they should be expected to get new jobs after retirement from the fire service just like those in the military do with their pensions kicking in at a normal retirement age like everyone else.
when they singed up for something else. Maybe we should all expect to be paid minimum wage and not have a pension. I don't mind people having different view points but when the arguments are as dull as this it becomes quite hard.
More of this to come whether we like it or not - we're all doomed and have been for decades...
http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr123/PMYKP804/?h=true
Maybe pensions should be a flat rate for everyone, regardless of what you earned in your former career?
Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?
If they have saved and paid into their pension, then why not?
Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?
If you pay enough into it then yes.
Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?
If they have worked hard for their entire life towards it, and have been paying into a scheme that promised as such, then clearly, yes.
Used to live next door to a fireman, what a w***er he was. Just like my current neighbour who has a high end job in the council and does about 35 hours a week.
And as for a fireman being a dangerous job? Well they know what they are getting into and no one forced them to become a firefighter. The real heroes in this world were the men and women sent to war.
so you knew a fireman who was a ****er so they shouldnt strike. **** me thats poor even by stw standards.
This is the politics of envy right here. It is a very sad, base, thing to see.
Sounds terrible but how did this go through, we abandoned on call at night about 8 years ago because it was breaking working time regulations.
i suspect its breaking Working Time Directive rules, but the union put it to the vote and it went through. gaffers came round and touted that there would be redundancies and the brigade would go pretty much retained if we didnt accept. personally i thought they were bluffing and voted no, but obviously enough feared for their jobs and it still went through.
ive now been labelled a bit of a troublemaker for questioning it and had it held against me im afraid. pretty disillusioned with the job these days, but theres nowt i can do. not that easy to find anything else these days.....
People haven't paid enough into their pensions and never have, not for the sort of pensions they've been promised and expect - that's the nub of the problem and the crisis the nation faces. The Welfare state and NHS has been a lethal combination of escalating costs we simply can't afford. Successive governments from the 60's have failed to tackle this issue and instead chosen, for the sake of trying to carry short term political favour with the electorate, make the problem worse and we may now be in the situation where it is impossible to recover and avoid the inevitable. At worse we're facing a meltdown that will make Greece look like a minor dispute (our debt levels vs GDP is much worse that Greece). At best, our pensions and savings will be pilfered by the government to bale the nation out.
As a nation we've been living beyond our means for decades, and we've had a stay of execution over recent years due to low interest rates, but that wont last forever, and when they start to creep up it aint going to be pretty.
I can see why Sadex but ignore the bullies you voted for what you thought was right that's what a vote is for.
There is a government scheme now to ensure you don't loose those benefits. My father had worked for a company for 20 years and same thing happened prior to the scheme sadly.
Yep and they are refusing to accept Nortel's pension fund as the fund debt is something like 10x larger than the government's compensation scheme, effectively folding the compensation scheme as well.....
that's the nub of the problem and the crisis the nation faces. The Welfare state and NHS has been a lethal combination of escalating costs we simply can't afford.
You're missing the point. Contractually- and if you cast your mind back, you'll recall that the government had to back down on clawing-back the bankers bonuses, because everything that has any commercial standing needs to stand by contract law- there was an agreement reached that we (that's the taxpayers, via our proxies, the government) agreed that this pension would be paid.
The nub of argument is not: we're skint and now we can't afford it, so you're getting less. It is: is it fair to retrospectively amend a contract because you can't now afford it?
Say you employ a builder- you agree a price for a certain type and amount of work- he does the work to your satisfaction- but you then find you're short of cash to pay him. Is that the builders fault? You had a contract. Is it fair to then shop around for quotes, and you find that a builder down the road would have done to for 30% less, and so thats what you offer as payment?
[i]This is the politics of envy right here. It is a very sad, base, thing to see. [/i]
True, but are YOU prepared to pay more in tax to enable the Firemen to retire at their current age/pension?
