Strike!

[Grand Moff Muffin]

So, Karl's oil refinery is shutting down this week due to strike action, and today some teachers (and other public sector workers, if anyone notices) are out on strike.

I'm not in a union myself (I'd rather give my spare money to charities concerned with trees, whales and people without clean drinking water than a charity concerned with well-off people like me), and I don't really have that adversarial/confrontational union mentality in any case. But I do think teachers and some other professions are under-paid (compared with people like me).

Do you think striking is the correct way to go for people who feel their pay is unfair (in today's society)? Is there a better way of making things fairer?

Martin

[Shockprowl]

Tricky question. I'm in a union, pretty much gotta be in the NHS due to massive gulf between managers and roadstaff. I'd rather not be in a union truth be known. I'd like to say I'd never strike. I think it's wrong for emergency services (not that I'm saying Emerg Servs are more important than any other job). But some times when you've hit a brick wall with management it's difficult to see an alternative. Managers prob feel similar way. They've got their own stuff to consider and they're not able/ unwilling to meet the demands of their staff. So yeah, tricky. I'm not in favour of strikes personally, but due to my own experience of the huge differences between staff and managers I can see how it can come down to it.

[Andy Turnbull]

To be honest I think that strikes in general are not the way to go. I can see in some situations where they might be valid but I imagine most of the time they are relatively unjustified. The fire services and the postal services strikes in recent years being highly indicative of unnecessary strikes motivated by the self-interest of union officials.

Andy

[andrewbcalculating]

I think strikes are an extreme indicator that show to employers that workers aren't happy. I do feel that it doesn't benefit the public that a service is unavailable through strikes but I understand that workers need to be able to take an action that will stop their concerns going unnoticed. Until there is a hard hitting procedure that both shows the unhappiness of workers but doesn't impact on the public, strikes are the only action that can get things down.

|<o>|

[The Doctor]

In my last workplace, we had to threaten a strike and get right down to the wire just to get our employer to pay the rather small annual pay increment we had been promised over half a year earlier. It's often the only tool bottom-of-the-run workers have to get They Who Rule to pay attention. I have no problem with striking whatsoever.

-Ralph

[Rich]

In general, I've never been that keen on strikes and it was for this reason that I became a member of the NASUWT rather than the NUT when I qualified to teach. However, I fully support today's strike even though I'm currently doing supply teaching and the closure of the school I'm working in means that I lose a day's pay even though I'm not actually part of the strike.

Unsurprisingly, the strike has been a prominent point of discussion in the staffroom and I have found myself persuaded by the arguments of a number of my colleagues who voted to strike. In many ways, the strike today is about reminding the government that teachers provide a valuable service, and that they simply can't be walked all over because they care about the job they do (as, of course, do many public service workers - I really feel sorry for the police who have, by all accounts, been given a derisory pay offer, but can't take the action many teachers are taking today). Every now and then, and remember this is the first national strike for twenty years, it is important to remind your employers of your value when it seems you are being taken for granted.

My workload has gone up every year since I qualified, in part this has been due to taking up extra responsibilities for which I was compensated (although the hourly rate for my extra duties was a fraction of what I could have earned by working privately as a tutor. For example, two years ago I was running Breakfast Club which meant that I started work 45 mins before I was contracted to do so, for this I was paid £6 an hour whereas a guideline rate for tuition is £25 an hour), but it is also because more and more is expected of teachers; next academic year sees a substantial change to the A Level syllabus, which, even leaving aside the extra planning and preparation demands this puts on teachers, includes a new English Lit course which has increased the amount of coursework to 40%. This reduces the amount of examiners the exam boards have to pay and increases the amount of marking the teachers have to do. In no way, either in terms of time or financial incentive are teachers to be compensated for this.

All I'm saying is that sometimes people need to stand up for themselves and make their grievances heard. I support today's strike but would need persuading on a case-by-case basis for further action.

A couple of final points: £33,000 is the widely quoted average salary for teacher, well I don't earn nearly that much (and £33,000 isn't an amazing salary by London standards – I always find the argument that many people earn less an incredibly perverse justification for paying everybody badly). And secondly, people have been saying on the radio, 'well, if you don't like it, leave', well a lot of people do: a friend of mine just handed in her notice after 2 years in teaching, this annual shedding of teachers with between 1 and 5 years experience is why we have a lot of inexperienced people filling a lot of important jobs in schools. If the rest of us did the same (and the nurses and police and all the rest), the country would be in an even bigger mess than it already is.

Oh, and as a teacher you really need to be in a union because of the danger of unfounded litigation, which is, apparently, quite common.

[legios]

I have to say that I am not opposed to strikes on general principles. It seems to me (on a very facile analysis) that if we wish to have a capitalist system - which we apparently do - then the right of the individual to withold his labour is a logical part of that system, and a baseline bargaining position.

