Border Agency Strike

[Norman Verona]

Just a point about Police pensions. The employee pays about 11% in to their pensions. This was fine and raised no problems when a 65 year retirement age was in force. Then a politician decided that it would be a good idea to retire them at 55 or after 25 years service. In those days, if you started as a cadet at 15 this meant retirement at 40! This was stopped soon after and now the cadet force is a joke. Really able youngsters have no guarantee they'll get a job as they have to apply and sit exams as if they hadn't been a cadet.

The upshot of the reduction in age is that, as the pensions are paid out of current wage budgets (ie there is no pension fund) the Police Authorities cannot afford to pay working Policemen due to the pension liability.

Of course all this was foreseeable.

Crash, thanks for reminding us of the monumental c*ck up created by the people we employ to look after the country - politicians.

Of course all this was foreseeable.

Why can't we leave the pension aspect and think of the more serious aspect of all this.

I'm not sure you can blame the union if they request discussions and are ignored.

I don't agree with the timing of the strike but I do see why they've done it.

[Norman Verona]

which version of events do you believe.

The union says the government have agreed to employ 800 more staff and then another 300.

The government deny this and say they haven't agreed this.

The union claim the government civil service web site announced the 800 jobs.

The union also say the government are continuing talks about "conditions"

.

I know who I believe

[Mooch]

300 = vacancies that already exist and are currently being advertised

400=New posts, which govt said have not been agreed, but made up by PCS

400=New posts which govt said have not been agreed, but made up by PCS again, however government has apologised for advertising twice in error due to 'an administrative error' so there must have been something in it.

Clearly something isn't right and the govt certainly looks duplicitous.

However, I still think Serwotka is an unreconstructed Marxist pillock.

[Norman Verona]

Serotwka may well be an "unreconstructed Marxist pillock"

However the government seem to be feeding the pillock very well.

I still think the government aim was to privatise the service and have now changed tack, probably due to the G4S fiasco.

[Dibby]

We can all be the world authority on this and spout off into the internets like the keyboard warriros we are, but we don't know the details apart from what the media feed us what we overhear from blokes in pubs.

We don't know the details of what was agreed and what wasn't, whether it was a signed off document or a verbal agreement that has been misconstrued and twisted to suit peoples' agendas.

Maybe the unions would be more leanient if the government hadn't have screwed down the T&Cs so hard, maybe the unions are causing a big stir for nothing.

Who am I to know the details behind the decisions that have been made?

[Norman Verona]

I agree, Dibby.

However it is in the public domain and we are entitled to an opinion on the information available.

It really concerns me that one of the two parties is, probably, correct and the other isn't. I can see reasons why the government wouldn't want it known they're changing their plans, assuming they are. However, I can't see what advantage the union would get from saying what they have other than face saving. But face saving from what?

Don't you think that this is a subject that is so critical we shouldn't have this confusion muddying the waters.

[Dibby]

However it is in the public domain and we are entitled to an opinion on the information available.

...

Don't you think that this is a subject that is so critical we shouldn't have this confusion muddying the waters.

That pretty much sums up these internet debates, no matter how ill-informed our ad-hoc reckons may be, we insist on telling the internet loud and clear about them as if it's our god given right.

A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing.

It really concerns me that one of the two parties is, probably, correct and the other isn't...

Or neither are 100% correct and individual characters with invidual agendas are getting in the way of doing what is best for the people. Governments and unions more often let saving face and one-upmanship get in the way of integrity making the right decision.

[Norman Verona]

Dibby, so you're happy not to have an opinion on what you see reported by the BBC.

I agree about your second point which is why I used the "probably" in my sentence.

You remind me of an American colleague at Dallas airport who, when I asked about security when he handed all our cases to a porter for loading on the plane replied "it's OK, it's an internal flight". This was, of course, before the twin towers attack.

We, the public must have opinions based on the available information. That's how democracy works. Or are you saying we should just let them get on with it and we'll take the consequences no matter what?

[Dibby]

We can all have opinions, doesn't mean we have to shout them from the rooftops.

[Norman Verona]

So what's the point of having an opinion then.

And I don't consider this the rooftops, The Sun newspaper maybe, but the Westfield Forum, hardly.

[Dibby]

There doesn't have to be a 'point' to having an opinion, you don't learn anything useful like any facts from other peoples' opinions, I find you just learn what someone else thinks about a matter that won't affect me in any way.

Putting anything up on the internet - facebook, twitter, newspaper comments sections and the BBC have your say Tw*t-o-tron seem to be the worst culprits - assume the readers actually give a hoot about what the writer has to say.

[s2rrr]

I think if you consider the generation(s) difference between some of the more senior posters and those of the twatter faceblob etc lot you will note that there are some opinions and then hopefully some factual content as well. Most of the juniors I see and listen too ( not on here) can't put two words together with a "right" or a "you know" etc etc and as for the content its generally drivell. Yes we all have, and none more so than I, opinions. But that doesn't and never can alter the facts. When we know the facts behind this dispute and we may never know, it may become clear that political posturing on both sides will have been going on. Those facts will come out later. To tell us that if you don't like your job because the management have made major changes to your terms and conditions is nothing short of an immoral dictatorship regime and yes you can walk if you wish. When there is such a financial crisis as now, going on with no jobs, its a little difficult to just do that, so easy to say but difficult to do, especially if you have been a long term loyal employee in a specialised area. A contract is a contract in my view if the management want to reduce certain rights they should fully consult the workforce and make proper restitution for buying out that contractual right. Should the workforce not agree with the changes they should not go ahead, fairly simple. A contract is a two way agreement or was when I was a lad.

Bob

[Mike H]

I still think the government aim was to privatise the service

Uh oh, you're losing it Norm !

Mike

[Norman Verona]

I hope so. But somehow I'm not sure.