Day off for Royal Wedding / strike, what's the difference to economy?

33 replies

BridgetJonesPants · 29/11/2011 17:03

When the ruling classes decided we can have a day off for a royal wedding it didn't damage the economy, but when the workers decide to strike it costs millions!

HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS!

OP posts:

tethersend · 29/11/2011 17:23

"yes but one is patriotic the other is just unreasonable greedy people wanting unreasonable things in a time of crisis"

Can you clarify which is which please, sfxmum?

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:21

Where do you get your figure of 50%, MoreBeta?

MoreBeta · 29/11/2011 17:17

Assuming people work a 225 day year (ie after holidays and sickness) and that only 50% of workers will not be working as a result of being on strike or being forced to take the day off then the impact of the strike will be to reduce annual GDP by about 0.2%.

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:15

And childcare providers will be positively raking it in. Not to mention all the folk providing free childcare as par tof the Big Society. Cameron should be all for it.

Perhaps it's the way forward.

Iggly · 29/11/2011 17:15

Ah but it did apparently - Osborne used it as an excuse. He'll use the jubilee again too next year. I'm willing to bet on it.

HarrietJones · 29/11/2011 17:13

And when there's s strike the public sector wage bill goes down and for the wedding/jubilee it was a paid bank holiday. So surely it saves money?

sfxmum · 29/11/2011 17:12

yes but one is patriotic the other is just unreasonable greedy people wanting unreasonable things in a time of crisis
oh dear!

midnightexpress · 29/11/2011 17:09

Indeed. Likewise the Queen's Jubilee next year, for which we will all be given another day off in order that we might wave our Union Jacks and tug our forelocks.

Vive la revolution!

Unflip

1 2