Strikes are often personally annoying when they disrupt my life, but I would support the right of employees to strike in general (in most cases - there are some places where I don't feel it would be appropriate. For example the armed services and the police, who do not have and it would appear do not want the right to strike anyway.)

That said, I'm not actually a member of a union myself. Mostly because in both the cases that anyone I knew needed a union the response out of them was along the lines of "The management have decided X so there isn't anything we can do for you" - the unions in question appeared to have wholeheartedly identified their best interests with the employer rather than their members. Kind of put me off organised labour. That and the "organised" part - I'm not a joiner by nature.....

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I'm guessing the Grangemouth refinery managers will have to concede to the strikers' demands, since the closure of the North Sea pipeline may apparently cost the UK £50 million a day. Cheaper to just give them what they want.

But then, rather unfair if those workers can hold the country to ransom by striking and get what they want, while teachers and other workers going on strike can be more easily ignored.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Especially given as they are striking for something that won't affect them but for future workers at the plant. It's pretty bad considering it's an amendment to the pension plan which is pretty damned healthy as it stands and those already employed have already been told they will stay as is.

That makes me more than a little peeved at them.

Andy

[kayevcee]

I dunno. If I was due to start work there (and with my degree it's entirely possible) I'd be extremely grateful to them for taking such a risk on behalf of me and everyone who joins up after me. I freely admit to knowing nothing about the specifics of what the management were doing, but I'm always wary of the upper echelons dicking around with the pensions of the bottom rung.

-Nick

-Nick

[Andy Turnbull]

Hardly dicking around with it. Just ensuring that in future the employees actually contribute to their own pension scheme (amongst some other changes) which they don't do at the moment.

Andy

[Philip Ayres]

Not that at all according to the BBC news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7359870.stm

They wish to close the Final Salary Scheme to new employees. You can quite easily make employees pay into a final salary scheme. They don't say what they want to replace it with but I'd take a punt it's something Defined Contribution rather than Defined Benefit (Final Salary) A DC scheme involves a fixed % being paid into a fund with no guarentee of what will be paid out at the end. So if the stock market has a wobble at around the time you're going to retire your pension gets wiped out. Not good.

DC schemes are favoured by employers as they know they only have to pay this fixed percentage into them, they require little to no maintainance (no expensive actuarial valuation), and don't require the employers to support them if there isn't enough money in them to pay the benefits because the benefit is based on the money in them. The holder of a DC pension has no way of being able to plan for their retirement because until the day they retire they have no idea how much they'll actually get !

DC is the work of the devil. I imagine most of you - except maybe those in the Public Sector - have a pension scheme that works in this way. Most DB schemes shut their doors some while ago.

[Deleted]

We can't afford to strike at our factory mainly because the gaffers will be more than happy to show us the door and replace us with more Polish workers if we do. At the moment they are trying to alienate as many English workers as they can so that they walk out of their jobs rather than being sacked and if we strike I think we can wave goodbye to the job. That's why most of us have joined a union so that we have some sort of backing if such a thing occurs.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Sorry to hear that, Paul. There are few more essential professions to our (or any) country than its teachers.

Martin

[dyrl]

Here's my opinion - and reading you lot I fear I will be the unorthodox one again - so don't kill me, just disagree with me at worse:

1. All people have a right to organized, non-violent protest or public proclamation of grievences and the like - this is the fundamental right of freedom of speech. You can say what you want, and if you get a few hundred folks organized in a union to all say the same thing - more power to you!

2. All people have a right to dispose of their property as they see fit; if that property happens to be a factory, large company, school etc - then the owner has a right to fire every last striking worker and replace them with those who agree to work at a mutually agreed upon price.

3. The real problem in so much of the various sectors of the economy is not the workers who just want better wages nor the managers who want the same for themselves - it is the system: public ownership rather than private ownership.

This idea that socially important vocations such as teaching or healthcare need to be government provided services is what is leading to situations where good teachers and doctors feel like they're being exploited and have no recourse but to strike, while "customers" - patients, students etc then feel like they're being denied a service that they pay for in taxes.

The reason this comes about is because when an industry is funded by the taxation of the public, then there is absolutely no inter-relation between the services offered and the services demanded and paid for. People can't just stop paying for bad government schools, bad over-crowded hospitals, etc - because these insitutions would get their money from the budget anyways.

And going on strike never has any adverse impact on the public employees because they don't loose a dime just because people stop using the service which is closed due to strikes - they get paid from the government budget anyways.

Essentially, rather than a voluntary exchange between consenting parties, you end up turning the entire economy - or at least vital parts of it like schools and hospitals into turf-wars between unions and political parties.

Much better, in my opinion, to allow for more competition or better still just privatize it all - then you'd have no such commotion.

The sad fact is that sometimes there is a turn down in a sector of the economy and people need to be laid off, businesses must collapse, resources need to be re-allocated somewhere else. Public ownership just hampers the market signals that tell us all how best to invest our resources.

