Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Moanie fibbing miserabalists and the LGPS 2014


Crikey - I thought that I have seen it all, but there is some really stupid, ignorant, completely self destructive fibs and smears being put out about the proposed new Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS 2014) by a tiny number of extremists.  Who obviously do not give a damn about the pensions of their members.
  
I can just about accept that there are some UNISON activists who genuinely think we could have delivered loads and loads of strike action that would somehow have improved the bargaining position to get a better deal. I think they are wrong but what we find now is that there are those who seemingly want their members to retire in abject poverty, because that will somehow, further the revolutionary cause? Since they are sending out complete and utter fibs and smears about the new proposals.

What will be their position if the scheme is accepted? When UNISON will be running one of its biggest ever campaigns to encourage members to join the schemes during auto-enrolling? When all members will be by law compulsory placed in a pension scheme? How can they persuade their members to join what will be by any objective intelligent standard, a bloody good scheme, when they have completely rubbished it to them?

I can understand a reasoned debate on the pros and cons of the new scheme but we find extremist branch secretaries, who are personally fully protected themselves, from any of the proposed changes trying to persuade their members that the new guaranteed defined benefit scheme is completely "evil".  By doing so they are doing their very best to destroy a decent pension scheme.

This is shameful. Just because the extremists cannot go on strike, after strike, after strike; they are throwing all their toys out of the pram. While I would hope nobody will pay any attention to such stupidly I have no doubt that some members will and they will leave or not join the pension scheme and then have to endure their old age to die in miserable poverty.  

23 comments:

Andy Richards said...

Is that it? If this really is the best you can do, it makes the case for rejection better than anyone else can. You clearly don't trust members to be able to weigh up the deal they are being asked to accept - because they are being asked to accept aren't they? I mean, the whole nonsense at Conference about "consulting" members about what recommendation should be made to them stands pretty well exposed now...by your article as much as anything else.

Anonymous said...

Are you for real, my friend? The politics of fear have never been so poorly expressed. Ever wonder why you can't get the mass of our membership out for anything more than the gesture politics of a one-day strike? It's because they know that the leadership - and their "tell us what to think, Dave, and we'll repeat it ad nauseum" fellow-travellers - wouldn't know how to lead, let alone win, a strike if their lives depended on it.

John Gray said...

Hi Andy

I have been a member of the LGPS for 19 years and represent thousands of UNISON members who are also part of the scheme. I fully support the consultation but I have the right to my own opinion. Some branches are spending £1000's on expensive colour pamphlets full of deliberate lies and misrepresentations about the proposa. Miserablists couldn't give a toss what the deal actually was - they just want to play their sad, sectarian drivel. IMO.

Hi anon

I suspect that you won't get this but I haven't a clue what on earth you are going on about? Nor will my members. More drivel I'm afraid.

Andy Richards said...

What are the "lies" then? Come on....what a great service you could do your members by pointing them out.

John Gray said...

Hi Andy

Will do - check blog later :)

Brian said...

Even Heather Wakefield will blush when she reads this.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that it's the right that is being sectarian and disingenuous, and our members can see straight through it. At every member meeting at our branch, those present have voted overwhelmingly, in a secret indicative ballot, to reject these shoddy proposals.

At all the meetings we have presented the unions case in favour of the deal (incidentally, how much did it cost for the national union to print its glossy propaganda?) in a fair and measured way (someone from region would verify that). However, they vary majority of our members can see through this deal because we've been there before when we were taken out for days strike and then sold out a few months down three line.

Pay more, work longer and get less - this offer concedes on all of these. The very reasons we went out in our hundreds of thousands on N30. The link to the SPA is particularly damaging to our members and I'm yet to see any evidence that a care scheme is better than a final salary scheme. If it is, where is the evidence? And I mean real evidence not those stupid examples on the website.

The left is pleased that the union is preparing for a battle over pay. But the fact is that you don't win on pay by selling out on pensions. If you think the government will take any notice of strike action on pay after this capitulation, then you are frankly deluded.

Indeed, destroying that cross-union unity against all the attacks we face (not just on pensions) is possibly the most damaging aspect of this disgusting sell out.

Anonymous said...

