The 260,000 members of the Public and Commercial Services union were polled following government plans to cut over 100,000 jobs.

The strike will affect public services such as jobcentres, benefit agencies, pensions offices, customs and driving tests.

Would you support the civil servants action or will it cause chaos for the affected services? How will this change relations between the unions and the Labour party? Send us your views using the form.

This debate has now closed. Thank you for your comments.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

Every politician will always play on the stereotypical image the public has of the Civil Service because it's an easy, popular way to appear to be doing something, whilst not doing the dirty work of tackling the real problems of society. Sacking Civil Servants hardly going to be an election losing policy is it? And they get away with it because of the dedication of those very Civil Servants, who want to help society, do an honest day's work for a reasonable wage, and help tidy all the mess up again after the strike. There is a reason the extra staff have been taken on in recent years; because there's extra work to do! Maybe some of those criticising should spend a week on the other side of their DWP office counter?
Howard, London, UK

I don't support the strike. However, most of the civil service seems to be employed either because systems are so bad that more people are needed to keep things running, or the rules created by the politicians are so complicated the systems couldn't cope even if they designed properly. The Government ought to tackle the fundamental (and expensive) inefficiencies caused by complex rules and poor systems first before sacking a few thousand people and badging it as "significant saving"
Matt, London, UK

Cutting 100,000 jobs is a grotesque and irresponsible electioneering stunt that will destroy livelihoods

Local council workers in Unison fully support our PCS colleagues. Civil servants may conjure an image of Sir Humphrey, but the reality is overworked underpaid front-line staff in job centres, pension and benefit offices. Cutting 100,000 jobs is a grotesque and irresponsible electioneering stunt that will destroy livelihoods and can only hurt services. We'll be going to picket lines on 5 Nov to support our sisters and brothers.
Ben Drake, York, UK

The myth that the private sector is somehow more efficient than the public should be put to rest. My area of the civil service has dealings with so-called professionals in the private sector who, with a few exceptions, charge their clients enormous amounts for poor and frequently bad advice. We do a 37-hour week compared to 35 in most of the private sector, and a lot of private sector workers couldn't get a job in the civil service if they tried. A half pay pension (after 40 years) based on not a lot is, for many, a pittance and actuarially the average civil servant draws a pension for just 1 year. So as usual we have the uninformed indulging in the politics of envy on this forum. The upside of working in the public sector is that the work can be cutting-edge, extremely interesting and, above all, honest - there's no ripping people off, so you go home with a clear conscience every day.
Richard, Bridgwater, UK

The problem is that the work still needs to be done. As with private sector redundancies, it isn't the lazy incompetent people that go... the first people to take voluntary redundancy are the good people, who are sure they can get good jobs elsewhere, and the people with a lot of experience, who will take early retirement.
Nathan Hobbs, Luton, UK

Reading several of the 'Have your say' topics, it seems to me that the only Government policy that has any real support is this one! As a Civil Servant, I would like advice on who I should vote for at the next election. All the main political parties are competing over how many of us they will get rid of, so just which party does a Civil Servant vote for?
Chris, Colchester, UK

Amazing, the usual "bloated, over pensioned" comments from many in the private sector so out of touch with reality and with no idea of what goes on in the public sector. If you think it's such an easy job why don't you join? After all you get easy money and a nice pension for very little work? So many on here have no idea, I've worked harder since joining the civil service than in any job in the private sector in the last 10 years. And, by the way, civil service salaries are traditionally lower to take into account pension contributions. I wish people would learn to think rather than relying on the usual media garbage.
Julie, Stockton

A general thinning out of the civil service is long overdue. For 25 years British industry has been running 'lean and mean' and has at last become profitable once the dead wood, underperforming and incompetent were removed. Why is it so strange that we do not expect the same of our civil service.
David Turner, Indonesia/UK

The arbitrary cutting of 100,000 jobs simply to meet political ambition and dogma is not the answer. Peter Jones, Llanelli S.Wales

