always gives eventually.
Always is a strong word there Leo - and not entirely accurate. I once had the misfortune to be an innocent victim when working in a clerical capacity for an English Lord (Vestey, who was infamous for his interpretation of Employment Law, paid certain workers with sugar and tea, but that's another story). The main Union at my workplace - Meatworker's Union - submitted a ridiculous claim for a 33% pay rise, the company offered 15% which was refused and a strike followed - a six bloody months one. I was, you could say, collateral damage - not involved in the dispute, but stood down for the duration without an income. Have neither forgotten nor forgiven that - especially as the Union accepted a 6% rise in the end....
Last year the NHS underspend was £326M, money that could have been used, but the managers who had it available chose not to use it. The budget was too high, so it gets cut back, then there is an outcry about the NHS being underfunded. The head of a council gardens department who I knew in the UK would buy tons of peat and scatter it all round the town in March so as to spend his budget rather than admit he was getting too much and have it cut back. Every government of what ever colour claims that it can make savings, and they all find it very difficult. Trying to manage an economy when you are relying on people who may not share the governments aims will create friction and not always give the best service. While I am at it, let us not forget that some union leaders have their own agenda. I remember one long lasting strike that the members didn't vote for and eventually brought about a split and the formation of a second union. The fact that the union leader went to Leeds Uni. might have had something to do with it.
Like Yorkie and probably several others on here, I went into teaching in the 1970's. In the early 80's the teaching unions called a one day strike, and this was the very first time that such action had ever been taken by teachers. We took action very reluctantly, but we did it. That evening, Mrs GG (also then a teacher) and I got into a discussion in our local about the rights and wrongs of it. I learned an important lesson when one person chimed in with " oh, you teachers, you're always on strike". In case you miss the point, re- read my 2nd sentence. The moral of the story is that it is too easy to stereotype groups of people. The miners were all receiving direct instructions from the Kremlin. The social workers don't know what they're doing. Teachers only work for 9 months of the year. Bankers are all crooks. Romanians steal all our jobs. Etc, etc, etc. People who feel backed into a corner to the point where they decide that striking is the only way to make their point, don't do so lightly. It takes a lot of soul searching. Collective, unionised action is, unfortunately, an occasional necessity. It is a last resort to try and prevent being utterly trampled over. Witness what happens to workers who aren't unionised:- My carers work long hard days, 6 or 7 days a week, receiving totally inadequate petrol money for the mileage they cover in their own cars, and constantly being asked to leave Client A at 9.30 and be at Client B for 9.30. The work they do requires a good deal of skill, experience , patience and empathy, it's not menial labour. Yet they receive little more than the minimum wage. They are trampled on and have they stark choice- be trampled on or try to find other work. Sorry if I'm not coherent, I've had a lousy day and only just looked in. I just get fed up with people knocking public sector workers.
To be fair they, us, the electorate f*****g well should be listening not just reading the majority right wing "free" press. The bankers and financiers got us into this mess, not the teachers, nurses, firemen. Yet at each and every turn it is they who are expected to pay. If you can't see how wrong that is then you are either bombastically selfish or beyond help. It's not that difficult really.
I knew I shouldn't have read this. Especially not this late. I don't want to fall out with anyone so all I will say is that some of you are very entrenched in your left wing prejudices. But no point rising to it as this is very much an argument neither side will 'win' - people just don't change their views on this sort of thing. Leo I'm with you.
As an aside it has emerged that the sell off of the Royal Mail was grossly underpriced (well, hardly a surprise). Another example of the greedy few greasing their palms at the expense of the rest of us. It's not about being "left wing" it's about doing the right thing for society. It's the "all for one and one for me" attitude that is the problem. Even our politicians voted themselves a pay rise 10x more than most of us got. Like others I work in the private sector and until recently hadn't had a pay rise in 5 years at my previous employers. My belt has been tightened well enough, ta very.
This just popped up on my facebook page which I think is relevant: “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” I don't see this talk of left-wing or right-wing being at all helpful myself. We have to do what is best for the planet of which we are all part. It is so easy to have a dig at those who are different to us. Much harder to understand them and their needs and find a way to work and live together.
I am saddened but not surprised that so many of you still think that the correct - or only - way to resolve industrial disputes is to take an action designed to hurt other people and thereby bring pressure on the government. We are supposed to be civilized and part of being civilized means using law; not violence towards others. The fact that certain degrees of violence are allowed by the law only makes that worse. We used to hang people - or worse send them to Australia - for minor crimes. Do those of you who desperately cling to old fashioned violent laws not realize times have moved on. I hate to hear such rubbish arguments as "but we have always done it that way" or it is "our right". No, no it isn't. We are no longer in the 19th Century and disputes can be settled by civilized people in civilized ways. Those do not involve hurting other innocent parties. I am further saddened that so many teachers cannot see this. Please do not let me believe you teach your children that if they don't think they can get their own way by talking or appealing to an arbitrator (a teacher?) then they can take action which hurts a bystander to force someone to give them what they want. Using whatever you perceive to be social evils as a justification for strike action shows confusion. The state of the economy and whose fault that was and what the remedies are is a whole other debate. It is spurious to argue that because the bankers were bad, the Tories uncaring and the Liberal Democrats .... anything.... we should be able to do something which is just wrong. Nobody has yet explained on here why they believe it is right to hurt an innocent fellow citizen in pursuit either of your own ends or to make a political point.
I never ever thought I would see Krishnamurti quoted on a football fans board - just goes to show the level of our board. The quote is a more eloquent version of Gandhi's claim to being a Moslem, Christian, Jew and Hindu combined - and something which I can only give full agreement to. Unfortunately where does it place us - who identify ourselves as Hornets ! Surely we are placing ourselves as being 'different' to those misguided hoops who occasionally grace us with their comments. And do we really want to understand the needs of, or work and live together with the mad hatters from the dogs kennel ?
Possibly because it is too hard when our 'political masters' set the example by doing exactly that in spades?
So.... for you..... withdrawing ones labour for one day causes hurt to other beings? Is this the crux of your creating this thread? In that case many of the acts of anyone in power will also hurt others.... not simply teachers on a one day strike..
Leo, are you saying that you believe striking is wrong in all circumstances ? The use of this particular weapon is a democratic right which is often used reluctantly where all other methods have failed. Strikers cannot all be placed under one stereotype as you appear to be doing. Strike actions have been used for multiple purposes through time, not just for solving purely industrial disputes such as over pay and conditions, closure of plants etc. but also for political purposes eg. When workers in the port of Antwerp went on strike because of their refusal to handle American military products destined for use in Iraq. Other examples would include refusal to handle South African goods during the period of Apartheid (a strike which actually happened in England at that time). Or furthermore strikes in support of colleagues who are being unjustly dicriminated against. Also strikes have been used for environmental purposes in the past - eg. by construction workers to protect some aspect of environmental protection. Are they all guilty in your eyes ?
