Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave Spart

The Inevitable Forthcoming Industrial Action.

Recommended Posts

With the government due to slash spending, over the coming months huge swathes of the public sector will be forced to make cuts.

I fear we are about to see knee-jerk reactions from trades unions calling for strikes. Are we about to see petty minded shop-stewards calling out their members, seventies style, to protest at the wrong people?

It's no good strikers forming picket lines, waving placards and chanting slogans outside their place of employment; the cuts are coming and that's that. Unionists would serve their members best by telling them who's really to blame for the economic crises - the bankers - so they can channel their anger in the most constructive way - in London.

Edited by Dave Spart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the government due to slash spending, over the coming months huge swathes of the public sector will be forced to make cuts.

I fear we are about to see knee-jerk reactions from trades unions calling for strikes. Are we about to see petty minded shop-stewards calling out their members, seventies style, to protest at the wrong people.

It's no good strikers forming picket lines and chanting slogans; the cuts are coming and that's that. Unionists would serve their members best by telling them who's really to blame for the economic crises - the bankers - so they can channel their anger in the most constructive way.

If the recent strikes are anything to go by, nobody will notice them missing!

Certainly made my trip to work quicker in the morning with less traffic on the road !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the government due to slash spending, over the coming months huge swathes of the public sector will be forced to make cuts.

I fear we are about to see knee-jerk reactions from trades unions calling for strikes. Are we about to see petty minded shop-stewards calling out their members, seventies style, to protest at the wrong people.

It's no good strikers forming picket lines, waving placards and chanting slogans outside their place of employment; the cuts are coming and that's that. Unionists would serve their members best by telling them who's really to blame for the economic crises - the bankers - so they can channel their anger in the most constructive way - in London.

I really think that if the government "did a Reagan" they would get support from a lot of people. Remember when the air traffic controllers went on strike? He fired em all. Pretty popular it was as well. Wonder if the UK government has the balls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that if the government "did a Reagan" they would get support from a lot of people. Remember when the air traffic controllers went on strike? He fired em all. Pretty popular it was as well. Wonder if the UK government has the balls?

Might be.

This isn't a hiccup before the start of a debt cycle though. it's the fallout at the end of one - everyone has to accept that they are getting less than they have been promised by the system. Chances of there not being a massive amount of brick chucking?

None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that if the government "did a Reagan" they would get support from a lot of people. Remember when the air traffic controllers went on strike? He fired em all. Pretty popular it was as well. Wonder if the UK government has the balls?

There'll be massive strike action and brick throwing for sure, but one bonus of the way the public sector has been bloated is that when they do there is an increased chance of (i) nobody feeling much pain, and (ii) people getting quite cross when they realise how little problem it is when they don't work. Should that be the case the result would be a major shortfall in sympathy.

I think Clameronwill try to play it stright; Thatcher of course, had she been given that analysis, would have looked for the scrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that if the government "did a Reagan" they would get support from a lot of people. Remember when the air traffic controllers went on strike? He fired em all. Pretty popular it was as well. Wonder if the UK government has the balls?

how nice of you...i dont think these people will be striking about wages ..do you? it might be redundancy terms......remember none of these jobs will ever be coming back so be prepared for more SCROUNGERS... :angry: :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at whats happening in the US, horrific stories of self-serving unions blind to any reality driving their states towards bankruptcy.

Mish has been covering it unfolding in very revealing detail. I imagine we're in for a similar ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how nice of you...i dont think these people will be striking about wages ..do you? it might be redundancy terms......remember none of these jobs will ever be coming back so be prepared for more SCROUNGERS... :angry: :angry:

£15k working for the council or £30k on the dole - I take scrounging B)

Seriously, we can't afford to keep propping everything up, cuts are required and taxes need to be increased. Just a shame that we all have to pay, but then we got what we deserved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at whats happening in the US, horrific stories of self-serving unions blind to any reality driving their states towards bankruptcy.

