Today marks the largest general strikes in a generation, with up to two million public sector workers walking out over the issue of pensions.
And this real world issue is penetrating our lovely Cambridge bubble, as the University and College Union is joining in with the industrial action. Over the last few days, students have been receiving a steady stream of emails detailing the cancelling and rescheduling of lectures. Surely, this can not be right?
Rescheduling lectures can’t be right
Industrial action and highly politicised squabbles will be affecting our learning, alongside that of hundreds of thousands of other students across the country. As an avowed leftie, I do sympathise with the public sector workers whose pensions are being squeezed by the government, who demand they work longer and contribute more to their pensions.
But I fear that striking will do the unions more harm than good. Private-sector workers already grumble about the supposed generosity of public sector pensions (in reality the average private pension in worth £280 more a year than a public one) and the disruption is affecting millions of people in Britain. But this does nothing to help the unions, who still have a reputation for bolshiness and intractability inherited from the huge strikes of the 1970s.
Industrial action also plays completely into the Tory government’s hands, who leap at the opportunity to get into some old-fashioned Thatcher-style union bashing, warning the country of the huge cost this strike will have for the country and blaming the failure of negotiations purely on the unions themselves.
The union’s cause is good, but their methods are questionable. They are risking losing public sympathy for a genuine grievance and risking polarising the country once more.
I view my lecture-free day not with delight at the chance to get some more sleep, but with concern for the future of organisations, which I really do believe are necessary to protect workers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621
"When you're a little old lady of 65 how can you be giving your best to all the women you are looking after?"
Seriously? 65 is little old lady?
You tell 'em Gok
"You tell 'em Young Stephen Merchant", surely?
The fact that there are over two million public sector workers in this country is a problem in itself.
yeah right on! all those doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen, postmen, trash collectors, social workers; they're the real problem
I don't trust the market to clean the streets, look after the elderly and disabled, educate the children, care for the sick and guard me while I sleep. There's nothing wrong with a large public sector so long as it's effective, far from 'crowding-out' the private sector it actually helps the economy to be more competitive by making the country more attractive to foreign investors and wealth-creators.
How dare you tell me I'm stupid. ME?! I along with all creed have the right to strike.
You're a historian. History lectures are useless anyway.
Can I just check I've got this right? A private pension is when you pay into a pot by yourself, or sometimes an employer will make an agreement with you to add some to the pot, and you draw from that.
A public sector pension is where the government adds LOADS to whatever you contribute, so you're getting EVERYTHING you put in (with inflation) plus loads extra.
So obviously it might sometimes be better to have a private pension and a generous employer, but with a public one you still get loads more than you put in.. right? Unlike if you're self employed or own a business. Plus you have to work till you're 65. Which, given life expectancy is nearly 80, seems reasonable.
Could someone please tell me what's the problem? Genuinely.
Pensions aren't a perk, they're deferred wages. Part of the contract you sign with your employer is whether or not there's a pensions scheme as part of the pay. Forcing employers to pay more for the same pension (which they've already been paying into for years) is at best the equivalent of raising tax on mid-income households and at worst stealing money that's already been earned. Finally, it's important to note than the mean private sector pension is higher than the mean public.
*forcing employees
"Pensions aren't a perk, they're deferred wages"
But isn't this what the whole disagreement is about? I guess if that's true then the whole conception of a pension is different between the private and public sectors. And of course the huge pensions that people in the financial sector get is going to drag up the average private pension; but the fact remains that a high percentage of people don't even have pensions.
Also, obviously teachers are public sector workers, but are university employees? I thought that universities were publicly funded private entities…
the pension funds for university staff are private, so the current dispute is with their employers, not with the govt…
University employees contributing to the USS (University Superannuation Scheme – a private pension, as mentioned above) now have to pay more to receive the same benefit. I am noticeably worse off every month because of this and I am considering stopping my pension payments so that I have more money to live on.
Oh, and it is interesting to note that teachers in private schools who started their careers in state schools remain a part of the generous state pension scheme which is, in my opinion, grossly unfair, as they will usually be receiving higher salaries in private schools while having much smaller classes (of children who want to learn rather than stab them) to teach. I don't know about the pension arrangements for those who spend their whole careers teaching in private schools.
