(Image Source: BBC)

BY STEVEN HSIEH
 

You're watching multisource world video news analysis from Newsy.

Hundreds of thousands of British public service workers went on strike today, disrupting schools, airports and government offices. Unions estimate around 750,000 workers walked out to protest proposed changes to pension plans, including increases in contributions and a rise of the retirement age.

“It’s unfair that they’re being asked to pay more, to work longer, and get less.  That’s why I’m here...If the teacher pension scheme is denuded of its benefits, as is planned, then we’ll find the best graduates don’t come into teaching, and that will effect the long-term education of kids in this country.” (The Telegraph)

The coalition-led government and Labour leader Ed Miliband both call the strikes irresponsible and unnecessary, as pension talks are still underway. Some say Britain is facing a war between the public and private sector.

“What is being asked for here is that those in the private sector, who on average are poorer, should bail out the more affluent people in the public sector.  I don’t think that’s right.  I don’t think it’s fair.  And I don’t think it’s sustainable.” (BBC)

But a writer for the Guardian says the division between sectors is political spin.

“People see through these divide-and-rule tactics because they see injustice around them every day when they are told there is no money for libraries, but there is for bombing Libya; they have to swallow a VAT hike while corporation tax is slashed…”

But an economist tells CNBC the current plan is unaffordable.

“It’s the consequence of the public sector having been bloated in the last 10 or 12 years.  Obviously, it has to be cut back to size.  Obviously, pensions, the major cost in the whole item, has to be taken down to normal levels. Obviously, the retirement age has to be increased…It has to happen.  The only issue is how long it takes.”

Cabinet minister Francis Maude estimates the changes will save 3 billion pounds a year.  An economist tells Sky News, that’s not a big piece of pie.

“3 billion pounds a year is not exactly back of the sofa money, but it’s not much more than a rounding error…The government is on very thin ice here if it’s going to go down the affordability route, rather than the fairness route.”

Finally, an analyst explains both the unions and the government have a lot to lose.

“If the unions lose this one – they’re still very strong in the public sector – if they lose this one, they’ll lose membership and influence.  But it’s also a really big test for David Cameron’s coalition as well.  After u-turns, recently, on criminal justice and on the health service, they won’t want to be seen as forced into a corner by the unions.” (Financial Times)

The BBC explains both sides of the debate are using somewhat fuzzy math to back their own arguments. The news outlet put together a fact check sheet to sort out the differences- we’ve got a link to that in the transcript section of this story.

Transcript by Newsy.