I and my colleague had to carry a load of gear to a patient through thick clay mud to reach a casualty on Sunday. It was about a mile or so from the nearest access point, I then had to stay and treat the patient in snowy conditions at temps of about only about 3C whilst my colleague liaised with another crew. Luckily the person fell at the point right next to a dual carriage way flyover, we found this out when we for there, and the lane she was closest to was closed for repairs. So we got the other crew to drive the wrong direction up there to get near the casualty. We still had to carry her on a stretcher for about 200 metres through slippery mud and lift her over a 3′ high fence.

Now I’m still relatively fit and young, as I currently stand I can retire at about 58 with a reasonable pension after 42 years of service. The changes mean I’ll be working at least until I’m 68 maybe more by then and for slightly less money. I can’t see me be able to do the job much past 60 never mind 68 and no it’s not what I signed up for.

What about labourers, steel fixers, scaffolders, ground workers etc who do heavy work like that all day, in all weathers everyday? No doubt they get paid less than you do and have no pension.

What is happening to you is s**t especially when those at the top make sure they aren’t effected but a lot of people are far worse off than you.

I’m with easygirl. Show me someone else that contributes soon to be 14% to their pension and i’ll show you some sympathy

Last year I was working in a bid team for 3 months and one of the guys was banging on about how the bloody teachers and their copper bottomed pensions were outrageous etc etc. then we discovered he was ex services with, wait for it, a copper bottomed pension. No one’s happy about their pensions – except for board members of ftse companies.

Usual misinformation on here about this
1) the comparison public sector wages to private alluded to earlier is wrong. when you look at work of equal responsibility / skills / qualifications the private sector pays higher.

2)Public sector pensions are affordable and most have been reformed. For example the NHS pension is in surplus – more is paid in every year than is paid out and it has been like this for a long time, If this money had been invested it would have been the biggest investment / pension fund in the world. Instead it has been spent by the governments.

Even so the pensions have been reformed and are perfectly affordable

Teachers – Government contribution is capped – any future shortfall will either mean higher employee contributions or lower pensions. Legally binding deal.

3) Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa – any cut in this simply means a higher benefits bill to lift the pensioners out of poverty

This is all about divide and conquer and find the enemy within – and making the now viable pensions unviable by making them so poor value people opt out.

There has been a moral panic created by the right wing press and the tories over this with relentless false propaganda for years. Public sector pensions liabilities are due to fall over the next 50 years – not rise

The facts are that the public sector pension have been reformed to make them affordable, they are affordable and it manifestly unfair that contributions are being raised and benefits cut when there simply is no need to do so and very little money will be saved as a result.

the fiscal state of this country and its realistic economic growth prospects.

So basically people should pay more earn less because of somebody else’s cockup?

I don’t quite agree with that.

This whole debacle makes no sense at all. We have a high unemployment rate so the folks in charge decide to make those in employment work longer? Make them pay more into a pension to get less? Pay less to the unemployed who were probably part of the big plan (Child tax credits etc to encourage breeding) to increase payment to the Govt to fund pensions in the first place! And they think this will kick start the economy?

clubber – Member
oh god, no!

just look up TandemJeremy and half the threads he’s been on to save having yet another unproductive discussion on this.

So has anyone changed their views yet?

Well it looks like anybody up here had better make alternative child care arrangements on the 28th of this month, as we are out again. 🙁

The circular ‘arguments’ of the present government are almost funny, but mostly make me despondent:
1) Country is skint, must make cost savings including on your salaries (frozen for minimum 3 years, falling relative to inflation) and your pensions.
2) You are all opposed to health & social care (and now possibly police) reforms because you are pissed off about your pensions, not because you are better qualified to comment or becuse you have a professional duty of care to raise concerns for the welfare of your patients customers. Your arguments about privatisation other reforms are considered null and void because we are in the fortuitous position of cutting your salaries and pensions at the same time.

What luck that they are able to argue these two things at the same time. 👿

juan – Member

the fiscal state of this country and its realistic economic growth prospects.

So basically people should pay more earn less because of somebody else’s cockup?

I don’t quite agree with that.

As I said at the beginning it’s all a bit “me, me, me” when it comes to pensions…

billyboy – Member

A deal is a deal.
Posted 13 hours ago # Report-Post

That sound fair enough billyboy.
Someone owes me about 200,00€ doe to lost work and no salary increase. Where can I get this from billyboy? Who can I complain to?