Just readings some of the comments on this page show how misunderstood today's Civil Servant's are. We may not be the Doctors or Nurses of this world, but we are, nonetheless, hard working people who meet the day-to-day challenges and changes of society, head on, and who deliver front line and support services to all members of society. This dispute is not about pay, but being able to continue to deliver those essential public services efficiently and effectively, not just for now but for the future as well. The arbitrary cutting of 100,000 jobs simply to meet political ambition and dogma is not the answer.
Peter Jones, Llanelli S.Wales

Of course I back this strike, the Chancellor can find money for weapons and bombs but not any to fund essential public services, this government needs to stop attacking ordinary workers who deliver priority services and also pay them a living wage so that they do not have to claim the very benefits they deliver. We must all support the civil servants and their Union PCS as their fight is our fight.
Sulaiman Ritchie, Romford, England

As a Civil Servant of 19 years who left when I saw which way the wind was blowing, I totally support the strike. 120,000 jobs are being sacrificed just to steal a march on the Conservatives. I can tell you first hand that no-one has any idea how these cuts can be made. New Labour changed the previous structure of the Department of Work and Pensions, effectively creating a new Agency, which then needed a whole new management structure. Swathes of people were promoted, and as such under the changes brought about by the same Government, are now surplus to requirements. This is an abysmal way to treat anyone, and if there is excess in the Civil Service, it is because of incompetent decisions made. And who suffers? The staff, not the culprits.
Craig, Stirling

This should be a modern, industrious sector, and strikes just prove why it isn't Dave, Leicester, UK

I used to be a civil servant. I didn't like the money or the culture so I left. I'm tired of the 'we're so essential, we're so committed to the public' hogwash - it's just camouflage for a chaotic, mediocre work culture populated by people who make it that way and who think that their old Labour politics and habits are inviolable. They're not - this should be a modern, industrious sector, and strikes just prove why it isn't.
Dave, Leicester, UK

Striking civil servants should note that us poor souls in private industry live with the constant threat of sacking and redundancy- that's how private industry works. Civil servants get a scare every decade or so - you really don't know how lucky you are.
Andrew M, Walsall, UK

Wise up, everyone! The government announces staff cuts to give signs of efficiency leading up to Election. Unions go on strike, the government resists to look tough then wins election and then forgets about cuts because another one isn't due for 5 years. Up go taxes to maintain status quo until next time and so on.
Andrew Smith, Richmond, North Yorks

These cuts are a false economy. They cannot be justified on financial grounds, only political ones. Rachel, London

These cuts are a false economy. They cannot be justified on financial grounds, only political ones. The inevitable result of cutting tax inspectors and customs officers is that the Government will lose far more than it saves in lost tax and duties. Cutting other staff means that expensive agency staff will be hired instead, and that stupid blunders will be made that will cost the taxpayer dear.
Rachel, London

It's difficult to have too much sympathy with people so insulated from the real world. Civil servants don't have to worry about competitive pressures. Also while the rest of us are worrying about a pension crisis, they have cushy index linked pensions to keep them in their old age - all paid for by our taxes!
Andrew, Cardiff, UK

Civil servants encompass a very wide range of people. Some are people who accept a pitifully low wage because they care passionately about their work and want to make the country a better place. Others want a cushy number with a good pension, and others still simply want a little bit of perceived authority so they can make life difficult for people. I know this simply because I have come across all three frequently in my dealings with the public sector. What I would like to see is the first group paid more and the last group fired.
Nige, England

I will not support THIS strike. I know from direct experience that DWP is incredibly lax and inefficient. While some civil servants are hard working and conscientious, far more aim to do the absolute minimum. Anyone who has worked in the private sector would be astonished at the small amount of work achieved. To be fair, the complexity of rules devised by the last 30 years of governments doesn't help, but then, most DWP staff don't really know or understand them. They are also undermined and discouraged when reasonable decisions are overturned by review staff. Neither the government nor the unemployed will be bothered by this strike - just like the last few strikes. If the PCS really wants to help its members, it should pay far more attention to the threats and violence frequently offered to civil servants - most of whom are PCS members. In this area, they would have a reasonable case, but they seem reluctant to make it a headline issue. That is a cause I would readily support.
Geoff Batchelor, West Yorkshire

The rise in the number of Civil Servants is directly linked to the number of bills passed through Parliament. Ex Jobcentre Manager, Sittingbourne, Kent

