[Closed] Oh look, more strikes

CaptJon - Member
Why do people continue to make a comparison between the public and private sectors? Seems a very odd thing to do.

Mostly because the grass is always greener. Truth is, nearly everyone is suffering.

Also, the public sector is the new private sector. Hospitals, leisure centres, libraries and all the other institutions which used to be run as a service to the public are now all being forced to be run like businesses; to be competitive, to respond to market forces, in short; to make money.

So troubleshooters are hired. They slash budgets, get rid of staff they deem to be superfluous and 'streamline' admin. As a direct result, the service slumps. The few remaining staff are overworked and lose any sense of loyalty, both towards the people they are now forced to call clients and to their overburdened management.

The trust / library / leisure centre ceases to be profitable as more and more client benefits are stripped and the services close their doors.

The staff who are lucky enough to have full time contracts are called into a meeting to justify their existence; they cannot, because their place of work has closed, so they are put on a 'Switch Team' and redeployed into, often, unsuitable roles elsewhere. Meanwhile, their expectations of a pension they've been paying into all their lives are dashed. Strike, shite. Firebombs are the way forward.

The above ^^my own post^^ doesn't refer to me - I did work for a leisure centre in the North East of England, forced out of 'business' but I'm lucky enough to earn a living being self employed. It's mostly on behalf of my better half. I've never met a human being so dedicated to her work (in the NHS) and to see the way she and her colleagues are being treated has forced me to open my eyes.

Why do people continue to make a comparison between the public and private sectors? Seems a very odd thing to do.

Not odd at all imo. It's deliberate government policy which is drip fed to the public via the media. It has two huge benefits, firstly it helps them enormously to carry out their ideologically motivated attacks on the public sector, which has been Conservative Party policy for approximately the last 35 years.

And secondly, to also helps substantially to deflect criticism away from those responsible for the mess we're in, ie, the deregulated private sector.

Pointing an excusing finger at the public sector and whipping up public animosity against it, makes perfect sense. And it's very effective.

Not odd at all imo.

And we are all entitled to our opinion!

It's deliberate government policy which is drip fed to the public via the media.

On the contrary, there is cross party support for public sector pension reform

There is a very simple reason for distinguishing between the private and public sector. We [b]all[/b] pay for the public sector pension funds (via taxes) but those in the private sector also subsidise a system that is far more generous that those available to them - hence the increasing lack of sympathy as many in the private sector have had to deal with all these challenges.

Given that historic arrangements are protected, it is up to the public sector to explain clearly why they are unique in not having to face up to realities that the private sector have to face up to. Hutton made four basic points at the start of his report:

The current public service pensions structure has been unable to respond flexibly to
workforce and demographic changes in the past few decades. This has led to:

• rising value of benefits due to increasing longevity;

• unequal treatment of members within the same profession;

• unfair sharing of costs between the employee, the employer and taxpayers; and

• barriers to increasing the range of providers of public services.

[b]What makes the public sector so special[/b] that they should be allowed to perpetuate these problems. Why should low-paid workers effectively subsidise highly paid public sector workers. Why should the public sector be allowed to place such a burden on future generations of workers in both sectors.....

This is not a Tory-led agenda and to suggest so is to manipulate the truth. Blimey, we even had Lord Hutton writing in the Telegraph today. It is a small minority (even within the public sector) protecting their own interests in the belief that they have rights that others simply do not have.

I will leave you with the Labour peer's own conclusions today:

There is one other simple fact we should not lose sight of. No strike can change the fundamental mathematics of public sector pensions, or somehow reduce the extra costs of rising life expectancy. The only way to do that is via reforming the system. Sooner or later, this nettle must be grasped. What we cannot do is ask the taxpayer to go on meeting an unfair share of the costs.

On the contrary, there is cross party support for public sector pension reform

Tory/New Labour......two cheeks of the same arse, as they say.

Sorry don't have time to read the rest of your post, might do later.

A large number of those currently drawing from the Teachers' fund are those who took early retirement in the 80s before previous changes were made. They're all popping their clogs at the moment, so the outgoings are due to drop by 25% over the next few years.

There is a very simple reason for distinguishing between the private and public sector. We all pay for the public sector pension funds (via taxes) but those in the private sector also subsidise a system that is far more generous that those available to them - hence the increasing lack of sympathy as many in the private sector have had to deal with all these challenges.