I'll spell it out for you then, John. The 'politics of fear' in your case are the kind of tired, old red-baiting that you substitute for critical debate. If there's oppoisiton to Brother Dave, it must be an anarcho-Trot-Bennite conspiracy!

And '£000s on expensive colour pamphlets full of deliberate lies and misrepresentation'? You must be referring to the glossy, red things that have been sent out in their hundreds of thousands without one critical word contained therein. And that isn't supposed to be some kind of recommendation to accept?!

And the second part? Obviously, I was referring to the fact that our national (and regional) officials fail to see that they actually COULD persuade our membership to take action if they bothered to address why their strategy and arguments on pensions, pay and redundancies consistently fail to impress. Instead, one day of action and it's back to long drawn out negotiations with the end result of a few crumbs here and there, designed to split the membership and the side effect of demoralising those who did come out fighting on N30. And they have the gall to blame the members for not having the guts to strike!?

John Gray said...

Latest check out http://grayee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/more-key-facts-about-lgps-2014-and-too.html

Hi Brian

No doubt :)

Hi Anons

We will wait and see. Two meetings I have been at so far have approved the new scheme overwhelmingly! When the proposals are put fairly it just makes sense to members. If you tell a meeting you will be working until you are 78, your pension will be reduced by 30%, the LGPS doesn’t need any change (and such lies) then no wonder... You might want to keep a discriminative scheme that penalises low paid female workers at the expense of the “bosses”. I don't and I don’t think our members want that either.

There will not be “a battle” over pay until the pensions issue is put to bed (IMO). If you want us to keep on infighting over pensions, then carry on - but that will be your lot's fault.

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

how's things. You seem to have got a few people pretty hot under the collar.

Just thought I'd give a view from another Union - Unite. I went to a meeting for members in Leeds City Council Workplace Branch a few weeks ago and we got a positive report on the negotiations from our national officials and local NEC member and the simple fact is there is a lot to be positive about.

The reality is that the membership will accept the deal and that's what's pissing off the bunch of nutbags you're having to deal with on this blog. The membership of our respective trade unions are not stupid and that's also what's getting to these nutbags. No one will listen to them and they need to have their story in place ( 'the usual we woz betrayed') before the members vote to accept.

I've been reading your postings on pensions and number one, it's clear you know your stuff and number two, that you are fighting the members corner. There has been plenty of detailed information and argument on this blog. But no amount of detailed argument will persuade these guys. Career average is a good deal for the vast majority of our members.

As activists we have always to look to consequences. I think, given were we are at, the membership will accept the deal. A lot has been achieved.If the Union Leadership put a 'No' they'e be cutting themselves off from their own members. That's not pre-empting the consultation: it's going off what I've heard so far. For the membership the dispute is rightly about the financial security of themselves and their families and not about toppling governments.That comes at the next General Election:) Our Trot friends can't say that, so they come up with their alternative storyline ( or 'narrative' for 21st century politicos.)

As an aside don't you just love they way these guys refer to anyone who disagrees with them as 'the right'. Just to be clear, I know that both you and I are the left, just not their bit of the left.

Also isn't it wonderful how 'Anons' who don't have the guts to put their names to their postings rant about the courage to strike.

Keep up the good work brother.

Regards,
Dave Draycott

Brian said...

Thanks for the comradely intervention, Dave.

Anonymous said...

Trots aren't "comrades" Brian - they are middle class know it all parasites.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't meant to be 'comradely' Brian (these guys are my 'Comrades'!) it was meant to be accurate.

As always you can dole it out but whinge when you get it back.

Dave Draycott

PS got a second name Brian?

John Gray said...

Hi Dave

Thanks for your comments and things are fine. Just back from UNISON Labour Link Forum. It was good to be amongst real socialists who put the interests of their members first.

I note that no-one has responded to my point that how can the Miserablists continue to support a clearly discriminative pension scheme which penalises low paid women workers and mainly benefits senior management and Chief Executive Officers?

What is wrong with these people?

Anonymous said...

John Grey: A Final Salary Scheme is discriminatory and those in opposition to LGPS 2014 are lobbyists for CEOs and senior management.