Isn't it in the nature of Unions to be self serving? They exist to promote the interests of their VI's- the workforce- in the same way that the politicians promote the interests of their VI's- the bankers.

What is needed is a sense of shared peril and responsibility that might be harnessed to get mutual agreement on what needs to be done- but can you seriously blame the workers for being reluctant to take the pain when they can see the people who caused much of the mess still enjoying record payouts?

The utter and abject failure of the political class to stop the bankers excesses will come back to haunt them now as they try to sell their people on the need for sacrifice and austerity.

It might not be rational for these people to strike to try and preserve their position- but I guess they figure that if Wall street can party on like it's 2006- why should they be expected to take the hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it in the nature of Unions to be self serving? They exist to promote the interests of their VI's- the workforce- in the same way that the politicians promote the interests of their VI's- the bankers.

Obviously. ... and that's a very broad brush indeed you're using about politicians.

What is needed is a sense of shared peril and responsibility that might be harnessed to get mutual agreement on what needs to be done- but can you seriously blame the workers for being reluctant to take the pain when they can see the people who caused much of the mess still enjoying record payouts?

Hoping a sense of shared peril is going to result in reasonable action is wishful to say the least. And so what, sure its unfair whats occurred, how is taking the position that they want to keep having their cake (at the expense of everyone else not just these bankers) going to solve anything? Its not, but don't think they're going to consider you, any more than the banks do.

It might not be rational for these people to strike to try and preserve their position- but I guess they figure that if Wall street can party on like it's 2006- why should they be expected to take the hit?

And thats the thing, the irrationality, of which there are many instances being revealed in the US. I like unions in terms of the balance they can provide against the power of employers, but people are greedy whether they're bankers or anything else. Heres a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And thats the thing, the irrationality, of which there are many instances being revealed in the US. I like unions in terms of the balance they can provide against the power of employers, but people are greedy whether they're bankers or anything else.

Of course that's true. What I do find odd though is the persistence of the notion that poor people should somehow be driven by a work ethic, and a general sense of social responsibility that is manifestly completely missing at the top.

We have the bizzare situation where those least well served by the system are supposed to most embody it's ideals, while those who gain the most are somehow exempt from this moral imperative.

Hence we have CEO's on multi million basic salaries demanding bonus pay to 'motivate' them, while those at the bottom are derided for trying to hang on to what little they have.

Basically it's impossible to condemn the people at the bottom for fighting to preserve their situation while at the same time promoting a neo liberal agenda that tilts the entire system in favour of those who already have so much.

A guy on strike to protect his job or pension rights need only direct your attention to the latest bonus's on wall street and the massive increase in pay at the top of society to render all moraly based arguments against his actions absurd.

This is why fairness does matter, in the end. It's the difference between peaceful evolution and riots in the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that's true. What I do find odd though is the persistence of the notion that poor people should somehow be driven by a work ethic, and a general sense of social responsibility that is manifestly completely missing at the top.

We have the bizzare situation where those least well served by the system are supposed to most embody it's ideals, while those who gain the most are somehow exempt from this moral imperative.

Hence we have CEO's on multi million basic salaries demanding bonus pay to 'motivate' them, while those at the bottom are derided for trying to hang on to what little they have.

Basically it's impossible to condemn the people at the bottom for fighting to preserve their situation while at the same time promoting a neo liberal agenda that tilts the entire system in favour of those who already have so much.

A guy on strike to protect his job or pension rights need only direct your attention to the latest bonus's on wall street and the massive increase in pay at the top of society to render all moraly based arguments against his actions absurd.

This is why fairness does matter, in the end. It's the difference between peaceful evolution and riots in the streets.

A voice of reason - thank you and well put!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the government due to slash spending, over the coming months huge swathes of the public sector will be forced to make cuts.

I fear we are about to see knee-jerk reactions from trades unions calling for strikes. Are we about to see petty minded shop-stewards calling out their members, seventies style, to protest at the wrong people.

