Strike Day 3

The banner has made it to the march with 100s if not 1000s of others.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Strike Day 2

We're just warming up prior to the march & rally.


Reports are that well over 90% of members are out.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Early Pickets

The day starts.


After yesterday's announcement of more pay restraint, more job cuts & regional pay it would be bonkers to not be on strike.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Six days to the N30 strike

I came across this by Harry Paterson,Freelance writer & music journalist and thought it was worth sharing.

N30 : Support The Strike
Posted: 23rd November 2011 in Blog
Tags: Bankers, Greed, Pensions, Public Sector, Scargill, Strike, Unions 0
We could be here ‘til next century, discussing the legacy of Thatcher, such is the landscape-altering impact of that vile woman’s contribution to British politics. So we won’t bother, then.

Instead, let’s take a look at one of the more insidious, but no less damaging, phenomena for which she can be rightly blamed. Namely, this mean-spirited, resentful and uncharitable world-view shared by so many. This is best illustrated by a conversation I heard on a radio ‘phone-in, the other day, discussing public sector pensions.

The outraged caller railed furiously against trade Union bosses’ plans for industrial action in defence of public sector pensions (they’re always ‘bosses’, aren’t they? Mob bosses, Mafioso chiefs and crime lords, being the comparison we’re supposed to make).

Why should public sector workers have gold-plated pensions? She demanded, angrily. Where do they get off having such a sense of automatic entitlement? Her pension, from the private sector, was nonexistent so she certainly wasn’t supporting any such action, she’ll have you know!

Depressingly, it’s this sort of attitude that’s largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place. Older readers will recall the huge industrial battles and bitterly charged disputes that defined the 80s. Wapping, GCHQ Cheltenham and, of course, the miners’ strike.

Then, as now, the same surly and jealous attitude pervaded. We’re all suffering, we’re all making cut-backs so why should Scargill’s greedy, commie miners be exempt? This also had the knock-on but devastating effect of alibiing the craven, spineless capitulation and outright treachery of Neil Kinnock, Norman Willis et al, as the miners were left isolated, unsupported and abandoned by the Labour party and TUC bureaucracy.

We all know the result. The miners lost and the trade union movement as any kind of vehicle for progressive social change was shattered for generations. Over the following decades, wages plummeted, protection from unscrupulous employers all but vanished and job security and a living wage dropped to a low not seen since before the war.

We’ll join those particular dots shortly, but for now let’s look at some of the most common objections to the strikes on November 30th. This one, from a friend of mine, is typical “…I’ve had pay-cuts in my job in the private sector and simply cannot afford to keep subsidising over-generous public sector pensions”

There are a lot of obvious responses to this; firstly, well why didn’t you join a union and/or fight against the slashing of your terms and conditions? Why resent another group of workers who have the balls to defend their pay and conditions when you didn’t?

Of course, his objections, and those of many others, basically fall into the category of ‘well I’ve been punched in the face, mugged and then shit upon and I didn’t do a thing about it so you should just lie back and take it too’ Not very noble that, is it? Not particularly logical as any kind of argument against, either.

Put more simply, though, look at it this way: you go for an interview, discuss the role, pay and conditions and maybe do a bit of haggling, maybe not, and then you and your employer sign a supposedly legally binding contract which lays out the obligations and benefits for both sides.

Imagine, then, a year or two into the job, you turn around, one day, and say to your boss, “Hey, you know that bit of my job we agreed on? Signed a contract to say I’d do it? Well, not really feeling that anymore so I aint doing it” Can you imagine the response? Yeah, your ass would be sacked PDQ.

So, with that in mind, why is it ok for the government to now turn around and tell their workforce that a significant part of their pay and conditions, a part significant enough to have been the deciding factor in millions of workers taking the job in the first place, is scrapped?

Striking, as a last resort, to resist this seems to me not only perfectly reasonable but clear-cut and morally, legally and logically unassailable. Apparently not, though…

Because as well as the the jealous, the resentful, the cowardly and the terminally stupid, there are also those who trot out Cameron’s hypocritical mantra that we’re all in it together. We simply can’t afford for teachers, nurses, firemen, dinner ladies etc to have “over generous” pensions subsidised by the tax payers. We all need to make sacrifices in UK PLC’s hour of need.

I see. Like Vodafone did when they got off scot-free with £8 BILLION POUNDS of dodged tax owed to the exchequer? You’d think, given the current climate, us tax payers could’ve done with that cash in the public coffers. What with us all being in it together and that.

Or how about the chiefs of effectively nationalised banks continuing to rake in multi-million pound bonuses for being crap at their jobs? Yeah, be nice to see those boys taking one for Team Britannia. You know, what with us all being in it together and that…

This, of course, exposes another lie they’d love you to swallow. You see, we’re not all in this together as patriotic Brits, doing our bit and making sacrifices. Bollocks to that! After all, what sacrifice are the bankers making? What cuts are we seeing among those made fabulously rich by stealing, ripping-off and driving the economy into the ground? No, the working class are in this together; employed, unemployed, public sector, private sector, young, old, working, retired and all scraping by on a pittance in comparison, while the super rich and their mates in government want those at the bottom to pay for the greed of those at the top.

