Yes, they could take the prime minister and chancellor outside and have them executed in front of their children.

Oh sorry, sorry only Clarkson on the BBC can call for executions of certain people.

Sally @1: I’m afraid you’re confusing this crosspost with a more recent one at TCF
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2011/12/01/exclusive-jeremy-clarkson-execution-method-polls-open-now/

Agreed with most of that Paul. One other point to consider here is that the government has prepared for this, so it is vitally important that the Unions do not fall into the traps that have been set for them by behaving in a predictable manner.

Furthermore the unions really need to up their game. Hit the tories where it hurts. They need to compile a list of the 50 most vulnerable conservative MPs, and then use their membership databases to calculate how many supporters they have in these areas to establish the feasibility of the following: positive activity (leafleting, non agressive actions etc) in these areas, and financing a long campaign against the MP with the aim of unseating him in the election.

The campaign is unwinnable. It is already lost.

Excellent public sector pensions were more than justified when public sector pay was lower than private sector pay. Now, of course, public sector pay is more generous than private sector pay on average (providing you compare like-with-like and are not received by dishonest arguments that compare part-time public sector workers with full-time private sector workers).

The public sector unions are meanwhile trying to argue that they sympathise with those with poor private sector pensions by saying that they would like to see levelling up – better pensions for all. But this is a totally unrealistic am in the present economic climate. And, moreover, no unions at all protested at Gordon Brown’s £5bn pa ‘raid’ on private sector pensions. No, they were quite happy to see that money diverted into ‘investment’ in public services.

It is only now that the winging private sector is going through a bad patch that we hear about this hatred of public pensions. Of course we don’t hear about the last 25 years of fat commissions, and bonuses in the private sector. Company cars, weekend jaunts on the company account. Lots of freebies that the companies like to keep stum about.

The private sector has provided all this for it’s workers while the public sector only had its pension as compensation. But now the private goodies have dried up ,except for the fat cats. The envy and dam right nastiness of the whinging private sector must be taken out on the public sector.

The private sector sold its soul to the devil, for a Ford Mondeo, and an I phone. Now they have found out that their bosses want to take everything for them. I suggest you take it up with the greedy creeps that employ you rather than attacking those who have had little in the way of rewards for the last few decades.

Good research and analysis, Paul. While I’ve never been in the public sector, I have a dog in the fight in my social worker daughter. She didn’t march – no child care – but came to our house and watched it on the box and ranted. (Usually my thing!)

In between rants, she noted how middle class the demonstrators looked. Then there were lots of interviews with teachers and she thought it was a mistake because people were inconvenienced by the lack of ‘free child care’ (good point). Plus she thought everyone knows the hours teachers work (not many, 1300 per year she said) and how well paid they are.

In the end, she reckoned the strike was counter-productive because: “they all look like well paid, middle class people looking for a free lunch.” And, we’re going to lose this one for sure.”

She’s 38 and 13 years as a social worker looking after young adults with learning difficulties. It’s a shi**y job, long hours and paid less than national average. Her pension is pretty important to her especially as her husband’s job in the private sector doesn’t pay a pension.

After watching Newsnight she cried.

I quite agree with the OP. After yesterday’s march in Brighton, which went well and was well received generally, I was pondering along the same lines.

I wonder what new tools can be added to Union toolkits? Remembering New Labour there is the need for instant rebuttal of allegations from the government. The TUC are pretty good getting press releases out, how can we make them better reported? That led me to think about modern PR techniques. Does the TUC need to get a PR firm on board?

The use of social media has worked well elsewhere recently, could they be used better? Are there ways in which people like Northern Worker’s daughter could participate?

5) Large scale demonstrations create an environment for confrontation between police and workers/supporters. The police may well be the agent of a repressive state, but we need to make clear that our enemy is the government, not the police.

No, its both. Governments come and go but police have been increasing the scope of their power for decades, and they’re loving every minute of it.

“It is only now that the winging private sector is going through a bad patch that we hear about this hatred of public pensions.”

