And if the strikers are successful in forcing a better deal?

Presumably all those prepared to cross a picket line would donate their share to charity rather than being subsidised by those who were prepared to forego wages in order to obtain that deal?

I'm in a broadly similar situation. People where I work will be on strike, but I am not in a Union, and as such I don't think I could strike if I wanted to.

I am not entirely behind the strikes anyway, which I don't feel are well grounded in the real world. The union most people here are in were threatening to strike over pay negotiations last year in which they were asking for an 8% rise. It actually made me quite angry. I work in an organisation with an essentially finite pot of money to spend. An 8% pay rise would simply have meant that some jobs would have to go. That isn't the spirit I undersatnd unions to be in.

I have a public sector pension, and it's a very, very good deal in this climate. I don't, however, believe that it's sustainable and I've always had it on the understanding that I'll keep paying into it as long as it's a better deal than anything available privately, which it is. It is probably increasingly out of step with what happens in the outside world. That is, in part, compensation for the fact that my salary is a little lower than it would be for the same job in the private sector, but in truth my decision to be here instead of the private sector isn't financial anyway.

Furthermore, since I'm not paid by the hour anyway, but essentially paid to work until the job is done (invariably a lot more hours than it says on my basic contract) and I'd still have to do the same work next week anyway, nobody whatsoever would suffer except me. I wouldn't be witholding my labour, since the work will be done anyway.

Most unions are fairly sick puppies these days, being more motivated by the hunger for air time of their leaders and other political goals than by the interests of their members anyway. If that changed and they got back to doing what they're supposed to do, I'd be more interested. My wife recently left the union in question at this place after their total lack of interest in actual issues affecting their members became apparent, as they were clearly too busy trying to get on TV instead.

I support the right to strike, but I also support my right to make my own mind up on whether to join in.

Rant ends. For now.

On a related note, my current project has partners in universities in 14 countries. Several of them have been forced to take pay cuts over the last few months. I'll support my union when it shows some sensitivity to the realities a lot of people are facing in the employment market at the moment.

At a time when we're fighting cuts to the education budget, asking for spending increases on salaries and pensions smacks of self interest, rather than social justice to me.

Oops, I guess the rant didn't end.

As the son of a miner I could not bring myself to cross the picket line. Despite the fact I will lose a days wage and am not a member of the union. Also I was told last week that when my current fixed term contract with the NHS comes to an end on 31st March it will not be renewed and therefore I am on death row in terms of employment.
I just feel that if my colleagues feel as strongly as this about an issue then I should respect and honour their views.
When the self-interested guys at the top take meaningful cuts in wage and stop getting handed bonuses, then perhaps I can sympathise with the cuts and budget tightenings being implemented, filtering down and impacting on the people I work with day to day.

The Govt are coming back to the Unions with a better offer, But I still think the 30th will go ahead.

Why?

It will give the Govt an idea of the hatred the work force has of them and as the Govt dont want a winter of discontent they can then guage their new offer after the 30th

Ie Strong support of the strike = good offer
Poor support = take it or leave it offer.

If the OP thinks the Govt will do what they want then unfortunately that is their own opinion, but its what Cameron likes, a divided work force.
A work force that is stong and support s each other is what tthis government doesn't want.

I'll be out on the 30th striking for my terms and conditions.

BTW did you know that the same MPs who are attacking your pension have a pension too and their contribution is nil - work that out

Frankly, if anyone I work with here has the gall to try to compare what they're experiencing to the miners' strikes I'll slap them.

Re the canaries, I agree that the house of commons needs to get in line with what's happening to the rest of the country as well. Events in parliament are already in danger of becoming irrelevant to most people.

Do you think that there is widespread support outside the public sector for these strikes though?

In my experience successive governments have eroded civil service pay and conditions and will continue to do so as they're an easy target. As for you own position it depends how much of that you're prepared to put up with. There may well come a point when your job is threatened and big pay days like you're about to get will be a thing of the past, when that happens will you want people to fight your corner or just continue to keep their heads down?

The trouble with the way cuts are made to the civil service and the public sector is that nobody is brave enough or willing enough to target them. I dealt extensively with the civil service, in one Department in particular, last year in a previous project. There are whole teams who have been effective enough at feathering their nests to reach a point where they're apparently secure in positions that contribute precisely nothing other than a lot of self-important hot air. On the flip side there are teams who work hard and innovatively to make a real difference and are worth every penny they are paid and more.

They all, of course, suffer equally in pay cuts and redundancies.

This is a common public sector problem. I'm not for performance related pay as such, but I would welcome a bit more pressure to actually produce things. Personally I sleep well at night if I reflect on what I'm contributing (actually, as my current work is attrracting external international funding, I'm a net contributor to the UK economy, despite being in a public sector job - it can be done), but I know of plenty of people I'm less convinced by. Most of them happily rake in a pay rise every year in return for their lack of effort.

If there were less of them, then perhaps the axe need not swing so indiscriminately through pensions and pay for the rest.

I'm sure no self respecting union would recognise that though.

It is entirely a matter of personal choice.

If someone were to threaten or behave differently towards you for exercising your personal choice I would suggest that you have made entirely the right decision in not supporting [itheir[/i personal choice.

For me, there is a large part of this that makes me think about market forces. No one is forced to do a particular job in this country.

If you think that you are being under valued by your employer then why don't you try and find someone who is more willing to pay you what you think youre worth. If you are worth what you think it shouldn't be that hard. If you can't find it so easily then maybe you'll realise why you get paid what you do.

As you're not a union member then you've not had a say in whether this strike was called or not. You're under no moral, legal or ethical obligation to support it or join in with those who did vote for it - particularly as doing so will be treated as unauthorised absence and could result in disciplinary action being taken.

It's entirely down to your personal choice whether you cross the picket line or not, as it is with everyone who approaches it.

I resigned from PCS (or CPSA as I think it was called back then) as at the time it was an organisation being used by its officers to further their own quasi-political careers rather than support its members. Since that point up until I left the public sector I crossed numerous picket lines and did so with a clear conscience.

We are lucky to live in a free society and therefore I support people’s right to go on strike, at their own cost, if they deem it necessary.

However I also support the rights of those who do not want to strike or who believe a strike is not necessary. Their views are equally important and they should be allowed to cross a picket line without fear, embarrassment, insults or later victimisation.

Historically the Unions played an important role in bringing fairness for the ordinary worker but their huge loss of influence in recent times was due to their abuse of power in the 60's, 70's and 80's. These days Unions do not represent the majority of the workforce and often their ballots have a low turn out therefore their demands and actions do not always represent the majority views of their members let alone the workforce as a whole.

When you look at what is going on in the world - in Egypt and Syria and closer to home in Europe you have to question the legitimacy of this strike at this point in time. When the whole of Europe is facing austerity is it wise to go on strike to protect better than average pension terms ?

Of course it goes against the grain for all of us when a loss of future income is proposed. However some of the pension terms agreed for the public sector are simply unsustainable and too big a burden for future taxpayers to fund. In fact the basic state pension will be impossible to pay out on within 40 years unless changes are made.

A glance across Europe to see what has happened in Greece will underline the point. There the public sector were promised unrealistic pension terms - early retirement at 50, 55 & 60 etc. etc to such an extent that they are completely bust. They now do not have the luxury of a negotiated reasonable reduction in benefits but face instead a breadline pension at best.

The unions should have concentrated on getting concessions for the lower paid workers while accepting changes for the better off workers.