That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
thought you meant me when you said... wow... but then I realised I hadn't actually made comments about fire-fighters... I realised that you meant 'wow'.. and not 'wow'.. ) phew.
David Cameron needs to stop talking the talk and walking the walk. He keeps saying he want to change the rule that strikes will only be allowed to go ahead if 50% or more of those eligible to vote actually vote in favour.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
As always, office jobs are being cut again (3rd, 4th time in as many years) with many staff being laid off, redeployed, forced to take pay cuts, re-apply for their jobs etc.. However I don't see RMT helping those staff out...Unfortunately... I am not allowed to comment any further on this (
How many of them are in the RMT? If they are in a different union (TSSA seems likely) the only thing the RMT could do would be to respect their picket lines.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
I'm pro-union but the tube workers are genuinely abusing their monopoly position and something needs to be done about it. Lot more sympathy for the firefighters.
If ticket offices are so important to members (all redunancies voluntary) why did less than half of them bother to vote? If unions don't want to be unpopular they should stop acting like bullies.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Or needs to trim his staff back so he can afford to pay them and make the business sustainable...
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Or needs to trim his staff back so he can afford to pay them and make the business sustainable...
Agreed, provided he/she honoured the correct redundancy procedures as laid out in the Ts and Cs of employees contract.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
How often do unions, RMT in particular, publish details on the % turnout for any strike ballot and the % in favour, along with the % required for a quorate ballot?
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Do RMT workers not get paid then?
Give me strength!
I refer to your post:
@ Unpaid overtime @ Volunteers / slavery @ I want to be paid too @ If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers...
So does any of that apply to RMT workers and this strike?
Yes, same morals as bankers. Self serving, motivated by greed and funded by other peoples money..
Wow......As a serving London firefighter with 21 years service im not entirely sure I like being compared to bankers. Self serving and motivated by greed as well? Really?? I have defended myself on here before and will do so again. Not one of us want to go on strike I can assure you of that. All we want is the contract that we signed to be honoured(many years ago in most cases) and not changed on the say so of the high and mighty in Parliament. I pay 15% of my monthly wage into my pension and now im being told that im not entitled to get back what ive paid in, is that self serving and greedy?? Not only that but if we fail to reach the fitness levels at the age of 55 that the government have brought in (despite their own researchers saying the levels are not feasible) then we will be SACKED on capability grounds, lose something like 27% of our pension and not get ant of said pension until the age of 68. Hardly fair is it? Still, people would see how self serving and greedy we are if they ever have the misfortune to need to call us out!
Your absolutely spot on mate . It's a disgrace how firemen are being treated yet you still get morons on here calling unions and union members wankers. As I have said many times , my £13 pound a month to my union ( RMT ) is worth every single penny .
You selfish wanker, that £13 a month could feed and water an entire African village.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Do RMT workers not get paid then?
Give me strength!
I refer to your post:
@ Unpaid overtime @ Volunteers / slavery @ I want to be paid too @ If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers...
So does any of that apply to RMT workers and this strike?
The thread had grown Into a general debate about unions mate! Bottom line if you are a working man you need strength in numbers to protect yourself it's like having a few mates to watch your back in a potential mugging, most people who get mugged see on their own , dont let the bosses and government mug you off!
Striking against job cuts, totally justified reason for strike action. I dont care if there is no one being made compulsory redundant, the fact remains 960 jobs will gone for good.
Yes, same morals as bankers. Self serving, motivated by greed and funded by other peoples money..
Wow......As a serving London firefighter with 21 years service im not entirely sure I like being compared to bankers. Self serving and motivated by greed as well? Really?? I have defended myself on here before and will do so again. Not one of us want to go on strike I can assure you of that. All we want is the contract that we signed to be honoured(many years ago in most cases) and not changed on the say so of the high and mighty in Parliament. I pay 15% of my monthly wage into my pension and now im being told that im not entitled to get back what ive paid in, is that self serving and greedy?? Not only that but if we fail to reach the fitness levels at the age of 55 that the government have brought in (despite their own researchers saying the levels are not feasible) then we will be SACKED on capability grounds, lose something like 27% of our pension and not get ant of said pension until the age of 68. Hardly fair is it? Still, people would see how self serving and greedy we are if they ever have the misfortune to need to call us out!