Not true. The issue appeared in the good times – when New Labour’s crazed expansion of the public sector resulted in public sector salaries exceeding those in the private sector.

“Of course we don’t hear about the last 25 years of fat commissions, and bonuses in the private sector. Company cars, weekend jaunts on the company account. Lots of freebies that the companies like to keep stum about.”

Errr…but these benefits are not paid for by the rest of us out of taxes. And they are arguably compensation for the lower job security than public sector workers have.

It’s not a question of envy. It’s a question of equity. Public sector workers seem to want (a) much greater job security, (b) much better pensions and (c) pay levels that exceed (or at least equal) private sector levels. That’s asking a lot of the public purse; and fair it ain’t.

NW @ 6

In the end, she reckoned the strike was counter-productive because: “they all look like well paid, middle class people looking for a free lunch.” And, we’re going to lose this one for sure.”

Hang on, surely that is the fault of the middle class media, not the working class people who went on strike? You should be tackling the media for this outragous bias, not the TUC.

Of course the people she should be getting at are the Tories, who spit the words ‘the unions’ out as if they were a sub group of people.

After watching Newsnight she cried.

Just imagine how she would have felt had she read the comments page of the Daily Mail.

TO @ 9

It’s a question of equity

Hold on a minute. The public services are not some kind of added extra that are comparable to the private sector. Public sector jobs are, in the vast majority of cases, doing jobs that are vital to this Country remaining a viable, First World Country.

We have someone who has posted that their daughter looks after teenage children with learning disabilities. That job is always going to be done and we will always need that job done by dedicated staff with a high level of commitment. We are going to have to offer these people the best terms and condition to retain these people.

I just wish that the Tory vermin that hate public services so much would all just fuck off and go and live in Countries that have little or no public services and report back how great their lives are.

I’m sorry, where’s this “buffoonish, childish, petulant behaviour” by the Cabinet? Is it because when you demand something, they don’t immediately roll over, and you stamp your feet because they don’t?

@ 10 “Hang on, surely that is the fault of the middle class media, not the working class people who went on strike? You should be tackling the media for this outragous bias, not the TUC.”

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. Working class people largely work in the private sector and the minority working in the public sector clearly largely don’t join unions. What we were watching was the unionised public sector middle class, most of them employed under Brown’s deliberate bloating of the state in order to create a client vote, striking to protect their inflated privileges that the rest of us can only dream of but have to fund for them.

The private sector wants to have a race to the bottom. They dream of having no minimum wage, no pension contributions, abolishing week ends, and getting rid of paid holidays.

So the public sector must be smashed because it makes it a lot easier to achieve if you stamp on the remaining benefits in the public sector. If our trolls wife does not want to fight, that is up to her……………… if she even exists.

@4 – Typical right wing lies. The same wages which the private sector pay people with the same qualifications and experience? Average 80%. Feel free to argue for that, but not your distortion based on average pay, which ignores the fact that public sector workers are generally far higher qualified.

And right, the economic climate’s tough, so you will of course support abolishing higher rate tax relief for pensions. Oh, and yes, those jaunts ARE paid for by taxes. Corperate welfare. The welfare YOU support.

@12 – Deliberately negotiating in bad faith, using press releases to undermine negotiations, acting like typical arrogant Tories. You are the one whining that the trade unions are not rolling over and dying, paying extra not into their pensions, but into reducing the deficit.

Which is not, strangely enough and in the real world, the point of a PENSION.

I hope you receive precisely the same kindness which you advocate for others.

Test @ 12

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. Working class people largely work in the private sector and the minority working in the public sector clearly largely don’t join unions.

Where is your evidence for that? Typical Tory vermin, caught fucking lying again.

This is not an argument about pay, it’s about pensions. And yes, the unions do have to change tactics, perhaps by way of a little more humility in acknowledging the excellent pension benefits enjoyed by public sector workers, and the uncertainties faced by the many millions in private pension schemes. As follows:

We are all living longer. Public sector pensioners receive larger pensions by virtue of lifespan, without the necessity of increasing their contributions. The Government’s reforms aim to redistribute the costs over a longer period. This has already happened to private pensioners through reduced annuity rates.