We also all pay working family tax credit so that private companies can pay people the minimum wage and then we all top it up to make it a living wage for the worker. Are you outraged by us subsidising say Mc Donalds staff so the multinational can make even more billions of profit for its very wealthy shareholders?
Obviously tax pay the public sector but it is till part of their wage deal – pensions have employer and employee contributions as a rule.

Given that historic arrangements are protected, it is up to the public sector to explain clearly why they are unique in not having to face up to realities that the private sector have to face up to.

I don’t think anyone is saying it should not be changed [not read the thread] or adapted or modernised if you prefer. However some funds are fully funded and have the money to meet the payments of their members and yet they still have to increase their payments and get less. Not all public sector pensions schemes are the same – teachers v say LGPS.

I think the public sector would take on board some change just not this amount of change. Work longer pay more get less ...its not an easy sell to the people affected by these changes. It is easy to sell it to people who have a worse pension than this and feel they are subsidising it via taxation. Again this si the wrong solution and it would be better to have a universal pension scheme for all IMHO

Public sector pensions are unfunded - paid by the current workforce so the money is not saved up in advance, rather it's hoped there'll be enough to meet commitments made...

My public-sector pension is fully funded. The scheme's liabilities are falling, and more money is going in than out.

those in the private sector also subsidise a system that is far more generous that those available to them

I'm sorry that private sector pensions have been cut so much. But if you think that's because they suddenly became unaffordable, you are mistaken.

I think the public sector would take on board some change just not this amount of change

Exactly. The last round of changes were made after an actuarial study, which calculated the contributions needed. What we have now is an ideological attack without foundation.

Morning JY - hope you are well. Pensions makes a change from "sexism" debates!!

Excuse the "selective' editing here, but a few responses:

We also all pay working family tax credit so that private companies can pay people the minimum wage and then we all top it up to make it a living wage for the worker. Are you outraged by us subsidising say Mc Donalds staff so the multinational can make even more billions of profit for its very wealthy shareholders?

Yes

When you say the private sector you mean the poor in the private sector you don’t mean the board members do you as they seem to do ok with their pensions deals.

I mean all (actually!!) but stress in particular the poorer members of both sectors. We have discussed this before, but the real winners are the highly paid public sector employees. I hope the strikers appreciate this when they pound the streets protesting.

Why do we have to have a race to the bottom ?...this could be as easily solved by improving private pension arrangements.

This is exactly the point that Hutton made and referred to in his report. The current proposals are not a race for the bottom.

Is capitalism not meant to be aspirational and the wealth to trickle down to us all? Have I read the wrong PR for this magical system that makes us all better off?

No - clearly some parts of the current economic model - a mixed economy BTW with significant areas of government intervention, not a free market one - are not working and income inequality is a big example of that. But that is not unique to capitalist societies. Did you see BBC QT last night. Ed Balls made a strong and passionate defence of capitalism!!

Work longer pay more get less ...its not an easy sell to the people affected by these changes.

Of course not, but why do have some have the right to be immune from these pressures?

It is easy to sell it to people who have a worse pension than this and feel they are subsidising it via taxation.

So what would you say to them?

Greece is creaking due to its public sector liabilities.

Public sector workers in NIMBY shocker.

Of course not, but why do have some have the right to be immune from these pressures?

Is anyone saying that? I honestly think that if public sector pensions were properly evaluated wrt what's affordable, then the unions would be more accepting.

"Greece is creaking due to its public sector liabilities."

Absolutely not the reason why Greece is creaking.

So teamhurtmore - how do you deal with the fact that even pensions such as the teachers where there is no possible unsustainable taxpayer contribution required in that the taxpayer contribution is capped and that there is plenty of money to pay all the benefits, teachers are still being told they have to work longer for a smaller pension.

Ransos and JY - you both seem to recognise why some in the private sector feel aggrieved - particularly low paid employees. [b]So what is it that makes the public sector so special that they feel the right to be immune to the same pressures that the private sector is facing and why do they feel the right to subject future generations to fund a system that they cannot aspire to?[/b] It kind of goes against the equality arguments that you normally propose elsewhere (IMHO)!!

So what would you say to them?

that they are not subsiding pensions for the public sector via tax. I would stop the government lying to them

and why do they feel the right to subject future generations to fund a system that they cannot aspire to?

This is simply not true in any meaningfull way.

So teamhurtmore - how do you deal with the fact that even pensions such as the teachers where there is no possible unsustainable taxpayer contribution required in that the taxpayer contribution is capped and that there is plenty of money to pay all the benefits, teachers are still being told they have to work longer for a smaller pension.

The unison ballot was on industrial action over the [u]local government pension scheme [/u]

Any referefence to the Teachers pension scheme is a straw man argument.

So what is it that makes the public sector so special that they feel the right to be immune to the same pressures that the private sector is facing

Why should the public sector roll over and accept the changes that the private sector had forced upon them? I don't see why we shouldn't defend our T&Cs just because the private sector couldn't.

As I said before, this isn't about affordability.

There are valid arguments on both sides, if I were a public servant (I used to be) I'd be hanging onto my pension for grim death.

But there is a consensus from the parties is there not? All 3 are committed to pension reform, it's the nature of opposition that you don't have to spell out what YOU would do but Labour would be in the same boat.

Let's be honest though, one day strike, or even a series of them isnt going to make a damn bit of difference. Haringey council on strike you say?

The unison ballot was on industrial action over the local government pension scheme

Any referefence to the Teachers pension scheme is a straw man argument.

You're wrong: the teachers have already balloted.

If your public sector and on here arguing?

Why not get off a forum and give us more value?

This thread is hilarious 🙂

What people are forgetting is that this is a labour led idea.

Its just that Gordon Brown didnt have the guts to implement the recommendations as his ratings were low and he wanted to win an election, and that Milliband is going along with it.

Its unfortunately a necessary evil that we have to make cuts to the countries outoings as we have a debt that needs to be paid off.

Im sure there are other places to make cuts, like why do benefits have to go up 5.2%, surely they should be cut back.

But it does make for a fun and lively debate.

he real winners are the highly paid public sector employees

Did you see BBC QT last night. Ed Balls made a strong and passionate defence of capitalism!!

Of course not, but why do have some have the right to be immune from these pressures?

So what would you say to them?

Managing change is difficult and it needs to be handled well villfying them wont help. Trying to make them look like greedy self serving individuals whilst not really touching the banking sector or the wage rises of say the top FTSE employees just draws lines in sand and makes both sides more militant. Somehow a consensus needs to be found. I am not sure that the current approach [ both sides to be fair] is going to help much

Hora in getting it wrong shocker

So what is it that makes the public sector so special that they feel the right to be immune to the same pressures that the private sector is facing and why do they feel the right to subject future generations to fund a system that they cannot aspire to?

We need to seek consensus here not get polarised and hurl abuse [ I know we are not doing this but its coming on this thread sooner or later]

Personally I would improve private pensions via legislation - especially for organisations above a certain size. i would look at the public sector schemes individually rather than collectively and evaluate each on their merits. I would start a campaign to educate members that there are affordability issues and pretend I was on their side whilst trying to move them to the position where they are willing to accept change. I would stop saying its better than the private sector ones as well because most people are selfish and dont really care all they care is that they will now be worse off.

I don't see why we shouldn't defend our T&Cs just because the private sector couldn't.

T&C's?

Are you sure public sector pensions are contractual elements of the terms and conditions of employment?

I think you'll find otherwise....

If your public sector and on here arguing?

Why not get off a forum and give us more value?

You think renumeration is not contractual nor part of your T & C 😯
Do you want a copy of my contract?
AH scrub that being in the pension is contractual the payouts are not as they can alter them without consent - then again they can do that with my wages as well and most other T & C so I suppose it depends. if they removed my pension I would fancy my chances in a constructive dismissal claim though as it would be a substantive change.

T&C's?

Are you sure public sector pensions are contractual elements of the terms and conditions of employment?

I think you'll find otherwise....

Who said anything about a contractual entitlement? It's instructive that the best you can offer is pedantry...and you're not even very good at that.

Trying to make them look like greedy self serving individuals whilst not really touching the banking sector or the wage rises of say the top FTSE employees just draws lines in sand and makes both sides more militant.

Very true - we agree!!

