[Closed] All those wingeing about public sector workers and pensions

Brilliant ...a great play on stereotypes! (and maybe a shade too close to the bone) 😐

still waiting...... 🙄

There are so many figures bandied about it's hard to find any produced by someone that doesn't have a vested interest

So...........
Is this the contribution offer that's on the table?
If so, how does it compare with where they are now, what's the difference we're talking about here?

[img] [/img]

Whoever put that tag about TJ's missus is a ****ing coward - if that's what you think at least have the guts to say it and not post an anonymous tag.

Whoever put that tag about TJ's missus is a **** coward - if that's what you think at least have the guts to say it and not post an anonymous tag.

Agreed

I think all you public sector bashers are missing the point, all people want is what they were promised and have worked and saved for.

Think of it lke this-

you've worked hard and saved up and now your in the local LBS ordering your new bike, you pay up and agree pick up the following week

You go back and the man wheels out your bike

err...hang on you say thats not the bike I ordered thats a much lower spec.

Ah says the man, after you paid and left I realised my pricing structure was no longer financially viable so you have two choices:
You can take this bike or pay me an extra £1000 and I'll get the bike I agreed to get you in the first place

I bet you wouldnt put up with that about a bike so why should people put up with being shafted over somthing so important as their pension.

And as for the 'there all lazy ****ers' tell that to my radiographer wife whos just come home from a 17 hour shift!

fastindian, thats a terrible analogy. We, as a nation have overspent for years. Over a decade. We are £1trillion in debt.

How do you propose we get out of such massive debt? The Pension bill is mammoth as is the forward commitment for this.

It just seems a case of NIMBY'ism when it comes to asking public sector workers to pay higher contribution.

Final salary schemes aren't affordable in any industry. ANY industry either.

I have no objection for paying people to work for 35 years and I believe the public sector is generally very good.

I can not afford to pay people not to work for the next 35 years.

Lifer - Member
Whoever put that tag about TJ's missus is a * coward - if that's what you think at least have the guts to say it and not post an anonymous tag.

Posted 13 minutes ago # Report-PostBenHouldsworth - Member

Whoever put that tag about TJ's missus is a * coward - if that's what you think at least have the guts to say it and not post an anonymous tag.

Agreed

That was me. And agreed it's not fair and not clever. I tried to delete it soon as I posted it but it won't let me. Apologies Jeremy, uncalled for.

Wifes brother works for one of the big unions as an officer and he is earning between 40 to 50 k a year and he has an amazing pension. Who's the mug here then. Unions are are a business that look at their profits too.

How do you propose we get out of such massive debt?

Stop spending billions on foreign wars of dubious (at best) legality and 'benefit'.

Scrap trident renewal.

Renegotiate the ridiculous PFI terms.

Abandon the 'too big too fail' mantra.

Crack down on tax evasion and reduce loopholes for tax avoidance.

Fair play for saying so McBoo, many wouldn't.

Pugwash, quantify 'amazing'.

Lifer - Member

How do you propose we get out of such massive debt?

Stop spending billions on foreign wars of dubious (at best) legality and 'benefit'.

Scrap trident renewal.

Renegotiate the ridiculous PFI terms.

Abandon the 'too big too fail' mantra.

Crack down on tax evasion and reduce loopholes for tax avoidance.

Combined with taking a realistic view to affordable pensions and we will make a difference.

Stop spending billions on foreign wars of dubious (at best) legality and 'benefit'.

Scrap trident renewal.

Renegotiate the ridiculous PFI terms.

Abandon the 'too big too fail' mantra.

Crack down on tax evasion and reduce loopholes for tax avoidance.

Difficult to argue with any of that

Stop spending billions on foreign wars of dubious (at best) legality and 'benefit'.

Scrap trident renewal.

Renegotiate the ridiculous PFI terms.

Abandon the 'too big too fail' mantra.

Crack down on tax evasion and reduce loopholes for tax avoidance.

