So BBC reporter Nick Robinson interviews a guy who is taking part in the strike march (public sector worker) and he gets him together with someone who runs his own coffee shop business (private sector worker). During the course of the chat the coffee shop owner says he doesn't have much sympathy with the strikers because he doesn't even have a pension plan, so what do they have to really grumble about(?!).
Did I miss something or does that sound like the beginnings of a joke with a missing punch line?! Do I construe from that argument that the coffee shop owner can't be arsed to save for his own future? If he feels that he CAN'T afford to save for his future then rather than thinking the grass is greener and begrudging the people who are striking, surely it would be better for him to consider the fact that if his own position is so indefensible, that he might like for a public sector worker to help highlight his impoverished position as a member of the public suffering under extraordinary austere measures? After all, when the public sector have been steamrollered, do private sector workers think this is not going to affect their lot? Or was it just this one coffee shop owner they found? Do private sector workers not think they deserve a better deal from the consequences of political misbehaviour? What am I meant to take away from that little ditty on the BBC news?
Are public and private sector workers so polarised in their views that they wish to squabble at each other? Maybe someone as well as me will realise we're on the same page.
No comments:
Post a Comment