[i]There is a government scheme now to ensure you don't loose those benefits.[/i]
Yes there is, but I'd suggest you actually go and read the details of how it operates - really only fully protects those who'd already retired, rather than all members of a scheme - and a scheme has to meet certain criteria to be 'protected'.
And as for a fireman being a dangerous job? Well they know what they are getting into and no one forced them to become a firefighter. The real heroes in this world were the men and women sent to war.
Why? Soldiers knew what they are getting into and no one forced them to become soldiers.
(See? Anyone can come out with disingenuous claptrap).
True, but are YOU prepared to pay more in tax to enable the Firemen to retire at their current age/pension?
if necessary yes, but I'm not sure it is if we would only prioritise certain things over others, like cancelling Trident and scaling back the armed forces even more.
The original FF pension scheme was set up in 1977 after that dispute. There was huge recruitment drive then 000's taken on due to new shift pattern. Those 000's of FF contributed hundreds of pounds a month for 25-30yrs into a pension that not many retired from. Fast forward 2005-6-7 onwards they come and tell us there is no money in the pot.
What did the government do with this money? Did they wisely invest it ensuring the monies paid in would be there for the future or did they squander it on other things.
The money I pay in every month is not invested, it pays the pension of those who are retired at present.
As usual the government want others to pay for their inept policies.
bruneep, you've answered your own question - there is no "pot" so effectively the current government is very sensibly proposing a change to the rules moving forward. Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.
Even with the new scheme rules, FF will still receive much better terms than the majority of people who generate the tax to pay for them.
So shrug my shoulders and carry on as normal or put up a fight to try and protect something myself and the government agreed to.
There have been talks for over 2yrs now nothing has been achieved.
Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.
No so! they are changing many to a new scheme in 2015.
But how much do these other people you speak of currently pay a month towards their pension?
The money I pay in every month is not invested, it pays the pension of those who are retired at present
Yeah, government pensions are Ponzi schemes. If you get in early enough it's great but those days are long over.
So shrug my shoulders and carry on as normal or put up a fight to try and protect something myself and the government agreed to.
Pretty much the former, you can get all shouty if you want but it won't change anything:
1. The monies not there at present, it got spent by many governments.
2. Even if you had a fully invested scheme (which you don't) you still wouldn't be able to retire that early with that sort of income without massive government (tax payer)subsidy, look at the returns on the private pension schemes.
3. This government won't be sympathetic to you, especially as the public aren't.
It's about time people realised we've all been sold a pup when it comes to pension schemes compounded by poor deregulation of pensions and good ol Gordon's taxes. It's got nothing to do with rights, expectations or whatever you were promised (you were lied to) and everything to do with hard cold economics, to have a decent self funded pension you need to put in way, way more money than most of us do or can. Government schemes have only been generous in the past because tax payers massively subsidised them.
It's got nothing to do with rights, expectations or whatever you were promised (you were lied to) and everything to do with hard cold economics
You're complicating things: its actually much, much simpler than that- its contract law.
Both parties signed up to an agreement that bound both- now one party wants to vary that agreement. There's nothing more to it than that.
Pretty much everything that we do wrt obligations and reward is governed by contract law, and there's nothing novel in any of this, contractually.
Do we stand by our obligations or not? As I said earlier: there was a quiet volte-face when the government discovered that to claw back banker's bonuses would undermine contract law in general and would set a dangerous precedent. But that's what's proposed here, and sold to us by a massive media campaign that says we don't have the money.
Your contract is worthless when your employer goes bust.
Obviously I'm not sure about the fire service but when I joined the NHS the pension was seperate from my employment contract, you have to opt in.
The got have already shafted the police re pensions, so now its time to take on the fire service.
The BIG difference is that firefighters can strike.
I hope they strike and get the pensions they signed up for, the unions are strong, but. Suspec e give won't budge
Good luck to all firefighters
Your contract is worthless when your employer goes bust.
local steelfirm went bust then they found out all their pension money had be squanfdered on keeping the firm going, then there was maxwell and the printer.
