[Closed] Teachers striking again!!!!!

akysurf - Member

I just want to take my kids to school........

Well shouldn't you be a bit more grateful to teachers who appear determined to minimise any disruption then ?

Personally I have never seen the point of 'one day strikes'. If you are in dispute with your employer then why the **** go back to work before it has been resolved ?

One day strikes are hugely ineffective imo. An indefinite strike with no return to work until the grievances have been resolved, would very quickly button up this whole dispute, rather than dragging it on endlessly.

How long would it take do you reckon akysurf .......2 weeks ? a month ? two months ?

It would certainly give you something to moan about, so be grateful that teachers are clearly not very militant and appear to be more worried about your kids education than their own pensions.

[i]'One'[/i] day strike.......[i]ffs[/i] 😐

akysurf - Member

Not so ideal if your a public worker with a critical life saving responsibility, eg. nurse.

No, you can't do that- say they have it too good and we should take away their benefits, then on the other say it's unacceptable for them to strike because they're too important. Either accept that they're essential and treat them accordingly, or say they're not worth it, but you can't do both.

This idea that you can rely utterly on someone, then tell them "You can't strike because we rely on you", seems obviously broken

Not so ideal if your a public worker with a critical life saving responsibility, eg. nurse.

While these sort of professions such as Nurses, Teachers etc, do attract people with...lets say a sense of duty, where it isn't always about the money, BUT it also means that they shouldn't be taken for granted and not stand up for their terms and conditions.

Jeezus, people in this country really don't have a spine anymore.

This idea that you can rely utterly on someone, then tell them "You can't strike because we rely on you",

So striking is valid as a course of action no matter the profession?

stand up for their terms and conditions.

If they feel strongly I would encorage them to write to their local MP

dmjb4 you are a clot..

If they feel strongly I would encorage them to write to their local MP

😀 Priceless !.......at least I can't accuse you of not having a sense of humour.

akysurf - Member

So striking is valid as a course of action no matter the profession?

As long as people consider it valid to treat people in those professions poorly, yes, of course. Wherever you have a situation where you consider striking to be unacceptable, you behave in a manner that makes striking unneccesary.

So a bank that made a good faith mortgage was hit with a big loss because an individual was greedy.

Oh, wait, ffffffuuuuu...

Personally I have never seen the point of 'one day strikes'. If you are in dispute with your employer then why the **** [s]go back to work before[/s] don't you discuss the problem like adults until it has been resolved ?

don't have the same conditions as the public sector

Wrong, I will keep hold of my final salary pension.

I wasn't referring to you and I'm pleased for you, what if they told you that was no longer the case and you had to pay more for longer and get less. Would you just say "Oh that's fine" or would you do something about it?

Would you just say "Oh that's fine" or would you do something about it?

That depends though on many things, the pay freeze enforced on me I did just that seen it as doing our bit. The pension is something else as and was planned long before 'the global crisis' but it's come in now with an added blow of an extra 6 years at work. I can happily take a hit with the pay freeze but the effect what will also be on my health and not just my retirement plans at a later date is one step too much.

I can happily take a hit with the pay freeze but the effect what will also be on my health and not just my retirement plans at a later date is one step too much.

Drac, I noticed on Saturday night you were posting from work, are you at work now?

Yes.

Why?

No just finished about an hour ago, trying to sleep as waiting for a phone call to go back to sort a vehicle out. However wife is getting the kids ready for school so it's a bit noisy.

It's now quite evident that it is more than just taking hits, it's more like doing a few rounds with Tyson.

It was planned long before though but they went one step further. As I side note, I'll have paid maximum contributions 20 years before I retire and will still be paying contributions.

So striking is valid as a course of action no matter the profession?

yes, everyoe should have the right to withholdlaour if they want to.

Can anyone explain to me what pension refor has to do with the credit crunch, one is hopefully a short term problem another is about long term planning.

No just finished about an hour ago, trying to sleep as waiting for a phone call to go back to sort a vehicle out. However wife is getting the kids ready for school so it's a bit noisy.

Woody - Member

Why?

I was referring to Saturday night where you said "I'm off to work now" then popped up again about 20 mins later.

I might been at work then or just about to leave, I was posting when at work too whilst travelling from jobs thanks to the wonders of technology.

So there are people who are lucky enough to post on here and get paid, that's hardly the position of down trodden overworked civil servants. Equally there are people who post while getting paid in the private sector, but they are losing money for the company and when found out by the bosses possibly fired. Me? When I'm posting I'm not working. when I'm not working I'm not earning.
So, let's all get behind the public sector to help maintain the poor conditions they have to suffer.

Can anyone explain to me what pension refor has to do with the credit crunch, one is hopefully a short term problem another is about long term planning.

Patience my little cherub.

Edit: Is that it? I was expecting some devastating insight into the workings of the public sector and indictment of the workers. Rather predictable and shows a complete lack of understanding as to how operational requirements are met. I'm disappointed DS.

I noticed on Saturday night you were posting from work, are you at work now?

I'm disappointed DS.

At this juncture I'm stepping away as the whole thread has gone in circles and nothing new is being said.
My conclusions are that the teachers are going to have work longer and pay more to maintain the already generous pensions, as a way of raising public sympathy they're going on strike. In spite of clear oppostition from many they are determined to continue this action. Opposing views are dismissed or ignored. The govt is to be held to ransom, because it can be.
The teachers feel that they are in no way responsible for any of the credit crunch and therefore should be treated differently from the rest of the, suffering, population.
As I said on the other lengthy thread, I will now be looking at the next Tory manifesto before voting. In my opinion the teachers' action is one of incredible levels of selfishness. 😥

Has anyone mentioned overpopulation as a contributory factor to the credit crunch yet?

Not as far as I'm aware, probably because it wasn't a contributory factor. But falling birthrate has been offered as a contributory factor to the 'pension crises'.

So there are people who are lucky enough to post on here and get paid, that's hardly the position of down trodden overworked civil servants

I thought that's where you were building up to. Right whilst I'm travelling from a job it means that one is completed and I'm travelling back to station, to stock up or stand by somewhere. Clearly I'm not driving so sat in the passenger seat. If I have no phone calls to make to my staff, boss or other work people I'm sat with nothing to do. So now and then I'll pick up my emails with my iPhone or I'll check out a few things on the net. At the weekend I was pretty much the only Moderator for a lot of the time so I was checking on the forum if it was possible. Given my staff and my boss tend not to like phone calls in the early hours of the morning or late evening I had the chance. I also get 2 30 minute breaks per shift, well supposed to, during this time I'm free so can go on line and do a few things. That's if I'm not using my meal break to catch up on office duties that have been put on hold due to doing proper ambulance work.

Mind Don you do seem to post an awful lot so musn't work too hard yourself.

😆

Mind Don you do seem to post an awful lot so musn't work too hard yourself.

Adios amigos.

Adios amigos.

Isn't it a little early to be waving and riding off into the sunset ? 😕

Well wife and kids gone out but now trying to deal with another work issue that's sprung up. Can't switch me phone off either as really need to take the call I'm waiting for.

Ah well part of me job I took on with promotion.

As I said on the other lengthy thread, I will now be looking at the next Tory manifesto before voting.

Is that you being all ironical on us DonSimon? 😆

[b]CharlieMungus - Member[/b]

you learned to be a teacher at Durham?

Yes.

I can just picture Don Simon giggling to himself about how clever he is. Bless.

For me, I would look at the big picture and possibly say that as a consequence of the global crisis I guess I have to lose something as so many others have and then decide on my own particular course of action.

Or you could say, here is a situation created by a bunch of #ankers, who are still refusing to take any responsibility and keep their noses in the trough (see also: Greece), so why the f*** should I pay for it with my pension?

Or you could say, here is a situation created by a bunch of #ankers, who are still refusing to take any responsibility and keep their noses in the trough (see also: Greece), so why the f*** should I pay for it with my pension?

how do you propose making the bankers pay for it

Are the banks penniless then ? Will they never make huge profits ever again ?

Gosh, things have changed.......haven't they ?

"Or you could say, here is a situation created by a bunch of #ankers, who are still refusing to take any responsibility and keep their noses in the trough (see also: Greece), so why the f*** should I pay for it with my pension? "

But that wouldn't actually be accurate would it?

The underlying issue is that even before the bank bailout, our government had been borrowing heavily to cover the shortfall in tax receipts and enable them to carry on throwing money around.

It's really surprising to me that so many apparently well educated people have been so easily hoodwinked into believing that the bankers caused the mess - this negates the huge level of borrowing the government undertook between 2002 and 2007 - the levels were so high that even their own advisors told ministers it was unaffordable and had led to much of the addition spending on public services just being wasted.

Are the banks penniless then ?

Farmer_John - Member

It's really surprising to me that so many apparently well educated people have been so easily hoodwinked into believing that the bankers caused the mess

When you say "apparently well educated people" Farmer_John, do you mean people like David Cameron with his rather expensive Eton education ?

David Cameron was in no doubt at all who was responsible when the shit hit the fan. According to the Daily Telegraph :

[b][i]"David Cameron last night expressed disbelief that financial watchdogs were not pursuing criminal investigations [u]against banks and bankers who have caused the financial crisis[/u]"[/i][/b]

So who "hoodwinked" the apparently well educated David Cameron into believing that banks and bankers caused the mess eh ?

Explain that to me.........I would be fascinated in knowing the answer.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4348801/David-Cameron-calls-for-criminal-actions-against-bankers.html ]David Cameron calls for criminal actions against bankers[/url]

CharlieMungus - Member
you learned to be a teacher at Durham?

Yes.

1)When?
2)As an undergrad or postgrad?

This thread is degenrating a bit here. Whilst you can hold any view you wish if you want to make outlandish claims [ not generally accepted views] about the causes of the crsis could you evidence them as they seems to me to be a number of posters just posting utter nonesense as if it is factually correct an dnot answering any challenges on these claims.

The fear here - of jo blogs defaulting - closed the interbank lending market.

Teachers and nurses borrowed more than they could afford to buy a part-share home. They got caught up in a bubble …...Only the housing bubble burst. And the teachers, nurses, social workers and doctors suddenly found themselves in negative equity. And without all the overtime they'd lied to the bank about, saying it was guaranteed, they can't keep the repayments going.
So many people threw their keys back to the bank that the bank had to hand its keys to the Government.

Quite rightly, the bank expects many public sector workers will not keep to the terms and repay their loans.

Union movements have had their day and now amount to little more than a protection racket.

our government had been borrowing heavily to cover the shortfall in tax receipts and enable them to carry on throwing money around

It's really surprising to me that so many apparently well educated people have been so easily hoodwinked into believing that the bankers caused the mess

@djmb4. You clearly didn't read my post. As a former banker and now teacher i understand it very well thank you. 5 years working in the debt fiduciary market dealing with new abs mbs cdo deals every day as well as regular plain corporate and government bond issues and debt repackaging programmes I know my stuff. Do you?

1)When?
2)As an undergrad or postgrad?

I did the BA - 1996 to 1999.

I just want to take my kids to school after all it's a service I pay for.

😆

Go on the dole - it'll be free then and you can quit moaning.

😉

(unless of course your kids are in private education, in which case have a moan at the governors)

The underlying issue is that even before the bank bailout, our government had been borrowing heavily to cover the shortfall in tax receipts and enable them to carry on throwing money around.

Labour ran a surplus for the first few budgets and then when they did move into deficit is was lower than that of the preceeding government...

Boy George should be spending now to encourage growth, austerity measures have rarely worked.

I did the BA - 1996 to 1999.

Oh aaaages ago!!! Any fond memories of an particular teachers?