To pay a contribution of 15% of pay you have to be earning £120,000 a year so congratulations. Or are you just repeating what the Unions have told you. Average pay for your colleagues is said to be around £28,000 and the contribution rate for that salary band is around 13%. On top of that the authority pays a similar amount (probably half of what should be paid if a private sector scheme).
Contributing 13% of pay over 30 years, say £100k in return for a pension of £19k from age 55 means you get your money back by time you are 60. The Unions say you are paying more and getting less!! Retiring at 55 and living for 30 years means you get over half a £million in pension payments. Who is doing the arithmetic for the Unions?
Everything you have earned to date is paid from age 55 as if no changes are being made. If you are over 45 the changes don't affect you one bit.
The only real argument put forward to justify the action, and the one you have swallowed, covers firefighters who are not fit enough to do their job after age 55. Since genuine ill-health or disability is generously covered we are talking about fire-fighters who might just be overweight and haven't bothered to keep fit. Existing firefighters can take their pension from 55 without any reduction so where does the 27% reduction come in? If you work after 55 your pension can only increase regardless of why you might leave. Incidentally, Surrey Fire Brigade say the reduction is 47% so why not believe their stuff, its superior.
Have you actually read the material produced explaining how the changes affect you? The example supporting a reduction of 27% or 47% has no relevance to any firefighter in his forties and misrepresents the calculation for the next generation of firefighters. A neutral financial adjustment, is being portrayed as a reduction when compared to a pension which never was.
Rather than believe the propaganda spouted by the Union mouthpieces you might be better informed reading the facts and drawing your own conclusions. You are probably a very bright guy so why act as if you are incapable of individual thought like you had a ring through your nose.
That's the greatest thing about being a union member. It's the only place where you can absolutely fleece the public and be guaranteed the support of a group of people because they are infatuated with the ideas of unions.
Just as well its all a matter of keeping us safe apparently!
Where did all you non union members get your paid holidays, sick pay, reasonable working hours, health and safety at work, decent pay, maternity and paternity leave etc. etc, from? Oh yes on the back of the unions and TUC back in the day.
See the reasonable unpaid working hours thread for why we need unions.
'If you know your history'............
You're spot on. Back in the day. And for that I am appreciative.
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
Unions are more relevant now than they have ever been. Not romanticising at all, I agree that got too powerful. You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
You're wrong. Society has changed.
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
Ridiculous comment. No it doesn't and no Im not, society has changed because it had no choice to change when Thatch tried to kill the unions, now with hindsight those that understand unions realise their importance in protecting worker rights/jobs. Look at the hours we now work with unpaid overtime, volunteers (slavery) loss of apprenticeships so loss of top quality tradesmen. The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category. Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too. If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Clearly we are polar opposites, fair enough I suppose
Maybe it reflects (and I am 100% not being patronising here) that the younger generation seems to have a lot less love for unions because we personally have never seen them as a benefit whereas those who are (a bit) older might understand more why they are a force for good.
Personally I don't believe a British trade union has done anything worthwhile in my living memory (Born 1990) although I am sure I will now be corrected!
There's a difference between striking over health and safety, and for working conditions and striking over greed. A lot of union members and leaders appear to have become just as, if not more, greedy than the evil bosses they decry.
Having said that I have a lot more sympathy for the Fire Brigade Union, but I think that is largely because of their courageousness.
During the last strike TFL stated that they would save approx £20m if there reforms were pushed through. I wonder how much of that saving would the passengers see..??
Yes, same morals as bankers. Self serving, motivated by greed and funded by other peoples money..
Wow......As a serving London firefighter with 21 years service im not entirely sure I like being compared to bankers. Self serving and motivated by greed as well? Really?? I have defended myself on here before and will do so again. Not one of us want to go on strike I can assure you of that. All we want is the contract that we signed to be honoured(many years ago in most cases) and not changed on the say so of the high and mighty in Parliament. I pay 15% of my monthly wage into my pension and now im being told that im not entitled to get back what ive paid in, is that self serving and greedy?? Not only that but if we fail to reach the fitness levels at the age of 55 that the government have brought in (despite their own researchers saying the levels are not feasible) then we will be SACKED on capability grounds, lose something like 27% of our pension and not get ant of said pension until the age of 68. Hardly fair is it? Still, people would see how self serving and greedy we are if they ever have the misfortune to need to call us out!
