Great post Cupcake.  I'm like you in that I have sympathy for all those affected but the reality is that the public sector is a tad bloated and their pensions unsustainable.  I mean, what part of £1.4 trillon debt don't they understand?  And why they feel they should be better treated than those in the private sector. My bugbear is why its the nurses being axed instead of the 'suits' and why its the ordinary council worker instead of the £200k a year head honchos.  That makes me mad as hell.  This isn't meant to party political, its just sound common sense to me, but hey common sense doesn't seem to be that common.

My view is that public sector workers aren't to blame for the worldwide economic recession, but they're the ones being forced to pay the price.

How about targeting the financial fatcats and bankers who are really to blame? Oh, I forgot, those are the Tory party's main source of funding..

Thank you Aquarius!!  I agree with your post too   particularly the bits I have bolded.

I do feel that the teachers and nurses etc earn their money, and are worthy of the 'perks' decent pension, because they have worked hard to get where they are, and they do a good job....  but the general 'council admin' and 'management...'  no.... I think, although I do feel a 'bit' sorry for them; they are over subscribed and a bit overpaid, and I don't see why they shouldn't suffer the austerity measures like the rest of us....

I do agree with your post in the main Demantoid, (especially about the financial fatcats and bankers...)  but the question is, why should the 'public sector' not have to endure the austerity measures, if everyone else in the country is having to?

We've had the same problems over here, well we're still having them really.  We've had public sector workers pensions cut, wage revisions etc.  As a private sector worker, I don't have a pension, I can't afford one.  So they lose me on that argument.  Public Sector workers may not have got bonuses etc during the good times, but they sure had benchmarking, flexi time, cigarette breaks, coffee breaks etc and they took loans out and double mortgages along with others.  Private sector workers have no protection against wage cuts, less working hours etc, whilst bonuses may have been flying around in the good times, we bloomin earned them and are sure paying for it now, literally, with no union to stand up for us.

The most important issue I think is though, to forget Public vs Private sector.  Both sectors are paying the price for this crash and are suffering some how....except for the bank executives and high end pubic employees who are still receiving extravagant salaries and bonuses, all of which come from the public coffers, and are suffering very little.

So instead of one sector come out and creating a divide that only serves to take the heat off who actually is to blame, I think everyone should get out there together and protest about cuts in income and demand that EVERYONE pay their fair share.

Well said temps   Good post.    But I do feel that the public sector seem to have more weight in their strikes than the private sector, and they can affect public services and get their voices heard a lot more than someone who works for a hotel or a local store...

If everyone got out and protested together, even the people in the local shop, they would halt the whole economy for a day. 

Everyone is having to tighten their belts. But why should the public sector be unfairly targeted for the worst of it? And no, I'm not a public sector worker.

If Cameron thinks this course of action will lead to anything except disaster, he's deluded. He seems to forget that public sector workers also spend money in the high street. Put enough of them out of work or on the breadline and there'll be more losses to join Habitat, Thorntons, etc.

This action has nothing to do with common sense or even the deficit - his attack on the public sector is purely idealogical. He and his ilk don't agree with anything not being in private, money-grubbing hands and this is their way of gradually dismantling publicly-funded services.

In the news today, one of his chief advisers is switching his attention to older people, who are apparently also now a "drain" on the country - despite having paid and contributed to  it all their lives.

VERY good point!    if only we could rally together like the French do! 

Maybe it's because the public sector/councils are and always have been over subscribed with many non-jobs, gold plated pensions, and higher than average wages... so because of this, is it any surprise that they are suffering these austerity measures.  I am not a fan of Cameron, but everyone else is having to suffer auterity measures; so why should the council workers/public sectors be treated any differently? 

I'm not slating them or saying I am glad it is happening or that they deserve it or anything, but why should they not be enduring the same austerity measures as everyone else in the country?

This is what I don't understand...they're happily letting companies close down and go out of business without realising that these people (a) spend money and (b) will end up claiming money from the government until they find another job!

This gold-plated pesions argument doesn't hold water. Most public sector workers have nothing like that and many are low paid. They are already suffering from austerity measures (like the rest of us) but are also being punished twice by Cam and co's persistent targeting of them.

Quite a useful guide to the issues behind the strike - http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...ions-striking-matter

My own view is that things did need to change, because people are living longer etc., but, yet again, the ConDems are going too far, too fast, and pissing people off in the process. 

