ForumGarden

I don't belong to our union but I do have some sympathy with the strike action.

I really don't know what to do...I don't want to cross a picket line of colleagues, if there is one, but I don't want to make it difficult for my colleagues who are working and need administrative support.

Ooooh hard one Theia. I wouldn't know what to do either apart from take some leave and avoid the place altogether :wah:

Both my children's schools are closed for the day too.

I used to let myself in round the back and slipped into my office through the empty corridors. Nobody ever had much of a clue whether I was in or not so there wasn't much difference. I'd have just as much work to get through whether I stayed out or went in, no other bugger was ever going to do any of it if I didn't.

Betty's notion of booking the day off in advance sounds like a fair way of avoiding the picket dilemma. If the currently accumulated pension were being tinkered with I'd be more in sympathy but as far as I know it's not. The pension horse bolted when so many public service jobs were privatized twenty years ago, what's left is a already a minority of what used to count as the public sector. The ones who were privatised out of, for example, local council work or the railways, lost their pension security completely. It was often the pension arrangements that persuaded them into a public sector career to begin with.

Betty Boop;1376934 wrote: Ooooh hard one Theia. I wouldn't know what to do either apart from take some leave and avoid the place altogether :wah:

Both my children's schools are closed for the day too.


Tis difficult. Unfortunately, I've left it too late to book leave...there would be no-one to cover for me.

I think I'll either have to have a word with Sister or my manager and "feel" my way to a decision.

Or, maybe, like spot, I can park in the surgery car park behind the hospital and sneak in the back entrance!

I'm curious, who is striking and what are their issues? The union employees where I work went on strike about 10 years ago and although it didn't involve me or my department, it was a tense few weeks.

theia;1376938 wrote: Tis difficult. Unfortunately, I've left it too late to book leave...there would be no-one to cover for me.

I think I'll either have to have a word with Sister or my manager and "feel" my way to a decision.

Or, maybe, like spot, I can park in the surgery car park behind the hospital and sneak in the back entrance!


That made me chuckle, like two months notice would make any difference :wah::sneaky:

Yes, sneaking in the back way seems like a good idea.

Betty Boop;1376941 wrote: That made me chuckle, like two months notice would make any difference :wah::sneaky:

Yes, sneaking in the back way seems like a good idea.


I wondered if you'd pick up on that...and you did :yh_rotfl

Depending how sympathetic you are, you could always join the Union and join the action.

Otherwise I would be left with no choice other than to call you a SCAB. Never ever never cross a picket line.

What is the strike action over?

What people don't seem to understand is when somone strikes what they are demanding is not just for them but also for those who come after as well.

They have neither an interest nor authority to demand on behalf of those who come after, it's none of their business. As a union of workers they can by all means stand up for their own conditions of employment but to extend that to potential future employees is something no traditional unionist would recognize as part of their remit. On the contrary, it would be a political gesture.

spot;1377036 wrote: They have neither an interest nor authority to demand on behalf of those who come after, it's none of their business. As a union of workers they can by all means stand up for their own conditions of employment but to extend that to potential future employees is something no traditional unionist would recognize as part of their remit. On the contrary, it would be a political gesture.


Begging your pardon you do talk rubbish at times........

The intention or the bloody remit might not be to improve conditions for future employees, but that is the result, wouldn't even you admit ?

Funny how we enjoy paid holidays, sick leave, minimum wage, maximum working hours, health and safety regs, the list is very long and I am no expert.

Most if not all are enjoyed today due to the actions of those before us, not all due to strike or industrial action, but due to people seeking better working arrangements, that are inherited by us all.

theia;1376933 wrote: I don't belong to our union but I do have some sympathy with the strike action.

I really don't know what to do...I don't want to cross a picket line of colleagues, if there is one, but I don't want to make it difficult for my colleagues who are working and need administrative support.


Are you prepared to take the benefit gained from the strike action? If you are it's a bit hypocritical to not support it. If you don't support the aims of the strike then by all means go to work. You should join the union otherwise if you ever find yourself being victimised you have no one to turn to except taking your employer to a tribunal yourself.

posted by spot

They have neither an interest nor authority to demand on behalf of those who come after, it's none of their business. As a union of workers they can by all means stand up for their own conditions of employment but to extend that to potential future employees is something no traditional unionist would recognize as part of their remit. On the contrary, it would be a political gesture.