It's no good strikers forming picket lines, waving placards and chanting slogans outside their place of employment; the cuts are coming and that's that. Unionists would serve their members best by telling them who's really to blame for the economic crises - the bankers - so they can channel their anger in the most constructive way - in London.

There will have to be 5-10% pay cuts and many job losses in the public sector to overcome the budget deficit. That's in addition to just stopping contractual projects like the IT ripoffs for hundreds of millions, even billions sometimes!

We can expect strikes and unrest by Christmas. Enjoy the summer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that's true. What I do find odd though is the persistence of the notion that poor people should somehow be driven by a work ethic, and a general sense of social responsibility that is manifestly completely missing at the top.

We have the bizzare situation where those least well served by the system are supposed to most embody it's ideals, while those who gain the most are somehow exempt from this moral imperative.

Hence we have CEO's on multi million basic salaries demanding bonus pay to 'motivate' them, while those at the bottom are derided for trying to hang on to what little they have.

Basically it's impossible to condemn the people at the bottom for fighting to preserve their situation while at the same time promoting a neo liberal agenda that tilts the entire system in favour of those who already have so much.

A guy on strike to protect his job or pension rights need only direct your attention to the latest bonus's on wall street and the massive increase in pay at the top of society to render all moraly based arguments against his actions absurd.

This is why fairness does matter, in the end. It's the difference between peaceful evolution and riots in the streets.

Good Post.

I think you've illustrated why ConDem are talking tough on the bankers in a way that NuLab weren't. They understand that it will be impossible to push these public sector cuts through without demonstrating real action on curbing bankers' bonuses and senior civil servants' pay.

Whether they'll actually carry out this action of cause remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy on strike to protect his job or pension rights need only direct your attention to the latest bonus's on wall street and the massive increase in pay at the top of society to render all moraly based arguments against his actions absurd.

Thats an eye for an eye argument though. No use in practice. If public sector unions start striking all over the place, the government caves in, and the country goes bankrupt, thats not going to help anyone, moral arguments aside.The Mish articles I was referring to are about situations in which the unions have, during good times, accumulated massive benefits and pay, far outstripping anything in the private sector, and now, even as their states fail, are striking over details of pay increases, not even cuts. That, specifically, is what I find revolting. In those situations just as there may be inequality between the bankers and the general population, there is also another inequality between sectors of that population, irrespective of the ins and outs of what has brought about the need for cuts.

I absolutely agree about the outrageous inequality across many domains in society which is highlighted as you say, nowhere more acutely than in finance, but I don't interpret that as being the topic of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When thinking about what needs to be done, I often think first about the consequences of not sorting this problem of the deficit out.

If the government cannot close the deficit, and indeed run some sort of surplus, sooner rather than later, then the bond markets are just going to refuse to buy government bonds. That event will be quick, interest rates will rise, and they will rise without giving the government a chance to do anything about it. Governments take a long time to change their policies. Like a supertanker, we are headed to the rocks, and you have to turn now, because it will be impossible to do so when the bond market loses patience.

When the bond market loses patience, the government then wont have much of a choice. It wont be able to borrow at hugely expensive rates of interest, as the interest burden will become impossible to service. Instead it will have to monetise the debt. Trouble is, if it starts to do that, hyperinflation will follow in short order. Then it will have to move to a gold based system, having forfeitted the moral right to issue a currency via its actions.

Then it will have to tax an ounce of gold in order to spend an ounce of gold. That wont be easy. Any state needs two things. A force with which it can maintain power, and a tax raising ability. All the nice to haves, such as spending on education, health, etc, are nice to haves, not essentials. A move to gold will force all non-essential spending to be slashed if not dismissed entirely.

This really would be a dire situation for many who cannot provide a good or a service to someone. Children for example, in care, might find that they are put out onto the street. Despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong, often suffered horrendous abuse, many would no longer have the state to care for them, as the state simply cannot afford such a basis humanity whilst it rebuilds itself.