Most of the public support them, actually. Besides there's no real alternative is there if the Government won't budge. The 'negotiations' were essentially an ultimatum, it was a take it or leave it offer that wouldn't left low-paid, part time public sector workers in a pretty grim situation. Besides, industrial unrest was always inevitable so essentially it boils down to a question of which side you want to be on. For better or worse, I'm with the unions. I trust them more than the fraudsters in Government.
Agree.
"I trust them more than the fraudsters in Government. "
You agree with fatcats (which is all they are, even if they do it in the name of liberal policies – check out their earnings) more than elected representatives?
Yay for democracy…
Am I the only person who is so bored with "Cambridge bubble" appearing in article upon article?
Very much agree.
do anything except agree?
Agreed.
I wanted to go on strike, to try and make my voice as a citizen, and part of civil society, heard, to persuade somehow a seemingly uncaring government that those who need help the most are those who will inevitably be those to suffer the greatest, yet I was unable to partake in such an action due to my commitments to training for the U21s.
ambulance workers were on strike today, and if your condition wasn't life-threatening they wouldn't attend your call. infuriating and irresponsible..
.. of the Government to fuck up ambulance workers' pensions to such an extent as to drive them to take such action.
Regardless of how poor you think your pensions are, it is irresponsible beyond belief for such a crucial workforce to strike. Get some perspective, a little more comfortable in retirement or somebody else's potentially fatal affliction? Unbelievably selfish actions that will only further stretch government budgets.
You didn't have a lecture-free day. I went with you to one.
You tell 'im.
in what sense is the writer of this article 'avowed leftie'? in the sense that excuses a basically right-wing argument about strikes? the basis of the bargaining power of a union is their right and power to strike in the last resort.
Negotiations have been going on for about a year. The government (who from the looks of it have never had to negotiate for anything in their life) started out with an obviously unacceptable 'offer' to the unions, barely budged, and refused to continue negotiations with the TUC's negotiation team as long ago as 2 November. All talks since then has been 'informal', and cynically described by the government as 'negotiation' even though they are not in any accepted sense of the word.
If you think the unions 'methods' (i.e. striking) are 'questionable' in this context, when about 60% of the public support them, and their members are facing the biggest assault on their pay and conditions (pensions are deferred wages built into employment contracts, not a 'perk') in a generation, then you are not a 'leftie' at all. Unions would have no power at all if governments and employers thought they didn't have the will to organise a strike if their members wanted them to. They'd just be glorified advice services for their members. If you think that's what they should be, then just say so, rather than patronising your readers by claiming to be an 'avowed leftie' and presenting an argument that silently starts from basically right-wing premises, and loudly ends with basically right-wing conclusions.
taja i think you might be mental
I described how unions work, then noted the starting premise of the article misunderstands that, or begins from a hostile premises. absolutely mental…
yeah but you are clearly an insane communist
It's not a question of being a leftie or right wing just practicality.The current national financial position is so dire, so near to folding in on itself that previous contracts or promises become impossible to honour. There needs to be a realignment.The average poorer private sector worker from cleaner to shop keeper either cannot pay into their pensions currently or have reduced their payments- there's no cushioning whatsoever. Many. many women, private or public sector can't even get a job let alone consider pensions or retirement dates – for some the thought of a job until 67 and any pension is a dream! Structural change, renewed manufacturing, apprenticeships, decreased top end salaries, jobs first to locals, jobs for women this is want we should consider. The whole country, private or public, can't just go on strike – they need to roll up their sleeves and get on with it. Everyone in it together.
Agreed.
What really winds me up about this kind of industrial action is the narrow view the strikers take on public finance. They don't seem to recognise that if the government meets the demands of the unions, there will be consequences for other areas of government expenditure. Where do you take the money to safeguard public sector pensions?
From the schools? Then the very same teachers now complaining about their pensions would be justifiably upset at the resulting drop in standards because of reduced funding.
From the NHS? Care for the elderly is probably the biggest burden on the health service, and frankly I'd be more than happy to take a hit to my pension if that would guarantee less crowding, shorter waiting times and an overall superior quality of care, particularly as my health deteriorates as I get older.