Public sector workers have the benefit of salary-related pensions, guaranteed by the state; private sector defined-benefit pensioners face not only lower pensions than their public sector counterparts, but are additionally at the mercy of the market – and the news has not been good recently. As a result, since the start of 2011, private pensions have been driven down by some 15%.

Public sector pensioners are untroubled by inflation, albeit now by CPI rather than RPI, while this protection is not available in the private sector.

Certainly public sector pensions are susceptible to changes in Government policy, but the effect is nowhere near as alarming as the effect of market fluctuations on private pensions, not to mention endless Government tinkering with private pension policy by both Labour and Coalition – Gordon Brown’s famous “pension raid” for example.

Now, this must not become a race to the bottom, as Hutton remarked. But if the Unions are to campaign effectively, they must at least acknowledge the inequality of the present system.

@15

If you go here: http://www.civilservant.org.uk/numbers.pdf you’ll see that the UK workforce totals 29 million – 6 million of them are in the public sector (around 20%). Therefore 23 million work in the private sector – around 80%.

So @12 was correct in saying “Working class people largely work in the private sector”.

Why are some folk equating “working class” with “public sector” these days?

@16 – So, they need to acknowledged that their pensions are kitties which the government can raid at will, and to encourage all their members to stop contributing to a scam. Well, that’s different at least. Because ANY non-negotiated change means precisely that.

It’ll happen again, again and again. Also, why should people show “humility” to keep a basic part of a contract they signed? Why should employers bother to pay people, it’s only part of their contract and they’re not being humble enough…

(And no, the government gets no special pass from me)

@17 – Where is the evidence on “middle” and “working” class people in that data?

@18

Are you saying that of the 23 million in the private sector less than 6 million are “working class”? I find that hard to believe. However, I cannot answer your question and I don’t particularly want to. Personally, I thought we wanted fairness for all (isn’t that what the strike banners said?) I believe a “middle class” worker on a low salary is as “authentic” a worker as a “working class” one.

@ 18

I don’t know if my last response posted or not. But I’ll ask my question again a bit differently:

Do you really believe that of those 23 million, less than 6 million are “working class”? What’s your definition of “working class”? Is it purely based on income?

(I wrote more about it not actually mattering because the strike banners requested “Fair Pensions For All” not “Fair Pensions For Those We Regard As Working Class”.)

@19 – Nope. The point is that question asked was explicitly in terms of class. If you want to answer it, you need to provide that break-down in your data.

I’m fine with you not answering it, it’s a divide-and-conquer question, but your answer really doesn’t address the question.

ffs people, ignore the trolls. They’re not here for honest debate. This is an article on tactics and pickets, so lets address that.

I was on a picket line at a university, so maybe a bit middle class. It didn’t feel like a ‘grim war of attrition’. While the numbers on strike were high, the numbers on pickets were not (and there was time to picket then march) compared to the total workforce – in fact probably more students than lecturers. There was someone giving flyers to people ‘crossing the line,’ the occasional friendly conversation, but it wasn’t really an attempt to get people to turn around, just a symbolic protest. There was no collection for a strike fund. I’ve heard similar things from other universities – people strike, but don’t take it too seriously.

If the stakes are as high as you say, the road ahead as difficult, then the union movement needs to think about how to do pickets. Or perhaps just my local UCU.

Well, Leon, I apologise for not being able to answer your question. But I would regard “working class” as the majority of the working population. Otherwise, the majority of the working population are doing just fine in their rolls royces.

If you need a number to justify that for you, I won’t be supplying it.

I’m now stepping out of this for fear of being called a “troll”.

@23 – K, well, sorry, for helping, I’ll not point out you didn’t answer the question actually asked next time.

What the whole movement has to eventually address is that you are asking people to fund more in the way of public sector pensions than they will be able to put aside for themselves. How on earth are you going to be able to sell that?