So, as Arthur tried to point out during the miners’ strike, this is not just about one group of workers defending their interests. It’s about all of us because if the coalition gets away with stealing the pensions from their own workforce, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll be coming for the rest of us next. Count on it.

Find your back-bone, find your integrity and take a stand. Join the strike. If you’re not in the public sector, support the strikers and their actions. Make your support known. And if you can’t do that then at least allow cold, hard, self-interest to motivate you because remember; today it’s the public sector, tomorrow it’ll be you. Don’t say you weren’t warned…

Save your pension - join the strike - show the hypocrites

One more reason that our strike with others on November 30th is successful

Pension-slashing minister Francis Maude could pick up £731k retirement pot
by James Lyons, Daily Mirror 22/11/2011


THE Tory minister ruthlessly slashing the pensions of millions of public sector workers could be in line to pocket a £731,000 retirement pot.

Francis Maude, 58, is among a number of Government ministers amassing vast, taxpayer-funded nest eggs.

But while the millionaire can look forward to a potential £43,000-plus a year income in his old age, he is cutting schemes for nurses, teachers and public sector workers.

Advertisement >>

The shocking sum is almost eight times the average £5,600 civil service employee’s pot.

Union chiefs yesterday branded Cabinet Office Minister Mr Maude and his well-to-do colleagues shameless hypocrites.

Len McCluskey, of Unite, which calculated the figures, said: “A typical public sector worker would have to work almost three lifetimes to get a pension like many of the ministers who are attacking our public services.

“Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs.

“What we don’t support is a cabinet of millionaires attacking the pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe.

“It’s another example of how out of touch the Government is.” Mark Serwotka, of the civil service PCS union, added: “They’ll be completely untouched by their cuts.”

MPs can grow their pension pot by up to one 40th of their final salary – currently £65,738 – each year in return for putting in 11.9% of their wage packet.

Senior ministers, who earn more, can also pay in at the same rate and receive one 40th of their total frontbench earnings on top of their Parliamentary pension.

Veteran Tory Mr Maude, who is masterminding the showdown with unions, earns about £98,700.

He will have chalked up 27 years as an MP and eight as a minister during two spells in Parliament if he keeps his job until the next election in 2015.

If he paid in at this top rate he would get a pension over £60,000, according to Unite. Payouts are limited to two-thirds of an MP’s salary but it still means he could get £43,825.

He and Chief Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander are playing hardball ahead of a national stoppage that is set to see millions of workers walk out of their jobs over the row next Wednesday.

Mr Maude has also been accused of bullying after threatening to bring in anti-strike laws.

David Cameron has surrendered his Prime Minister’s pension, which is worth half of his final salary in the top job, but still benefits from the generous pay and perks.

Contributing at the top rate, Mr Cameron – already worth an estimated £3million – would be entitled to £32,977 by 2015. His even richer sidekick George Osborne would get the same.

It is almost six times the typical £5,600 public sector pension. Someone in a private scheme would have to save up more than half a million pounds.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg could retire on £26,403 a year if he quits Parliament at the next election. Mr Alexander would get £26,403 while Business Secretary and Lib Dem Vince Cable would take home £39,551.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary busy demolishing the NHS, would pick up an identical amount if he opted for the top rate but a spokesman said last night he had chosen a lower one. Fellow Tory Eric Pickles, who has been inflicting brutal cuts on town halls across the country, could rack up £43,825.



Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/most-popular/2011/11/22/pension-slashing-minister-francis-maude-could-pick-up-731k-retirement-pot-115875-23579471/#ixzz1eVvg0Hjn

All Out on November 30th - the workers united can never be defeated!

Members of unions including our own campaigning in Leicester city centre on November 19th for the strike on 30th November.

NEW FROM LEICESTERSHIRE AGAINST THE CUTS

FOR LEICESTER CITY RESIDENTS:

The City Mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, is conducting a very short on-line only consultation about the cuts he and the Labour administration want to make at the city council. The consultation can be accessed through this link:

http://consultations.leicester.gov.uk/ConsDetails.aspx?consID=407

Leicestershire Against the Cuts (LAC) believe that people should give all the services under threat the highest (6) marking and tell Sir Peter that we believe all these services are equally valuable to the people of Leicester.

LAC also believe that people should not complete the section on which three services they believe should be cut and instead use the space provided to tell the Mayor that cuts are not necessary and that he and his massive Labour majority should be building an alliance with other councils to fight the coalition government for the money to fund services vital to the needs of all whether they are old or young, male or female, in good health or not or need additional specialist assistance.

LAC will also be posting soon a letter you can send to the Mayor outling why you believe cuts are not necessary.

The consultation finishes on 25 November, so get your response in before then. 

Testing the claims on the Government's latest pension proposals

Government claim:
“The lowest paid and people 10 years from retirement will be protected, and public service pensions will still be among the very best available.”

