Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

strike...not in a union

79 replies

MelodyPond · 24/11/2011 20:12

Aibu to strike if I'm not in a union?
I want to, I don't see why I should have to be in a union to make a stand?

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:39

Is the strike about cuts then? Hmm I thought it was about pension rights....

Gay40 · 27/11/2011 19:40

It is, but we have an ongoing campaign against cuts. Pensions are just part of it all.

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:43

I know there is an ongoing campaign about cuts. I play a part in that too. Next week's strike is about pension rights. I won't put my right to a pension above my patient's right to access their lifesaving treatment. I think we need to be very clear what the strike is about and not use political rhetoric to mislead people.

Gay40 · 27/11/2011 19:47

Best thing is to stop reading the Daily Mail or listening to anything David Cameron says, then.

Gay40 · 27/11/2011 19:50

You seem to be missing the point that unless we all start taking action, you will be forced to choose between patients to treat. Or telling them unless they have insurance, they won't be treated at all. Or not have a job in which you make any choices about patients' treatment. And no pension.

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:50

Well quite - and stop saying that Wednesday's strike will prevent the loss of public services too. It won't and it isn't about that. I agree it arises from the same malaise but nobody on a picket line on Wednesday is there to defend the NHS.

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:52

X posted. 'well quite' refers to the David Cameron/Daily Mail point.

The rest of my post will do perfectly well as a riposte to your post.

SugarPasteChristmasCake · 27/11/2011 19:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:56

I absolutely agree. I can't bear the way an industrial dispute about one specific issue is used to represent so wide an agenda. That's not the way to win an argument.

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 27/11/2011 20:03

Good heavens Gay40. Your attitude on this thread is enough reason to want to see the unions broken.

I am in support of people's right to strike to protect their pensions, but it shouldn't be a general bandwagon to oppose government policy. That is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 20:16

It's funny how when the Labour government took the first big axe to teachers' pensions, there was little talk of striking. Now its the Tories doing it, merry hell breaks loose. I see it as a cynical attempt by the far left to bring down the government personally.
You pay to be in a union. It's not free - it's a service. People shouldn't feel bullied into striking when they voted against it, especially when they feel as strongly about NOT striking as some unionists feeel about striking. A union has an obligation not to hold it against members who disregard mass union action and it SHOULD still represent them because they are being PAID TO DO THAT. Any union who doesn't want to "represent scabs" shouldn't bloody well take their money then.

tiredfeet · 27/11/2011 20:28

Thank you sugarpaste for putting it so eloquently, I entirely agree.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 27/11/2011 20:39

Can we please refrain from emotive terms such as, 'scab?' It really isn't helpful for people who genuinely don't know what their rights are.

thru I disagree. It's about collective action rather than individual. You don't get to pick and choose which actions you agree with and which ones you don't as that's individual. Fine, if that's what you want, but if the majority of a union has decided to strike, well you strike as that's the democratic process. I didn't vote for this government, yet I have to go along with it...

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 20:59

IlovemydogandMrObama - Yes sorry, I put "scab" in speechmarks as another poster used it, so was indirectly responding to her. The majority of NASWT didn't decide to strike. 40% voted and of that number 80% voted to strike.
Re: the government, that's different. a) You don't pay subs to "join" the government as you do a union. b) Many people who are striking on Wednesday are not "going along with the government" either, as is their democratic right. You shouldn't be bullied into a decision either way. There are many services unions offer that you may wish to avail yourself of without striking. You should be able to still do this because you are paying them. They're not helping you out of the kindness of their hearts. They help you on these other occasions because they are being PAID to do so.

Gay40 · 27/11/2011 21:06

I don't understand why you are having such a problem understanding this.
Wednesday's strike is about objecting to the Government refusing to honour the contract they signed on pensions. And they are doing this alongside and as part of a massive cutting exercise to reduce spending.
So, I'll put this very simply for those of you that can't see it.
They want to pay us less when we retire because they want to save money. Other ways they want to save money is by cutting the amount of doctors, nurses, council workers, and benefits paid to ill and disabled people.
This will affect you all. Pretend it won't all you like, but it will. Unless you too are a millionaire, like our Cabinet.

BeerTricksPotter · 27/11/2011 21:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 21:26

But Gay40 - many of us DO understand all this and are NOT millionaires either, but we don't agree that striking is the way forward.

It's going to cost the flailing economy over a billion pounds, not to mention the immense personal cost to workers who are losing pay near to Christmas.
Do you want us to end up like Greece? Italy? Take your pick of countries heading into economic oblivion right now, all with causes in the banking crisis but aided massively by over-inflated public sectors that their economies (unfortunately!) can't possibly sustain. It's not about us as individuals losing some of our pension rights, it's about the whole nation. I just think it's short-sighted when the deal on the table is better than many in the private sector have.

Don't assume that because we don't agree with the proposed action, we're stupid or we don't understand. We just don't agree - that's different entirely to not understanding.

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 21:27

And I say that as someone living on one boggo standard teacher's salary that supports 4 people. NOT as a Tory millionaire.

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 21:33

And they are doing this alongside and as part of a massive cutting exercise to reduce spending.

And why might they be cost cutting do you think? Absolutely nothing to do with gross financial mismanagement of OUR money over the previous how many years? Hmm

AnyFucker · 27/11/2011 21:48

There will be no picket lines at my place of employment

You see, this is a protest against the govt, not our employer (the NHS, in my case)

Talk of picket lines is overly-dramatic, as far as I am concerned

MsPav · 27/11/2011 21:51

Just a reminder. Whatever your issues/complaints about unions. They negotiated the pension deal that you now don't want to lose.

In the US, there is a slogan, "Enjoy this weekend, the unions got it for you!"

I know you may work at weekend, but applies to all time off!

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 23:07

Was all that achieved through striking though? Hmm

Thruaglassdarkly · 27/11/2011 23:09

"You see, this is a protest against the govt, not our employer..."

Exactly! Which is another reason why I disagree with the strike.

AnyFucker · 27/11/2011 23:16

that is your prerogative, thru

but I do object to the sensationalist "picket line" rhetoric

Gay40 · 28/11/2011 01:09

The Government IS my employer.