We're going to have to agree to differ Demantoid.  We obviously have totally different views about public sector workers, and I really disagree with your post I have quoted here... The public sector workers I know (and have known over the years,) are nothing like what you're describing here.. .  Nothing whatsover.  Moreover, I still wonder why you think the public sector workers should not suffer like the rest of us.  Like I said, we will have to agree to differ, as there's no point in going back and forth, as obviously, neither of us is going to change our views/opinion.

don't forget us disabled people who according to the Tories should be paid less money than able-bodied people just to make us more employable and off benefits and no longer  drain on the public purse 

From the article I quoted above -

Are public sector pensions really – as critics say – gold-plated?

When Hutton published his review in March, he firmly rejected the claim that public sector pensions were "gold-plated". His report says the average public sector average pension is about £7,800 per year, while the median payment is about £5,600. In 2009-10, the average public sector pension payments were: local government worker £4,052; NHS worker £7,234; civil servant £6,199; teacher £9,806; and member of the armed forces £7,722.

The PCS union says more than 100,000 retired civil servants receive less than £2,000, while 40,000 get less than £1,000. The union admits these figures exclude the highest earners but includes many who have not spent their whole career in the public sector. That means the figures are lowered by those who worked in the public sector for just a few years, worked part time or took career breaks.

According to Unison general secretary Dave Prentis: "The average pension for a woman in local government is just £60 a week, and in health, it's £85. Not gold-plated, but a cushion against poverty in retirement."

And as I've said (twice) I don't think that, and have never said it. Obviously we'll disagree if you're going to make up things I didn't say!

Ah well, live and let live...

Sorry Demantoid, I didn't mean to do that hun    (((HUGS)))  And no offence intended at all: sometimes a good gritty debate livens up the boards,   and you're not wrong and neither am I.    It's just a matter of opinion.  Ta-ra for now.. off to sunbathe!

the public sector is such a vast and wide ranging area,  with regards to my own "area"  women teachers have to pay more (pensions)  to receive less and are  to work until 68, how can a 68 year old be expected to teach (especially some classes/year groups/schools!) and given how the govt. keep changing the goalposts !!!   and how can this "wonderful" life be promoted to graduates who are to be saddled with debt after uni ???

breathe deeply, slowly and count to 10

 3 months off

*runs*

3 months?

do not make the mistake of confusing pupil's holidays with teachers,  otherwise i might have to say that a waiter is only working when taking food to the table, shop keeper only working when there are customers, bus drivers only working when there are  passengers on the bus, police officers only working when they have a suspect in chains.........................................

Not really the same.  The waiter/shopkeeper/bus drivers are all present and available for work.  Schools are closed during the holidays.  Do you work from home during that time?

have you not seen the paperwork involved ?   subject responsibility crosses all year groups and most of the work needs to be completed in school,  my oh thought half term was "holiday" until he realised the amount of work and don't get me started on "6week hols" - this is end of year and start of the next one - in ks2 this can be 35+ pupils 

Can we hope to see the politician's pensions being radically changed??  I doubt it.

Not that I'm saying I agree with those striking for this reason.  If we're living longer (fact) then provision has to be made to balance the books with the circumstances . When the Condems start addressing their own gilt edge pensions maybe the rest of us will see the fairness of it.  I mean, "we're all in this together" ~ aren't we?

I know when I was a teacher (up until 2002)  - school finished at 3.30pm but I was there often till 7pm marking or arranging the next days lessons or doing an after school club or Ofsted paperwork.  A lazy teacher might copy and slightly amend work plans that have to be submitted to the head, I wasn't one of those - I did my work plans religiously. These plans have to be worked out weeks in advance hence why it was necessary to stay late.   I was usually in at 7.30am even though school didn't start till 9am for breakfast clubs or getting ready for the day ahead.  I was physically in school for most of the 13 weeks that teachers are allegedly off on holiday -  not full days but there none the less.  The big thing that people forget is that even though I finished work at a certain time - I still had to bring work home with me to get it completed unlike waiters/bus drivers/Police officers who finish their job when their shift ends.  

Speaking to some of my former colleagues, things haven't changed much recently - if anything it's gotten worse 

Sorry but it always irks me when people think teachers get a 13 week holiday and it's so not true.