25 Hogwash.

People who work for the public services pay taxes for roads, and rail, and police and many things that allow privat enterprise to work and prosper. Most of them don’t get company cars, and commissions,and private health care and all the other sweeties the private sector dole out BEFORE they pay tax.

Yes, all those so called “expenses” that private corporations splash out to avoid paying taxes.

@25 – How do you sell freezing people to death?

@ 14 leon wolfson

The IFS adjusted for education when they released figures showing public sector workers get paid more than the equivalent private sector workers (8% more, off the top of my head).

@ jim

It’s not surprising more middle class people peiople work in the public sector now, as the last Labour government insisted most public sector jobs now required a degree

@ sally

You do know that company cars have been taxed as benefits for years, right? Almost no private sector company offers such a thing any more.

@26 – Ah yes, that must be why I’m rolling in “company cars, and commissions,and private health care and all the other sweeties the private sector dole out BEFORE they pay tax.” rather than desperately struggling to get by. Private sector just means anything the government isn’t doing, not just fat cats and I can assure you that life is bloody hard for many, many people in the private sector right now. I can’t afford to put money by for a pension at the moment, why on earth should I have to pay more in taxes so that public sector workers can retire on benefits of a level that I will certainly never see?

@27 – Well yes, that’s very much the point.

11. Jim

The public services are not some kind of added extra that are comparable to the private sector. Public sector jobs are, in the vast majority of cases, doing jobs that are vital to this Country remaining a viable, First World Country.

Sorry but that is utterly rubbish. We have some six million people on the public pay roll. A tiny percentage of those are doing vital jobs. A slightly larger, but still small, percentage of those are doing jobs that help us remain a First World country.

We have someone who has posted that their daughter looks after teenage children with learning disabilities. That job is always going to be done and we will always need that job done by dedicated staff with a high level of commitment. We are going to have to offer these people the best terms and condition to retain these people.

Sorry but dedicated and highly committed means good pay and conditions? Surely the dedicated and highly committed are those that work in those jobs without good pay or conditions? What is more this is not the sort of job that will always be done. A large group of people with “learning disabilities” would just be called thick in other societies and would not get special treatment. Look at how the numbers have blown out and the number of spurious conditions that now exist

Sally @ 26:

“People who work for the public services pay taxes for roads, and rail, and police and many things that allow privat enterprise to work and prosper.”

People who work for public services cannot add money to the treasury, because all their wages come from the treasury in the first place. At most they can take a bit less out.

“Most of them don’t get company cars, and commissions,and private health care and all the other sweeties the private sector dole out BEFORE they pay tax.”

Most private sector workers don’t get any of those things either.

30
Don’t be daft, many people with learning difficulties are no more thicker than the people who make comments about them from a standpoint of total ignorance.
My nephew, who has a learning disabled diagnosis, (problems with social skills) has just been offered a place at Cambridge to read maths.
We are not in ‘other societies’ we are in the one which recognizes that some people need a little more help to attain potential.

“How on earth are you going to be able to sell that?”

The only way you can sell it is by coming up with proposals to revitalise pensions in the private sector at the same time. Most of the arguments against the strikes go something like ‘private sector pensions are crap, so why should public sector workers get more’. The only way to neutralise this argument is to present alternatives that would ‘level up’ rather than increase the divide, which means the unions have to also start tackling private sector pensions as well. If they remain soley interested in their own groups, they will lose.

“The only way you can sell it is by coming up with proposals to revitalise pensions in the private sector at the same time.”

Which would be a good trick given that the public sector unions are expecting the private sector to fund all the public sector provision. Where then is the money going to come from for the private pensions?

34
In case you hadn’t noticed, people in the private sector also pay tax which goes towards things like pensions and tax-credits (mainly a private sector benefit because of the poor pay).
Some public sector workers pay up to 6% of their salaries, so it isn’t free.
The real problem is that all workers are being asked to pay, including those who are retired/nearing retirement, whose pensions have been wiped-out and others with endownments that don’t even pay half their mortgages, which includes many public sector workers.
Don’t try to divide workers into the haves (public sector) and the have nots (private sector) because things aren’t quite as simplistic as some commentators are trying to make out.

