News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


WALTHAMSTOW: College staff to strike

WALTHAMSTOW: College staff to strike WALTHAMSTOW: College staff to strike

STAFF at Waltham Forest College will go on strike tomorrow (Thursday March 24) as part of a nationwide day of action against Government pension reforms.

Members of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) will hold a picket outside the site, in Forest Road, Walthamstow, between 7am and 10am.

College principal Robin Jones said it would open as normal.

It is unknown exactly how many staff will take part.

The UCU is angry at Whitehall plans for an increase in pension contributions and a higher retirement age, along with below-inflation pay rises.

Mr Jones said: "The most important thing to emphasise is that Waltham Forest College will open tomorrow for business as usual.

"It's not possible at this stage to say how many members of staff wish to participate although it's certain that a number will, without doubt.

"This is part of a national issue".

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "Strike action is always a last resort but the attacks on pensions and pay have created real anger and, instead of burying their heads in the sand, the employers need to respond urgently to our concerns.

"Staff are sick to the back teeth of being told that their pay and pensions need to be cut to pay for an economic crisis created by others."

Staff at other colleges in the borough do not appear to be taking part, according to a list published by the UCU on its website. Many staff at other colleges in the borough are members of different unions.

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments(11)

Heartlysmum says...
7:12pm Wed 23 Mar 11

To achieve what?

Brisbane says...
10:07pm Wed 23 Mar 11

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt says: "Staff are sick to the back teeth of being told that their pay and pensions need to be cut to pay for an economic crisis created by others."
Well, maybe people like Ms Hunt should stop telling them such utter tripe then.
Public spending rose to unsustainably high levels under the Labour government, and it now needs to be brought back under control. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Sam Hain says...
9:23am Thu 24 Mar 11

No, Brisbane, public borrowing and spending was in line with the world economic situation as it was at the time. It was not the Labour government's fault that global casino banking practices brought the house of cards crashing down. The bankers got us all into this mess and they should be the ones to pay for it, not public sector workers.

Heartlysmum says...
9:48am Thu 24 Mar 11

Sam

You are just plain wrong. They were in charge and let rip with the spending, it's all gone, so we need to rein in.

I think the banks that were bust such as Northern Rock should have closed, but hold on that was in Labour's heartland and that would have lost votes.

Public spending is out of control this lot are actually doing the right thing and it is not a class war, put down the poor thing.

mdj says...
11:51am Thu 24 Mar 11

Sam, We'd probably agree on many things, but can your economic textbook explain this: why, after 30 years of North Sea oil, does Norway have a massive sovereign wealth fund, while Britain has record sovereign debt? Or why US banks came to London to carry out risky practices that the USA had banned?

Brisbane says...
10:21pm Thu 24 Mar 11

Sam,
Yes the bankers screwed up big-style, but you are in denial about the wider picture. Between 1999 and 2007 we had a housing boon (remember?) bringing in a tax windfall for the government in the form of capital gains tax, stamp duty and additional consumer spending.
These windfall revenues were clearly temporary (the housing boom would have stopped at some point even if the bankers had been sober) and no sensible government would have spent the whole lot, and committed itself to continuing to spend such money even when the windfall dried up.
Labour did this and then some - running budget deficits throughout the housing boom. Public spending as a proportion of GDP rose sharply - and simply has to fall, unless you are in favour of massive tax rises for the entire working population.

Sam Hain says...
10:54pm Thu 24 Mar 11

I'm no economist, mdj, and find most of this stuff, including SWFs, plain baffling but our 'special relationship' with the US may have more than a little to do with our current economic woes. However, I seem to recall that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the subprime crisis were American phenomena which dragged not only us but most of the rest of the western world down with them. As to Brisbane's points, national debt as a percentage of GDP is currently I think around 68% and yet after WWII it was 180% and we still managed to create the NHS and the welfare state. In the Alice In Wonderland world of global capitalism if you're going to run up national debt (and all countries do, even Norway, mdj, where it is 60% of GDP I believe) then it might as well go on things that improve people's lives. That's what Labour did after the War and that's what they did over the past 13 years. Had the country not turned against them in a combination of frustration, boredom and pique they would almost certainly have gone on to stabilise affairs. I fully expect in a year or so's time when the coalition's needlessly brutal cuts have really bitten, people will be clamouring to give them the chance to do so.

mdj says...
12:23am Fri 25 Mar 11

'(and all countries do, even Norway, mdj, where it is 60% of GDP I believe)'
True Sam, but which of those two countries is the better bet to repay it? Budget deficit as percentage of GDP - UK: c.10%; Norway: c. 0%.
It might be salutary to look up the speech Gordon Brown made to Lehman Bros when they opened their new offices in London, just before the bust: they could do no wrong, in his eyes.
I really don't see how you can still hold such a starry-eyed view of a record of dismally incompetent economic management. Brisbane picks the key indicator; that Labour ran up ever-higher deficits during a period of record property boom and tax revenues.

Sam Hain says...
11:46am Fri 25 Mar 11

The collapse of Lehman Brothers came as a complete shock to everyone, mdj, hence its catastrophic effects. I think Brown (though unquestionably a lacklustre PM) was a pretty competent Chancellor but I'm not so "starry-eyed" as to credit him with second sight! He no more saw it coming than anyone else did. I do, however, think he cut the banks far too much slack, but that was largely as a result of the legacy of the New Labour strategy he and Blair (but particularly he) cooked up to get Labour re-elected after 18 years dreary years of Tory (mis)rule. By not scaring Middle England and wooing the City (on the basis of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer) they succeeded in that objective. Unfortunately they didn't keep their enemies close enough as it turned out (or perhaps too close depending on your point of view) and they were always going to be fair weather friends. Failure to factor that into their 'cunning plan' was its fatal flaw!

mdj says...
5:06pm Fri 25 Mar 11

'The collapse of Lehman Brothers came as a complete shock to everyone, mdj, hence its catastrophic effects...'
Really?
Perhaps you should subscribe to Money Week: you won't like its sometimes callously free-market tone, but economic news will contain many fewer surprises!

Sam Hain says...
10:22pm Fri 25 Mar 11

I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters, mdj - anything to avoid subscribing to Money Week, to which opening a vein in a warm bath would be infinitely preferable!

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree