In that lynch mobs might start killing local government workers for being both greedy and dim-witted. I'm quite glad I've had that week booked as holiday for some time and will be out of the country. I'm not crossing a picket line, but good grief. Mind you, my union haven't told me anything about a strike, or balloted me, so maybe I'm not out.
I think you're being a bit unfair there. If someone tells you for years and years that you get to retire with a certain pension at 60 and then they suddenly shift it back to 65, that's got to be annoying. It isn't "greedy and dim-witted" to not want to be utterly shafted.
Apart from the fact that this rule will become illegal under age discrimination rules from next year, local government employees remain spectacularly privileged in their pension arrangements, and they would do well to negotiate something more realistic, rather than to open the Pandora's box and let the public see what they're getting.
It's not like these jobs are given away as Christmas presents by the government. With jobs, it's simple: the job is advertised, people apply, the most suitable candidate (one hopes) gets the post.
If you suddenly screw around with the terms and conditions once people are in post, that's really not acceptable behaviour. You can't use the argument "Oh, but that deal's much too good !". So ? Maybe that's why the person wanted the post in the first place ?
The fact that this is going to become illegal will certainly feature in negotiations, but it's hardly relevant to the question of whether the change is reasonable and fair.
I like this, from the Local Government Association:
There is no majority or mandate for strikes
Is it empty FUD, or a genuine accusation that the unions involved have not properly conducted strike ballots (i.e, somehow faked an 80% vote in favour), or just a comment on the level of response to the ballot (28%)?
If the latter, does a body representing local councils (electoral turnout 33% in England in 2003) really want to start the argument about whether the majority verdict of a minority turnout can grant a valid mandate?
And in any case, how the hell can there not be a mandate for a collective action? Either it happens or it doesn't.
Comments 25
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you suddenly screw around with the terms and conditions once people are in post, that's really not acceptable behaviour. You can't use the argument "Oh, but that deal's much too good !". So ? Maybe that's why the person wanted the post in the first place ?
The fact that this is going to become illegal will certainly feature in negotiations, but it's hardly relevant to the question of whether the change is reasonable and fair.
Reply
There is no majority or mandate for strikes
Is it empty FUD, or a genuine accusation that the unions involved have not properly conducted strike ballots (i.e, somehow faked an 80% vote in favour), or just a comment on the level of response to the ballot (28%)?
If the latter, does a body representing local councils (electoral turnout 33% in England in 2003) really want to start the argument about whether the majority verdict of a minority turnout can grant a valid mandate?
And in any case, how the hell can there not be a mandate for a collective action? Either it happens or it doesn't.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment