Yes. The strike today is about public sector pensions. A subject guaranteed to make many people yawn. Or, unquestionably follow the path laid by the insinuations by government ministers. I have seen angry tweets and heard angry rants on buses and trains about the inconvenience caused by lazy public servants taking a day off, when all the government is trying to do is fix the economy. There's a deficit that needs cutting, after all, and we're all in it together to weather these bad times.
Or, they're furious because why should they, as private sector workers, pay for the amazing 'gold-plated pensions' of the non-taxpaying lazy public sector 'workers'.
I am striking today for many reasons, some of which should be obvious from this blog.
Taxpayers
First up, I am a taxpayer. Every public servant is a taxpayer. In fact, it is far more difficult for us to evade paying tax than it is for a lot more people in the private sector. Not that I would want to avoid paying tax, because, actually, paying taxes is cool.
Seriously.
Without taxes, there would be no roads for you to use, your health care would be a lot worse (doubt me? Look at the USA. Brilliant health care for those who can pay for it...), and even if you hated school, education is actually a good thing. If you are reading this, you benefitted from your education. Even if you went to a private school in the UK (and Australia), taxes contributed directly towards your education. There's loads more that taxes go to that you use, by the way.
Oh, and taxes go towards private sector pensions, too.
But, it's not just about taxes. It is all just a little bit more complicated than the soundbites and headlines.
This is obvious, but seems to get trampled on in the race to demonise the strike today.
Private sector employees are paid from the money made by the enterprise that employs them. In the UK, those are mostly service sector (tourism, retail, food - that sort of thing), with some manufacturing. They all rely on consumers buying a service or a product. And, who are the consumers again? Oh, yeah. The people who live in the UK. So, in other words, both public and private sector employees, and benefit recipients, pay for the salaries and pensions of those in the private sector. Through tax, all taxpayers (both in the private and public sectors) pay for the salaries and pensions in the public and private sectors.
So, can we please stop reacting to the deliberately divisive rhetoric from those who are partisan and ideological (i.e. the politicians)? It is their job to be partisan, by the way. As citizens, it's our job to question them and make up our own minds. The economy isn't the easiest (or interesting) of subjects, so let's not get distracted by stupid furphies like this.
Gold-plating
I get a fairly decent wage for what I do. I have just recently achieved a promotion, but the increase in my pay will actually mean that my pay will stay roughly what it was should the government's proposed pension and salary changes come in. That leaves me personally better off than many of my colleagues, for which I am grateful, but I do wonder at the justice of it.
But, when I compare it to what people get in the private sector for my skills, experience and capability, it's painfully tiny. Oh, and that's factoring in the work done outside contracted hours. Actually, though, there are so many things to consider when comparing private and public salaries, again the deliberately divisive rhetoric becomes nonsensical.
I don't have the time to work it out for myself, but I trust the various sources I've read who know statistics and how to compare them. According to them, the average public sector pension is about the same as comparable private sector schemes. Regardless, and I know so many people have tried to point this out - yes, there are worse schemes. Or, worse, no schemes in some private jobs. I add my voice to what they say: why does that justify making yet more people worse off? Why aren't those poor performing companies being asked to better look after their workers?
And there is the deafening silence around the MPs and their pensions. I'm someone who does appreciate the tough job MPs do, and I fully support the sensible remuneration of MPs designed to ensure people really do have the chance to stand for public office. And, yes, that includes their pensions.
But, if the government was serious about the reasons they give for why they have to take such drastic action against pensions that the Hutton Report, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of MPs have shown are affordable and sustainable, then why haven't they looked at reviewing the incredibly generous pension scheme that MPs are entitled to? Even when they are millionaires independent of their MP-derived salary and pension?
Oh, and a final bit of myth-busting here in terms of the image of the retired public servant off on permanent five star holidays thanks to their over-generous pension - the current average public sector worker/middle manager's pension, when added to the basic state pension, is not even five pounds above the official government poverty line. What will the cuts do to that?
Shifting Blame
Listening to the government since it has been in power, one would be forgiven for thinking that the recession we're not actually in (although the OECD does think we're back in recession) was caused by the unusually early snow last year (it was snowing in the UK this day in 2010), the euro, or the irresponsible and mad spending by the last government.
Oddly, they don't mention the big banks and other global financial institutions and their irresponsible and (as is being proven in courts) criminal activities throughout the last decade. They don't seem overly fussed that even the executives in the banks that were bailed out by taxpayers received eye-watering bonuses this year.
No, it seems the only solution is to cut everything that supports the arts, poor people, etc. The things that don't really result in savings... Certainly don't revive the economy... The drive, though, does seem to be towards privatising everything, worryingly including parts of the public services left alone even by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher because even she seemed to understand the British Constitution, and how it's a fine balance between law makers (parliament), law reviewers (the judiciary) and law enforcers (the police). The cuts in the criminal justice systems are mind boggling.
Another question that would be good for this government to answer: is the cutting of the public sector pensions an early stage in preparing them to be privatised?
Big Society
Every time I see the Big Society mentioned, I must confess to raising my eyebrows and shaking my head a little sadly. It's not because I think it's a bad idea. I don't. I used to be an active part of it, before it got its name. That was before I got my first full time job, back in Australia. I was looking forward to getting more involved with volunteering as time progressed and my work-life balance could re-balance again. Even though my retirement is a good few years off, occasional thoughts of which charities to support through donating my time, experience, skills and labour did cross my mind.
One of the things I love about the UK is the third sector. The support of charitable causes both in donating money, but also time. All the things the 'Big Society' is, as I understand it, meant to be. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with a government labelling one of the things that does make the UK a great place to be. What niggles is a political party taking credit for something already there, muddling away without any party-political basis.
What angers me is that so much of what this government is doing - and the attacks on the public sector pensions is only one example - is actually destroying any chance of building what they have chosen to call the 'Big Society'. The pay cuts my public sector colleagues and I have already taken have led to us seriously considering those charities we support. Oh, and before you think we must be on bloody good salaries to choose to donate hundred of pounds to a range of charities... no, we're talking about relatively small amounts to already carefully selected charities.
The Unions
Today, looking at some twitter feeds, I have 'learned' that my 'union masters' get more than pay than the 'evil bankers' with their bonuses. Those feeds then charge into a litany of anti-union invective where the 'what have the unions ever done for us?' is the least offensive.
In all my working life, I have been a member of the union that covered my workplace. But, I have never stood for any official post. My career path has just never gone down that way.
I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the union movement as a whole, and even more keenly aware of some of the shortcomings of the unions to which I have belonged. But, while I am no expert on labour law or history, I am aware of the basics. It is true that without unions the average worker would be a hell of a lot worse off.
To those who ask, so why do we need unions now? Look around you! It is not just this government that is taking away those hard won rights to reasonable pay, a pension for when you leave work, and reasonable working hours - and that includes the number of days a week worked, not just the hours worked during those days. To those who say, but I work unreasonable hours for nothing, I say - why? Is it really doing you any good? And how's your health? Your social life?
I admire my many friends who are freelance worker, and because I've looked into that myself, I appreciate the difficulties. My choice is to draw a wage, in a sector I've chosen for a lot more reasons than just financial benefit. I love my job, not least because it directly contributes to making the country I've adopted as my home better. I don't like the contempt my sector is viewed by the government (I also didn't like that in the last government, by the way, and that party's continuing lack of support for this strike action is perplexing even though I know the reasons they give).
Just so you know, there are unions in the private and freelance sectors. Check them out. You don't have to go it alone, even if you're self-employed. I'm already a member of one that actively works to ensure writers actually get paid a decent income for their work.
As for the nonsense about democracy in the unions... and the voting... and how the majority don't support the strikes. In the UK, it's not compulsory for people to vote (I grew up in Australia where it is). The majority of people don't vote in general elections, or council elections. Unions aren't allowed to ballot at workplaces - it's all postal votes, with all the problems that causes. But, the basic principle in common with general elections remains: the winner of the vote is the simple majority of those who cast votes. The whole then go with the majority, even if they voted against it. That's how the democratic systems works. It distresses me that people don't understand the democratic principles people died for - and continue to die for all around the world. It also distresses me that people can't be bothered to vote in any election, including union ballots if they're a member.
My union balloted us in advance of the 30 June 2011 strike, which carried over to this one because it's about the same issue and they didn't want to spend more money when it wasn't needed. Interestingly, those unions that balloted their members more recently have had much higher turnouts, and overwhelmingly higher support for striking today. Those unions include a few that have never been on strike before.
I've heard the question: Why don't the unions negotiate with the government? They have been. What doesn't help is when the government issues statements or media releases suggesting they've tabled amendments to their proposals. That's not negotiating. That happened back in June, and has happened again in the lead up to today. And the media need to check their facts and report responsibly.
The government has also been excited about the 'irresponsibility' of the strike, and minimising disruption. Trust me when I say this, emergency cover has been organised where it needs to be. I know my union and department have agreed principles in place respecting the right to strike. But, the point of a strike is to cause disruption. It was said back in June, and anecdotally the response to this strike seems even more panicked, the fact the government are announcing such bizarre things shows that actually the strike actions are achieving one aim, which is to get the issues out there. I remember the media barely reporting on strikes called under the previous government (fact fans, I've been on strike five times since arriving in the UK.)
Fortunately, a lot of people I follow on Twitter have been really cool. Caitlin Moran posted this morning the wise words, 'workers have to strike for what executives just help themselves to.' Ian Martin said, 'This is not just about pensions. It's about who we are and what we value.'
You want more info?
Good. I urge you to head to the union websites - e.g. PCS, TUC, Unison - and to Hansard for the official record of Parliament, to find out for yourself what has really been going on, and what this strike is really about.
Re stats, do check out Ben Goldacre's twitter stream over last weekend for a non-partisan, questioning look at the stats. Not just for what he said, by the way. There were some fascinating links.
Little Reminder: this is my personal blog and is a bit of a ramble. It doesn't cover everything. It can't. The issues are complex, and made even more complex by the insinuations and misrepresentations. Figures recorded in parliament have been questioned for their veracity.
My blog is political, but not party political. I'm a union member, and supporter, but not a union stooge. These are my views, my opinions, based on my observations. I do believe there are other ways to address the economic problems in the UK. A start would be collecting the taxes owed by those at the top. And, there are questions about restitution from those individual businesses bailed out by taxpayers that this year paid such high bonuses and increased salaries without addressing the problems that caused the financial crisis in the first place.
I welcome comments, but do moderate them (having received way too much spam in the past). I also welcome views contrary to mine, but I have a zero tolerance of 'flame wars' and 'trolls'.
.
Posts