All strikes are political and of course they are intended to benefit those who come after. Unless of course you voluntarily give up any claim to sick pay, paid holidays. a forty hour working week, safe working conditions etc etc etc. gained for you by previous political,action. Traditional unionist would wonder what on earth you are talking about.

Bruv;1377045 wrote: Begging your pardon you do talk rubbish at times........

The intention or the bloody remit might not be to improve conditions for future employees, but that is the result, wouldn't even you admit ?
Obviously that's so, but it's not what fuzzy said. I was responding to "What people don't seem to understand is when somone strikes what they are demanding is not just for them but also for those who come after as well", which as you just said yourself is not at all what they do.

"What people don't seem to understand is when someone strikes what they are demanding is not just for them but also for those who come after as well"

Depends if a pendant reads anything into it to be fair......

Bruv;1377051 wrote: Depends if a pendant reads anything into it to be fair......
It's why we have dictionaries, to agree what words mean. It's why we don't write a succession of grunts.

gmc;1377046 wrote: Are you prepared to take the benefit gained from the strike action? If you are it's a bit hypocritical to not support it. If you don't support the aims of the strike then by all means go to work. You should join the union otherwise if you ever find yourself being victimised you have no one to turn to except taking your employer to a tribunal yourself. posted by spot



All strikes are political and of course they are intended to benefit those who come after. Unless of course you voluntarily give up any claim to sick pay, paid holidays. a forty hour working week, safe working conditions etc etc etc. gained for you by previous political,action. Traditional unionist would wonder what on earth you are talking about.


I have worked for the NHS for four and a half years. I elected to join the pension scheme because I thought it was a way of making myself save an amount each month. I knew that I wouldn't receive much when I left, rightly so, and I wasn't sure at the time how long I would remain in the job. Now, at 63, I would imagine I have a few more years to go, as long as my health permits. I wouldn't object to paying higher contributions if I have to...I'm on the lowest grade possible within the NHS and so the increase for me shouldn't be that big.

A lot of my work colleagues have been with the NHS for many years, they are on much higher bandings and hence receive much larger salaries than I do. Their predicted pensions are substantial. They are angry about the proposed changes and I don't blame them. However, some of them are choosing to strike and some are not even though they will all be affected by changes in pensions/pension contributions.

So, if the clinical staff on duty on Wednesday say they really need me to work, I've decided I will work. And I see no reason to feel hypocritical for this choice.

What are they striking for?

theia;1377053 wrote: I have worked for the NHS for four and a half years. I elected to join the pension scheme because I thought it was a way of making myself save an amount each month. I knew that I wouldn't receive much when I left, rightly so, and I wasn't sure at the time how long I would remain in the job. Now, at 63, I would imagine I have a few more years to go, as long as my health permits. I wouldn't object to paying higher contributions if I have to...I'm on the lowest grade possible within the NHS and so the increase for me shouldn't be that big.

A lot of my work colleagues have been with the NHS for many years, they are on much higher bandings and hence receive much larger salaries than I do. Their predicted pensions are substantial. They are angry about the proposed changes and I don't blame them. However, some of them are choosing to strike and some are not even though they will all be affected by changes in pensions/pension contributions.

So, if the clinical staff on duty on Wednesday say they really need me to work, I've decided I will work. And I see no reason to feel hypocritical for this choice.




And so you shouldn't! No one is going to be shouting Scab at anyone, let alone you. I can't imagine the picket line you will encounter being anything other than peaceful.

flopstock;1377054 wrote: What are they striking for?


BBC News - Q&A: Public sector strikes probably gives a better explanation than I can lol

flopstock;1377054 wrote: What are they striking for?


posted by tabby

I'm curious, who is striking and what are their issues? The union employees where I work went on strike about 10 years ago and although it didn't involve me or my department, it was a tense few weeks.