Reality:
The lowest paid will not be protected – they will still be forced to work longer (up to 68) and suffer the indexation changes which will devalue their pension. The government has said that workers earning less than £15,000 (FTE) will not pay any extra contributions – this protection only covers 4% of PCS members.

Those within 10 years of retirement still face paying higher contributions equivalent to nearly a day’s pay every month (an extra £63.36 a month for the average member), and will lose over £16,000 in retirement as their pension will be uprated by the lower CPI measure of inflation rather than RPI.
Government claim:
“I have listened to the argument that those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. That is the approach that has been taken over the years in relation to increases to the state pension age, and I think it is fair to apply that here too.”

Reality:
This is the government’s main selling point of the new offer – and it is not true. Those within 10 years of retirement (i.e. 50-plus in Classic or Premium or 55-plus in nuvos) will still face extra pensions contributions of 3.2% (£63.36 a month for the average member) between now and retirement.

In addition, their pension will still be downgraded in value due to the indexation change from RPI to CPI. This alone would cost the average PCS member £16,400 over a 20 year retirement.

While this is only a partial concession for older workers, it is of no benefit at all to the majority of civil servants who are under 50 (or 55 in nuvos). PCS continues to seek a negotiated settlement in the interests of our whole membership, and future generations.
Government claim:
“Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable and fair for taxpayers and public service workers, and that can be sustained for decades to come.”

Reality:
Public sector pensions already are affordable, due to the reforms we agreed in 2007. The Hutton report shows the costs of public sector pensions falling. The National Audit Office assessed our pensions schemes in December 2010 and found the 2007 deal “reduces costs to taxpayers by 14 per cent”.

The Public Accounts Committee found in May 2011, “the Treasury has not set out clearly what level of spending it considers sustainable in the long term. Instead, officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception” – which is why they are keen to present a false impression to the public about our pensions.

Again the government is trying to create a false divide between public sector workers and taxpayers. Public sector workers are taxpayers too. If pensions are slashed then the cost will still be borne by taxpayers, through increased claims for means-tested benefits in retirement.
Government claim:
“Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change, they will keep, and those things will be paid out in the terms expected ... No public sector worker needs to have anything to fear for the entitlements that they have already built up.”

Reality:
This is not true; by imposing the change in indexation from RPI to CPI, the average PCS member would lose £16,400 over a 20 year retirement.

Alongside other unions and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, we have taken the government to the High Court to argue that this change was not only unfair but illegal. We are determined to protect your pension by legal means as well as industrial and through negotiation.
Government claim:
“the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the risks associated with further increases in life expectancy, by linking the scheme normal pension age to state pension age.”

Reality:
We agreed a deal with the last Labour government that took precisely these changes into account. It meant a new pension age of 65 for new starters across the public sector. Based on the changes in the 2007 deal the projected cost of public sector pensions is falling, despite growing life expectancy.

Funding better pensions is a political choice. The UK state pension is worse than in every comparable EU country. France currently spends 12% of its GDP on pensions and Germany over 10%, but the UK only spends 6%.
Government claim:
“Pensions would remain considerably better than those available in the private sector.”

Reality:
This is classic divide and rule – and is a complete diversion from the issue at hand. We do not want an equality of misery whereby public sector pensions are driven down to the patchy and poor level in the private sector.
One-quarter of all tax relief on pensions, amounting to more than £10bn annually, goes to the richest 1% in the country. We hear about gold-plated public sector pensions, yet the real gilded pensions are to be found in the boardrooms of private companies that have abandoned provision for their workforces.
Government claim:
“reform is essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the last few decades”

Reality:
This is very misleading. It is true that public sector pensions cost, as Alexander said “just under 1% of GDP in 1970, they account for around 2% of GDP today”.

However, due to the changes agreed in 2007, the Hutton report shows that public sector pension costs will fall from 1.9% today down to 1.4%. The Public Accounts Committee has said that the changes will mean: “costs stabilising at around 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)”.

The government’s latest document, published on 2 November 2011, shows that pension costs will reduce under the 2007 deal to the level they were in the mid-1980s.

These proposed new reforms are a tax on public sector workers to pay for the banking crisis and this government’s failure to generate economic growth.

Do you need to say anything more? - All out on November 30th

I've taken this from the PCS Union Members FB site, but it sums everything up for me and is well worth sharing in any medium you care to:
Steven North hits the nail on the head: "I could argue that the reason I'm prepared to strike on the 30th is because my pension fund is a sustainable one that requires no increase in contributions, except to return more money to a Treasury that is already taxing me to death every time I fill my car up but refuses to allocate me a pay rise. I could say that it's because its unfair to ask me to work until I'm 68 when I live in an area where male life expectancy is still only 70. I could say that we went through discussions around accrual rates a few years ago and were told that changes had been made to make our pension fund sustainable for a generation. In reality though I'm striking because I don't want to die in a freezing cold flat 2 years after I retire after a lifetime in work. If any other working man or woman wants to be equally as selfish and pay no regard to the difficult decisions our Government has to make, I'll happily stand next to you."