Some excellent points Paul. I particularly agree with the comments about marches and rallies. In my view these should be rare events. The leverage they generate – particularly when they are held frequently – doesn’t justify the time and resources they consume.

” Where then is the money going to come from for the private pensions?”

No idea tbh, although we could start by removing Brown’s taxes on pension funds, and start tackling fraud and mismanagement that’s occured in some cases (ASW)

But it is the real issue here.

An ageing population means a retirement age of 65 is unsustainable, and the tories proposal to raise it to 67 is like putting a band aid on a tumour. Worstall has argued that the age should be 75, and his case is logical but for one assumption – that people between 65 and 75 are going to be physically capable of work.

The other side of improved life expectancy is that there are more people living with chronic conditions and disabilities that would have previously killed them, but are now controlled with medication. So any proposal to raise retirement ages must take account of this. It is absurd to suggest that all jobs are the same – you are simply not going to have 70 year old policemen chasing after criminals, or 70 year old nurses doing 12 hour shifts on their feet. But equally you can have 70 year olds doing non-physical work, particularly if they enjoy it. And most people with disabilities can do some work, provided they have understanding employers, can take time off when their conditions become too much, and have a welfare system that supports them.

So the only answer to the pension issue is changing the culture of employment in the UK to make it disability friendly, and enabling people to contribute. And with a generous welfare system that helps people find new careers that they are suited too once phsyical work becomes impossible.

@ Planeshift – I very much agree with the thinking behind both your posts. The entire UK pensions system needs a rethink, including the issue of retirement age. There are inequalities and abuses in both private and public sector arrangements which need to be addressed.

But (and here I’m trying to keep on topic) it seems to me that the Unions’ apparent refusal to concede that public sector pensions are in need of reform is just bad tactics. Just as the bankers (I use the term generically) say that they don’t like having to pay more by way of the 50% tax rate and threaten to withdraw their labour by moving abroad; so do the public sector resent having to pay more by way of pension contributions and threaten to withdraw their labour by way of strikes. Both attitudes are driven by self-interest, and neither is acceptable.

38
There are few public service workers who do not agree that we should work longer to compensate for the increasing life-expectancy. There are few public service workers who are not prepared to pay an increased premium for said pensions. They are now being told that they must expect a big decrease in the end pension, and this is on top of a wage-freeze.
By all means have an opinion about the strike action but get the facts straight first.

[39] You may well be right about what the majority of public sector workers are and are not prepared to accept in connection with the Government’s proposed pension reforms. I have no way of knowing.

I can only go by what the Unions are saying. For example, Brendan Barber is very clear in his (unpublished) Sun editorial, published on this website, that the key issue is the proposed increase in contributions. Your post flatly contradicts this view – you say “there are few public service workers who are not prepared to pay an increased premium for said pensions”.

Again I have no way of knowing which of you is right, though I would tend to agree with you that the issues are much more varied and complex than Brendan Barber suggests.

But it seems to that the principle point of my previous post still stands, which is that a Union case based on opposition to increased public sector pension contributions is unacceptable, and in my view has no chance of succeeding. And finally, for the avoidance of doubt, and as I hoped I’d made clear in my last post, my comments here are on the topic of union tactics, not on the generality of the situation.

Where did I not “get my facts straight”?

40
All of the unions involved with the strike have clearly stated that it is because the government expects their members to work longer, pay more and receive less, it is the last option which became the final straw.
Further, you assert that the unions do not accept that pensions should be reformed, this is also incorrect.

[41] If, as you say, all the unions involved have said that it’s the level of benefits that are the final straw, it does seem odd on the face of it that the TUC would take an entirely different view from that expressed by all its members.

But that could be easily addressed by the evidence. A Google search has not returned any results supporting your claim, though there is mass of stuff out there which I haven’t studied in detail, and no doubt you have the data readily available, so it would be good to have the details available. I’d also be interested if you could refer me to statements from individual unions accepting the necessity of reform of public sector pensions.