To pay a contribution of 15% of pay you have to be earning £120,000 a year so congratulations. Or are you just repeating what the Unions have told you. Average pay for your colleagues is said to be around £28,000 and the contribution rate for that salary band is around 13%. On top of that the authority pays a similar amount (probably half of what should be paid if a private sector scheme).
Contributing 13% of pay over 30 years, say £100k in return for a pension of £19k from age 55 means you get your money back by time you are 60. The Unions say you are paying more and getting less!! Retiring at 55 and living for 30 years means you get over half a £million in pension payments. Who is doing the arithmetic for the Unions?
Everything you have earned to date is paid from age 55 as if no changes are being made. If you are over 45 the changes don't affect you one bit.
The only real argument put forward to justify the action, and the one you have swallowed, covers firefighters who are not fit enough to do their job after age 55. Since genuine ill-health or disability is generously covered we are talking about fire-fighters who might just be overweight and haven't bothered to keep fit. Existing firefighters can take their pension from 55 without any reduction so where does the 27% reduction come in? If you work after 55 your pension can only increase regardless of why you might leave. Incidentally, Surrey Fire Brigade say the reduction is 47% so why not believe their stuff, its superior.
Have you actually read the material produced explaining how the changes affect you? The example supporting a reduction of 27% or 47% has no relevance to any firefighter in his forties and misrepresents the calculation for the next generation of firefighters. A neutral financial adjustment, is being portrayed as a reduction when compared to a pension which never was.
Rather than believe the propaganda spouted by the Union mouthpieces you might be better informed reading the facts and drawing your own conclusions. You are probably a very bright guy so why act as if you are incapable of individual thought like you had a ring through your nose.
And now I'm also incapable of individual thought and apparently believe everything I'm told by the union, oh, and also a liar. You obviously know everything so i bow to your superior knowledge of everything fire brigade, fire brigade pension and fire brigade wages. You have insulted my intelligence and my integrity with thinly veiled digs and compared firefighters to bankers and also said we are self serving and greedy. Might i suggest you get out from behind your keyboard and go pay a visit to your local fire station,tell the guys how you feel about them? Now, you must excuse me as I've got to go and follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff
Yes, same morals as bankers. Self serving, motivated by greed and funded by other peoples money..
Wow......As a serving London firefighter with 21 years service im not entirely sure I like being compared to bankers. Self serving and motivated by greed as well? Really?? I have defended myself on here before and will do so again. Not one of us want to go on strike I can assure you of that. All we want is the contract that we signed to be honoured(many years ago in most cases) and not changed on the say so of the high and mighty in Parliament. I pay 15% of my monthly wage into my pension and now im being told that im not entitled to get back what ive paid in, is that self serving and greedy?? Not only that but if we fail to reach the fitness levels at the age of 55 that the government have brought in (despite their own researchers saying the levels are not feasible) then we will be SACKED on capability grounds, lose something like 27% of our pension and not get ant of said pension until the age of 68. Hardly fair is it? Still, people would see how self serving and greedy we are if they ever have the misfortune to need to call us out!
To pay a contribution of 15% of pay you have to be earning £120,000 a year so congratulations. Or are you just repeating what the Unions have told you. Average pay for your colleagues is said to be around £28,000 and the contribution rate for that salary band is around 13%. On top of that the authority pays a similar amount (probably half of what should be paid if a private sector scheme).
Contributing 13% of pay over 30 years, say £100k in return for a pension of £19k from age 55 means you get your money back by time you are 60. The Unions say you are paying more and getting less!! Retiring at 55 and living for 30 years means you get over half a £million in pension payments. Who is doing the arithmetic for the Unions?
Everything you have earned to date is paid from age 55 as if no changes are being made. If you are over 45 the changes don't affect you one bit.
The only real argument put forward to justify the action, and the one you have swallowed, covers firefighters who are not fit enough to do their job after age 55. Since genuine ill-health or disability is generously covered we are talking about fire-fighters who might just be overweight and haven't bothered to keep fit. Existing firefighters can take their pension from 55 without any reduction so where does the 27% reduction come in? If you work after 55 your pension can only increase regardless of why you might leave. Incidentally, Surrey Fire Brigade say the reduction is 47% so why not believe their stuff, its superior.