As an ex Civil Servant of 39 years front line service I have to wonder at the crass stupidity and lack of basic knowledge of people like David Cross of Liverpool. They go into to print without the basic understanding of the people he is attacking. That person does not know the difference between a Civil Servant and a Local Authority employee. Teachers and Classroom assistants are NOT Civil Servants. Get your facts right before you open your mouth. The rise in the number of Civil Servants is directly linked to the number of bills passed through Parliament. If Parliament introduces a new law/programme then people need to be recruited to carry it out. Laws are very rarely abolished. The front line staff has been cut to the bone over the last four years and the amount of work has not been reduced. Productivity payments are disgusting for hitting targets which are imposed not negotiated you can get the vast sum of �250,l ess tax for a years productivity. Yes, anyone can make cuts to save money whatever organisation they work in but mainly it is not efficient. The Treasury just employ non Civil Servants to do the jobs and they do not show on the statistics as Civil Servants, and as most are agency staff they cost more!!
Ex Jobcentre Manager, Sittingbourne, Kent

Civil servants are already the most pampered employees outside the boardroom. Their gold-plated pensions cost the rest of us a fortune. They also do less work and there are far too many of them - I should know, I used to work in the MoD! I would think that getting rid of 100,000 is merely the start. If they worked the same hours as the rest of us (ever tried ringing a government department on a Friday afternoon?) you could probably get rid of another 100,000!
Bill, Liverpool

The PCS has to acknowledge that new technology is here, not march their members up the hill in a token gesture like this. Clive Talbot, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Arithmetic will tell you that most PCS members don't believe in this action. Only 72,780 out of 260,000 voted Yes. Not an inspiring mandate and certainly not 2:1. Civil Servants are hard working. They deserve better from their Employer and from the PCS. The PCS has to acknowledge that new technology is here, not march their members up the hill in a token gesture like this. Civil Servants are more mature than the PCS thinks. 187,220 of them didn't vote in favour of this strike. Enough said.
Clive Talbot, Belfast, Northern Ireland

It amazes me that the contributors to this debate from the public sector are so utterly out of touch with reality. The reality is that the public sector is a grossly incompetent monster that is absorbing a rapidly increasing proportion of the country's wealth, and squandering it. Since it was elected in 1997, this profligate government has increased public spending by hundreds of billions and recruited nearly 1 million public sector workers - yet public sector services have deteriorated. It is, therefore, not surprising that taxpayers want the public sector scaled back dramatically!! 100,000 is nowhere near enough!
James, London, UK

Just to correct some of the stultifying ill-informed statistics I've read today (James, London, UK) between 1997 and 2003 the government employed c.37,000 more civil servants (an increase of 7.8%) half of which have gone to the Home Office to provide policing, immigration control and a prison service. The MoD, on the other hand, has lost about one in six staff. Our civil service is one of the most efficient and professional in the world and continues to improve its efficiency. That being said I do not support this strike, because as a Civil Servant I welcome any change that improves the quality and efficiency of the services we provide.
Tom, London, UK

No, I do not support this strike. As we pay their wages from our taxes, is it unreasonable to ask them to carry out their contracted duties? If they don't like the pay and conditions, they do have a choice, i.e. take a job in the private sector.
Paul Phillips, Birmingham, UK

Considering that �1.75 billion per year, or thereabouts is spent on advisors and consultants from the private sector to help the government formulate their so-called reforms, and at the same time they are planning to slash thousands of Civil Service jobs, yes, I do back their strike.
Andrew Cover, London, UK

Shame on those politicians and shame on you who cannot recognise the excellent service you have Gerry, Scotland

As someone who has worked in both the private and the public sector I can say to those people who leap to Sir Humphrey conclusions every time a civil servant is mentioned you do not know what you are talking about. The UK has still the finest, most honest and impartial civil service in the world. It is the only group of workers in the UK who have their livelihoods discussed as a Dutch auction by political parties, shame on those politicians and shame on you who cannot recognise the excellent service you have and what you are about to lose.
Gerry, Scotland

