archangelck asked:

Is there a difference between UK and US Union issues? Is there a US Union that covers all public sector workers? Or are there seperate Unions for each specialism? I have different issues with either plan.

If its a cover all Union, which I'm a member of, and the government announces cuts, then our union will instantly oppose it, which is its perogative. However, what if announces 20% cuts to the police, but 10% rise in funding to nursing. My Union represents both, so would it have to fight for the police, at the likely cost to the nursing?

The other was is possible even worse. If Union X has 200,000 members, its going to have more say than Union Y, which has 50,000 members. When cuts/job losses/pay negotiations occur, its always going to be the biggest Union that bosses/governments will have to listen to, at the expense of the smaller Union.

Essentially, its the delemnia of Democracy which I can only badly explain. Say you have a street with 19 houses on one side, and 20 houses on the other. New building work has been announced, and it can happen on either side of the street, and its put up to a democatic vote. Which side is going to get to keep their homes, whilst the other gets knocked down?

On the pensions side of things, I absolutely agree that people deserve a decent pension when they retire, provided they have made contributions through their working life. (If they haven't, then the state should provide a sustainable pension, but that's a different matter.) The issue is at what age should the pension come into play, and what constitutes a "decent" pension. I called on the Californian police pension because the age is set too low, and the pension too high to be sustainable, and it was no doubt attained because the police Union is probably the largest (I imagine most cops would be in a union, but I might be wrong).

If a high proportion of state funding has to be directed to pay the police pensions, then obviously this will affect the pensions of every other worker in the state. Also, by the time the cop has reached a certain age, and at a guess I would say 70ish, his contributions will have been completely used up, and now is entirely living off the state, again affecting the ability of the state to pay generous pensions elsewhere.

But this is all conjecture, and so feel free to rip this apart, but its what I'm thinking at the moment.

The major difference between unions in the US and the UK is that the UK has an actual political party associated with the unions heavily (Labour), whereas in the US the main political parties are pretty much bought & paid for by largely corporate interests.

As far as I know there is no one union representing all public employees. 

To answer your allegory about the houses: yes majority rules, but our government is set up to have checks & balances in place to help insure against the trampling of the minority. An issue such as what you put forth would certainly test all of the homeowners, as no one would want to see their neighbor lose their home.

When you contribute to a pension the money you contribute doesn’t just sit there: it gains interest. If you became a policeman at 21 and worked until 55, that’s 34 years you’ve contributed to the pension, and probably been matched by your employer. Depending on the amounts contributed, combined with the compounded interest, you would have plenty to last. Retirees aren’t supposed to get money that’s being contributed by current workers, that’s just a Ponzi scheme. No, the idea behind a pension is basically like a 401(k), only the money is protected and insured. 401(k)’s are just another way the bankers have been trying to weaken the workers in this country, but that’s for another post.

Posted on 20 February, 2011, 3:12pm. This post has 11 notes.
  1. drinkthe-koolaid posted this