Also they breed corruption. In Poland, it is normal to bribe doctors in order to get medical care. Of course - it's not a bribe - it's just paying the market wage which is made illegal by the government healthcare cartel. Without the bribes doctors would have no clue how to allocate their time and resources. Thanks to bribes - at least they have a clue about what people need and want.

In general - privatizing would go a long way to eliminate corruption and waste. But IF people don't want to privatize and insist on having public services - public schooling, post offices etc etc... then I would have to say that people ought to therefore behave in a public spirited manner.

This means: work - don't strike. Postal services and school services - if they are to be public services - must be rendered without fail. Taxpayers and normal private sector workers can't just up and strike when they feel like it - we can't go on "tax strike" when we don't like the government - we'd end up in jail.

So - if the post office workers strike: I say throw them in jail. If postal services must be public - then make them a public duty along with all the other services: and if folks strike, then treat them like you would treat soldiers who strike - it is treason.

It paralyzes the entire country; it is a signal to other folks who work hard and have problems of their own that the problems of one group are special and warrant striking while everyone else must work and be patient.

It is a truly anarchic and weak government that allows for mass strikes. Roll in tanks, tear gas folks, replace postal workers with soldiers - do whatever it takes - but end the status quo in which a band of folks organized into a union can just take a country hostage: it is violence against the public good and it should be responded to by the government as one would respond to any violent rebellion: switfly and sharply.

In the long run - best to make things more efficient and free by privatizing: barring that - fire people and break them up. It is just not right - in my opinion - for public service employees to go on strike - they are public servants : their duty is to serve the public - if they do not - they need to be fired and replaced by public spirited people.

If the conditions are so bad, economically, that no one really would want to work there - well - then perhaps we should just consider that a more efficient and reasonable way of organizing the economy is based on private property and freedom of association rather than Public monopolies, government cartels and collective wage agreements.

don't stone me

dyrl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

No stoning - the forum's called 'Have Your Say', after all! There is of course logic in a lot of what you say. However, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the following points:

1. Privatisation buggered up the railways. How would you avoid this being repeated?

2. Privatisation would only be ethical if it ensured that poor people got as good an education and health care as rich people - not just in terms of payment, but also geographical coverage. How would you arrange this?

I do agree with you that public sector workers don't deserve any better job security than private sector ones. I'm in the public sector, but if my services are no longer required or my work ceases to be satisfactory I should be as easy to fire as anyone else. And they should offer me a salary based on how good a person they want in post. If they don't offer me good enough terms and conditions (unlikely), I'll quit.

But the Government (and the tax-payer) should pay for the level of service the public needs, and some professions aren't paid enough, with workers staying on because they are conscientious and consider the work important - which is exploitation of their good nature.

Martin

[dyrl]

I shall try to answer your questions Martin:

Martin's question:
1. Privatisation buggered up the railways. How would you avoid this being repeated?

Pete's answer:

Forgive my ignorance, but as I do not live in the UK, and have only visited as a wee lad on three occassions - and only to London - I do not follow your country's local news beyond what I glance on CNN or the like; and I have not studied this question adequately enough to give an answer that I could feel comfortable with. If you'd like to expand on the subject, I'm all ears and very interested to hear.

In general, having myself seen many "buggered up" privatizations in Poland; I can give you a general answer:

1) the goal of privatization is NOT to "save" an industry; but to free resources for more efficient allocation. Ergo - it is WRONG to say that an industry/company/institution will be "better off" when privatized: it may well go bankrupt - it may well be that nothing could save it on the free market. Even so, the argument here is simple: if an industry/company/institution cannot survive on its' own in the market place, then it is actually a GOOD THING that it goes bankrupt and people get laid off.

Oh sure- in the short term it's balls! People loose their jobs, their incomes, and communities often loose important segments of their local economy.

But consider the alternative: The government maintains entities which normally would have gone out of business long ago; therefore people keep jobs that they would have lost years ago - and therefore they waste their lives never getting the chance to learn new skills, communities never get the chance to change, to grow, to progress beyond some certain stage they were at - unemployment and hardship stink - but they can also be positive things because they compel us to seek new jobs, new skills, new training - and if the market tells us that A is no longer in great demand, then we adjust and begin to learn skill B and seek out employment therein.

The alternative is that people stay trapped - and then suffer anyways when competition from a country like China or some such other place knocks them out anyways.

Secondly; often times the government uses privatization as an excuse to take a public owned enterprise and give it to some personal friends and then use the law to give the "newly private" entity protection and privalige.

This has nothing to do with free market economics - it is shameful use of government power to favor one group of friends and using "privatization" as a means to remove a company from the public scrutiny that all citizens have a right to over public property.

Finally - there is a new form of "privatization" which has little to do with the free market - namely the government takes a public company and "transforms it" into a legal corporation with stocks that is listed on the stock market and functions as a corporate entity and is no longer subject to public scrutiny.

In essence - what this is is the government playing a game of monopoly - pretending to be running a business but - unlike every normal business - the government "private" business has access to privilege and legal protection and, most importantly - subsidies and largess that come from political connections.

This is not privatization - it is simply turning the government of the people into a coercive tool of a ruling oligarchy.

I imagine that most likely some of the above noted problems happened with your railways - if not - I'm all ears and interested in hearing the story.

Martin's question:
2. Privatisation would only be ethical if it ensured that poor people got as good an education and health care as rich people - not just in terms of payment, but also geographical coverage. How would you arrange this?

Peter's answer:
a) private property and freedom of association as the basis of economic association always results in the poor getting better, cheaper goods and services; whether it is food or healthcare. Even the worse slum conditions of of the most dirty and poor areas of industrial england saw better healthcare and living conditions for the poor than the manors and estates of noble lords during the middle ages - because the poor during the industrial revolution at least had running water, more access to advanced medicine (relatively), and there was greater social mobility and opportunity.

Everywhere that private ownership and freedom of association has shown up; the poor have always had a better lot than those who are poor and living under economic conditions of public ownership.

This is because under public ownership there is no mechanism which allows you to determine the correct allocation of resources. Sure; people need houses, medicine, food, and what not - but how does a central planner in charge of publically owned industries determine how much of what goes where?

In the market, prices tell us how much of what goes where; and prices and freely determined by supply and demand - which are ever changing. These changes are sometimes a bit painful; but ultimately they are signals - telling all market participants what to do and for how much and whether it is worth it. Take your own example - you want to help spread awareness of an important cause - yet you admit you are a "bad salesperson" and that your "boss" can do no better than give you a stern lecture.

But the question is a serious one. You wish to help people - but are you supposed to starve yourself, quit your job and stop doing anything for yourself and sacrifice everything for your cause? That would be silly - mainly because Martin starving and penniless would not really be any good to that cause- people would likely not want to listen to you preaching - much better to have Martin fit and healthy and happy in his life; donating a segment of his efforts to this wonderful cause - the question of how much time to donate is easier to answer when clear signals present themselves: such signals are the price system. Under public ownership - the price system is skewed because the public entity ALWAYS has recourse to lobbying for a bigger chunk of the budget - therefore they don't care how many people bought what services or for any of this other stuff- it has no impact on their bottom line: if they want more money; they get it not by thinking up a better cheaper product - but by lobbying government, by striking, by neogiating with ministers and the like.

Therefore - I put to you that I would NOT arrange it; I would NOT arrange this ethical system where the poor recieve care - NO ONE can arrange it - no one human anyways - and any human being who pretends to be able to arrange it is - in my opinion - lying - or ignorant - but most likely arrogant.

The best I can promise is that if I see a dying or very ill person next to me, I won't pass by them; I will try to help, to contact help - but I certainly think that we kid ourselves if we think that there are people out there who can magically overcome the laws of nature and bring utopia to earth.

The best we can do is create a more efficient system that also expands the scope of freedom - and certainly freedom is ethical?

Finally - one size does not fit all. What is a "good education?"

I majored in Philosophy; even though it is "useless" (try getting a job at an investment bank by quoting Plato )... yet in my estimation education is primarily good for shaping character and teaching a person how to live a happy life - not for gaining a profession.

Is my view of education "right?" Can't other views also co-exist with mine? How much would my education cost? How much should it cost? Well - it can cost the money it takes to go to a good university... or it can also cost the money it takes to go to your local library and take 4 hours a day to read lots of books over a few years time.

Same with healthcare- have we become so wise and omnipotent that there is nothing new to discover in healthcare? That it is all a matter of fair distribution now, and not of tailoring the offer of the doctor to the needs of the patient?

Sure - my position seems to be the worse because whenever someone says "well that's not perfect" I say "gee, you're right." - but I contend that it is the more honest; and that it is the least likely to cause unintended problems and tragedies resulting from communal ownership.

Martin says:
I do agree with you that public sector workers don't deserve any better job security than private sector ones. I'm in the public sector, but if my services are no longer required or my work ceases to be satisfactory I should be as easy to fire as anyone else. And they should offer me a salary based on how good a person they want in post. If they don't offer me good enough terms and conditions (unlikely), I'll quit.

But the Government (and the tax-payer) should pay for the level of service the public needs, and some professions aren't paid enough, with workers staying on because they are conscientious and consider the work important - which is exploitation of their good nature.

Peter says:

Notice such words as "needs" and "enough." What is "enough?" who determines "need?" Is there some mathematical equation whereby we can calculate what "enough" is? what a "fair wage" is?

I say - no.

I say this because need is a subjective matter; peoples' wants and desires are varied and diverse and there is no one scale for determining such things. When association is free and voluntary - no transaction ever takes place unless the parties to the transaction consent: if they do not consent; clearly the terms do not meet their definition of "enough" and "need." If they do consent - then the terms; even if grudgingly and minimally - do meet these definitions.

In the public sector; relations are coerced; not voluntary. Taxes are levied by force (even if the force of democratic law - still a majority does not make something right), and distributed by force and "needs" are determined on the basis of who has political might and muscle.