It's over public sector pensions, currently employees pay 6% of salary, retire on a pension based on the last few years salary index-linked in payment until the day the die.. It was OK when people didn't live so long now it is unsustainable, it was when there (it is a pay as you go scheme, people paying in tom it sustained those claiming pension, same way as the state scheme works) were more working than retired but the ratio has changes drastically and it is something that should have been tackled years ago but politicians from all sides have dodged the issue. Now the government wants them to pay more, retire later have a pension based on the average earnings of their working career rather than the last few.

Leading article: The wrong time for mass industrial action - Leading Articles - Opinion - The Independent

The public sector pensions are the best in the country, however thanks to labour policies most company pension schemes have shut down or been closed to new members and pension schemes cost more to fund because of longer life spans. So we have a situation where people in the private sector who actually generate the wealth are sustaining those in the public sector who while they do valuable work don't generate income for the nation. Most public sector workers are on low salaries, as usual there are a few highly overpaid ones who get massive pensions and also the headlines. Bear in mind we have seen our economy wrecked by the actions of bankers who haven't seen there incomes drop and have not paid the price for their actions , we are being asked to take massive cuts in services that most people think essential while the very wealthy and corporations dodge paying taxes - there are two ways to clear debt, decrease spending or increase revenue, not taxing the rich because their wealth will trickle down and help the economy is an argument that makes people laugh hysterically in this country. The government likes to threaten and demand rather than negotiate as a result people are getting really pissed off not just in the public sector.

BBC News - Francis Maude says strike law reform a last resort

Coming from a party that is in office with less than a third of the electorate voting for them he has a bloody cheek complaining about strike ballots with a low turnout but with the majority voting in favour. To get nurses, teachers and the like to go on strike actually takes some doing. Also threatening people is not a good way to get them to sit around a table with you - all that does is antagonise and make strike action more likely. He's in office by the skin of his teeth, he also has a nice public sector pension have you noticed how the MP's pensions are affected? That's right they aren't paying more or settling for a career average pension - he hasn't been a cabinet. minister for that long

posted by theia

I have worked for the NHS for four and a half years. I elected to join the pension scheme because I thought it was a way of making myself save an amount each month. I knew that I wouldn't receive much when I left, rightly so, and I wasn't sure at the time how long I would remain in the job. Now, at 63, I would imagine I have a few more years to go, as long as my health permits. I wouldn't object to paying higher contributions if I have to...I'm on the lowest grade possible within the NHS and so the increase for me shouldn't be that big.


You won't end up with a reduced pension since you have less than ten years to go but the fact you actually have one is due to union action in the past and it will end up a major portion of your retirement income. 7/80ths of your final salary (assuming you retire at 65) is still better than nothing which not joining it would have meant. You also get a state pension, no need to thank a tory for that one just be grateful they couldn't take it away from you.

A lot of my work colleagues have been with the NHS for many years, they are on much higher bandings and hence receive much larger salaries than I do. Their predicted pensions are substantial. They are angry about the proposed changes and I don't blame them. However, some of them are choosing to strike and some are not even though they will all be affected by changes in pensions/pension contributions.


That's because they care about those who will be coming after them and appreciate what was gained for them by those who went before just as they care about those they look after. Despite what people like spot want to believe it is not all me me me. especially when you are talking about people who work in nursing or social services or even teaching.

There are different ways to strike though . We have striking all over the place at the moment . It is Illegal in Vic for police officers to strike. So they decided to stop issuing speeding fines, and road traffic fines, they parked at red camera positions with their lights flashing to warn motorists of the fixed speeding cameras. They got what they asked for ...then the public sector workers went on strike and so too the nurses, social services and teachers. Icing on the cake??? Some douche bag said that the nurses werent striking in accord with the fair workers Act and so therefore should be imprisoned. They want to imprison our nurses for striking???? Not only for decent pay but also for conditions not only for them but their patients. They are striking for improvements to nurse patient ratios in hospitals. Teachers are striking for job security (since they changed the rules ) and pay, also teacher to student ratios. Social services are striking because they are the lowest paid sector in the country and are asked to do the hardest of jobs with on call and long hours .