But the fire men are backed by the local councils,so ifthe local councils just say we dont have the money to pay your pensions then what.
Will the unions have all their funds sequestrated,like what happened with the miners, will somebody put forward legal action after their buisness burns down,will al the fire fighters be sacked unless they adopt the new pension structure like what has happened in many other buissneses, but what ever happens its going to get nasty, and then others will be on the bottom steps of the ladder asking for parity in retirement ages.
bruneep - Member[b]Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.[/b]
No so! they are changing many to a new scheme in 2015.
I think what he's saying is that what you have accrued under the old pension will still be paid out on those terms when you retire. From 2015 onwards you'll accrue pension based on the new system, but the changes won't be applied retrospectively to service prior to 2015. (This was ruled upon under the ECHR if I remember correctly, and accrued pension came under the right to enjoy your property).
That's certainly what's happening to mine - 15yrs worth of the 1987 PPS will get me 33%ish of whatever my [i]final[/i] salary happens to be when I retire per annum, plus 15-20 yrs worth of the new CARE pension, something like 1/45th of [i]average[/i] salary per annum for each of those 15-20 years (I think, not certain about the accrual rate of the new one). The point is, half my pension, and I assume whatever proportion of years your start of service to 2015 is, will still be based upon final salary.
*I am of course making some assumptions that the changes to the Fire Service Pension are similar to the changes to the Police Pension, so apologies if I've got it completely wrong!
The police have been royally shafted with pensions
A p.c with 15 years service , overnight will have to work an extra 7 years for the same pension.
I hope the public will be happy with 60 year old officers trying to protect them, and the same aged firefighters pulling them out of burning buildings
It's a bloody disgrace.
Dixon of Dock Green was 80 when he retired, and he managed just fine.
[img] 
[/img]
60??? I wish! Ambulance workers are looking at the wrong end of 68 and we attend a lot more jobs than the fireys and usually have to carry out pts on a lot of those! (Albeit without their house on fire although it has happened on one occassion!)
I dont think we will see many 60 year old police and firefighters as they will be either pensioned off due to ill health due to injuries sustained at work or for inefficency (general old age stopping them from doing or passing a fitness test). The authorities seem to want a younger average age were staff will either get up the career tree or end up leaving simular to the armed services.
I fully support fire fighters taking strike action over their pensions, just as I've voted for, and taken strike action more than once to defend mine. I'll visit the pickets and support them any way I can.
A lone working paramedic on duty here ...
It's funny how the burning building debate gets brought up each time ...I respect fire fighters but feel they ought to go and spend some time with either the police or ambulance service to see what the unquantifiable effects of stress and pressure really are.
So far,
An abusive drunk male w a head injury, a female ( on her own ) with mental health issues, and Im currently being told to stand off for police as a young girl is slashing herself with a knife. And that's all since 8 pm and the shift has only just started. 12 hours... Lots of blue light driving.. And hardly any contact with colleagues...it's a lonely old job.
The government expects me to be doing this till I'm 68... Not a chance.
I
We may be living longer but its still a slide and aged. Its not as though we are young longer is it Government?
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3214/2802554409_7808b10900.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/leecollis/2802554409/ ]Day_in_the_life[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/leecollis/ ]Lee Collis[/url], on Flickr
Shouldn't compare jobs, it's not that ff get a good deal, it's the others get a bad deal. Ambulance, army etc.
It's true that most people will never use the fire service but when they do my god they need them. If you ever find yourself in a car with inside of your stomach sat on your lap and pedals crushed into your ankles, crying for your mum you will be so relieved to see a firefighter lean in your window hold your hand and never let it go untill the crew have got you out. You'll also feel the same about the ambulance crew and police. You'll think they are worth every penny. You'll probably also think you're private sector job which us all about businesses making money and greed and how worth while it us compared these guys and gals.
Well put Hopk1ns.
Hopkins
Well said, and so true.