As for retired people, they can forget it. They are going to be dying of hunger in their homes, unless they have a stash of food or gold or both. No pensions, forget it.

Please try to imagine a nation in a situation like this. Horrors we had thought had been forgotten, back again 1000 times worse.

That is why we must pray that this government does the right thing. The right thing is to give people the incentive to work, and to balance the books, and actually repay some of that debt. Note, raising taxes does not give anyone the incentive to work. Any tax increase will push us closer to that point of no return.

And what I fear that government has missed, is what this website is all about. House prices. They have moved out of reach of most ordinary people. And that inflation has not been included in the official inflation statistics. As a result, if you want housing, low paid work, doesnt cut it, you need benefits. Housing benefits are good. Pop out a kid, and you get a nice house, often very house, for no work. All paid for by the hard work of others. The problem here is obvious, if more and more people chose benefits over work, taxes fall, spending rises, the system goes bust and then we have the nightmare situation painted above. But it is entirely logical and correct, for many people to give up work, so they can obtain housing benefit, it is their only way in which they can secure a roof above their heads.

You can see the reality of this, month after month, in the housing reports that tell us fewer and fewer first time buyers are coming to the market. Homes are being bought by councils and BTL's and rich people. Ordinary people, are priced out. They are angry at seeing people they know, on benefits, better off than they are. And they have every right to feel anger, their taxes are paying for other people to take the property that they should be living in.

In the public sector as well, their is a feeling that they are being persecuted. Well at least they are working. But the balance is wrong. What has happened to the private sector over the last ten years or so, is a gradual downwards pressure on wages, as work that can be moved abroad and done more cheaply, has moved abroad. Net result is lower average wages in the private sector. The problem here is this leaves us in a situation where the private sector can no longer support the huge burden that the public sector has become. That amount of tax that needs to be raised from the private sector to support this is simply intollerable. The simple rule, that pay in the public sector should be less than the private sector has been broken. Add in the huge benefits of associated with the public sector, and you have a system that is now primed to fail at some point in the very near future.

This dire situation needs to be communicated to the nation. Benefits need to be cut. A simple rule needs to be implemented, no benefits that give someone more than 80% (or less) of the national minimum including benefits in kind. If that means that those on benefit are kicked out of their current housing, then that HAS to happen. Those working and producing must always have first dibs on any housing available. This might be harsh, but before you know it, many those consider 'layabouts' will start making a contribution, and we will all be better off for it.

Pensions too, the holy cow, needs to be sorted out. A 5% cut here wouldnt be out of place. And we need to raise the state pension age to 70 - 75, aggresively, so that by the year 2025, a state pension will only be payable at that age.

And the public sector needs to get real. Judges, police, doctors, nurses, all must see real wage cuts. And those pensions must go, they are simply not payable.

We have to do this. We have to face down those strikes. We have to run a surplus.

It will be terrible to do this. But the alternative is far worse. Gold wasnt called a 'barbarous relic' without good reason. Welcome it back only if you are not in need, and strong, very strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When thinking about what needs to be done, I often think first about the consequences of not sorting this problem of the deficit out.

<snip>

This should be required reading for all the numpties who are going to be squealing about how horrid the Gioernment is being.

These guys have a short time to show that this country can be responsibly run. They need good luck and a lot of support. And for all our sakes, when the time comes for them to go back to the country I hope people have some kind of memory about the shower of sh1t that did this to the public finances.

Edited by bogbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

With the government due to slash spending, over the coming months huge swathes of the public sector will be forced to make cuts.

I fear we are about to see knee-jerk reactions from trades unions calling for strikes. Are we about to see petty minded shop-stewards calling out their members, seventies style, to protest at the wrong people.

It's no good strikers forming picket lines, waving placards and chanting slogans outside their place of employment; the cuts are coming and that's that. Unionists would serve their members best by telling them who's really to blame for the economic crises - the bankers - so they can channel their anger in the most constructive way - in London.