Not only do people strike for their own conditions they strike because they voted in a government who should not reneg on their promises. People will continue to strike so to be sure all conditions of avarege workers are kept. Yes it is political because politicians couldn't give a toss and play politics with the average workers lives.

Those who argue people should not go on strike are essentially saying keep your mouth shut and just accept what your overlords want to give you. OK I will accept there should perhaps be some exceptions where the right to strike should be open to debate like the police or the army. Your sell your labour to your employer not your soul, it's a business transaction this notion that you shouldn't negotiate a fairer deal find ludicrous. Realistically you need to do it en masse unless your individual skills are so crucial you can write your own wage slip.

For the likes of nurses to consider going on strike is an indication of how strongly they feel about the issue.

remember this

BBC NEWS | Health | Hewitt heckled by furious nurses

Hewitt heckled by furious nurses

and how these cowards hid rather than face them

Health Secretary snubs 'hostile' nurse congress - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

No wonder people are getting angry enough to strike.

People like spot who are smug about not going on strike should, if they had any decency, forego any benefits obtained for them by those prepared to fight for their rights or at the very least be prepared to speak up at the meetings where it is discussed or campaign against the strike.

If all the binmen, nurses, teachers MP's and bankers went on strike for a month whose absence would matter most to you?

What about the Police ?

Bruv;1377168 wrote: What about the Police ?


One of my favourite bands.

gmc;1377143 wrote: Those who argue people should not go on strike are essentially saying keep your mouth shut and just accept what your overlords want to give you. OK I will accept there should perhaps be some exceptions where the right to strike should be open to debate like the police or the army. Your sell your labour to your employer not your soul, it's a business transaction this notion that you shouldn't negotiate a fairer deal find ludicrous. Realistically you need to do it en masse unless your individual skills are so crucial you can write your own wage slip.

For the likes of nurses to consider going on strike is an indication of how strongly they feel about the issue.

remember this

BBC NEWS | Health | Hewitt heckled by furious nurses

Hewitt heckled by furious nurses

and how these cowards hid rather than face them

Health Secretary snubs 'hostile' nurse congress - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

No wonder people are getting angry enough to strike.

People like spot who are smug about not going on strike should, if they had any decency, forego any benefits obtained for them by those prepared to fight for their rights or at the very least be prepared to speak up at the meetings where it is discussed or campaign against the strike.

If all the binmen, nurses, teachers MP's and bankers went on strike for a month whose absence would matter most to you?


At a guess it would be Bankers, Binmen, Nurses, Teachers, MP's - any other order and you're out of my league.

theia;1376933 wrote: I don't belong to our union but I do have some sympathy with the strike action.

I really don't know what to do...I don't want to cross a picket line of colleagues, if there is one, but I don't want to make it difficult for my colleagues who are working and need administrative support.


My Union is balloting in January. Even if they vote for strike, I WILL NOT. I will work to rule, but I will not abandon my patients. One question...who is qualified to replace me? (second question) What did I spend 3 years at uni for? No I will not strike.

Bryn Mawr;1377191 wrote: At a guess it would be Bankers, Binmen, Nurses, Teachers, MP's - any other order and you're out of my league.


Bankers - or at least investment bankers - would not have been first on my list

Raven;1377230 wrote: My Union is balloting in January. Even if they vote for strike, I WILL NOT. I will work to rule, but I will not abandon my patients. One question...who is qualified to replace me? (second question) What did I spend 3 years at uni for? No I will not strike.


sometimes you don't have to physically go out on a picket line ....I show of hands is enough or signing a petition. the rally the nurses did in Melboune had a few come from each hospital around the state. Then the occupy melbourne protestors joined them and others that were supportive of their action from other unions, and partners and children and neighbours etc. Nurses have a lot of support.

gmc;1377240 wrote: Bankers - or at least investment bankers - would not have been first on my list


So you can last a month without access to your accounts, no ATM facilities, no Debit card facilities, etc - as I say, out of my league.

Your retrospective limitation to investment bankers is immaterial - when you call the bankers you need to think who it is that you're calling, who's bonuses you're cutting, who's jobs you are threatening.

