Forum menu
29% turnout. Something wrong here.
What percentage of the electorate voted for the conservative party at the last election?
Yup - indeed something is wrong.
Its called scapegoating.
Public sector pensions have been reformed to be affordable and there is simply no need to cut the pensions.
Tories got 36% on a 65% turnout = 23.4% of electorate
Unison got 78% on a 29% turnout = 22.6% of members
Not much in it really...
Turnout in the general election was what 60%? More? Less?
Tories got 36% on a 65% turnout = 23.4% of electorateUnison got 78% on a 29% turnout = 22.6% of members
Not much in it really...
Nice try. But one was an election in a multiparty system, the other was a yes/no ballot.
78% - thats pretty formidable
And? If we say that 23.4% of the electorate is a mandate for a conservative prime minister, then 22.6% of union members is a mandate for a strike.
Nice try. But one was an election in a multiparty system, the other was a yes/no [b]postal[/b] ballot, which have notoriously low turnout rates.
FTFY
78% - thats pretty formidable
Or, at the other end of the spectrum '...what's 78% of statistically insignificant...' as one of my co-workers viewed it 😉
.....and we have a coalition government.
We have a conservative prime minister. The majority of the electorate did not vote conservative.
Frankly, nearly 30% on a postal-only ballot is pretty good going.
cameron and co can suck my balls
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/29/mps-pensions-reform-cuts ]On Monday's Newsnight an able Conservative affected a reasonable tone ahead of tomorrow's strike over pensions and cuts. Nick Boles wondered aloud to Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers whether anyone else got as good a deal as the teachers, asking "is there anybody else in British society who gets 13.5% from their employer?"
His question was rhetorical, but had Boles been after an answer he could have found one in the mirror. As a former Whitehall adviser on pensions I've dug into the workings of the parliamentary scheme after my colleague, Marina Hyde, drew attention to its seeming immunity from the cuts. In 2009 the government actuaries deemed it required a taxpayer contribution not of 13.5% but 31.6% of salary. There have been tweaks since, and vague promises that costs will soon be capped, but only at 20%.[/url]
God, yeah. Somebody must've pissed them off too. Somehow. I guess.Oh look, more strikes
So, they held a ballot on the old proposal, before the governments revised proposal was released... and you think that's a mandate?
"So, they held a ballot on the old proposal, before the governments revised proposal was released... and you think that's a mandate? "
No, the ballot was on being prepared to take strike action to secure a better pension deal - it wasn't contingent on specifics. It doesn't mean that a strike action is inevitable, nor does it preclude further negotiations between the unions and the government.
So, they held a ballot [s]on the old proposal[/s], [s]before[/s] the governments revised proposal was released [b]conveniently, with much fanfare in the news, the day before the result was announced[/b] ... and you think that's [s]a mandate[/s] [b]politivcal manoeuvring[/b] ?
Yes
So, without the union representation, ballot, and threat of strike action, do you think the government would have decided to up the offer they've now tabled?
Suggests doesn't it, that there was a bit more in the pot to give?
Maybe the whole public sector pensions should be privatised, i.e. proper pensions funds like most of the private sector employees have.
I'm now waiting for the knee jerk left wing response about bringing private sector pensions up to the standard of the public sector...who's going to fund that then, public sector workers?
Bottom line is public sector pensions are very generous and bank rolled / heavily subsidised by everyone else.
If they're not then maybe private sector employees should be able to sign up to the public sector pensions, i.e. our and our employers contributions get paid into the public sector scheme and we get the same benefits as public sector workers. Now that would be fair wouldn't it.
As above, 30% turnout on a postal ballot is pretty good going. 78% of those postal votes is really something though.
But what do I know, the only time I've ever been on strike was in France. It was nice to have everyone largely in support of our right to strike, even if they did not necessarily agree with what we were on strike about. By that experience, I expect I have more faith in industrial action than the next person.
Out of interest Zulu, and from your previous comments on strikey/pensionsy/public sectory threads; are you in a union? And have you ever been on strike or been balloted to do so?
yeh, that's probably fair stumpy
can I have wages that match people in similar jobs in the private sector, a bonus every year, maybe a car, some shares and loads of free shit please?
(or is that over-simplifying things?)
perfectly mashed in to one satirical article here:
Bottom line is public sector pensions are very generous and bank rolled / heavily subsidised by everyone else.
Except that's not true. For example, the average local government pension is less than £4000 p.a.
Pensions were last renegotiated in 2007/8 on the back of an actuarial study, to make sure that they were sustainable. No study has been performed since.
I accept that private sector pensions are usually worse, but that's purely because the employers can get away with it. It's nothing to do with unaffordability.
Bottom line is public sector pensions are very generous and bank rolled / heavily subsidised by everyone else.
oooh, tj will be along in a minute with a link to say it is all viable. I am not well up to date enough to link you to the report in question but it's come up on numerous pensions threads here recently.
