So you thought he/she should respect your decision to strike but you couldn't respect his/hers decision not to!!

I get your point, but found it galling to hear David Cameron dismissing these figures as lack of mandate when precisely 23% of the electorate voted for his party at the 2010 General Election.

When was the last general election with a turn out in the 30% region?

Thanks for the reply, I'll take a look.

I'm not generally in favour of a cap on potential earnings, but I am in favour of a system that allows transparency of decision making, and that is fair an equal to all.

I understand that there are many in unions that are simply trying to look out for not only themselves but also their co workers, and this is honourable, however as with many areas of society, the few bad apples can rot the whole barrel, and this appears to be the case I see at the moment.

Let's hope that for all concerned, a workable, long term solution can be found quickly, and that those who seek to individually profit from the misfortune of others are left contemplating their own principles as a result.

well this argumen was put forward the Danny Alexander when he was condeming the strike quite vociferously ,but The Libdem share of the vote at the last general election was about 19%.so to insinuate that the unions dont have a mandate to call a strike ,then neither does the tory led coalition have either to enfoce the kind of policies they are doing

In every case it was a whole lot more than voted against a strike.

bang right! the staff are getting short changed too after VLS staff are being asked to cover the job's of the people who've left with no plans to replace them which is heaping more pressure and stress on the staff, and the uni is now looking into setting up a redundancy commitee for the first time ever after stating that it has always had a no redundancy policy, so to me he ( the VC ) while saving £35 million is not exactly looking after his staff is he?

then after all this the staff's pensions (which will be a fraction of his pension) are getting attacked after them paying into it for years and years. is this fair? i personally don't think so.

Unfortunately fair isn't always one of the decision criteria. I really feel for the people who are under threat of having their pensions eroded, regardless of their current standing vis-a-vis the private sector on pensions and other terms. I am fortunate enough to be on a final salary pension scheme in the private sector at the moment, and whilst I fully expect this to close in the next couple of years (it's been closed to new entrants for 8 years or so), I don't expect the company to bankrupt itself, therefore costing me my current income as well as any future pension, by trying to maintain this current pension provision at the levels I currently have.

Sometimes it's about getting the best possible outcome for everyone not just yourself, regardless of how difficult this may be to accept.

That is fine and right, but often the temporary downturn like we see now, is used as a way of bringing long term commitments down. Then in 5 or 10 years time, we see companies making big profits and paying big dividends.

Pensions are a long term investment, the only reason a company wouldnt be able to pay them as promised is because they are either a) poorly run and negotiated contracts they couldnt honour and capitalism demands they suffer or b) they are having a temporary blip which leavees them unable to meet their obligations.

If the answer is A) then they should be taken for everything they can, It isnt up to the people they owe money to, to prop up a failing poorly run business. If it is B) then the problem is temporary and so should be the solution.

On the subject of top peoples high pay. It has indeed got way out of control as no one needs these huge incomes and they do cause so much upset. Much of the flak is going in the direction of the bankers and while some of this is valid much is not valid.

Yes there were/are villains in banking but they are in the minority and to lump all bankers is plain wrong. So before we throw out the baby with the bathwater we should consider the following:

The Financial Services sector (FS) made a total tax contribution of 53.4 Billion GBP in 2010 equal to 11.2% of total government tax receipts ie; the largest sector. In 2007 this was 13.9% and we are already missing the drop in tax receipts.

Thye FS sector employs 1 million workers (3.5%) of the total workforce generating 24.5 Billion in total employment tax. It has lost 91,00 workers from 2009-2010.

The average salary was 71,236 contributing 40,451 in tax. The banks are thebiggest tax payers in the FS sector & largest employer and largest payer of employment tax

The new 50% income tax will increase the FS sectors tax contribution even further.

Moving to the pay of CEO's of public companies. Well putting it bluntly unless you are a shareholder (owner) it has nothing to do with you. The shareholders have the opportunity to have their say regarding pay and how they attract the best top people but it has nothing to do with the rest of us.

Where we should be some influence is on the pay awarded to the top executives of the state funded sector. eg BBC & quangos etc.

Only the private sector creates wealth and we need the private sector to produce the profits to pay the taxes needed by govenment to run the country including paying for the public sector. So yes we much get rid of the cowboys but we must not put this important sector at a disadavantage to the rest of the world.

Smokey, the scenario most applicable in my case is A, however I completely fail to see what "taking them for all I can" will do to support my longer term prospects with this company, who happen to be one of the top 3 global companies in every market sector they operate in.

Where is the benefit in taking any organisation for all I can in the longer term? There is a finite amount of money to go around, the choice people face is how much they want/need and where it will come from. Financially crippling the company in my case (or the country in the case of the public sector workers) is not a long term solution.

Yes but the difference is that in the election if people don't vote, they will still have a representative. They may not have their voice heard but, as long as voting is not compulsory that is a matter for them.

It is a different thing altogether to have a business or the whole country brought to a halt by a vote in favour of doing so of a small percentage of the voting population which is an even smaller percentage of the actual workforce.