The point is that in a period of strong economic growth, there was no need to move into deficit in the first place! Had the government listened to its own whitehall staff, they would have taken steps to constrain the growth in spending to a level that was affordable and which didn't result in the additional funding being wasted.

There are plenty of examples of other European governments who did this and are doing OK as a result now - Germany being a particularly good case in point - we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP.

Oh aaaages ago!!! Any fond memories of an particular teachers?

Yeah, I'm well old. Can't remember too many of the lecturers, to be honest. I was mainly in maths and physics departments in 1st and 2nd years.

Yeah, I'm well old. Can't remember too many of the lecturers, to be honest. I was mainly in maths and physics departments in 1st and 2nd years

Oh you did the joint Ed. Studies thing?

To think Cameron et al actually believe that bankers are the sole problem is naive. They are politicians at the end the day with a core audience to play to and that is the way public perception has been swayed. The only one who I really feel does believe thus is vince cabel who really dies believe his own hype.

Oh you did the joint Ed. Studies thing?

Yeah, one hour a week of Ed theory in years 1 and 2, combined with undergrad courses in physics and maths. All the quantum mechanics stood me in good stead for teaching Y5 🙄

I did 4 terms of primary after graduating and then ran for the hills. Did a MSc in IT and moved to 6th form teaching.

Sadly, julianwilson, there is no irony.
Mike, you're not winning me over, infact quite the opposite.

Mike, you're not winning me over, infact quite the opposite.

I'm not trying to.

don simon - Member

Sadly, julianwilson, there is no irony.

indeed.

1) Someone posted an article from America on here a few months ago about how we support who we support whatever happens. (bit blunt, but the idea was that basically if you are raised a lefty you will always find fault with the righties and default to voting lefty because at the very least you consider them the best of a bad lot.)

So by that reckoning, Cameron would have to be outed as the leader of a crypto-fascist chicken-worrying ring before you get put off voting Conservative. (Or against Labour under FTPT 😉 )

2) There is a lot going on right now that wasn't in Lib Dem or Conservative manifestos just 13 months ago. [edit] I will not be at all suprised when someone posts up all the things noolab did 'out of manifesto' within a year of election/re-election, they were just as, errrr, 'driven'. [/edit]

I wouldn't bother reading the manifestos next time either: just vote with your heart. 😕

As a former banker and now teacher

Indeed we can unite behind that which ever way we argue it he done it.

Farmer john even if i accept all you have said as true it would simply demonstrate that government policy exacerbated the problem caused by the banking sector not that they caused it in the first place. It in no way whatsoever supports your assertion that banking did not cause the problem – any evidence to support that claim?
Essentially you have just repeated your claim/view with no additional information

the idea was that basically if you are raised a lefty you will always find fault with the righties and default to voting lefty because [b]at the very least you consider them the best of a bad lot[/b].

The bit in bold is the heart of liberal market-based political competition by the way.

Farmer_John - Member

The point is that in a period of strong economic growth, there was no need to move into deficit in the first place!

Really ? So how come during almost the entire period the Tories were in power, under both Thatcher and John Major, and they ran a deficit then ?

The Tories even ran a deficit throughout the entire time they were in power in the 1950s. A period which saw the most rapid growth Britain had ever experienced, and one in which the Tory election slogan was "You've never had it so good".

The reality is that there have only been four short periods since WW2 when Britain hasn't had a deficit. Three of them occurred under Labour governments. Only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government - despite the fact that the Tories have been power most of that time.

So explain that to me Farmer_John ?

Although I won't be holding my breath as I wait for you to answer.........you appear to very conveniently ignore the 'inconvenient truth'.

"There was no need" not that they didn't. A bit of continuity please, ernie.

I've just noticed this Farmer_John :

Germany being a particularly good case in point - we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP.

This was the situation when Britain went into recession in 2008 :

[img] [/img]

indeed ernie - its amazing how many folk swallow the propaganda.

deficit != debt

Ernie - periods of strong economic growth are usually used to bring deficits down (as was the case with Thatcher / Major).