I do not blame people who work in the public sector- I myself also contract out to public enterprises - it's not your fault or my fault - it's the system.

Blaming individuals would be like saying that ever German who lived under Hitler was evil - that is not true: as individuals we can never fully fight the system we live in - we must often work within it to survive; and often we get caught in it and corrupted by it....

But this does not change the fact that the system is bad and it should be said - I think at least - and certainly we should not turn class against class - public worker against private, management against labor - all of these divisions only serve to distract us; to pit us against each other so the higher ups can manipulate us for their benefit...

I think that we should rather be uniting people round the idea of freedom; also - if some people do insist on public ownership - make it more local. A public enterprise that is run by a faceless state in the name of millions is not really under any kind of democratic control.

A public school run by a local town of a few hundred folks who know eachother well and have a common interest in their children has a better chance of succeeding and being responsive.

I'm not trying therefore to be ideological: I just think that the state is the problem here - that there is nothing really public about government; and that there is no community where coercion and force bind people together rather than common law, compassion and consent.

pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Blimey! I'll feel guilty for not posting as detailed a reply as you, Pete, but please be assured I have read it.

I'd forgotten where you lived - apologies for that - and your views make a lot more sense now. Soviet Communism didn't work for the people of eastern Europe, that much is clear. However, from what I hear the poorest have got poorer in Russia at least (my father knows a lot of people there - perhaps it's not the case in Poland), since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that will generally happen in a country where you have free enterprise but no state taking care of those who don't succeed / ensuring basic services for everyone, regardless of what they can afford to pay.

Railways in the UK - basically, they were cheaper and more reliable when run by the state. Since being broken up and privatised a few decades ago, they have got less and less reliable, and tickets more and more expensive. Nearly everyone in the UK considers railway privatisation to have been a big mistake.

I'm a strong believer in a strong public sector, because I work in the field of the environment, and in Europe environmental improvements are generally driven by EU legislation, regulation and lobbying by environmental campaign groups, which forces businesses to become more environmentally friendly. Believe me, it wouldn't happen (nowhere near as quickly, anyway), if left entirely in the hands of the private sector. The public sector regulates private sector activities to ensure they minimise negative impacts to human health and the environment - even if it costs them money to comply.

Also, I personally couldn't motivate myself to do a job where the aim was "make money for this private company - your wages come from the owner/shareholders". I get out of bed in the morning because my job is "give good advice to benefit the country - your money comes from the tax-payer".

Like many people in the office where I work, I could earn more money if I left and worked for a private consultancy, but I (and my colleagues) prefer working for the public good than to make profit for a private company. We're sad whenever good colleagues leave to go and work in the private sector (for legitimate financial reasons - they have families to support), because we know the country has lost a good person working on its behalf.

Martin

PS Also, I should clarify: in this post I'm talking about my paid day job (Monday to Friday). In the 'Salesmanship' thread I was talking about charity work I do for nothing at the weekend. I turn up and help to show people birds - the charity would like me to also help them get people to sign up as members to donate money, which is also a worthy cause, but a less fun job.

[dyrl]

Well, as many problems as Russia has nowadays, I personally think that the country is far better off than it was under the USSR for simple reasons such as:

a) people can now travel freely from one city to another without having to get permission from the government to do so.

b) people can now voice their opinions in public without more fear of repression then is standard in the West

For me - that is enough of a reason to say that things are better now in Russia then they were previously.

As for Putin - I quite like him; although I do find him to be vile and shady in a number of matters; he is at least honestly so. Also, I adore how he refuses to be lectured by western leaders about democracy. How he points out banal things like the fact that many European countries retain monarchies and the like - so he feels they have no right to lecture democratic Russia.

Most Polish people don't like him; but that's because most Poles just don't like Russia for historical reasons... but I actually appreciate Putin and am very curious what Medelev will bring.

As to the environment - my only experience of this issue is "first hand" - that is going by what my eyes see.

My girlfriend lives in a private apartment complex - the grass is always taken care of, the trees are nice, there are nice flowers, there is no trash, there are security guards, cleaning people and the like.

I rented apartments in public housing - and things were always a wretched mess. No one took care of anything - probably because no one owned anything.

The same can be said fo farms - my folks have a private farm and they are always out and about taking care of the grass and planting trees - why - I imagine my family has planted a good couple hundred new trees in the past 10 years! All of this because my mom really likes trees and flowers and the like.

But if you look at the farms that "belong" to people who were just given the land under communism - well - these folks live in dilapidated conditions, and they mainly spend their unemployment benefits on vodka. Their children dream of running away to the big city and the local community rots from within... it's actually quite sad... anyways - the point is that where you have private ownership - people take care of things, make sure they are clean and plant flowers and trees because they want to live in a nice place... where there is public ownership there's a mess.