Bryn Mawr;1377285 wrote: So you can last a month without access to your accounts, no ATM facilities, no Debit card facilities, etc - as I say, out of my league.

Your retrospective limitation to investment bankers is immaterial - when you call the bankers you need to think who it is that you're calling, who's bonuses you're cutting, who's jobs you are threatening.


yep I can . very rarely use them .

fuzzywuzzy;1377288 wrote: yep I can . very rarely use them .


All of my salary is paid directly into my bank account, without access to that account I'm reduced to what I carry in my pocket and that is very little.

All of my bills are paid out of my bank account by direct debit, if the bankers go on strike then the systems that action those debits close down and I end up in arrears.

What cash I do have is printed by the ATM as I need it - again, if the bankers are on strike then the systems they run close down and no cash.

The only cards I possess are debit cards - again, if the bankers are on strike then the issuer systems that control those cards are shut down and the transactions will decline.

I'd be up the creek within a week, never mind a month.

OK I'll concede we need banks as an institution and perhaps i should have been clearer that i was using the term banker top refer to investment bankers what we don't need are the crooked , devious, incompetent lying shysters that have caused the present financial mayhem. Dress it up any way you like the present farcical economic situation is done to the behaviour of the bankers and the politicians. There are many bankers who have lost their jobs because of branch closures and the amalgamation of the various banks they were major employers once upon a time. the only ones who aren't losing their jobs are the tossers whose incompetence and greed led to the present mess. Banking is a service industry the notion that any economy can survive on financial services alone is one of staggering stupidity. I hate bankers |I know of several people who have been forced to the wall because of bankers pulling agreed financing or withdrawing agreed overdraft facilities with no notice and for no good reason except they want to make their books look good. Osbourne has just sold the profitable bit of northern rock to branson at a knock down price - the stupid pillock can't even get the market value for a business we had to save from bankruptcy thanks to the greed and stupidity of bankers.

We can mange very well with retail banks run the way they used to be and mutual societies sticking to what they were good at rather than being turned in to banks run by bankers that were clearly not there for their intelligence and honesty. I know a few fund managers and the like, trust me they are not geniuses and just out for number one.

Without the binmen we would eventually end up with widespread epidemics, the reason we need nurses is self evident and without teachers we will go back to the stone age in a couple of generations. My question was whose absence would matter most to you. Can't say I entirely agree with you. But then I have a borderline irrational dislike of bankers.

There are very few industries, if any, started by an accountant or a banker, they just come in take over and pretend it is all due to them and they deserve their ridiculously high salaries. They don't.

So how did this go?

gmc;1377403 wrote: OK I'll concede we need banks as an institution and perhaps i should have been clearer that i was using the term banker top refer to investment bankers what we don't need are the crooked , devious, incompetent lying shysters that have caused the present financial mayhem. Dress it up any way you like the present farcical economic situation is done to the behaviour of the bankers and the politicians. There are many bankers who have lost their jobs because of branch closures and the amalgamation of the various banks they were major employers once upon a time. the only ones who aren't losing their jobs are the tossers whose incompetence and greed led to the present mess. Banking is a service industry the notion that any economy can survive on financial services alone is one of staggering stupidity. I hate bankers |I know of several people who have been forced to the wall because of bankers pulling agreed financing or withdrawing agreed overdraft facilities with no notice and for no good reason except they want to make their books look good. Osbourne has just sold the profitable bit of northern rock to branson at a knock down price - the stupid pillock can't even get the market value for a business we had to save from bankruptcy thanks to the greed and stupidity of bankers.

We can mange very well with retail banks run the way they used to be and mutual societies sticking to what they were good at rather than being turned in to banks run by bankers that were clearly not there for their intelligence and honesty. I know a few fund managers and the like, trust me they are not geniuses and just out for number one.

Without the binmen we would eventually end up with widespread epidemics, the reason we need nurses is self evident and without teachers we will go back to the stone age in a couple of generations. My question was whose absence would matter most to you. Can't say I entirely agree with you. But then I have a borderline irrational dislike of bankers.