Not the bankers.

It's the fatcat capitalist bosses who have sacked British workers and sent their jobs abroad in the name of extra profit.

If the fatcat bosses hadn't done that there would have been no need for the State to employ all the sacked workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why fairness does matter, in the end. It's the difference between peaceful evolution and riots in the streets.

Good post. I prefer to use the word justice.

We've had nulab banging on about social justice for a decade, when what they really aimed for was privilege.

I look forward to being reintroduced to proper justice. What I'd like to see is citizen juries replacing bureacrats. The decision making becomes much more open and people will feel they're involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. I prefer to use the word justice.

We've had nulab banging on about social justice for a decade, when what they really aimed for was privilege.

I look forward to being reintroduced to proper justice. What I'd like to see is citizen juries replacing bureacrats.

The decision making becomes much more open and people will feel they're involved.

Robespierre and his ilk seem primed to make a comeback after about 220 years.

I am not convinced that the coming reign of terror will be any more constructive than the last one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the bankers.

It's the fatcat capitalist bosses who have sacked British workers and sent their jobs abroad in the name of extra profit.

If the fatcat bosses hadn't done that there would have been no need for the State to employ all the sacked workers.

Despite not having been party to this activity (and indeed competing with others who have) I cannot agree with this. The choices we all make cannot be separated into the guilty or innocent; consumers have shown no interest in dfferentiating between UK sourced or otherwise; suppliers only provide what people want.

It's like these people who complain about the demise of their local shops, as they jump into their cars and shop at Tesco.

People want the lowest prices. Businesses provide what they demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be required reading for all the numpties who are going to be squealing about how horrid the Gioernment is being.

These guys have a short time to show that this country can be responsibly run. They need good luck and a lot of support. And for all our sakes, when the time comes for them to go back to the country I hope people have some kind of memory about the shower of sh1t that did this to the public finances.

Oh dear.

What this is about is those who just stole everything pulling the ladder up.

No fundamental necessary reforms will take place. "Nick things, cross fingers" is the name of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Despite not having been party to this activity (and indeed competing with others who have) I cannot agree with this. The choices we all make cannot be separated into the guilty or innocent; consumers have shown no interest in dfferentiating between UK sourced or otherwise; suppliers only provide what people want.

Someone will shout "Godwin's Law" but the Nazis used a similar defence at Nuremburg. "We were only doing our jobs."

It's like these people who complain about the demise of their local shops, as they jump into their cars and shop at Tesco.

People want the lowest prices. Businesses provide what they demand.

Big business wants highest profit. What the customer wants doesn't really come into it. So what if you don't like what Tesco does? They're not fussed if you go to Sainsbury's instead.

Edited by absolutezero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone will shout "Godwin's Law" but the Nazis used a similar defence at Nuremburg. "We were only doing our jobs."

Big business wants highest profit. What the customer wants doesn't really come into it. So what if you don't like what Tesco does? They're not fussed if you go to Sainsbury's instead.

I see your sabbatical hasnt reduced the level of tosh you post. Unless the business is a monopoly, the customer decides whether businesses fail or not. If they dont like the product the business goes under. If it was down to businesses only ever buying cheap imported tat wed still have Woolworths. Tesco, Sainsbury, grocer it is customers who decide to shop at Tesco and Sainsbury for conveniance so once again you talk rubbish, nobody has forced this other than customers, many local grocers have shut because customers preferred Tesco, if they didnt then the local grocers would clearly be thriving , unless your tescos is unique in kidnapping customers at gunpoint.

If its down to what business wants rather than customers im struggling to see how there have just seen a record number of retail insolvencies when they have all been exploiting cheap labour

and if Tesco only care about maximum profit how does that translate in them not being fussed if potential customers go to Saisbury. Your arguments retain AZ consistency

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.