The biggest polluters in Poland are state run enterprises - coal mines and factories that the state built which destroyed the air; also leaded gas was in use up until the mid 1990s because under communism the only cars that were allowed were ones with leaded gas.

So I'd say that Poland has become much cleaner since communism ended and that now people are more environmentally conscious than they were - also because of private ownership, there has been more care of land and now that people are free to buy whatever cars they chose; they can buy more efficient and environmentally friendly ones rather than the state monopoly guzzler (you should have seen what came out of those cars - literally a thick thick plume of puke green smoke - you couldn't see through it - not at all - just spat out this mucas like thick substance...)

As to public sector work... well - I am dissillusioned. I worked in the public sector once and also thought as you and your colleagues do - but I left not because of money, but rather because the people I worked with were in the public sector for money.

This is one area where indeed the West is superior to the East - you see, in America (and apparently England) public sector wages are indeed low and you really do need to have an ethos of service in your heart to take the job - in Poland however, public sector wages are on average higher than private sector wages - and the public sector has little to do with public service and very much to do with nepotism, cronyism and corruption. There is little room for idealists in such a place.

I still do some public sector work; but as noted earlier, I just contract out for it - that is my company does work for public sector entities sometimes. The days when I had ambitions to fully dedicate myself to public service are long gone because the very notion is a joke here in Poland.

As right wing and pro-capitalist as I am, believe me Martin - I would give anything to work in the public sector with people who believe as you do - even if we disagree on policy, I think it's important to have your priorities straight in terms of being public spirited and wanting to find solutions for the good of the country. Sadly, my experience in the public sector in Poland is that people there are the most horribly corrupt, immoral, greedy and sinister that you would find anywhere.

pete

[legios]

Jun 9, 2008 17:56:01 GMT dyrl said:

I shall try to answer your questions Martin:
- I do not follow your country's local news beyond what I glance on CNN or the like;
[\quote]

If the best news that you can obtain is CNN then you have my sympathies.

I'm not entirely convinced that the market is necessarily the best way to provide for what people need. Look at the American Healthcare system for example. There are swathes of the population that have, for all practical purposes, no healthcare at all because they cannot pay the going rate for health insurance. The market is functioning very well from the point of view of those who profit from the health industry - they are making considerable profits and have plenty of clients. But it isn't really working so well for those living on or below the poverty line.

Entities in a free market environment do not inevitably act in a way that improves the lot of the general public. They act in a way that maximises the profit that they make. This may have the effect of improving the lot of the people, but if so it is an accidental by-product rather than an innate aspect of the market.

Karl
(I'd also say that breaking up strikes by use of tanks is massively disproportionate and breaking the unwritten covenants of a democratic state. Armed forces exist for the protection of the lives of the citizens, not for the purposes of forcing those citizens to comply with the mandates of corporate entities.)

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Ah well. Sounds like it might be for the best for public sector workers to be underpaid then relative to what the same people could get in the private sector. It means you don't get all the best people working for the public good, but at least you get ones who believe in the job - which you might not if the highest wages were in the public sector. But it's rather unfair on those people. (I don't mean me - I'm paid well - I'd just be paid even better if I went for a comparable job in the private sector. I'm lucky to have as much money as I need plus job satisfaction, and wouldn't trade the latter for more of the former.)

And I agree that the collapse of the Communism was a good thing on balance. I don't consider myself a socialist - I believe in private ownership of property, etc., etc. But it has led to more greed, crime and inequality in some countries, at least in the short-to-medium term.

Oh, and by the way, the oil refinery strike discussed earlier in this thread (and which disrupted the country much more than the public sector strikes) was a private sector dispute.

Martin

[Stomski]

I haven't read this entire thread, but here's my right wing view on the matter...

If you're unhappy in your job, leave. There are other jobs out there. Can't find a job that pays you what you think you're worth? Maybe there's a reason for that.

[The Doctor]

Speaking from personal experience, it's unrealistic to put it as simply as that. When stuck in an unhappy job, a 'goldfish bowl' effect can take place. It can come to dominate a life. When stuck in shit, it can be bloody hard to imagine how to get out and where to go. Bills, etc still need to be paid.

And I've been stuck in lower paying jobs than I think I'm worth, taking into account my qualifications and experience. Not because I haven't tried for better. Sometimes life just happens.

-Ralph

[dyrl]

I guess my opinion is heavily influenced by events in Poland.

Public workers routinely go on strike every year, roughly three times a year.

It's always the same story.

Prior to the strike, the government proposes substantial pay raises.

The Unions want still more.

There is a strike.

The government promises more.

Three months later the unions want another pay raise.

It's ridiculous; and I think that tanks are the appropriate answer.

The army exists to protect the public good.

Unions acting like gangs and paralyzing the country and holding it for ransom (as striking Customs agents and postal workers routinely do in Poland - they go on strike and deliver nothing and lots of businesses bleed money) - deserve to be treated like gangs.

I respect the right of people to organize for better working conditions and wages.

But patients and customers also have rights.

