To wonder theoretically if...

[Cain]

all the unemployed private sector workers with relevant skills swapped places with the dissatisfied public sector workers, could it avert the economic crisis the strikes will cause... ?

AIBU?

lol,you're indignant and humphy about misquote.what a princess.offended and oh my very gosh that you may have been misrepresented but all gun-ho and i can do that about public sector

why should you train you ask?still sounding widdle widdle bit frustrated,if public all such money for ole,rope why dont you do it.given your PhD in telt ye so

Hi SM how are things? I take it you will be protesting somewhere next wednesday?

I am torn still on the pensions debate but the fact that there seem to be no protests/demos organised (at least that I can find online) indicate that it may just be an excuse for a lie in?

Am I wrong?

There will be picketing outside my hospital first thing on the 30th. So no, going without a day's pay less than a month before Christmas is emphatically not an excuse for a lie-in! Who on earth can afford to do that? In response to your OP, as far as my own role goes, (a healthcare scientist) YABU, there is no chance of swapping me for the 30th. The three posts that were most recently vacant in our dept. all took over a year to be filled; one took well over two years. We had private people in temping while we waited. We asked all of them to apply. They said no, they were earning twice as much. Trust me, if there's anyone unemployed with the skills to do my job it's because they choose to be or have a criminal record. Also, do you realise how expensive it is to hire someone? According to the CIPD the average is £4000 without including other associated costs, just over £6000 if you do. This doesn't include redundancy costs or legal fees challenging those you're illegally dismissing. I'm guessing to replace everyone on strike is not going to make your proposition uneconomic, even if you kicked all the strikers out on the 29th with no redundancy money. You know what, though, I don't like my t&cs being changed every couple of years. I don't like that my pay has been indefinitely frozen for years now and I'll have less to take home next year because I'm paying more into a pension pot that gets steadily chipped away at every couple of years and I'll probably never see. I don't see why when bankers' (in nationalised banks) bonuses got paid by the taxpayer because they 'couldn't change their contracts' but it's OK to change mine again and again. Why shouldn't I be dissatisfied? Why shouldn't everyone irrespective of their sector be dissatisfied at having pensions cut when recent figures show that the richest at the top of the pile are getting richer despite the economic downturn and taking a bigger share of everything year on year? The question is, though, why should it only be the top 0.1% that have everything and get their top tax rate CUT in the middle of this and everyone else take the hit for them? Instead of fighting each other can't we all fight for a decent legal minimum pension for everyone instead?

I think that if you sign a contract you should be able to expect that contrac to be honoured.

Doesn't matter what the contract says, if both parties sign it then that is it, it can only be varied with the permission of both sides.

I don't sign contracts I can't or won't honour and I expect the same from other people.