J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

[stethoscope]

Yes, the Murdoch deal was a factor too, one of many factors that resulted in such a massive majority. But would John Smith have made the same deal?

Well he was on the right of Labour, and started the shift of Labour being more open to Thatcherite/neo-lib principles on the market and economy, so probably.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Well he was on the right of Labour, and started the shift of Labour being more open to Thatcherite/neo-lib principles on the market and economy, so probably.

Yes, perhaps he would have if he'd been offered it. I wonder if Kinnock would have in '92 if he'd been offered a deal?

 

[BigTom]

Y
# "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) #

with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k. I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?
Others with better knowledge are taking apart your post anyway but I'm curious about this point and whether it works for your argument as well.


Madzone, if you're still reading this, way back you asked if EoY had said what sector she works in, in order that we can answer her question about which union she can join, as she expressed a burning desire to do so. She has never said what sector she works in. It's not a difficult question to answer, and she apparently wants to answer it, so the only reason I can come up with for her failure to do so is that she doesn't actually have a job, let alone one with a small company, and nor has she ever had a job. Because if she had had a job then she could at least claim she does that job for a small company and thus be able to bullshit her way onwards in case of someone who actually does the job talking about it (eg: imagine if she claimed to be an actuary and then Kabbes came along and started asking her about it - it'd quickly become clear she was lying).
As to whether she has a kid, or is a she .. well.. who knows? even trolls have kids sometimes..

back to J30 - photos from Birmingham: http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/j30-mass-strikes-in-photos/
heard 7,000 from the media and 8,000-10,000 from swp/right to work/tuc .. so probably around 7,000-8,000 in Birmingham - filled new street apparently. Largest demonstration in the city centre for many, many years (Longbridge demos when they were being sold to/by (?) BMW were bigger).
It looks like a great day for us, biggest outside of London which is a huge achievement for the city, obviously helped massively by unison council workers striking here, but even so it's a big achievement. Not sure how we maintain that momentum.. next big thing is the Lib Dem conference demo on sept 18th..

 

[sihhi]

with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k. I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?

Marc Bolland Marks and Spencer earns around £15 million a year. The skew is strongly in favour of the rich in the private sector.

 

[BigTom]

Marc Bolland Marks and Spencer earns around £15 million a year. The skew is strongly in favour of the rich in the private sector.

I'm sure it is - certainly at the very top anyway.. I'm just wondering if there were figures for how many people in the private sector earn over 100k so that we could say 1% or 3% or 0.2% of people in the private sector do, in order to examine the statistic that PaulAtherton used to support his argument and see whether it is in fact just as much bollocks as the rest of his post.

 

[_angel_]

with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k. I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?
Others with better knowledge are taking apart your post anyway but I'm curious about this point and whether it works for your argument as well.


Madzone, if you're still reading this, way back you asked if EoY had said what sector she works in, in order that we can answer her question about which union she can join, as she expressed a burning desire to do so. She has never said what sector she works in. It's not a difficult question to answer, and she apparently wants to answer it, so the only reason I can come up with for her failure to do so is that she doesn't actually have a job, let alone one with a small company, and nor has she ever had a job. Because if she had had a job then she could at least claim she does that job for a small company and thus be able to bullshit her way onwards in case of someone who actually does the job talking about it (eg: imagine if she claimed to be an actuary and then Kabbes came along and started asking her about it - it'd quickly become clear she was lying).
As to whether she has a kid, or is a she .. well.. who knows? even trolls have kids sometimes..

back to J30 - photos from Birmingham: http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/j30-mass-strikes-in-photos/
heard 7,000 from the media and 8,000-10,000 from swp/right to work/tuc .. so probably around 7,000-8,000 in Birmingham - filled new street apparently. Largest demonstration in the city centre for many, many years (Longbridge demos when they were being sold to/by (?) BMW were bigger).
It looks like a great day for us, biggest outside of London which is a huge achievement for the city, obviously helped massively by unison council workers striking here, but even so it's a big achievement. Not sure how we maintain that momentum.. next big thing is the Lib Dem conference demo on sept 18th..