42
The NHS pension scheme was changed in 2008 reflecting the change in state pensionable age also the benefits were lower, this was agreed and negotiated with all major unions including Unison and the RCN
Both Unison and the RCN then agreed a cap on pay with the current government.
I’m not surprised that you can’t find anything specific on Google because most reports are about the rejection of the current offer, very little has been said about the massive changes already made.

@28 – If you simply compare salaries.

However, that’s entirely misleading. Public workers are generally higher-qualified on average than the private sector (because the UK has very low ongoing investments in worker training in the private sector), and therefore, a comparison on pay for *equal skill levels* shows a MASSIVE level of underpayment.

@31 – Really? No, no money is made for the UK by making people being healthy and educated. Well, what a world. Do away with the NHS and free schooling!

…

Oh, wait…

@34 – A contract is a contract, unless it’s with the public workers, right? You want to change the only deacent pensions left outside the 1% into a scam. You’re advocating scamming, and you’re against *pensions*. No two ways about it, 1%er.

YOU won’t freeze to death, but you’re quite happy for other people to do so.

Moreover, I’m sure you’re entirely happy with higher rate tax payer’s relief on pensions, which needs to be cancelled. But THAT would hit you, so…

@38 – They have. They just finished a major renegotiation with Labour. That WAS the change to make them sustainable. Costs will fall as a % of GDP now, with no other changes. And yet changes have already been made (linking to sub-inflationary figures), and further changes will just highlight the fact that “public pensions” are becoming a “kitty for the government to raid”, a scam.

You’re supporting scamming.

[43] Now I really am getting lost. You say that NHS pensions were changed in 2008 to reflect the change in the State Pensionable age. It’s true that under the Pensions Act 2007 the SPA for both men and women is set to be increased from 65 to 68 by stages, and that in 2008 the pensionable age for NHS employees was raised from 50 to 55. That’s still a ten year advantage over the rest of us, which seems to me to be a quite considerable benefit. (Note that I’m not saying it’s unjustified, but I am saying that it’s still a lot better than the rest of us.)

You also say that the benefits are lower, but when I consult the NHS pensions website I see that their illustrative example for a practitioner with 40 years membership of the NHS pension scheme was an annual pension of £22,400 under the old rules, but £29,820 under the revised 2008 rules. In what way is this a lower benefit?

But I don’t really want to get into a wrangle about NHS Pensions. So, in an attempt to keep to the point, Brendan Barber of the TUC is saying that the core issue is the level of contributions; you are saying that for the individual unions and the vast majority of their membership the issue is the level of benefits. All I’m asking you for is some sort of evidence to support your assertion.

[44] “They have. They just finished a major renegotiation with Labour.” A renogiation is not a reform.

“That WAS the change to make them sustainable. Costs will fall as a % of GDP now, with no other changes.” No, I think this is incorrect. I would refer you to the Hutton Report.

“And yet changes have already been made (linking to sub-inflationary figures)”. I would agree that CPI is an inappropriate yardstick, but I think it’s hard to say that it’s “sub-inflationary” – it’s certainly less advantageous to pensioners than RPI, but that in itself is not an argument.

“further changes will just highlight the fact that “public pensions” are becoming a “kitty for the government to raid”, a scam.” As you will have noted from my original post, I’m very much opposed to Government tinkering with anyone’s pension arrangements on a retrospective basis – my example here was Labour’s infamous “pension raid” and I invite you to join me in condemning it with the same vigour that you attack the Conservative’s current proposals.

“You’re supporting scamming”. No, read my posts, think about it, and then respond.

45,46
Yes, there has been a major reform, the monthy pension rate is now higher and the pension age was increased. Remember, the tories have only just increased the pension age and the unions were/are in the process of discussing this.
I say again, the unions were in favour of reform and indeed reform took place, because you then want to impose a limited view of what sort of reform YOU would like to see, does not invalidate my claim.

45,46
I also meant to add that the pension age for NHS employees was raised to 65 not 55 as you state.