Thankyou so much joey, a really fair and reasoned response.
It's worth reiterating that post industrialisation people fought tooth and nail for workers rights, they have a duty as members to exercise that right and not not rely on other members to defend their rights or whatever is in dispute.
As it is the government it's probably going to be very conflicting for most as you expect the establishment to conduct themselves in a fair and rational manner... Unfortunately they don't.

I believe in the right to strike.

I also believe you should have 50% or more members voting for a strike before if takes place. Only democratic after all.

The current governments respective parties got less than 50% in the election, it can be disputed that they were democratically elected...

Yeah, time the system had a shake up.
Then again, heaven knows how.:shrug:

I don't agree totally, I think if people have a vote then they should use it but having a free vote means you don't have to.
However abstaining from voting means that you can only take the result from those who take the time to vote as in elections.

For instance in local Council elections, whole councils are elected where only around 35% of those able to vote do so but the results stand solid.

It is generally assumed that the abstainers care little either way so thereby give consent and legitimacy to the result from those who did vote.
We don't hear those Union members who chose not to vote demanding the strike not be held so more evidence of a quiet consent in part at least.

As I said,it is an issue that does need addressing,however by the Unions themselves and not a dictatorial form of legislation from this arrogant,incompetent and dismissive Govt.

It could even be that less than 50% of Scots vote in the forthcoming referendum for instance,if that happened and the result was to leave the UK for instance, that result would stand despite that low turnout.

If you cannot get people to vote in something then fair enough but their unwillinglness to take a few moments to cast a vote should never be allowed to negate the votes cast from those who took the time to and whatever result came form that vote.

Really, we also have never had a Govt of any party elected with over 50% of the vote for something like 7 decades now, however those result are valid for them to govern.
In fact under out electoral system at present you could have a Govt in power that didn't even get the most votes at all let alone 50% of them.

Our jobcentre was on strike today...only had people in manning the phones. I found out because this morning I recieved a letter to go in for a 'work focussed interview' 2 days after my due date. Like...seriously..do they not have better things to do than try and get me in 2 days after I have a baby, when I'm chance to not even be out of ****ing hospital by then anyway.

Take baby in with you...leave the cord attached :joker:

Wow, Kizzy..if you want to have a fair and reasoned debate, then Livia brings up good points.

Know I'm only a n00b, but you can't have a one-sided thread?

Honestly, if I have to go overdue this time, I am really hoping my waters go right in the jobcentre...

Yes you are, if you weren't you would know that the public v private sector gets thrown into every discussion even though they're not comparable.
I did ask if she would like to explain the difference... that's fair.

You didn't give your opinion, I would be happy to hear it.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IhbNiK3Xyf...stofliving.jpg

The 'I'm alright jack' message is not to be accepted, a 0-1% for nurses increase against the 11% MPs have been afforded... how is this proportional?

To be honest, some of the folks out there striking ought to try living on minimum wage for a while. A lot of the public sector workers are earning quite a nice sum compared to those of us who have to work for the private sector.

I don't understand what you mean by this lily, you think teachers, firemen and nurses should be on minimum wage because you are?
If you have the required level of professionalism then you can choose to work in whatever sector you want, because the private sector put profit share before workers pay and rights it doesn't mean the public sector should reduce wages...

:clap1: alot of people in the private sector seem to have a chip on their shoulders regarding public sector pay and conditions, but have no problem with ministers awarding themselves inflation busting increases, the government refused to get around the table to discuss an end to the pay freeze which has been in place for the past 3 years what other course of action is left ?

Totally, especially regarding the cost of living increase over the last 4yrs, to accept a pay freeze and then 1% due to 'austerity' finding out the government have afforded MPs 11% must have been a right slap in the face!

First of all, I am not on minimum wage.

Secondly, I did not say teachers, firemen, nurses etc should be on minimum wage.

Thirdly, I did not say the public sector should reduce wages.

So, to address your question, since you didn't understand my original post... I think some of the people who are striking should be thankful they are in a well-paid job.

Professionalism has little or nothing to do with it, when you consider the person who empties the wheelie bins is well paid compared to some private sector workers.

And, your statement about 'choosing to work in whatever sector you want' doesn't always apply. There are large areas of the country where a lot of 'professionally skilled' people are unable to 'choose', because the options simply are not there.

You suggested they try living on minimum wage... why would they? They've earned through vocational study to a level that they are beyond minimum wage it wasn't just binmen protesting was it? it was all category 1 responders (bar the police),teachers and others as well as local council employees.

Could you clarify your last point as I really can't understand your reasoning here,

'professionally skilled' people are unable to 'choose', because the options simply are not there'?

My reasoning is that there are a lot of skilled people, some with degrees who are unable to secure employment in their area of expertise.

ETA: There are also people working in the private sector who have 'earned through vocational study to a level that they are beyond minimum wage' yet they still have to accept minimum wage.

Exactly.. do you find this acceptable? I don't.
public perception is shifting and it's worrying, if you work in public service and are employed by the state to provide your skills, knowledge and talents then you should be respected and rewarded with a decent wage and a protected pension in my opinion.
The expansion of unregulated, underskilled, undervalued private sector staff in some areas of public services in companies whos only aim is to minimise outlay and maximise profits will contribute to the destruction of infrastructure and in turn communities and society as we know it.

Not that this was intended to be a public/private sector debate initially so I'd prefer to steer this back on topic. Why are the government so against now we are in recovery holding out on giving a fair wage increase to those who we rely on so much? And why are the unions given such a hard time for fighting for the rights of those who we depend on currently in this country.

Not just holding out now Kizzy but even saying it could be 2017/2018 before any kind of effective rises as to wages may come into place as to the public sector.

This Govt. has left industrial action as really the only course of action left for these people to take because of its dismissiveness and arrogance towards them.

What will be left of the country by the time they are finally ousted joey? not much :( Pockets will have been lined enough to ensure the elite 1% maintain the stranglehold on the 99% though.