Seriously, EoY may be full of crap but why do people constantly question she's a she... makes no sense?

 

[BigTom]

Seriously, EoY may be full of crap but why do people constantly question she's a she... makes no sense?

'cos she is blatantly a troll, so her gender is undetermined, but many seem to think that the most likely gender for a troll is male or that a male troll is likely to think that it'd be a good idea to pretend to be a woman (even though to me that makes no sense - if I was to go a'trolling I'd keep as much as possible true to my reality in order that I can build a more convincing persona. I definitely wouldn't change my gender).

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.

FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll. How pathetic.

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.

FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll. How pathetic.

You get called a troll cos you refuse to engage with most of the points put to you. You appear to just want to be a contrarian.

 

[BigTom]

I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.

FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll. How pathetic.

come on then - I told you why I say you are a troll...

What sector does your company do business in? You said you would like to know which union you can join, I've said 3 or 4 times you need to answer this question to get an answer but you don't. It's not a hard question, or a complicated one and you've expressed a desire to answer said question, but don't. Therefore you are a troll.
Plus obviously you ignore lots of other questions like what effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions.. then bang on about how no-one wants to have a conversation..
If you don't want to be called a troll you need to actually talk to people, and answer the questions/points they put to you, plenty on here who get disagreed with a lot but don't get called trolls - look at extrarefined, sass or downward dog (these are from memory so I hope I've remembered them correctly) - because they actually talk and respond to questions..

 

[_angel_]

I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.

FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll. How pathetic.

I believe you. You're just an idiot.

 

[ymu]

I think the stupidity and inabilty to engage is too implausible, I'm afraid. Pure troll.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Nice insults there.

I can't be on here all the time answering loads of questions.

Someone asked earlier about what sort of job I do. I work in a cafe owned by a friend.

 

[dylans]

I think you're a troll because no real parent hates their children

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I think you're a troll because no real parent hates their children

Idiot. Just because I don't agree with the teachers going on strike doesn't mean I hate my children.

 

[Blagsta]

Nice insults there.

I can't be on here all the time answering loads of questions.

Someone asked earlier about what sort of job I do. I work in a cafe owned by a friend.

USDAW or IWW, maybe even Unite.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Thank you.

 

[dylans]

Idiot. Just because I don't agree with the teachers going on strike doesn't mean I hate my children.

You just don't care if they have a decent education or not

 

[SpineyNorman]

"Tough love" - she wants to set them to work as chimney sweeps like in the good old days. And can you explain how you justify calling the woman who looks after your kids for free "selfish" please?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

"Tough love" - she wants to set them to work as chimney sweeps like in the good old days.

Course I do, love. Course I do.

 

[BigTom]

feel like answering my other question yet? just to remind you:

How do you think worsening public sector pensions will affect private sector pensions?

oh, and yeah the logical outcome of some of your arguments on this thread is exactly what SpineyNorman is suggesting.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Course I do, love. Course I do.

Why did you snip out and fail to answer the question I posed? This is why you're being called a troll.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why did you snip out and fail to answer the question I posed? This is why you're being called a troll.

where i'm sat she's being called something beginning with the second consonant.

 

[SpineyNorman]

where i'm sat she's being called something beginning with the second consonant.

That too

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Complicated?

 

[Roadkill]

Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre) And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.

This is just insulting twaddle. Your own personal anecdotes prove nothing - any more than does the fact I've worked in a few badly-run factories that have since folded. I'm not about to spin that out into a morality play about the decline of British manufacturing, and nor should you spin such generalisations from your own experience. Meanwhile, Goldacre's link certainly doesn't prove your point. Indeed, it reinforces the point that, and as various other threads on here have rehearsed, the reality is that, when you compare public-sector jobs with their direct equivalent in the private sector, where such a thing even exists, the public sector worker generally earns less, albeit with more job security and a better pension as compensation. Until this government got their hooks into our pensions, anyway...

There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent. Well sadly, that's not true either. Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all. It's very nature is anti-talent. Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.