There are very few industries, if any, started by an accountant or a banker, they just come in take over and pretend it is all due to them and they deserve their ridiculously high salaries. They don't.


The reason that I push the issue is that all too many people many the same mistake - the say Bankers whilst thinking Investment Bankers or the Chief Executives of the banks but the vast majority of the people who were hit by the hysterical outbursts over "Banker's Bonuses" in the media and the subsequent legal restrictions were the branch staff and back room staff who had nothing at all to do with causing the crash.

Bryn Mawr;1377411 wrote: The reason that I push the issue is that all too many people many the same mistake - the say Bankers whilst thinking Investment Bankers or the Chief Executives of the banks but the vast majority of the people who were hit by the hysterical outbursts over "Banker's Bonuses" in the media and the subsequent legal restrictions were the branch staff and back room staff who had nothing at all to do with causing the crash.


Actually I am all too aware of the difference but I fall in to the same trap as everyone else does. I know one family where both the husband and wife have lost their jobs with different major banking institutions, just what you need just before Christmas and a hell of a shock if you have worked in the same place twenty years or so. Fred the sgred has to be careful where he goes in public there are many who might not be able to restrain themselves. The thing is his board of directors are equally to blanme as aare the -fund managers who invested in his company even after it was clear he was an idiot. g=ho

Despite all the hysterical outbursts those bankers are still getting their bonuses, we own the banks why are we even discussing it with them, if they think they can get such a well paid job elsewhere let them. A lot of it was due to outright fraud but those highly paid bankers should have done due diligence and not been taken in by apparently easy high returns.

Those banks that now ae at rick of collapse if italy and greece default. Would they have been so willing to lend in the first place if they knew the taxpayer wasn't going to bail them out? Yes the European central bank is privately owned but who gives them the money? We are feeding in to a corrupt cycle of stupidity. I blame monetarism, that has got to go down in history as one of the stupidest economic theories the world has ever seen.

gmc;1377438 wrote: Actually I am all too aware of the difference but I fall in to the same trap as everyone else does. I know one family where both the husband and wife have lost their jobs with different major banking institutions, just what you need just before Christmas and a hell of a shock if you have worked in the same place twenty years or so. Fred the sgred has to be careful where he goes in public there are many who might not be able to restrain themselves. The thing is his board of directors are equally to blanme as aare the -fund managers who invested in his company even after it was clear he was an idiot. g=ho

Despite all the hysterical outbursts those bankers are still getting their bonuses, we own the banks why are we even discussing it with them, if they think they can get such a well paid job elsewhere let them. A lot of it was due to outright fraud but those highly paid bankers should have done due diligence and not been taken in by apparently easy high returns.

Those banks that now ae at rick of collapse if italy and greece default. Would they have been so willing to lend in the first place if they knew the taxpayer wasn't going to bail them out? Yes the European central bank is privately owned but who gives them the money? We are feeding in to a corrupt cycle of stupidity. I blame monetarism, that has got to go down in history as one of the stupidest economic theories the world has ever seen.


Who are the bankers who are still getting their bonuses?

In most cases they are the same people who are being laid off just before Christmas - you cannot have it both ways, they cannot be both the victims and the abusers.

We've had teller strikes . And security van strikes (you know the guys who deliver the money?)

Bryn Mawr;1377453 wrote: Who are the bankers who are still getting their bonuses?

In most cases they are the same people who are being laid off just before Christmas - you cannot have it both ways, they cannot be both the victims and the abusers.


You've fallen for that line have you? It's not bonuses for bank branch staff that are an issue.



David Cameron admits defeat over bankers' bonuses - Telegraph



A survey last year found that 2,800 bankers received £1 million or more as a bonus. It has been reported that Stephen Hester, the RBS chief executive, is in line for £2.5 million and in total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.


n 2010, banks paid a 50 per cent tax on any bonus above £25,000, yielding £3.5 billion for the Treasury.

The Coalition is instead imposing a levy on their holdings, expected to raise £1.3 billion in 2011-12.

gmc;1377521 wrote: You've fallen for that line have you? It's not bonuses for bank branch staff that are an issue.