As I said at the beginning it’s all a bit “me, me, me” when it comes to pensions…

The money has gone somewhere, it has not just vaporised. It was the “me, me, me” of key people in banking and fincial services that created this situation, but I do not see this government or indeed other european ones doing much about chasing them. I don’t even see our government even trying to create the impression that they are chasing the ‘right’ people about this, instead they create ‘bogeymen’ out of certain groups of (but not all) public servants and chase them, using mis-representative pensions of cheif execs in local authorities and NHS rather than low paid teaching assistants, cleaners (yes our local authority and NHS trusts have not yet farmed all these out to private companies yet), hospital porters, health care assistants and so on.

I am aware that the frankly enormous military officers pensions would be very harsh to start with under their current ratio of home/war zone deployment, but FFS, even a symbolic commensurate reduction in MP’s pensions would be a drop in the ocean financially, but give the impression to some more gullible voters that “we are in this together”.

The money has gone somewhere, it has not just vaporised. It was the “me, me, me” of key people in banking and fincial services that created this situation,

The money didn’t exist in the first place as it was all credit and as for the the banks creating the problem, it takes two to tango. Everyone has the take responsibility for their own part. What was the threat used by the banks if you didn’t take out the credit?
And let’s not forget that the public sector pensions are invested in stocks and share in the FTSE100. When the public sector is complaining about dividend payouts and focussing on the shareholder, they’re complaining about themselves, indirectly.

Don Simon, no idea who you complain to. But if you had applied for and got a job where your lower wage (relative to qualifications, experience, responsibility and risk of someone ending up dead on your watch) was offset by your pension, retirement age and responsible employer with job security and good track record, you might have more chance of getting your 200k back. Except of course it would be less than 200k because you were doing it in the public sector. You might also have considered paying monthly into a trade union for support in that eventuality.

(edit: there is no NHS pension ‘fund’ invested anywhere, my pension deductions are spent within the overall health service budget and the budget also pays pensions of those currently in receipt of an nhs pension. Not sure about the teachers though.)

Since part of the problem is increasing life expectancy, and since “public sector workers aren’t getting the deal they signed up to” should we not just kill public sector pensioners when they reach the life expectancy that was originally projected for them when they starting working? or at least stop paying pensions to them… 😀

when you look at work of equal responsibility / skills / qualifications the private sector pays higher.
true that. 20k, a car and share options higher, in my case. But I knew that when I made the move and was happy with that trade-off. I assume most of us in the public sector *knew* that we’d be on comparatively lower pay when we made the choice.

Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa

Is this correct?

Poly, you are Jeremy Clarkson, and I claim my £5.

😆

No, its wrong. He missed a naught off. And on the day they retire they get a solid gold Faberge pineapple and 2 swans. Except dinner ladies who get a special trophy a bit like the FA Cup, but the handles are made into the form of bingo wings

clubber – Member

So has anyone changed their views yet?

I’ve not changed by view, but when balloted last week on strike action i voted ‘no’ (which is a change).

For more info on public sector pemsions try reading here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

this gives details on funding (or lack of) and pension averages.

Note that for ‘unfunded’ ones the money comes out of taxation.

Also FYI: for a private sector money purchase or defined benefit pension (where you contribute into your pot and your ‘fund’ is everything that you have put in [*and employer contributions if you’re lucky]) that (IMHO) that a ‘public sector’ pension of £3100 would (for a 60 year old male) would require a pot of about £100,000 to get an equivalent deal. (*The later you take an annuity on your pot the higher amount per 100,000 you get)
http://www.annuitydiscount.co.uk/Annuity_Best_Rates_Table.htm

Zedsdead – Member

“Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa “

Is this correct?

Thought I had better check – I got muddled with local authority

The Hutton report found the average pension payments – including workers and dependents – in 2009-10 were as follows:

Local government worker: £4,052
NHS worker: £7,234
Civil servant: £6,199
Teacher: £9,806
Member of armed forces: £7,722

However this is distorted by a small number on very high pensions. Senior military officers, senior civil servants, nhs consultants and senior managers

Five million employees working in the public sector qualify for pensions, including 1.3m in NHS, 1.6m in local government, 600,000 teachers, 600,000 civil servants, 200,000 in the armed forces, 150,000 police officers and 50,000 firefighters.
The mean average public sector pension is £7,000 but the majority of public sector pensioners have pensions of less than £5,000.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf

If you want a look at the argument and the figures from the other side have a look at the link. Its quite interesting how many myths are believed because they have been repeated so often

clubber – Member

So has anyone changed their views yet?
I have, I used to have a certain amount of support for the public workers, that was until they all became selfish whingebags who want the whole world to feel sorry for them, and then go on strike the very moment anyone looks at them in the wrong way. (I don’t think all public workers are lazy, some of my best friends are civil servants).

Is this correct?

