The title is Glaswegian for the police or ‘polis’ what is going on ? Police wage disputes, what next ? The Govt. will not allow their settlement to break inflation guidelines, the same in fact as other workers so why the big stushie, should they be treated differently, should Firefighters, should Soldiers ?
How many others can you make a special case for, if you can make a special case for some to get more what about restricting what some others get, pop singers, footballers, actors, bosses in general, judges, lawyers etc. who is happy to see people like Cliff Richard, Elton John, Donald Finlay and the whole batch of useless royals enjoying wealth beyond the dreams of avarice while some people can‘t make ends meet ?
We all have our favourites though don’t we, if a loved one has been in hospital we want the Nurses to have better wages, likewise the Firefighters if they have run into your burning house and saved your budgie and last but not least ourselves, we can usually make a case for paying ourselves more can’t we.
The Rozzers though, some of them want to strike even although it’s illegal, would we have Picketing Polis and other Polis scrambling around the country preventing them from being flying pickets like the coal dispute.
There’s word of a big demo, the mind boggles, thousands of Polis demonstrating and thousands of them Policing the demo, how would special branch know who to photograph from the rooftops ? How would the press decide who the agitators are, would the mounties just pretend to beat them with their sticks, would the cops at football matches carry collecting tins.
Most intriguing of all though how would the evening news explain the discrepancy in the numbers on the demo when the Police spokesman says there were 10,000 and the other Police spokesman says there were 5,000. Under Socialism and a command economy this would not happen, perhaps if sections of society want to embrace capitalism that much that they want more than others, they should advocate the privatisation of these services, I’ll wait for their answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Missing the point, as ever.
It is not actually about the (relative or absolute) value of the police wage increase, or how they much they are paid compared to other public servants (and they are quite a lot better off as a constable, say, than a private soldier)or make compared to the extremely well-off. It is about the nu-Labour government's inability to stick to an(y) agreement (such as the manifesto promise for a referendum on the EU Constitution, for example.)
The Police Negotiating Board exists to sort out the pay deals. As somebody who claims to be a good socialist, I presumed you would approve of collective bargaining? As the Official and Staff Sides could not reach agreement, this was then passed to the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal, who ruled appropriately.
The SNP administration in Scotland have shown good faith and agreed to pay the award resulting from the Arbitration. The Labour administration in England and Wales have refused to do so.
The police cannot, by law, strike - unlike nurses, firefighters, "pop singers, footballers, actors, bosses in general, lawyers", etc - I'll admit I don't know about judges contractual Ts&Cs. So, after the Labour government refuses to pay them in accordance with supposedly binding arbitration, you may be able to understand why they are a bit peed off? Now, there are calls for industrial action below the level of strikes, for the legislation banning them from striking to be repealed and, from the militants, calls for civil disobedience amounting to strike action.
For which they will, undoubtedly and unlike their political counterparts, take responsibility and suffer criminal prosecution and internal disciplinary action.
Terry:
Perhpas you have not read the full story. Arbitration is a device used by two parties, who agree to abide by the decision of the arbiter, whatever they decide. This is the system used to negotiate police pay, in return for the police agreeing not to strike. Since the government has ignored the arbitration panel (something which it is not supposed to do), the police are entilted to strike, as the covenant has been broken.
The issue is not whether the police are worth the extra money, or about setting a precedent. This is about the Labour government agreeing to use an arbitration panel to decide police pay awards, and then ignoring the panel. Why would the police ever go to arbitration again after this?
Not quite sure what point you're making here.
However, your comment about a "command economy" is ominous, albeit correct. In a command economy, there would be no freedom of speech, no pesky demonstrators excercising something called their "democratic rights", and nobody having the crazy idea that they should have the freedom to provide for themselves, rather than rely on some centralised authority, particularly one run by an uneducated, thick, cretinous loser like you. There would also be mass emigration, unemployment and poverty.
Terry, what you need is a good spell in a North Korean concentration camp to cure you of your delusions about communism.
(Anonymous) 18/12/07 -- A command economy relates to the economy nothing else. “what you need is a good spell in a North Korean concentration camp” what’s wrong with Guantanamo then, what have you got against good ole Amurkin torturers ?
(Rumbold) 18/12/07 - You are clearly in one of your sombre moods, it was just too good a story to miss.
How about privatising the Polis and the armed forces then ? not one of you free marketeers has jumped on that yet, why is that ?
(Surreptitious Evil) 18/12/07 - “Missing the point, as ever“ it really wasn’t necessary to write all this pompous crap. You should have looked a bit harder to see what it was really about, it was too good a story to miss, so was the post today, again about the ’Harry Margolis’
Apparently, your post was about police wage disputes:
Police wage disputes, what next ?
Hence my comment about the inability of the Labour (your) Party to stick to any form of agreement - whether in their election manifesto, binding arbitration in collective bargaining or, knock me down with a feather - the law of the land (and a law that they specifically introduced to bash the Tories and the SNP.)
