Re: There is trouble afoot
 

Perhaps I did not make the point very clearly..... Very few people would support militancy now and very few would have supported militancy before the 70's. As the 70's progressed times became very hard for almost everybody and people reached breaking point as year after miserable year ground by. By 1978 most had long since had enough and although did not welcome the disruption that ensued, more than understood the reasons.

General moods of mass dissatisfaction are fairly rare with last I can remember as being the poll tax revolt when millions received court summonses for refusal to pay. Millions were incensed by the unfairness of the tax levy and the public mood was anger. Only when the vast majority of the country feels badly treated by government will you see mass action of the type that union leaders are salivating over and I hope it never comes to pass.

The law states that you pay council tax and if you are obliged to do so and refuse then I am afraid that action will be taken against you. Councils are rather fast at sending in bailiffs and if needed instigating bankruptcy proceedings. They are certainly not an institution to pick a fight with even if they supply you with nothing.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

i just think it is is *******s if they dont provide me with a service i pay for should i not be entitled to compensation ? yes i SHOULD however i suppose in reality it is not going to happen, anybody that strikers (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

The council tax you and everybody else pays is exactly what it says it is ..a council tax.. in other words you pay money to your LA and it provides services for your benefit ,what those services are depends on the council ,if for example a LA decides to stop bin collections on a weekly basis in favour of a fornightly one they can ,it does not mean you are entitled to a reduction even though you are only getting half the service

---------- Post added at 20:21 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Out of those 3million how many are actually prepared to work ?

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

I wouldn't call you "harsh" - naive would be a better description.

If people are on strike because their employers are planning on cutting their jobs what logical rationale would there be in their employer sacking them for striking - only to give their jobs to any of the three million people on Job Seekers?

I mean really, come on.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ctor-cuts.html

they are prepared to break the law, so should the government on protection of striking workers ?

the fact is, these people deserve to be punished if they go ahead with the proposed strike action

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

My post above was pointing out the fundamental naivety of your stated position on sacking people on strike and then replacing them.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

why is it naive ? they are threatening society for there own personal gain, you dont think they should be punished ?

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

Pete - they are not threatening society, they are withdrawing their labour, as they are entitled to do in a free society; if they break any laws, I am sure the employers will be over them like a rash.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

It's not about whether I think they should be punished.

You post shows that you are totally naive when it comes to matters involving industrial action - whether legal or not.

I'll explain it for you.

You said that you felt that "anybody that strikers (sic) (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job".

Read my post again if it helps.

I am pointing out to you the fact that people may strike because their employer wants to cut their jobs based on their (the employer) having arrived at the conclusion that a reduced work force is an absolute necessity.

You, somewhat bizarrely, are suggesting that the best way for employers to punish them for striking (whether legally or not) to try and save their jobs is to sack them and employ someone else to do a job that they (the employer) were trying to do away with.

Are you with me yet?

Your assertion is preposterous in that it defeats the very premise you are trying to put forward as a viable means to address industrial action. It is naive in the extreme.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

but it is not exclusively cuts is it ? pay freezes as well it is all about greed? they (public sector) have had it easy for years under labour, did they not think it would come to an end ?

perhaps they could get rid of 10 x people on 20 grand a year and employ maybe 13 or 14 people on 15 grand and still save money ? it really is as simple as that, if they are told that they will think twice about striking wont they ?

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

You obviously know nothing. A pay freeze agreed in the last 18 months is actually a pay cut (no matter what business you are in) when you factor in inflation, VAT increases, projected increases in base interest rates and credit / working family tax reductions.

Do you think that people employers "get rid of" simply "disappear"?

Do the maths (factoring in the benefits that those 10 people will now claim) and you'll see just how stupid and naive you are being.

That being the case then why are we posting in a thread called "There is trouble afoot" with you quoting threats of strikes?

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

the 10 people on the dole then will be countered by the 14 people that have just come off....

everybody else in the private sector has had a freeze (well not all but a lot, i have as well) why should they be immune ?

perhaps if people were not so stupid (and selfish) in general there would have never been all them years of labour rule and we would not be in this state ?

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

Pete - that's illegal, you can't get rid of someone who's not broke the terms of their contract and then replace them with other workers.

When I applied, was interviewed, and then was given my current job, the LA I work for had advertised it 2 times before, they needed to advertise it a 3rd time because the first two times they weren't able to attract any applicants due to the low wage offered when compared to the private sector.

You just can't attract the same skillset if you reduce the wage banding of a job by a quarter.

There's the other side to this as well, under your plan, the lower paid, lower skilled, less motivated workers wouldn't be providing the same standard of service as you are used to. Therefore your council tax will go less of a distance as it does now.

Just a thought, if you feel as strongly as you do, stand for election as a councillor for your LA. That way you can make your voice heard.

Oh, and just for the record, I can't afford to strike, I won't strike, and yes I am a member of a trade union.

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

You seem to be forgeting that an employer cannot sack someone engaged in legal industrial action .

Re: There is trouble afoot
 

like i said before laws on strike action needs amending?

the prison officers are prepared to break the law, doesn't it work both ways ?

unions should not be allowed to hold any private or public employer to ransom especially when there motives are totally selfish and even more so when we are in this type of financial climate

we as a country are broke and borrowing just to stay a float private firms have had to lay people off for various reasons we have to cut costs but still need to maintain value for money to the tax payer, what else do they suggest we do ?