It’s certainly true of the local government scheme, which is funded too. That’s the problem isn’t it? Pension arrangments in the public sector are so varied that this sort of thread is pretty pointless. You wouldn’t, for example, describe my pension terms as comparable with David Cameron’s.

gusamc –

Note that for ‘unfunded’ ones the money comes out of taxation.

Not true one of the myths that become accepted

The NHS is unfunded and is in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out – millions more. Its not our fault that governments have spent this money not invested it for our future pensions.

Make them pay more into a pension to get less?

I wouldn’t have a problem paying extra if the money goes into the “pension pot” however the gov have said that any extra we pay in will not go into our pension fund, it will be used to reduce the nations debt.

Thanks for the info TJ. I’m genuinley surprised that the majority of local government workers get so little. I’ll lend them my support.

If we are quoting the Hutton report then I think this one sums up the reason why public sector workers are being asked to contribute more:

John Hutton said, left as it is, the current system carries a financial risk which is outside the government’s control. It is a risk that a low growth economy, with ever-increasing pressure on the public purse, cannot afford to take.

The NHS is unfunded and is in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out – millions more. Its not our fault that governments have spent this money not invested it for our future pensions.

TJ, you keep saying this but I’d really like to see proof – mainly because I can well believe it might be true – but from an independent source that I can actually believe. The links I’ve seen you post before are all from what I would consider biased sources.

The % of gdp that public sector pensions liabilities represent is due to fall not rise.

Its prefectly affordable and the pensions have been reviewed to make this so.

Read this for the view from the other side if you want an alternative to the relentless tory propaganda

http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf

The NHS is unfunded and is in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out

at the moment

Zedsdead – you’ve been suckered, this statistic is trotted out all of the time, but is little value, bear in mind most people who work for an employer do not spend their whole working lives there. Many of the recipients of public sector pensions only receive a partial entitlement due to shorter service than required to earn the full pension. These drag the average down.

Its prefectly affordable and the pensions have been reviewed to make this so.

Indeed. The word “unaffordable” does not appear anywhere in the Hutton report.

My position is simple: if any of the schemes become unsustainable because we’re living longer, then members of those schemes should pay more. But that’s not what’s happening.

clubber

This shows that this year the civil service pension scheme will be in deficit by £2.1bn; the teachers pension scheme in deficit by £3bn; the armed forces in deficit by £1.6bn; the judicial pension scheme will be balanced; and the NHS pension scheme will be £1.8bn in profit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/nov/28/pensions-public-sector-pensions

three is a link to the numbers from the OBR there. that do you? Plenty more good numbers in there including this

I think all the unfunded schemes taken together have a global deficit of around £4bn a year – clearly a lot of money but it has to be looked at long-term. The amount in tax relief contributions for the 1% richest in the country – people earning £150,000 and up – on their pension contributions per annum was £10bn. That puts it in context.

TJ – can you point me in the direction of “Note that for ‘unfunded’ ones the money comes out of taxation.” facts.

I made my statement because on the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446832 it states
“Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund.”

Regarding the ‘paid in’ if you are saying there is more tax paid in than pensions taken out I don’t consider that fair as EVERYBODY pays tax but only cetain public sector pensions give it back to people. Could you clarify please as I’m trying to understand based on facts.

Ta, will have a read tonight.

gusamic follow the link.

In the NHS the workers pay pension contributions. This raises more each year than is paid out in benefits. This is a surplus – the NHS pension scheme is in surplus and has been for decades. this money has been spent as revenue by successive governemnts not invested. In future there may be a small deficit where contributions do not cover benefits but the scheme has already been revised to take account of this

NHS pension contributions are greater than NHS pension benefits

NHS pension contributions are greater than NHS pension benefits

But no one in financial management looks at it in that way because future pensions can only be maintained if the workforce grows, if it shrinks they are not enough contributions to pay the pensions of existing pensioners, let alone the poor saps who are contributing. A ponzi scheme works on exactly the same basis. You have to look at the accruing liability and match the contributions to the liability, people contributing today are contributing to their future pensions not someone’s existing pension. As there is no independent fund to do this, it is correct to say they are unfunded in general. (There may be specific schemes which are different but this covers the vast majority.)

Bear in mind the old National Coal Board Pension Scheme is one of the biggest funds in the country. If it had been run on the basis you are suggesting, there would be no contributions to pay the pensions.

If the NHS surplus had been invested not spent the fund would be the biggest in the world. So when times are good and contributions exceed liabilities its OK for the government to spend this but when a possible shortfall might acrue then benefits have to be cut? The workers don’t get any of the surplus they have paid back?

Remember the scheme has already been revised in the light of this.

You have to look at the accruing liability and match the contributions to the liability, people contributing today are contributing to their future pensions not someone’s existing pension.

this is just simply wrong. You cannot have it both ways.