David Cameron admits defeat over bankers' bonuses - Telegraph


Not fallen for WHAT line?

I WAS one of those plebs that lost my bonus

The majority of the money paid out by the banks in bonuses goes to the workers, not to the senior management or the traders.

Bryn Mawr;1377535 wrote: Not fallen for WHAT line?

I WAS one of those plebs that lost my bonus

The majority of the money paid out by the banks in bonuses goes to the workers, not to the senior management or the traders.


Sorry to hear that. I have what used to be intelligent finance in the industrial estate behind me just along from one of the RBS sites, when i go in to Edinburgh I drive past the fancy new bank of scotland head office which is not far from the RBS one. Financial services is a major industry round here. I know quite a few people who not only lost their bonuses they lost their jobs. lloyds TSB ran true to from and sacked most of the senior and middle management in the organisations they took over keeping their own in places where there were competing branch networks. There are a considerable number of unemployed former mortgage advisers and wealth management advisers desperately trying to set out as IFA's on their own or joining firms in what cynics call a suck and sack process, once all their contacts have been sucked dry they get booted out unless they can write business at a high level. The wealth management ones have a better chance if they managed to develop a good relationship with their clients. They have been good at their jobs and done nothing wrong but are paying the price. You may be one of the plebs and true to form you have just been shafted by the patricians. If you know your roman history you will know The patricians became rich and powerful by taking the land off all the plebs and replacing them with slave labour bringing down costs and forcing ordinary plebs in to the army or the cities where bread and circuses kept them quiet. He who controls the wealth does so because they can get away with it.

You lost your bonus but the ones at the top did not neither nor have they been censured in any way for getting things so wrong. Neither did the investment fund managers whose only claim to talent is shuffling other people's money around in what is arguably an obscene parasitical dance - it should be symbiotic but often it isn't.

So, did anyone here strike?

flopstock;1377694 wrote: So, did anyone here strike?


No, I didn't. There was a small picket line outside of four nursing staff who had finished their night shift, or were not working. The main industrial action took place about 10 miles away.

gmc;1377679 wrote: Sorry to hear that. I have what used to be intelligent finance in the industrial estate behind me just along from one of the RBS sites, when i go in to Edinburgh I drive past the fancy new bank of scotland head office which is not far from the RBS one. Financial services is a major industry round here. I know quite a few people who not only lost their bonuses they lost their jobs. lloyds TSB ran true to from and sacked most of the senior and middle management in the organisations they took over keeping their own in places where there were competing branch networks. There are a considerable number of unemployed former mortgage advisers and wealth management advisers desperately trying to set out as IFA's on their own or joining firms in what cynics call a suck and sack process, once all their contacts have been sucked dry they get booted out unless they can write business at a high level. The wealth management ones have a better chance if they managed to develop a good relationship with their clients. They have been good at their jobs and done nothing wrong but are paying the price. You may be one of the plebs and true to form you have just been shafted by the patricians. If you know your roman history you will know The patricians became rich and powerful by taking the land off all the plebs and replacing them with slave labour bringing down costs and forcing ordinary plebs in to the army or the cities where bread and circuses kept them quiet. He who controls the wealth does so because they can get away with it.

You lost your bonus but the ones at the top did not neither nor have they been censured in any way for getting things so wrong. Neither did the investment fund managers whose only claim to talent is shuffling other people's money around in what is arguably an obscene parasitical dance - it should be symbiotic but often it isn't.


You mistake my point, I was not bemoaning the loss of my bonus, that went but I kept my job (which I still have but, thankfully, no longer with them), but that I was inside and saw what was happening.

I would suggest that it is not I that swallowed a line but you that have been misled by the hysteria of tabloids like the Sun. You admit with one breath that you fall into the same trap as everyone else but with the next breath you call me for pointing to that very trap.

spot;1376936 wrote: If the currently accumulated pension were being tinkered with I'd be more in sympathy


To me, (an American) the retirement pension is a promise and a contract. If you want to modify it for future generations and incoming employees, fine. they can take or leave it as they will.

But you can't break your promise to me... when I've kept mine to you all these years.

I'd strike like a wildcat.