Just remember this the next time you are at the ballot box.

All on Labours watch wasn't it.

Here's the thing......I don't at all blame the public sector workers for fighting for what they have, even going on strike, it's your right to do so. But ultimately you have to win the argument. There is clearly a split between public and private sector workers and there is a pretty strong (but not 100%) correlation between where you work and what your view on this is.

This is the editorial from today's Independant.

Leading article: The wrong time for mass industrial action
Even with the reforms, public-sector pensions are better than private sector equivalents

There is no denying that public-sector workers are facing difficult times, and no denying that the Government's proposed pension reforms add to an already heavy burden of wage freezes, inflation and redundancy threats. Even so, now is no time to strike. With the economy back on the brink of recession, and chill winds from the euro crisis whipping dangerously through public and private sectors alike, the prospect of up to two million teachers, immigration workers and civil servants bringing Britain grinding to a halt is a dismaying one. The trade unions should act responsibly, and call their action off.

That is not to say that the implications of the pension reforms are insignificant. Staff are being asked to pay more and work longer, and may still receive less when they retire. Such a prospect would never be welcome. In the context of £83bn worth of spending cuts and economic stagnation, it is grim indeed. But to portray the situation as a typical Tory-led government using any excuse to hack back the state is a characterisation as lazy as it is false. The proposed reforms are no ideologically driven, back-of-a-napkin policy whim. They are based on analysis from John Hutton – a former Labour minister, no less – with the inescapable conclusion that the generosity of the current pension arrangements is simply unsustainable. With people living longer, and the demographic balance tilting towards the elderly, there is no alternative but for individuals to take on more of the financial load that currently rests on taxpayers' shoulders.

The case for reform is only part of the issue, however. That public-sector workers, galvanised by their unions, are ready to cause national havoc to defend terms and conditions that compare so favourably with those of their private-sector counterparts, only adds to the sense that state employees are out of touch with the damage that recession has already wrought elsewhere.

It is grossly mistaken to take recent "business as usual" double-digit pay increases at the very top of the private sector as an index of the rest of the commercial world. Executive greed apart, rank-and-file private-sector workers have been, and continue to be, sharply squeezed.

Although wage increases have picked up slightly this year, they are still languishing at 2.5 per cent, less than half the inflation rate. And that follows several years of pay freezes, and even cuts, as employees bargained hard to hold on to their jobs. Such developments render the common claim that public-sector benefits make up for comparatively low salaries hopelessly outdated. In fact, the gap between public and private pay has reversed in recent years, particularly at the lower end of the scale. A comparison of pension arrangements tells a similar tale. Even with the proposed reforms, public-sector plans remain considerably more generous than their equivalents in the private sector, where final salary schemes have long been off-limits to new entrants, if not closed altogether.

Neither is the public sector uniquely threatened by either the spending cuts or the worsening economic climate. As many as two million jobs have been lost since the start of the recession – the vast majority of them in business – and the worst may not be over. Not only has the past week alone seen hundreds more private-sector job losses, but problems at Thomas Cook and Arcadia do not bode well for the high street.

Against such a background, it is impossible to justify the biggest strike since the Winter of Discontent in 1979. Faced with a slew of gloomy indicators, any avoidable economic drag is inexcusable. The trade unions must go back to the negotiating table, hammer out a deal and avoid industrial action. This is not about an ideological battle over the size of the state. It is about what the taxpayer can afford. Now is the time for some realism from the public sector. It is time that we were all in it together.

See what I mean? If you cant get the Labour Party to support you, and a newspaper like the Indy comes down 100% AGAINST you, what chance have you of getting this turned around?

@jota180 that chart is misleading, it states taxpayers instead of the employer as the pension contributor. If that's how it works look at some of the salaries payed by taxpayers below.

Nick Buckles, the chief executive of security group G4S, took home a £3.8m package; Chris Hyman, head of outsourcing firm Serco, received pay of more than £5m. In 2008, Paul Pindar, the chief executive of Capita, took a package including share options of £5m. It said the frequency of such salaries could increase as the government increases outsourcing.