Shouldn't compare jobs, it's not that ff get a good deal, it's the
others get a bad deal. Ambulance, army etc.It's true that most people will never use the fire service but when they do my god they need them. If you ever find yourself in a car with inside of your stomach sat on your lap and pedals crushed into your ankles, crying for your mum you will be so relieved to see a firefighter lean in your window hold your hand and never let it go untill the crew have got you out. You'll also feel the same about the ambulance crew and police. You'll think they are worth every penny. You'll probably also think you're private sector job which us all about businesses making money and greed and how worth while it us compared these guys and gals.
Friend was moaning about her fireman fella drinking cuppa's/laughing/not doing much then one day he came home and didn't really want to speak about what he had to deal with that day. She stopped moaning.
Sorry they are worth every single bloody penny in my books.
It's true that most people will never use the fire service but when they do my god they need them. If you ever find yourself in a car with inside of your stomach sat on your lap and pedals crushed into your ankles, crying for your mum you will be so relieved to see a firefighter lean in your window hold your hand and never let it go untill the crew have got you out. You'll also feel the same about the ambulance crew and police. You'll think they are worth every penny. You'll probably also think you're private sector job which us all about businesses making money and greed and how worth while it us compared these guys and gals.
Had to call out all 3 services on quite a few times for injured, burning buildings, and assaults, breakins in progress.
and one thing is for sure they all got there fast, did their job, and seemed truley surprised when somebody actually said thankyou to them.
Pity this gang currently ruining the country show them some respect and think for a maoment who are you going to call when your house is broken into,set on fire and your wife lying burnt on the patio.
Yep those oap emergency services, like last of the summer wine, turning up at your door.
Once again, this government is showing that it knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Lets stop the shroud waving and get back to the real issue.
So far we've only had one poster say they'd happily pay more in tax to let the Firemen retire early - and this is the nub. A lot of folk will never be able to save for a decent pension, yet are expected to pay higher levels of tax so another group not only get a pension better than average but also get to take it from a far earlier age.
So far we've only had one poster say they'd happily pay more in tax to let the Firemen retire early - and this is the nub.
No it isn't. It's completely irrelevant and you throw it in because you can't come up with a sensible argument to explain why firefighters should retire later.
Yes we know that this government wants the tax evading super-rich to pay less taxes, but that's no reason why fighters should pay for these tax cuts by retiring later.
Firefighters, like others in the emergency services, work shifts through 7 days, plus unsociable hours, unlike the majority of the population. Part of deal is that they get to retire earlier than the majority of the population.
I imagine the majority of the population are perfectly happy with that arrangement. Although obviously not this government and presumably not some tory voters.
"Pity this gang currently ruining the country show them some respect and think for a maoment"
This is part of the problem. The debate is basically framed as anyone who wants to change the status quo is bad, and the FF are victims.
It's nothing to do with "respect~ it's due to pretty much everyone not having any pension provision and the vast majority of private sector workers getting a 3% employer contribution against the 20-40% value of the public sector employer contribution of index linked / retire earlier / guaranteed benefits.
The other part of the debate seems to be "stop trying erode our benefits and improve your own" which is fine to a point but fails to take into account that if other employers had to make the same guarantees nearly every firm in the country would be shut in weeks, the country would be bankrupt and we'd all be unemployed (including the FFs).
The unions need to wake up and start telling some home truths - the good news is that we're living longer but unfortunately working for 30 years and paying relatively little towards your own retirement provision doesn't guarantee anyone the right to 40 to 50 years of free living. Like it or not, we all need to save more and work longer - the real focus should be on how we help people to do that - including putting in place much better provision to help employers and workers find solutions that enable more jobs to be done by the over 60s / 70s.
Japan can teach us a lot here - they have a much older population and already have many people in their 70s still working and living active lives - instead of telling FFs their lives are over when they reach 60 we should be helping them to plan for continued work in another sector for the ten or 15 years that follows. Just like everyone else.