Those 13 weeks are not working hours that you have to be there for Pengy.  Were you in 9-5 every single day?  Marking papers etc, primary schools finish at 2.30 and Secondary schools finish at 3.30/4pm.  That's an hour and a half each day, if you take it that a regular working day is 9-5.  Certainly when I was in school if you did a test on a given day, you wouldn't have the results back for at least a week.

The curriculum each year is the same, depending on whether changes have been brought in in the meantime.  So you have a structure and uniform way of approaching each year, no?  It's not as if you have to start from scratch every September?

I have no doubt that a teacher's job is stressful, dealing with a class of 30+ children a day.  But, as we're on the subject of what irks people,  it really irks me when teachers claim that they have the same working agenda as everyone else, when the don't.

Temps I said I was in most days of those 13 weeks though not full days.  Are you a teacher in the UK?  If memory serves me well you're in Ireland and with all due respect, teaching in Ireland is slightly different from teaching in the UK - I had my education in both countries so I know.  Again with all due respect, what real experience do you have of knowing what teachers do and what work is expected of us to do our daily jobs in the UK?  Are you a teacher?  The curriculum for each year is not the same - it changes and is in a constant state of flux.  There are sections that do stay the same and yes you can plan a lesson using those notes but as I stated earlier, only a lazy teacher would do that because you can be caught out by not knowing what changes have been instigated by OFSTED.  Lesson plans have to be produced 12 weeks in advance - they are always subject to change at the discretion of your head of year or head teacher.  This involves reams of paperwork.  So yes effectively we do start from scratch every year.  I was a primary school teacher so I didn't always teach the same years - sometimes I taught year two, the next year I could teach year 6 - there can be no copying last years notes for that - you get your curriculum and work your lesson plans around it.  Secondary school might be slightly different but I never taught in Secondary school so would have no knowledge of that.

My basic working hours would have worked out to the same as a 9-5 but there is no way in that time span teachers can get done everything that is needed to be done.  You can't be in a class and teaching at the same time as lesson planning or marking work!  If teachers ever decided to work to rule, none of the children's work would be marked.  There would be no after school activities (these are all done on a voluntary basis by the teacher).  There would be no homework clubs to help children that are struggling in mainstream classes.

The one thing a teacher's job is not is a simple 9-5 set number of hours 

i taught at primary level and can endorse everything pengy said,  i was a governor at secondary level and would agree that their workload/life is just the same,  we had  a policy of finishing meetings by 9.00pm as it was unfair on the staff governors/head teacher who had been there since 7.30am

Good post, Pengy! 

Machel - the old adage - 'Walk a mile in my shoes' springs to mind 

Avalon 

O/T are you gonna be here for CDWM and FIAB?  otherwise I'll be talking to myself 

Yes, I'll be there! 

I never said I had any experience of working as a teacher...where did I say that?  I said that you get 3 months off.  There are plenty of stressful jobs out there that change at a moments notice depending on what the person above you wants.  That's nothing novel.  There are plenty of jobs that preparatory work has to be done for weeks in advance.  Again, that's nothing novel.  There are plenty of jobs that are not 9-5.  But my point is that not all of us have a 13 week window during the summer months to prepare these things at our leisure.  And that's not only during the summer, there are mid terms, Easter Breaks, Christmas Breaks, all of which the average worker doesn't get.  Like you say, you yourself were in most days, but not all days.  The average worker has to be in every day, working to deadlines every day, and I don't know the UK standard holiday allowance, but over here it's 21 days, out of the whole year!

As I said before I have no doubt the stresses a teacher faces and have never tried to belittle the job of a teacher, but do not try and claim that the holidays you get aren't pretty lush!

I would love to Machel, if only for the holidays.

If I remember right, when I was living at home a few years ago... my Dad was teaching full time. He certainly got his holiday breaks, however, when we were on holiday he was actually marking work nearly every day. He gave it up, too much stress and couldn't keep up with it. The whole thing with trying to teach kids who don't want to learn made him ill and he eventually gave up. I was telling him all the time that its not like when he was at school where everyone wanted to actually learn... he's now a manager at a childrens centre. Seems to rather enjoy it, he's had alot of trouble with illness lately though and wants to retire but knows he has to keep going unil he's 65. It will probably end up killing him at this rate.

Why council/local authority workers?    None of the workers at my local town council or county council are striking tomorrow..