Arrogant Politicians (30/11/2011)
I listened to one of our 'striking' MSPs on the radio - who is not going into work today at the Scottish Parliament - because he is out supporting the public sector pensions dispute.
The MSP was put on the spot by the interviewer - to explain if he would or would not be getting paid - as he was not going about his normal duties.
The MSP squirmed a bit before answering - that he would be prepared to donate his day's pay to a charitable cause - of his choice.
What unbelievable arrogance.
If MSPs are not prepared to go into their normal place of work today - where ironically a debate on public sector pensions is taking place - then they should not be paid.
If they want to go off and stand on picket lines or join demonstrations - that's fine - but why should the public purse subsidise these activities - when MSPs should be doing their day jobs.
Nor should there be any questions of MSPs donating their day's pay to charity - as a means of ingratiating themselves with some good cause - let them do that out of their own money.
Because the bottom line is that if they are not working in the Scottish Parliament - which is open for business as normal - then they should be deducted a day's pay.
Anything else would be a scandalous waste of public money.
I read somewhere that Labour MSPs are not going to their work at the Scottish Parliament as normal today - because they are not going to cross picket lines in support of the public sector pensions strike.
But the same thing is not happening at Westminster apparently - where the Labour leadership will be going about their duties without any disruption.
Please someone tell me that this is not true - or if it is true - then please explain the difference in what Labour is doing north and south of the border.
Because this strikes me - if that's the right word - as devolution gone mad.
The strike has nothing directly to do with MSPs in the Scottish Parliament - they are not being asked to cover the duties of any striking civil servants.
So this is just posturing - while trying to curry favour with the unions - perhaps because there is a leadership election underway.
Maybe that's it - maybe I've hit on the answer - but if so it's a sad day for democracy.
Are these same MSPs going to come out in sympathy - if there is more industrial action in the New Year?
I think not but I think the nation deserves and answer - along with confirmation that they will all be docked a day's pay.
What puzzles me is why the trade unions support more favourable treatment for different groups of workers?
Now I can understand why the head teachers union would fight to retain a final salary pension scheme - because it favours people who earn a big salary in the final stages of their careers.
But the head teachers' final salary pension is being heavily subsidised - by the school cleaner, the classroom assistant and the school meals worker.
So why don't the GMB, Unison and Unite - stand up and condemn this nonsense as strikingly unfair?
Because that's exactly what it is - and ironically that's what the Labour party and the trade unions say they stand for - equality and fairness at work.
In which case why do they not come out and say that everyone should have the same normal retirement age - why should some groups of workers be allowed to retire before others?
I don't buy for a minute the suggestion that school teachers are somehow more 'burnt out' by 60 - than a classroom assistant or a care worker, for example.
Why should the lower paid groups - be on such inferior conditions compared to their higher paid colleagues?
To its eternal shame the Labour party is encouraging this crazy behaviour - when in truth its leaders accept the case for reform.
The bottom line is fairness at work - and if some public sector workers are more equal than others, then no matter how you cut it - that's simply not fair.
