Wednesday, June 11, 2008
York Council Workers Strike Ballot
The local "newspaper" provides a story here about the Unison council workers strike ballot. Apparently they are not happy with their wage offer of 2.45% increase and want more; their justification is that inflation is running higher, so it is, but plenty of people in the private sector (who after all are paying for the council workers) do not have the luxury of inflationary wage rises and the article makes no mention of the pension provision for state workers.
Of course the burden of such strike action will fall heaviest upon the vulnerable, and if it wasn't for that, as far as I am concerned they should be allowed to walk out for far longer than the two days proposed. Of course we should all receive Council Tax rebates for the time they are not in work, but many of these council with their street narrowing and wanting to introduce congestion charging do more harm than good when at work anyway; so given that we have to pay them; I'd prefer to pay them to do nothing.
Ultimately the proposed action is very poorly timed, the economy is teetering and it is difficult to see just how the Labour enlarged state sector can remain viable in the coming years. It will be necessary for severe root and branch pruning, the state sector is top heavy with non-jobs; by which I mean jobs that it makes no difference if they are done or not. These are the jobs that will have to go, and the higher the wage bill is, then the more it will have to be cut.
It is quite sad to see the quotes in the article, take the one from Andrew Waller identified as the Council leader: "We have always had good relations with Unison in the city. We would want to maintain key services during any dispute as our concerns are with any vulnerable residents." This man is elected, by the people, I would expect him to at the very least speak up for the Council Tax payers of York (after all they voted for him); instead his first concern is for "good relations with Unison".
Another quote from a Brain Bladwin (identified as the chair of the employers' side of the National Joint Council) "If the pay settlement is set too high, councils will be forced into making unpalatable choices between cutting front line services and laying off staff." I'm sorry, but if we can lay off staff without cutting front line services doesn't this mean that councils are overstaffed? Furthermore there must be a misuse of public money occurring, as (unless I am mistaken) surely Parliament has not authorised public expenditure for non-essential purposes?
There's only so long an economy can bear that which is unsustainable, for years now Labour have been living off Conservative surplus, all that looks like ending soon. Do Unison really believe the current state staffing levels are sustainable when harsh economic winds blow? Or are they just not bothered?
One thing they can be sure of, when the economy strikes them, it will be far worse than any strike they could inflict.
Of course the burden of such strike action will fall heaviest upon the vulnerable, and if it wasn't for that, as far as I am concerned they should be allowed to walk out for far longer than the two days proposed. Of course we should all receive Council Tax rebates for the time they are not in work, but many of these council with their street narrowing and wanting to introduce congestion charging do more harm than good when at work anyway; so given that we have to pay them; I'd prefer to pay them to do nothing.
Ultimately the proposed action is very poorly timed, the economy is teetering and it is difficult to see just how the Labour enlarged state sector can remain viable in the coming years. It will be necessary for severe root and branch pruning, the state sector is top heavy with non-jobs; by which I mean jobs that it makes no difference if they are done or not. These are the jobs that will have to go, and the higher the wage bill is, then the more it will have to be cut.
It is quite sad to see the quotes in the article, take the one from Andrew Waller identified as the Council leader: "We have always had good relations with Unison in the city. We would want to maintain key services during any dispute as our concerns are with any vulnerable residents." This man is elected, by the people, I would expect him to at the very least speak up for the Council Tax payers of York (after all they voted for him); instead his first concern is for "good relations with Unison".
Another quote from a Brain Bladwin (identified as the chair of the employers' side of the National Joint Council) "If the pay settlement is set too high, councils will be forced into making unpalatable choices between cutting front line services and laying off staff." I'm sorry, but if we can lay off staff without cutting front line services doesn't this mean that councils are overstaffed? Furthermore there must be a misuse of public money occurring, as (unless I am mistaken) surely Parliament has not authorised public expenditure for non-essential purposes?
There's only so long an economy can bear that which is unsustainable, for years now Labour have been living off Conservative surplus, all that looks like ending soon. Do Unison really believe the current state staffing levels are sustainable when harsh economic winds blow? Or are they just not bothered?
One thing they can be sure of, when the economy strikes them, it will be far worse than any strike they could inflict.
Tags: state employment, unions, York Council, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