Once again a group of Public Sector employees, who previously believed themselves to be bullet proof, need to understand that they are employees of the State, paid by the rest of the country's taxpayers, and we want to know that our money is being used in the best possible way and not just to provide a comfy seat under the backsides of the excessive amount of paper pushing civil servants currently employed.
Andy Healey, Portsmouth, England

I fully support this action since I feel it is now imperative that the electorate take control of our dictatorial politicians. The party political system of government is a geriatric dinosaur.
Brian Langfield, Yorkshire, UK

If you're running a business, you don't make it more efficient by simply cutting staff. The Government should explain to the taxpayer where these efficiencies are coming from and how we are getting value for money. They've lost the plot and have stolen yet another strategy from the Tories - didn't the present Government create most of these posts themselves?
Kevin Fairbrother, Nottingham

Many are so low paid that they qualify for the very benefits that the administer Frank Curry, Telford

Civil servants provide many essential services to the nation. Many are so low paid that they qualify for the very benefits that the administer. Moving jobs 'north' will not help the poorest parts of the south-east and London where people depend on the Civil Service for their livelihood - it won't be Sir Humphrey's job that goes to Wigan. It is disgraceful that a so-called Labour government is cutting jobs in this fashion, but typical of the Tories and Lib Dems to jump on the bandwagon. By all means have a rational review of the Civil Service but do not make them the butt of an 'I-can-cut-more-jobs-than-you' electoral campaign.
Frank Curry, Telford

I am disgusted at some people's comments on this site. I am a civil servant and my colleagues and myself work very hard under a lot of pressure for a disgraceful wage and complete lack of respect from the government and the public. We are normal everyday people not knowing if we will still have jobs to go to next year and I can tell you that we are desperately under staffed as it is. Maybe it'll hit home when people need their benefits/child maintenance/pensions/tax credits sorted out but there is no one there to help them. And as for comments about the strike last year not being noticed, don't be fooled by the media and government cover up - plenty noticed when their precious stats fell and senior managers got on their back.
Emma, Wales

Emma, Wales. Emma, it will surprise you to learn that we all work hard for a pitiful wage with little or no recognition. But we, or the 'Public' as you describe us, have the extra worry about investment performance regarding pensions because our pensions are not linked to our salary at retirement. (60 for civil servants.)These schemes are also underwritten by the taxpayer. (The Public.) If, as you say the public don't respect civil servants now, going on strike will hardly enhance the situation.
Roger, UK

Let them strike and then sack another 100,000. This overstaffed dinosaur needs to be made extinct and a more cost effective administration put in it's place.
Kev, Cheshire

Civil servants do little more than waste the nation's wealth. They should all be retrained to do something useful, like refuse collection (which benefits the community).
Chris, Hastings UK

This party is moving to the right of Thatcher James, Dunmow, England

I support the strike whole-heartedly. It is a tragedy when the Labour Party, the party of the people, is willing to get rid of 100,000 public service jobs. It is a disgraceful decision that Brown, Blair, and the opportunist turn-coats on the Labour cabinet should be ashamed of. This party is moving to the right of Thatcher, it is disgusting and wrong, and the TUC should call a general strike this right-wing "Tory" government.
James, Dunmow, England

The Government is just playing up to the myth that the civil service is inefficient. Most people I know who have worked in both can't believe how chaotic and inefficient the private sector is compared to public services. If you want more policemen, teachers, nurses etc then you need people to recruit them, train them, sort out their pay and manage all the other support services they need to do their job. I back the PCS because they are defending public services - we can already see that the politician's so called efficiencies just mean closing offices offering a poorer service all round.
Peter, London

I see many people trotting out the same old rhetoric about the civil service being "bloated". But leaving aside their prejudice, and the simple repetition of the favourite battle-cry of the right-wing press, what do they actually know about what civil servants do. Not a lot.
Simon, Leeds, UK

In the end, you get the public services you pay for Nigel Stapley, Wrexham, Wales