From security? The recent restructuring to streamline the armed forces has been deeply unpopular, as have the police cut backs, and no sane politician would risk further cuts that would impact on the front line if they could help it.
From environmental initiaties? That would just be another case of selling out future generations for our own current prosperity. God knows we've had enough of that over the past fifity years.
From big business and the financial sector? Initially attractive, to be sure. But while the excesses of these segments of society are very real, these groups also contribute to the economic wellbeing of the country, and there is a constant balancing act to be managed between encouraging investment and business within our borders and making sure that the dividends of that enterprise are shared out fairly. It is no answer at all to insist that corporations and banks shoulder the burden without regard to the consequences of forcing them to do so. However fair it might be, it also has to be practical.
Frankly, I question the liberal credentials of anyone in favour of the strikes, because of necessity that means insisting that our public services (which benefit EVERYONE) take a hit in order to honour a deal that benefits only 6m of a 29m strong workforce. What kind of socially minded, left-leaning public sector worker can demand that the majority sacrifice to gurantee them favourable terms for their retirement?
That sounds like protecting the interests of a priviledged minority over the overall well-being of society. I thought liberals were supposed to have it the other way around?
10/10
What is strange about your argument is the hypocritical appeal to community and overall well-being, coupled to an unsupported claim that any attempt to shift some of the burden on the top end of society is unviable.
Not only are people on low to mid incomes taking a massive hit through the pension reforms, but people in the poorest sections of society are being hit by the regressive (in the literal sense) VAT increase, cuts to housing support, benefits etc. Extra burdens are NOT being put on big business and the financial sector. The Autumn budget announced earlier this week hammers the poor, and leaves the rich well alone. That is the privileged minority lording it over the poor. Not nurses, teachers, social workers, firemen, policemen, soldiers. I note that you say cutbacks to the police and army have been unpopular, as a reason not to add further to them. Well, given yesterday's events, attacks on the public sector seem significantly less popular. You may also note that despite the greater premium on the police not striking, some PCSOs in Cambridgeshire joined picket lines (see Cambridge Evening News). So much for fairness.
For practicality; the government is allowing NHS spending to fall rapidly (in real terms), cutting spending to schools (including major infrastructure projects that would have created jobs, e.g. cancelling Building Schools for the Future). 710 000 public sector workers will be made redundant over the next few years, so we will have skyrocketing unemployment and increased poverty, which in turns inhibiting domestic economic growth (i.e. consumer spending). The government has no overall strategy for growth, but assumes that smashing the public sector will automatically lead to private growth. Not if you have a population of increasingly poor consumers. Government policies may in fact lead to a double dip recession. The government's economic strategy is not practical, and definitely not fair. There are a multitude of alternative strategies, most of them Keynesian, but not all. And many of them have a more realistic and (obviously) a fairer grasp on the political economy of the crisis than Osborne's reheated and vindictive neoliberalism.
"Extra burdens are NOT being put on big business and the financial sector. "
Either you're thick, or you have no grasp of economics. Or both. First of all, burdens are being put on them, and if you put any MORE, the whole economy would collapse. Now, I know there's been a lot of "down with capitalism" but believe you me, we do NOT want the economy to collapse.
What I do agree with is that banks' activities should be restricted to make sure the recession can't happen again. But that won't bring any money.
You also haven't actually said where you think the money should come from…
Also, learn how to use the reply button.
Steady now!
We clearly disagree with Taja about the strikes and the economy as a whole, but no one ever brought an opponent around to their point of view by calling them thick!
there's a difference between the prevailing economic climate putting strain on big businesses and the financial sector, and government actively seeking to doing so. meanwhile the government has definitely implemented policies that will take wealth away from low and middle income groups in society. Hence the multitude of Institute for Fiscal Studies reports and the comments of apolitical charities (Save the Children, Barnardos). The Resolution Foundation (non-party affiliated research institute) notes that the poorest in society will bear 16% of the impact of the new cuts, the richest only 3%…
Where the money should come from. This isn't the same as calling for the end of capitalism: closing tax loopholes, not making 12 000 tax collectors redundant (further reducing tax take), not undermining consumer demand by reducing the spending power of people on low incomes (reversing the regressive VAT increase). Reducing tax relief on higher pensions, mansion tax, marginal increase in the bank levy (that already exists). In the long run; not renewing trident, accelerated withdrawal from afghanistan.
Not really that mental. Barely more than left-Keynesianism.
So you're complaining about the government cutting pensions and you think the answer is… cut other people's pensions? Great plan. Reducing VAT is also not going to help. Mansion tax will just lead to the decline of our historic large houses which are an important cultural asset.
Afghanistan I agree with, but that won't solve it alone. Not renewing trident I think is contentious, as it's a deterrent that all major western countries have.
The trouble is, there is no money. No matter where we make cuts, someone's going to be whinging, so I agree with HGee up there – to a certain extent, we've all just got to suck it up.
CALM DOWN
You seem to have read my comment as a right wing apologist's attempt to justify government policy. Nothing could be further from the truth! I voted Liberal Democrat at the last election, and was aghast when they decided to side with the Conservatives instead of their natural ideological bedfellows: The Labour Party.
My intention is not to defend the government. Though I think you ascribing active maliciousness to them is uncharitable, it is true that the government isn't doing enough to mitigate and evenly share the pain of a troubled economy. I have serious reservations as to their competency as economists and governors. So I won’t contest your criticisms of the government’s judgement as to where cuts must fall, because if I had my druthers, the distribution would be different.
That said, certain financial realities are being realised that place practical limits on the kind of things ANY government can do. Sacrifice, to a greater or lesser degree, is inevitable across the board to avoid any single aspect of public spending shouldering a disproportionate burden. This would be the case no matter what kind of government we had. No hike on corporation tax, or income tax for the wealthy would be sufficient to eliminate the need for a scaling back of public sector pensions without damaging growth by discouraging start ups, foreign investment, and the rich from keeping their money in the country (where at the least it is doing some good by being subject to taxation). As galling as it is given the yawning chasm between the very lowest and the very highest earners, the rich need to be incentivised in this way, or the economy as a whole will suffer and everyone will be worse off. That’s the balancing act: getting the maximum possible social justice while ensuring that in absolute terms everyone’s material well-being doesn’t suffer.
So I don’t think a strike is helpful, or justified. It damages the economy at a time when it’s already weak, and it does so on the pretext of protecting pension agreements that would have to be funded to a significant degree by diverting money from public services, or raising taxes to cope (and not just on those who arguably deserve it). If you really think that these pensions are worth taking that hit for, then fine. Just say so.
But don’t pretend that this issue is as simple as the public sector being penalised because the government is too gutless or self interested to penalise the well off. That’s a gross over simplification of the complex system that is a national economy. Pragmatic, workable solutions which produce the best result taking everyone’s interests into account require a nuanced, considered picture of the problem. Throwing about the same tired, cliché dichotomy of selfish fat cats vs. working class heroes isn’t helpful.
I responded above, but I'll just add to that sacrifice is clearly not being shared across the board. All of Osborne's major policy packages have hit the poorest disproportionately. The response you give is trickle-down economics, or maybe some Rawlsian (sorry) American liberalism….looking at the stagnating real incomes of the majority of the population over the past 3 decades, that doesn't seem to have worked.
The point about pensions is not that there isn't a need to get money from somewhere, but that the government has not negotiated properly, and is railroading through proposals that don't just trim the edges of the pension funds, but will probably disincentivise new entrants altogether. Which will render them unsustainable in the long-run. And when those people retire and need more support directly from the state (as opposed to from stable funds acrruing interest), the impact on the public purse will be greater.
I'm not pretending the issue is as 'simple' as that ffs. Do we have a government of neutral technocrats in power? Was Thatcher neutral (regardless of whether you agreed with her or not) towards all groups in society? All of the current government's policies, like any other government, are political..and it just so happens that those politics prioritise a neoliberal conception of economic growth that privileges certain groups in society over others as wealth creators and others as parasitic (I mean that in the non-polemical sense). There are plenty of left-wing economists who have shown the ways in which such thinking is building castles in the sand…but seeing as some commenters have decided making the above points is either booooring or a sign of mental disorder, I don't think there's any point reciting Ha Joon Chang, or Keynes, or public policy academics like Simon Szreter…
er apologies for the 'ffs'
Thanks for the essays. Comments next time please.