When doctors in Poland go on strike - they use poor and sick people as barganing chips. "Give us more money or these bastards will die."

I would fully support using the army to go into a hospital and arrest doctors who put human lives at risk for money.

Generally, this problem can be solved by privatizing things or at least de-monopolizing them.

I won't argue that there should be no public hospitals and the like - fine - ok - let there be - I understand that there have to be safety nets...

But why do the safety nets have to be monopolies with guaranteed pay and guaranteed perks run by organized gangs calling themselves unions and bargaining for better wages with human lives?

I guess it all depends on perspective. Most often the people going on strike are the ones with the most cushy jobs - they are not the working poor. They are folks who have government contracts that are almost impossible to fire, who get paid no matter what, and who are for all intents and purposes an oligarchical class masquerading as workers.

ergo my "tanks" comment.

When old and sick people die because doctors and nurses refuse to treat them because they think that their above national average pay needs to be ever higher - even though they just got a third raise a month ago (third in a year) and have raises guranteed by law that go into effect on a multi-month basis - that's not right.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Quite different in the UK.

For example, dentists used to all be public sector, and dental treatment was either free or cheap to all patients. But public sector dentists aren't paid so much, so many of them quit and become private dentists. They often charge at least three or four times as much as public sector dentists.

Some people in the UK are lucky and have a public sector dentist near where they live, and they can get free or cheap treatment. Many people don't have one (because they've gone private in order to give themselves pay increases), and have to pay high costs.

Many people who used to have regular dental check-ups when dentists were mostly public sector can't afford to any more, and so don't find out about problems until it is too late.

And then we have energy suppliers and phone companies, all now privatised, and the public are utterly confused about which supplier to sign up with, because it is very hard to compare the prices, and different companies keep putting prices up and down, so even if you manage to compare and switch to a better deal, it may be a worse deal next month.

It's such a tangle that public sector organisations (regulators) have to be set up to make sure the private companies aren't ripping the public off. And that costs tax-payers money.

The source of news most respected and trusted by people in the UK is the news organisation which is linked to the public sector. It is also the one that holds UK politicians to the greatest scrutiny.

Martin

[dyrl]

Heh - well - in Poland it's like the mirror opposite

In fact - the entire dental industry is private because under communism - there really weren't any denitsts. People's teeth just rotted and that's that. Ever since communism fell, there has been a boom in dental hygene and there are dentists all over the place - sometimes there all large dental clinics, but often times you can find a private "small business" type dental office where there is just maybe one or two chairs - often just one dentist running everything, maybe eventually with an assistent.

As for the telelphones - if you want to really save money in Poland; you just use "go phones" - mobile phones where you don't even pay a monthly fee - you just buy a card and charge up when you like for how ever much you like.

But even the regular "billed" mobile phones are relatively cheap. A good mobile phone, if you sign up for their services - costs you only 1 symbolic Polish monetary unit - so you get a phone that normally would cost a couple hundred Pounds for a few pence

The monthly bills aren't that high.

Although if not for the 22% VAT they'd be much lower anyways.

There's ample competition - and indeed things are so great that we too have the same "problem" - namely that your great deal turns out to be expensive a month later when some other great deals turn up.

But this is a good thing - things are so good that prices are flying down faster than you can notice - that's great.

I don't see the need for regulators to make sure the public aren' being ripped off. If someone is charging "too much" then that "too much" attracts competition.

Profit is a signal to market participants that a certain sector of the economy is worth investing in. The higher and more "obsene" the profits - the more people will want to enter the market and capture a share of the profit. Price competition is one of the ways they do this - and of course it brings profit down as supply increases.

So the "problem" resolves itself. If regulators clamped down on "high profits" then that would just result in less innovation, less competition - and in the long run higher prices and worse services.

The biggest problem is, of course, that the land line phones are public monopolies - but that doesn't matter so much what with the internet and mobile phones - eventually either the land-line phones will be privatized or people will just "vote with their feet" and stop using them, in favor of mobile phones or internet phones.

The general image of rising medical costs, dental costs etc in a private market is false. If anything, costs rise because despite being ostensibly private, doctors and dentists are legally bound to have licenses and other certificates which grant them the status of doctor or dentist. I would be in favor of abolishing laws which put up barriers to entrance into fields and industries.

Guilds and unions are often behind these laws - all with the aim of keeping the amount of available doctors, dentists, nurses etc low - so that they can charge a higher price. If anybody who wanted to could set up their own business as a doctor or dentist then things would be better off and prices in these industries would fall.

The way things stand, regulators and unions collude to limit entry into the industry and keep prices high.

As to the news - just about nobody in Poland has any respect for the two public sector TV stations - but really, the private television stations (also two) are not very respectable either.

The reason is simple - even though they're private - they need a license from the government to function - and obviously the government isn't about to give up what they consider to be their grip on the best tool of propaganda they have; television. So the private TV stations permits were given to friends of the political bosses; and operate within the framework of rules dictated by the political bosses.