What, so all public-sector organisations 'despise change'? Seems to me that you have this vision in your head of whatever brown-painted 70s office you worked in, and you've generalised this out to the whole of the public sector. It's nonsense. Remember, the 'public sector' encompasses everything from those drab council offices up to world-beating universities, cutting-edge medical research and treatment institutions, some of the most proficient armed forces in the world, highly skilled emergency service workers, and so on. Are you really trying to claim that all of these are staffed by time servers who won't tolerate change? If so, go away and do some more research before you embarrass yourself on screen the way you are here.

Also, think on this. You prattle on about the public sector, but how many major private sector businesses in this country - leading players in major industries at that - have folded because they failed to change? Look at the car industry, shipping, shipbuilding, metallurgical industries, etc etc. All of them declined for complex reasons, but conservatism and resistance to change were unquestionably part of it. And not a public sector worker in sight - except when some of said industries were nationalised, of course, by which time it was generally too late to save the situation. Drop this ridiculous assumption that the public sector is always inert and the private sector always lean, efficient and keen to innovate, and we might get somewhere...

We need to see a return of respecting our Public Servants as people who are only in their roles for the betterment of society. Make Councillors volunteers again, avoid worrying about money, unless it drops below a livable wage and let's see a lot more sacrifices for those the Public Sector is paid to serve and then you'll get UK wide support from all sectors.

Wtf? You think that highly-skilled people who already make vast sacrifices of time and energy should stand by and watch their wages sink to subsistence levels just to earn some nebulous 'support' from the likes of you? You're even more stupid than you sounded at first.

Seriously, as a public sector worker in a pretty highly skilled and fast-changing field, I'm genuinely insulted by what you've just written. Fuck off and take your ill-informed and pointless documentaries with you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Complicated?

no, it's as many letters as you have fingers (not including thumb) on a normal hand.

or as many as the sum of your big toes and thumbs, assuming you have the normal complement.

 

[Lo Siento.]

hehe, I like how roadie's all kicking arse and takin names on all the austerity threads

 

[Roadkill]

hehe, I like how roadie's all kicking arse and takin names on all the austerity threads

Well it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

 

[ymu]

The UK has 1% of the world's population, 2% of the world's pharma market and 10% of the world's pharma manufacturing. Does it ever occur to anyone to ask why what remaining industry we have is so heavily dominated by high tech industry? Do they think employers will stay for low taxes when the supply of good graduates and publicly-funded research dries up?

Business secretary Vince Cable announced this week that he wants to "ration" British science, potentially eliminating the 46% of UK research that is not defined as world class. My immediate reaction was: you must be crazy.

Cable's narrow interpretation of quality is an astonishing insult to the thousands of British scientists who help this country (and its ministers) have a well above average reputation and global influence. Cable didn't mention that most of the 46% he considers less worthy is actually classed (by the independently run Research Assessment Exercise) as internationally or nationally recognised for its "originality, significance, and rigour". In fact, in 2008 it found that only 2% of UK research "falls below the standard of nationally recognised work". It is this work that should be cut.

If Cable goes further, what will be the impact? The two biggest killers in Britain are heart disease and cancer. If the recognised work was eliminated, that would lead to a 40% cut in research for heart disease and a 28% cut in cancer research. Britain's ability to tackle the biggest threats to national health would be significantly disabled.

Cable acknowledged that investing in science is critical to economic performance. He cited OECD evidence showing that investment in innovative research was crucial for future economic success, and quoted the organisation's conclusion that cutting back investment in innovation "will damage the foundations of long-term growth". I couldn't have put it better myself. And, further, he pointed out that in the face of financial crisis, smart governments – such as the US and Sweden – were actually increasing investment in research.

But when he says we will "economise", to "screen out mediocrity", this is exactly what the research councils do already. The Medical Research council, for example, spent £704m in 2008/09 on research. In the past year, 1,475 research grant applications were made to the council, but only 279 were funded. The research councils ensure that taxpayers' money is spent only on the best research, with the potentially highest impact on improving human health and welfare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/irrational-to-ration-science-funding

Ignorance from a politician is never astonishing, but it never fails to gobsmack me when people fall for this propoganda shit so easily. What the fuck is going on?