@jota180 that chart is misleading, it states taxpayers instead of the employer

I'm interested in the numbers rather than the column headings, hence 'vested interest' quote
I know where from and what the Taxpayer column refers too

That article would suggest it is only pensions we are concerned about.

Wifes brother works for one of the big unions as an officer and he is earning between 40 to 50 k a year and he has an amazing pension. Who's the mug here then. Unions are are a business that look at their profits too.

I can understand striking in Duckmans case.

The Indy artcle is probably the best analysis i've read of the current situation both balanced and credible.

....certainly more credible than most responses to this thread 😯

duckman - Member
That article would suggest it is only pensions we are concerned about.

That article suggests you are losing the argument. Every time Mark Serwotka speaks in public, you lose.

hora - Member
Just remember this the next time you are at the ballot box.

All on Labours watch wasn't it.

PFI was a Tory invention, and the rest were immediately upheld by CallMeDave .

They are based on analysis from John Hutton – a former Labour minister, no less – with the inescapable conclusion that the generosity of the current pension arrangements is simply unsustainable. With people living longer, and the demographic balance tilting towards the elderly, there is no alternative but for individuals to take on more of the financial load that currently rests on taxpayers' shoulders.

Hutton, who also said:

"We have to avoid a new race to the bottom here."

"If these reforms have any chance of succeeding then people need to know that they are being treated fairly … there should be full and proper consultation and discussion with the trade unions. That is how we do things in Britain – the public would take a very dim view of any government that fails to honour this basic requirement.

"We must try and avoid the confrontation and division that marked previous decades and must not turn the clock back."

Remember this?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/18/unions-strikes-minister-pensions ]Danny Alexander jumps the gun[/url]

Months of talks to negotiate a new pension deal for public servants are on the brink of collapse after unions reacted with fury to the government's surprise confirmation of the new scheme weeks before talks had concluded.

Union leaders were incensed after Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, appeared to undermine talks by announcing crucial details of the new pension plan for 6 million public servants ahead of a meeting with union representatives this month.

Frodo - Member
The Indy artcle is probably the best analysis i've read of the current situation both balanced and credible.

....certainly more credible than most responses to this thread

Of course it is (to you), because it supports your view.

How do you propose we get out of such massive debt?

If the budget deficit is such a serious problem, then why is the basic rate of income tax [u]still lower[/u] than it was during the boom years ?

OK, maybe there was a argument back in the boom years which said that the UK could afford to lower the basic rate to 20%, although I would dispute it, but surely there is no justification whatsoever to keep it at that when the deficit is so high ?

Britain today has a basic tax rate considerably lower than it was during the Thatcher years, and people wonder why the government is skint ? .....where do they expect the money to come from ffs ?

You can't have services without paying for them.

You could also reduce the deficit by getting people back to work. If Britain can't afford a one day token strike by public sector workers, then it certainly can't afford to have 2.7 million people unemployed every day.

You could further reduce the deficit by nationalising the utilities and using their vast profits.

Of course I fully realise that those suggestions are ideologically unpalatable for the government, but that is the only reason why they are not implemented. And the only reason why the government persists with their attacks on public sector workers.

Off course it is (to you), because it supports your view.

No I'm saying that as we have a left leaning paper which has presented what appears to be a fair and balanced article. If this appeared say in the mail or telegraph then it may be just as factual but in many peoples eyes less credible.

Some of the vitriol and dogma spouted on here is quite frankly unpleasent and certainly not credible.

Some of the vitriol and dogma spouted on here is quite frankly unpleasent and certainly not credible.

Such as?

hora - Member
Just remember this the next time you are at the ballot box.
All on Labours watch wasn't it.

his political analysis makes flashearts looks open an impartial- i dont knw why i am surprised he has gone for something simplistic though
PS is everything that happens now the current govts fault or does this sort of deep analysis only hold up for Labour govts? Perhaps its dave fault about the Euro crisis for example?