I will add to this that the NHS pension at least has always been considered a mitigating circumstance to the very poor ratio of salary to qualifications/experience/responsibility/stress. Much like the army one, but I don't see anyone slating retired officers for monthly pensions that are twice what a paramedic earns when they are actually at work on full crazy night/weekend rotations.
Let them go on strike.
It will be interesting to see just how much sympathy the rest of the population feels for their cause.
Will the result be worth losing the day's pay?
Or maybe its more than that!
It will be interesting to see just how much sympathy the rest of the population feels for their cause.
A classic case of divide and rule...
[*]No - simply an objective comment. Lets just see where the public sympathies really lie.
Will the result be worth losing the day's pay?Or maybe its more than that!
meaning?.....
...if you want to put a price on it, my public sector pay freeze is costing me nine or ten days' pay a year in real money terms, and for the next 2 years at least, never mind the pensions bit. If I am 'lucky', the staff cuts and vacancy freezes mean I may be able to make this missing money back up by going to work on an extra ten of my days off per year.
Meaning exactly what it says Julian.
Many in the private sector have had real and nominal pay cuts over the past few years, have been required to work harder for less, have had benefits cut and changed. They also know that they have to work harder, for longer and for less of a pension - and that was not what they imagined at the start of their working lives.
Perhaps, they will not be very sympathetic. In which case. losing a day's pay may not have been worth it. On the other hand, they may be very sympathetic and so it will have been.
So as I said, lets see. It will be interesting.
my public sector pay freeze is costing me nine or ten days' pay a year in real money terms, and for the next 2 years at least, never mind the pensions bit.
I think you'll find that most of the private sector have been through much the same... with the difference being that many of those in the private sector realise that the alternative to accepting it as a fact of life is to watch their company close down the factory and move their jobs to another country, since they would no longer be competitive in a global market.
I heard on radio 4 last night that a teacher earning £37,500 at the time of their retirement and with 20 years service could still expect a pension of £25,000 per year.
I think that's pretty generous but I also think that it's right for someone having given such good service in such a demanding role.
Also heard that the tax payer pays more into the public sector pension pot than the employees in the sector will.
I heard on radio 4 last night that a teacher earning £37,500 at the time of their retirement and with 20 years service could still expect a pension of £25,000 per year.
I have a feeling that the figure of 20 years is meant to be 40 years. The acrual rate being mentioned for career average is 1/60th of the annual salary. Assuming that the £37,500 was their (inflation compensated) career average, then that would give a pension of 20/60 * 37,500 = 12,500. 40 years would be 40/60 * 37,500 = 25k
The other relevant figure when looking at the teacher's £25K inflation linked pension referenced above is that a private sector worker would need to accrue a pension pot of £635,000 - £700,000+ (depending on the assumptions used) to get an *non inflation proofed* annuity of the same amount.
To put it another way, a graduate starting their career on £25K would need to make contributions of £6,000 a year (and in equal proportions for the rest of their career).
I think you'll find that most of the public sector have been through much the same... with the difference being that many of those in the public sector realise that the alternative to accepting it as a fact of life is to watch the service they provide be reduced or withdrawn and move their jobs to another county, since they would no longer be able to run.
It's not always about keeping yourself in a job.
Zulu, you missed my question earlier: are you in a union? And have you ever been on strike or been balloted about striking?
The other relevant figure when looking at the teacher's £25K inflation linked pension referenced above is that a private sector worker would need to accrue a pension pot of £635,000 - £700,000+ (depending on the assumptions used) to get an *non inflation proofed* annuity of the same amount.
You're assuming an annuity rate of 4%, which isn't unreasonable in this climate.
I'm half way through my career and I've got about 10% of that saved 😯
Why do people continue to make a comparison between the public and private sectors? Seems a very odd thing to do.
If they do gpo out on strike, the work they did will still need doing next day or next week, and if it doesnt get done, did we really need all those workers to start with.
Also there is quite a few thousnd greeks who would like a new job, in the next few weeks.
project = malaka
Kimbers , absolutely no idea what your coment means
I do like the way a low turnout is always seen as a vote against a strike... Whereas what we actually have here, is 85% of members not coming out against strike action.
Why do people continue to make a comparison between the public and private sectors? Seems a very odd thing to do.
Because the private sector is the one paying for the public sector's pension.
geetee1972 - MemberBecause the private sector is the one paying for the public sector's pension.
PMSL sheep.
Because the private sector is the one paying for the public sector's pension.
Do you mean that taxpayers aren't, and that it is actually private companies that are putting their hands in their pockets and paying into topping up the pensions of people they don't employ? 😯
and indeed 😆
My point is that such a dualism is stupid because there is so much crossover between the two sectors, but more than that, both sectors are stupendously diverse. Aggregating them makes no sense... unless one wants to create an us and them situation, of course.