Thankfully, the internet is making television - and political bosses - obsolete. Emmigration is also making them obsolete. Lots of Poles just don't put up with it and leave the country to go find work and a better life elsewhere.

Paradoxically, as more young Poles leave Poland, our political rulers become worse, because the people who remain here and vote are old folks who feel bitter and who can't emigrate to change their lives ...

Although - it's not THAT bad: mainly because aside from them, lots of folks who stay do manage to function here - and it is tons of fun.

Also - Poland has a vibrant Vientamese and general Asian immigrant community - there's tons of great Chinese and Vietnamese restaurants in Warsaw; and one of my favorite places has the best Indian food I've ever had...

Overall like any other country, it has it's ups and downs. err... but to get back to the point...

generally, I cannot think of a public service that works here - except maybe trains - which it is really hard to screw up given that it's just a cart that moves on rails - like a long distance tram or something

Also, in the large cities, public transport works fairly well - the metro in Warsaw is nice and clean and really does make getting round the city easier. It only took them...ohh...70 years!...to build...but now it's expanding quicker and quicker.

But this just goes to show that de-centralized public services are easier to provide correctly because the people directly responsible for them, for building them, running them and paying for them, are using them everyday and living "amongst" them...

pete

[legios]

Jun 12, 2008 18:19:09 GMT dyrl said:

I would fully support using the army to go into a hospital and arrest doctors who put human lives at risk for money.

Pete

Not something that could work in Britain - the army don't have police powers here. They have exactly the same authority to make an citizens arrest as any other private citizen has when a law is broken ( but being on strike is not a violation of the law, presuming that said strike is carried out in line with the relevant legislation). So there would be no grounds for a serving soldier to make a citizens arrest - leaving them open to being sued for false imprisonment (and of course for assault if they used any force in the process, as you may not offer violence in the process of making a citizens arrest).

The armed forces can't be used in situations of civil disobedience because they are not a constituted law enforcement authority - that is what the police are for. They also aren't suited to dealing with situations like strikes. The armed forces are trained to end threat situations with the maximum of speed and efficiency, not to preserve the lives of their opponents. This makes sense on the battlefield, but not what dealing with the civilians of your own nation.

Putting the armed forces in that situation isn't particularly fair on them, and is a mismatch between the job and their skills.

Now if the strikers were running around with weapons and threatening to overthrow the government to get what they want then they become an insurgency and that arguably changes matters. But I didn't think that this was the situation we were talking about here.

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 12, 2008 20:17:34 GMT dyrl said:

Heh - well - in Poland it's like the mirror opposite

Sounds like it!

There's ample competition - and indeed things are so great that we too have the same "problem" - namely that your great deal turns out to be expensive a month later when some other great deals turn up.

I didn't say that! I meant that a great deal turns out to be expensive a month later when that company puts their prices _up_.

It would be nice if the private sector always worked as you say - competition keeping prices down - but it doesn't. Government regulators have to stop some private industries from conspiring together to keep prices (and profits) high. The confusing and inconsistent pricing systems often prevent the customer from being able to see who's cheapest, and so often the company with the best advertising campaign gets the custom, rather than the one (with low prices and low-budget advertising) that is actually better value.

I don't see the need for regulators to make sure the public aren' being ripped off. If someone is charging "too much" then that "too much" attracts competition.

As I said, nice theory, doesn't always work in practice in the west. I mean, look at Microsoft.

The reason is simple - even though they're private - they need a license from the government to function - and obviously the government isn't about to give up what they consider to be their grip on the best tool of propaganda they have; television. So the private TV stations permits were given to friends of the political bosses; and operate within the framework of rules dictated by the political bosses.

If the Government tried to control the messages put out by the BBC it would be political suicide.

Yesterday a top secret Government document that had been left on a train was handed in by a member of the public to the BBC, who ran a big national story on it, embarrassing the Government, then gave it back to them, without revealing the secrets that were in it. Exactly the right thing to do. I like the BBC.

Thankfully, the internet is making television - and political bosses - obsolete. Emmigration is also making them obsolete. Lots of Poles just don't put up with it and leave the country to go find work and a better life elsewhere.

Here, apparently. Should you ever be tempted, at least you'll know some people when you arrive.

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 12, 2008 20:32:12 GMT legios said:

The armed forces can't be used in situations of civil disobedience

Well, when the firefighters are on strike the armed forces are called in to put out the fires, but I realise what you mean.

Martin

[legios]

Jun 12, 2008 20:53:49 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

Jun 12, 2008 20:32:12 GMT legios said:

The armed forces can't be used in situations of civil disobedience

Well, when the firefighters are on strike the armed forces are called in to put out the fires, but I realise what you mean.

Martin

Yeah, I probably wasn't as clear as I meant to be there. I'm not implying our armed forces have no uses other than breaking stuff. :-)

Just that attempting to use them in the place of the police would do both the police and the armed services a great disservice.

Karl