I'll post about the tangerine splitter where appropriate.
And, as ever, your replies are random insults or irrelevant slurs rather than answering any of the points. Back to your best, Terry.
"How about privatising the Polis and the armed forces then ? not one of you free marketeers has jumped on that yet, why is that ?"
It's probably because most of us are minarchists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Rejecting the bloated high tax, high spend style of governance doesn't preclude some government activity. As a rule defence and justice are considered vital parts of a minimal government.
(Falco) 11.09 - whose rule is that then ? Is that the rule that’s known as the ‘free marketeer bottler’s rule’ ?
(Surreptitious Evil) 08:48 - If describing your lengthy and boring comment as pompous crap is what you are referring to then I plead guilty - being pompous and self important means that you sometimes miss the point, read it again.
Terry:
"How about privatising the Polis and the armed forces then ? not one of you free marketeers has jumped on that yet, why is that?"
This story is not about the free market, it is about Labour betraying their agreement with the police. As Serreptitious Evil, myself and others have said, the real issue is the undermining of the arbitration system.
I would like something explained though. You say that you are a socialist, yet you do not think that this group of workers should have the right to strike, or negotiate pay deals. I must have missed that page in Das Kapital.
Have a socialist Christmas and a Happy New Year.
(Rumbold) 22/12/07 - “As Serreptitious Evil, myself and others have said, the real issue is the undermining of the arbitration system.” This isn’t much of a row you need to find something else.
Perhaps you should read what I said and point out to me where I said that anyone should not have the right to strike or negotiate wages, that’s an old Thatcherite one, remember she withdrew the right to strike from intelligence workers.
I will have a good Socialist Christmas, Jesus was one of us !
Terry:
I hope that you had a good Christmas.
As far as I can tell, you seem to be implying that the police do not have a right to strike. They do, they just waived it in return for their pay being decided by an arbitration panel. Since the government has now ignored that panel, the police are entilted to strike.
Also, the pay award was below inflation (2.5% backdated, while inflation is running at 4.3%, according to the RPI).
Do you think that the police should be allowed to strike?
(Rumbold) 10:29 “you seem to be implying that the police do not have a right to strike“ You seem to have a problem admitting a mistake, where did I say that ?
I believe that anyone has the right to strike, the alternative is slavery.
Along with the right to strike comes the admission that they are not a special case.
Terry:
Okay, I misunderstood your point about striking. My apologies. Do you understand why the police are a special case though? It is not to do with who they are, but how their pay was supposed to be decided. This rejection of the arbitration panel is what is causing the controversy.
(Rumbold) 27/12/07 - “This rejection of the arbitration panel is what is causing the controversy“.
Full marks for tenacity but I’m afraid this is beginning to look like a dead horse - the right wing press who tried to turn it into an anti govt. story have ditched it.
I haven’t really been following it closely but I assume that the arbitration panel you refer to is not binding or the Govt. would be acting illegally.
Terry:
"Full marks for tenacity but I’m afraid this is beginning to look like a dead horse - the right wing press who tried to turn it into an anti govt. story have ditched it."
I am not sure why it is a dead horse- you yourself have posted several pieces about it.
"I haven’t really been following it closely but I assume that the arbitration panel you refer to is not binding or the Govt. would be acting illegally."
The government is not acting illegally, but it did break its word, which means that from now on the police will have the right to strike, because they now have no confidence in the decisions of the arbitration panel being respected.
(Rumbold) 29/12/07 - “you yourself have posted several pieces about it.” -
I thought it was funny ! I was mocking the whole thing, I can’t imagine you thought I was serious, I think the police reaction made them look silly and the Press even more so.
“which means that from now on the police will have the right to strike,” I doubt this would be legal but, they should give up this special case nonsense and fight their own corner.
Terry:
"I thought it was funny ! I was mocking the whole thing, I can’t imagine you thought I was serious, I think the police reaction made them look silly and the Press even more so."
Humour is always more difficult to convey in print, though you are often quite amusing.
"I doubt this would be legal but, they should give up this special case nonsense and fight their own corner."
So you agree with their stance then? Good. Perhaps you will write to Jacqui Smith on their behalf then.
(Rumbold) 14:05 -
‘Their stance’ is a movable feast according to the latest news.
I agree with everyone having the right to strike but I don’t agree that any one group of workers is a special case.
I’m not sure what ‘their stance’ is at the moment but I instinctively take the side of the Labour Govt. over the police.
".....but I don’t agree that any one group of workers is a special case. "
Well, actually you do, since you seem to believe that council workers should have the right to be protected from compulsory redundancy, a bit unlike most of the rest of us. Isn't this a contradiction? It's ok, I don't actually expect a straight answer, I'm just poking.
(Jim Lewis) 04/01/08 - How could I not answer that Jim, some peole have accused me of inventing you.
I believe that all workers, even you should be protected from compulsory redundancy but thanks for giving me the opportunity, you haven’t learned much have you Jim.
Post a Comment