The Government has been dishonest in claiming that the cuts won't impact on services because only "backroom staff" will be culled. "Frontline services" can't operate without support staff. If you get rid of us, how then do you support the frontline: a constant turnover of temp agency workers with little experience, or private contractors at two to ten times the cost to the taxpayer? As others have said, we're a soft target for desperate politicians, who rely on "Sir Humphrey" stereotypes (I've been in the civil service for 14 years and never seen any of my colleagues wearing a bowler hat). In the end, you get the public services you pay for, and if you're not willing to pay for committed support staff, you forfeit the right to whinge when "frontline" services become less effective due to their absence. We do what we do for comparatively poor pay because we want to serve the public : if we did it for the money, we'd have all decamped to the private sector by now.
Nigel Stapley (civil servant and proud of it), Wrexham, Wales

The Government say that the numbers of Civil Servants needs to be reduced. What they don't say is that they will 'privatise' the service, employing the same numbers, just not calling them Civil Servants. Of course, the new private contracts will be more expensive than the current costs.
Richard, Birmingham

These cuts in staffing numbers are really long overdue. I mean how are Labour MP's expected to ride the gravy train with �160,000 plus in expenses when you unfortunately have to pay these pesky civil servants who, after all, are only involved in essential services. Make these Civil Servants work until they keel over!
Paul, Edinburgh

Labour seem to be able to do whatever they want: they created these extra 100000 jobs over the course of the last 7 years as they had enough money to spend. Now Gordon's overblown government borrowing, so he's got to cut these jobs. Whether any of these jobs are necessary is a matter for debate, needless to say Gordon Brown is obviously paid to dig holes and fill them in again.
Adam D, Cambridge

The disgraceful way PCS members were informed of the cuts by public announcement Andrew Berry, London

I give my full support to PCS. It is disgrace that both Labour and the Tory's describe them as faceless bureaucrats when they provide front line services. There is also the disgraceful way PCS members were informed of the cuts by public announcement. These attacks are a cut in our public services I hope the PCS wins this dispute.
Andrew Berry, London

100,000 is not nearly enough. The UK civil service is horribly over staffed and there are no end of pointless jobs. Unions are quick to point to important areas such as customs and the inland revenue, when in fact the job cuts will be targeted against "vital" roles such as "primary school fresh fruit empowerment officer".
David Cross, Liverpool, England

No I wouldn't back it. Job cuts are what's needed to cull our bloated civil service. It shouldn't serve as needless job creation, the wastage needs to be addressed. If these people aren't needed, the taxpayers' money shouldn't be supporting them.
Alex, Cambridge

Civil servants are easy targets Henry, Southport

Absolutely. As a civil servant I know all too well how we are treated. The simple fact is that civil servants are easy targets for a government who can't be bothered to tackle the real areas of cost.
Henry, Southport

I know from personal experience that most of the departments affected by the proposed cuts are vastly overstaffed, hopelessly inefficient, and are manned by disinterested people who send paperwork round in circles instead of processing it. If they strike it really won't make a huge difference to the lamentable services offered to the public - and if 100,00 are fired there's a chance that those left behind will buck their ideas up.
Chris B, Bedford, UK

I think we should support these guys, as it appears the cuts Mr Brown will be making won't be in the right places. Who'd have guessed! Mind you if the customs staff cut backs affect their ability to steal from cross channel shoppers I'm all for it.
Adam, Warwick

The public sector has become too bloated and needs to be cut James Smith, London, UK

A civil service strike would mean essential public services being disrupted. The fact is that the public sector has become too bloated and needs to be cut, so that money can be spent where it's needed.
James Smith, London, UK

Didn't they strike last year? I remember that no one noticed.
Paul Weaver, Twyford, Berks

Lest we forget that the Civil Servants actually 'run' this country's services, pay pensions, collect taxes, distribute grants etc. The politicians may have the rhetoric but the low paid Civil Servants get the job done. Thousands are forced to claim the same Government handouts they administer in their day jobs just to be able to live. How ironic.
John , Leeds UK

Cut the number of MPs and their budgets before sacking essential front line staff Phill C, Sheffield, UK

With 659 MPs claiming who knows what in so called "expenses" it is clear that all that MPs care about is themselves especially as these civil servants work just as hard if not harder for a lot less money. The treasury should cut the number of MPs and their budgets before sacking essential front line staff. I do support the strike whole heartedly.
Phill C, Sheffield, UK