The 'Independent' article raises an interesting point. I'll be on strike on Wednesday, but i'd prefer we all worked to rule.

PFI was a Tory invention, and the rest were immediately upheld by CallMeDave .

PFI is actually a very useful financial method of funding projects. The fact that it was badly managed by the previous 'Labour' government does not mean that used on the right projects with the right risk management and planning cannot provide value for money.

Think of it as a mortgage. Most people cannot afford to buy a house with cash. A mortgage however allows the purchase for little more and less than renting an equivilent house would be. Its a similar principle.

Lifer.....why arent you winning the argument? Why does the Indy (and Guardian) not come out in support of strikes?

Such as?

The opening post onwards! Page 1 is particularly bad.

No specifics?

Labour aren't in power anymore, one of my suggestions of how to save money was to renegotiate it. Who started it, and who did what to it is inconsequential.

PS is everything that happens now the current govts fault or does this sort of deep analysis only hold up for Labour govts? Perhaps its dave fault about the Euro crisis for example?

The really sad this is you CANT tear up PFI contracts. They tend to be longterm and to buy out of them, well.

Its not like me with bike frames, you can't flip flop and change your mind in the real world!

Very difficult to renegotiate contracts that have alraedy been signed. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. You could use repeat business as leverage but many of the problems were projects that were rushed without the full risks been known.

Hence the high price tag, now on some of these projects the risks may have been realised and hence the contractor would not have made anything more than a modest profit.

Where the contractor sucessfully managed these risks large profits could be made.

The onus must be on the client to define and manage risks and liability to maximise value for money. The government of the day failed. I'm not saying any other administartion would have done better but they surely could not have done any worse.

Perhaps one of the hard done to strikers can look after my son whilst school is shut yet again

How about popping him round to the local Liberal or conservative club and getting them to look after him? I think you'll find its their fault theres going to be a strike. If they would stop a moment and actually discuss the matter with the unions you'll find they will cancel it in favour of talks.

How about popping him round to the local Liberal or conservative club

You are suggesting leaving him in a pub?

jota180 you missed out 1 group there

MPs final salary scheme.....

Taxpayer........Employee
28% ..............11.9, 7.9 or 5.9%

Why does the Indy (and Guardian) not come out in support of strikes?

I'm not sure that the Guardian has ever supported a strike, although to be fair I very rarely waste my time reading their editorials.

The Guardian is always quick to create a sing and dance about 'social injustice' and express their displeasure at government policy, but when push comes shove they always fall on the wrong side of the fence.

They can talk the talk but have been proved to be totally incapable to walk the walk.

They are the paper for 'after dinner activists' who prefer to waffle than do anything.

And I'll remind you that the Guardian urged their readers to vote LibDem last election. ****ers.

I wonder how many public sector STW'ers on strike will be posting on here on strike day?...

jota180 you missed out 1 group there

I didn't miss out anything, I copied and pasted from a gov site and simply asked if the figures were correct

I still don't know, are they?
I've got no angle here, I'm just interested to know the correct figures

Very difficult to renegotiate contracts that have alraedy been signed

PMSL : Apparently it isn't, apparently CallmeDave and the lads can do it at the drop of a hat when it suits them. Haven't you understood any of what this is about????

Posted 5 minutes ago # Report-Posternie_lynch - Member

Why does the Indy (and Guardian) not come out in support of strikes?

I'm not sure that the Guardian has ever supported a strike, although to be fair I very rarely waste my time reading their editorials.

The Guardian is always quick to create a sing and dance about 'social injustice' and express their displeasure at government policy, but when push comes shove they always fall on the wrong side of the fence.

etc etc

I don't think you really care to win the argument for public opinion Ernie. Everybody out, mass action and so on......in the real world you can't force the taxpayer to do what you want.

I wonder how many public sector STW'ers on strike will be posting on here on strike day?

What's that got to do with anything?