Have you actually read the material produced explaining how the changes affect you? The example supporting a reduction of 27% or 47% has no relevance to any firefighter in his forties and misrepresents the calculation for the next generation of firefighters. A neutral financial adjustment, is being portrayed as a reduction when compared to a pension which never was.
Rather than believe the propaganda spouted by the Union mouthpieces you might be better informed reading the facts and drawing your own conclusions. You are probably a very bright guy so why act as if you are incapable of individual thought like you had a ring through your nose.
I've been on Charlton life for five years and I don't think I have ever read such utter tosh and that is saying something . How is it in Daily Mail land ?
Striking against job cuts, totally justified reason for strike action. I dont care if there is no one being made compulsory redundant, the fact remains 960 jobs will gone for good.
so no-one is actually losing there job so in effect they are striking because they don't want to see TFL improve the experience for their clients, the passengers, who in turn contribute to paying the strikers wages. Less than 5% of journeys start a a ticket office. It's called progression.
Personally, I'd sack all those that strike and see what they think of job cuts then.
Comments
It has now served a purpose and is no longer relevant. You are one of the many who romanticize a now defunct group which serves to be a negative for people rather than a positive.
Furthermore I feel I do know my history. Many things start for good reasons and then arguably go too far.
You say I am spot on re back in the day, but we would be right back in the day without unions, and those without unions guess where they are heading....see my other post....
It's like saying if we got rid of Stonewall we would be hanging homosexuals in the streets next week.
If ticket offices are so important to members (all redunancies voluntary) why did less than half of them bother to vote? If unions don't want to be unpopular they should stop acting like bullies.
The only people who benefit are the rich/owners, I guess you must fall into that category.
Every hour I work to make someone wealthier, I want to be paid too.
If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers for their time he has no right to be in business.
Its the law.
And please dont be so daft as to go down the % turnout route
@ Unpaid overtime
@ Volunteers / slavery
@ I want to be paid too
@ If a businessman cannot afford to pay his workers...
So does any of that apply to RMT workers and this strike?
Bottom line if you are a working man you need strength in numbers to protect yourself it's like having a few mates to watch your back in a potential mugging, most people who get mugged see on their own , dont let the bosses and government mug you off!
Work or Mugging
You obviously don't drink in the City!
I might go on a beer strike
Contributing 13% of pay over 30 years, say £100k in return for a pension of £19k from age 55 means you get your money back by time you are 60. The Unions say you are paying more and getting less!! Retiring at 55 and living for 30 years means you get over half a £million in pension payments. Who is doing the arithmetic for the Unions?
Everything you have earned to date is paid from age 55 as if no changes are being made. If you are over 45 the changes don't affect you one bit.
The only real argument put forward to justify the action, and the one you have swallowed, covers firefighters who are not fit enough to do their job after age 55. Since genuine ill-health or disability is generously covered we are talking about fire-fighters who might just be overweight and haven't bothered to keep fit. Existing firefighters can take their pension from 55 without any reduction so where does the 27% reduction come in? If you work after 55 your pension can only increase regardless of why you might leave. Incidentally, Surrey Fire Brigade say the reduction is 47% so why not believe their stuff, its superior.
Have you actually read the material produced explaining how the changes affect you? The example supporting a reduction of 27% or 47% has no relevance to any firefighter in his forties and misrepresents the calculation for the next generation of firefighters. A neutral financial adjustment, is being portrayed as a reduction when compared to a pension which never was.
Rather than believe the propaganda spouted by the Union mouthpieces you might be better informed reading the facts and drawing your own conclusions. You are probably a very bright guy so why act as if you are incapable of individual thought like you had a ring through your nose.
Maybe it reflects (and I am 100% not being patronising here) that the younger generation seems to have a lot less love for unions because we personally have never seen them as a benefit whereas those who are (a bit) older might understand more why they are a force for good.
Personally I don't believe a British trade union has done anything worthwhile in my living memory (Born 1990) although I am sure I will now be corrected!
There's a difference between striking over health and safety, and for working conditions and striking over greed. A lot of union members and leaders appear to have become just as, if not more, greedy than the evil bosses they decry.
Having said that I have a lot more sympathy for the Fire Brigade Union, but I think that is largely because of their courageousness.
I think we all know the answer
How is it in Daily Mail land ?
Personally, I'd sack all those that strike and see what they think of job cuts then.