What happened under Gordon Brown was that even in what were very "good" years with a boom, the debt actually increaced. And now that the boom has gone, we've got the debt, lower tax receipts and long term public spending commitments (including areas such as non funded pension schemes) that make it very difficult for the current government to do very much about it.

If you compare the UK to other major economies in the same period you'll find that we were almost alone in increasing debt through the "boom" years.

What's your point aracer ........that the UK public finances weren't healthy when compared to other simular economies ?

Ernie - periods of strong economic growth are usually used to bring deficits down (as was the case with Thatcher / Major).

So how come they couldn't stop us from plunging into deficit in the early 1990s then ?

You do realise what a "recession" is don't you ? You do realise that they create "deficits" don't you ? You do realise that the world has just gone through the worst recession in about 70 years don't you ?

What's your point aracer

here's an alternative view of the deficit - what were the bankers up to during the "boom" period of 2002-2007 then that would explain the growth:

[img] [/img]

So how come during almost the entire period the Tories were in power, under both Thatcher and John Major, and they ran a deficit then ?

That it's quite ridiculous to try and disprove a statement about deficit by posting data on debt.

Bollox is it. The deficit bears a direct relation to the public debt.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8473705/UK-has-third-biggest-budget-deficit-in-Europe.html ]Here's a look at how we stand in Europe on deficit rather than debt[/url] - it's nice to know we're not running the biggest deficit - those economic powerhouses Ireland and Greece are a bit worse than us.

Farmer john you failed to post up any evidence again to show that it was not the bankers wot done it. So is it third time lucky or should I just assume you have no evidence to support your claim and it is indeed BS

aracer it was clever of farmer john to use deficit and not debt but IME most folk dont realise the difference.
Debt is everything we owe d andefecit is what we owe this year or overspend on this year's budget
We did have a higher defecit that Germany but lower debt hence why the farmer picked that as his stat rather than debt.
Either way it is fair to say the difference between our econmomy and germany's is not just the defecit or debt. It is simplistic to isolate one factor and use that to explain the success of one over the other.
Your link aracer also points out that

Aside from the bald debt and deficit figures, the UK's situation is strengthened by the fact that much British sovereign debt is long-term, which means the UK does not have to raise huge sums of money imminently

Is that a question from a GCSE economics paper?

OK, unable to deal with the unpalatable truth that only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government - despite the fact that the Tories have been power most of that time, you've decided to resort to playing silly buggers.

.......I'll think I'll go and let my pigeons out.......I'll love watching them fly up high in the sky 8)

EDIT : I've just seen your link aracer.........couldn't you find one which backs up Farmer_John claim that we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP then ? 😀

The deficit bears a direct relation to the public debt.

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves [b]anything[/b] about the level of our deficit is what's bollox.

unable to deal with the unpalatable truth that only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government

you've decided to resort to playing silly buggers

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves anything about the level of our deficit is what's bollox

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves anything about the level of our deficit is what's bollox.

Hardly bollox. To suggest that low tax returns due to, amongst other things, direct politically motivated government policy, somehow suggests that the government spent excessively, is bollox. Well imo anyway. Really must get out and deal with my pigeons 🙂

EDIT : [i]"I missed the fact you were lying about that as well"[/i] 😀

[img] [/img]

it suggests the deficit is lower than the debt

To suggest that low tax returns due to, amongst other things, direct politically motivated government policy, somehow suggests that the government spent excessively, is bollox

Surely the other key issue on the the spending gap is what you're spending it on!

If you're investing your way out of recession - eg. using the money to build infrastructure like roads and railways and stimulating manufacturing, then its a hell of a difference from spending all that money keeping public sector workers pushing paper round in circles at £30k in regional offices to prevent them going on the jobless total (Child tax credits administration for example) - in which case you're just pissing it up the wall.

how could the defecit by higher than the debt?
Oh there wil be some conuluted way wont there??
FFS the wink meant it was a light hearted comment 🙄