To be stressed out about pressure to strike

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

Without saying too much, my 'organisation' has announced strike action.

I really do not want to do it but feel awful at not. I wouldnt actually have to cross a picket line or anything (can simply work at home) but feel like I 'should' strike.

The strike is over our pensions. I understand the impact but feel that I can't worry about something now that will happen in probably 35 - 40 years time. I feel pretty lucky to even be able to afford to pay anything into a pension, let alone a company one. The returns are still better than other private pensions. However I understand why some are striking.

It is potentially two days strike. I cannot afford to lose that money. I am the main wage earner and just come off SMP. If I strike food will either be going on the credit card with no clear means of paying it off soon. There are more pressing issues such as redundancy, fuel costs, reductions in tax credits and so on looming. I feel like I need to worry about now rather than way in the future and do not have the 'luxury' that many well paid members of staff might have of not really noticing the loss of a days pay.

Would you strike? Have you gone on strike in the past? I am too 'young' (I wish ) to have really been in this situation before

Lord Young was right
SO was the one who resigned for daring to suggest that the middle class are discouraged from having children whereas people in council accommodation who receive all manner of tax credits/benefits are not.

@elinorbellowed and others saying you have to strike if your union calls a strike (for which you were balloted) - that is complete toss

How many studies that show that all strikes generally achieve is a financial loss for those that went on one are needed before people get into their skulls that union reps need to cause disharmony and resort to strike not discussion in order to justify their existence?

Keep your union subs and put the money to better use

Wow all those people paying higher rate tax (ie earning over £36k a year from April) must be evil

Their only motivation in life must be to sneer at people earning less

Unsurprisingly the type of person that thinks that way about all top rate taxpayers normally earns less than £36k is generally because they are either bitter and/or inept and/or uneducated and should get a life

gdmts what on earth are you talking about? You can be highly educated, competent and pretty sanguine about life but (like the majority of people) earn less than 36K and still believe that it's a good thing for society to have a higher top rate of tax!
You can personally be a higher rate tax payer and be very happy that your taxes support vital public services. (I am)
What have you added to the argument except causing offence?
My husband is a shop steward in his workplace and about the most harmonious and laid back person you could possily find- he just wants what is best for his colleagues, and to keep good relations between his colleagues and the managers. The one thing that has ever made him angry is when he represented a woman whose son was very badly ill (serious, potentially fatal and long-term) at a meeting where she was being given a formal warning for taking too much time off to look after him. He thought that it was outrageous, I agree. She was very grateful to have his representation. That's the kind of thing union reps do.

(Isn't it £36k plus single person allowanec of over £7k ie from April ie 43k?)

There is a world of difference between thinking tax should redistribute wealth (to a point) in society - which is entirely reasonable - and the viewpoint of some posters who imply if you are a top rate payer then you are effectively snobby scum.

That is who i was referring to above

The £43k or whatever it is including personal allowance 42% tax/NI rate is not really though snobby very rich people. It might be riches beyond dreams for some but it isn't a massive sum.