The cat is out of the bag! If that doesn't demonstrate you are truly sectarian - adopting a contrary position purely for the reason of being contrary - I don't know what does.

Let's look at the facts:

i) John, prior to the recent discovery of the benefits of a CARE scheme, you were heard to be defending Final Salary Schemes. In fact, in pointing to the generous FSS pensions of FTSE100 CEOs, you asked when ordinary workers would be able to benefit in the same way. Not a peep, at any point prior to late 2011, as to the discriminatory and boss-friendly nature of FSS. How odd.

ii) CARE schemes do not 'mainly benefit' CEOs. Anyone who has career progression e.g. Social Work, would benefit much more from FSS. Even a two or three grade increase in salary spread over a career would be more beneficial in a FSS.

Making a virtue out of the fact that quite a number of our members are held down on pitifully low grades is embarrassing. I get the impression you're not au fait with decent working-class traits such as self-improvement; and a senior manager would benefit from CARE over FSS if he/she achieved rapid promotion very early on in his/her career.

iii) Where once you correctly identified that many people do not necessarily live longer and the type of work they do means they are not able to work long into old age, you now see a rising NPA as a fact of life and so accept the 'received wisdom' of Coalition (and Labour) backers that longer lives necessitate longer working lives. Remind me, why we we campaigning against working longer?

All in all, your hypocrisy - evidenced by the somersaults evidenced above - proves beyond doubt your sectarianism. And it's a sectarianism purely in the service of those who wish to push through a scheme that is worse than the previous imperfect scheme.

As to providing my name - what difference would it make if you knew what it is in full? Would my address and phone number also be required? And for what purpose?

Pat

Brian said...

So what were we campaigning for on 30 November?

John Gray said...

Hi "Pat"
1. Not sure if you know the difference between Final Salary (FS) and Career average schemes? FS may still be appropriate for some organisations but not for LGPS which has so many low paid workers and a tiny number of very well paid jobs. The point about FTSE100 CEO’s was not only that these schemes were incredible generous (I think some were 1/30th FS schemes) but that they were open for directors only and they had closed them to their workers!
2. Sorry you are simply wrong "The LGPS 2014 will for many members deliver a better pension than LGPS 2008, especially for those with less than 20 – 25 years of membership But the average length of membership in the scheme is just 7 years, so most members will do better in LGPS 2014".
3. Wrong again. I have never said that about Pension schemes. Some people are not living longer due to inequality. That is a separate (but important) issue - there are 4 million people in the LGPS. How can you argue that there has not been significant increase in life expectancy for the overwhelming majority (and predictions of further welcome increases). Do the maths.
Sticks and stones and all that but who's the sectarian now?
Hi Brian
I don't about you but I went out on November 30th for a good quality, affordable and sustainable defined benefit guaranteed pension scheme - and guess what? We won.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

nothing like a good old dose of hard left paranoia to cover your lack of conviction and courage in giving your full name:

'As to providing my name - what difference would it make if you knew what it is in full? Would my address and phone number also be required? And for what purpose?'

Good old trot game of setting up a straw man. Who's asking for your details. Why not throw in 'the deeds to my house.'

It's simple:

Anon above has a go at John for what he alleges was an earlier position of John's. There's no such luxury with Anons and Pats and Brians.

Problem is 'you lot' (more polite than 'nutbags') think you're all the main character from 'V for Vendettal' (godawfull film)and have to hide behind a mask.

That's right Brian: "you're not the Messiah. You're a very naughty boy.'

Regards,
Dave

Brian said...

You guys' refusal to allow people to question or even discuss this offer is pretty unsavoury. When I was as young as you guys, a teacher advised me: attack ideas, not individuals. It is good advice.

B

John Gray said...

Hi Brian

So making personal sarcastic remarks is your idea of a "debate"? This is just typical hypocrisy I'm afraid.

People in glass houses and all that?

Furthermore I note that you haven't objected to any of the personal twaddle from the miserablists have you?

Brian said...

Go and lie down.

Anonymous said...

Hi Brian,

"Brian said....Go and lie down". I take it you're not big on the witty retort.

Dave Draycott

John Gray said...

Hi Dave

Since "Brian" does not respond to the question I am forced to conclude that he is indeed a Miserablist troll! :)