As I said at the start = let the strike go ahead and lets see where public opinion lies.

QT was slightly bizare last night - two joke panelists - Philip Hitchens (for his pomposity), Benjamin Zephania (for complete lack of any value) - the elder statemen - Shirley Williams - who was balanced, amusing about Berlosconi and clever at dodging the curve balls with, "...but that's another question."

And then May versus Balls - surprisingly lacking in controversy. Agreed on more things that I would expect, May uncomfortable on some details and Balls more humble than usual. In fact, he was almost bearable until he started on his pre-determined point scoring. Not bad for a man who designed banking reform and regulation but who chooses to accept no responsiblity for the outcome.

teahurtmore, the answer to your rhetorical question:

Why should low-paid workers effectively subsidise highly paid public sector workers.

is that the average nhs wage is within £1000 of the overall average uk wage, (varies within that £1k depending in the part of the country you live in for some reason). Given the higher level of qualifications demanded in teaching I would expect it to be higher in education, and less in local authorities who employ many binmen, landscapers and so on.

Zulu:

The unison ballot was on industrial action over the local government pension scheme

That's not what my ballot letter from Unison said. I am assuming you didn't get one.

Again Zulu, are you a member of a union?

"Given the higher level of qualifications demanded in teaching I would expect it to be higher in education, and less in local authorities who employ many binmen, landscapers and so on. "

Most of those kinds of jobs in local authorities are contracted out.

Not round here they aren't...... yet!

(Plymouth also still just about has a 'corporation' run bus service, one of the last in the country I believe. Like many places, they have sold the bus stops themselves out to JC Décaux though.)

hora - Member
Greece is creaking due to its public sector liabilities.

Some other Greece that the rest of us haven't heard of maybe?

Not round here they aren't...... yet!

There are of course exceptions, but the general picture is that bus services, bin collections, parks maintenance etc are all contracted out.

Given that the government is weakening TUPE regulations, expect to see even more of it as the private sector is able to do these jobs cheaper because they can cut their employees remuneration.

Julianwilson:

RE: Trade dispute over changes to local government pensions

[img] [/img]

I wouls imagine that yours may have said NHS - but neither have anythign to do with teachers penaiosn

Why on earth would I want to be a member of a troskyite union?

I can't believe people on here blathering on about proecting public sector wages, pensions etc.

there isnt the money in the country to pay for it all.
We have been living beyond our means for too long and now the debt bubble of developed nations has burst.
Unless the UK starts living within its means then the country will be ****ed for decades.

If you had a private company like the public sector and its revenue was reduced, then it would either go to the wall or have to lay people off.

Get in the real world and accept the economic disaster we are living in is similar to the great depression of the 30's and drop the political rubbish, all parties accept the need to get the budget back on track following years of folly.

the tory party and the right wing press thank you for swallowing the message hook line and sinker and repeating it for them.
should we try and regulate banking that got us into this mess or just go for public sector workers?
Given the teachers pension is self funding about to peak and legislated by law that any shortfall comes from members pay packets in what sense is it unaffordable
Please dont let some facts stop you from your polemic whilst asking us not get political]It was a bit blatant and the ministry of truth advises subtler posting

The thing that annoys me most about the pensions debate is the phrase "Public sector pensions" as though they're all one and the same thing. Any discussion about funds/shortfalls etc. should have to make specific reference to the Pension scheme they're actually talking about.

If the changes go ahead, I wonder how many under 30s will pull out of their schemes or decide not to join. I thought the government wanted to encourage people to start saving for pensions earlier. Letting people see you can change the rules as you see fit isn't going to encourage anyone.

if some of the funds are in 'credit' - why not simply privatise them? It seems this would stop these kinda arguments in their tracks?

i do find the 'teacher pension' example interesting - £6k a year is a lot - if we suppose most folk pay 5% of their salery, and its matched by their employer, you have to earn 60k/year to get a pension of the same size in the private sector (almost double what the teacher would be earning)..

Sancho stop talking common sense. Seriously.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone from the public sector? They sort of talk on a different wavelength. A friend of mine is a teacher and her biggest financial worry is will her pension be reduced from final salary.

Mine is having a job tomorrow.

ebygomm - Member

If the changes go ahead, I wonder how many under 30s will pull out of their schemes or decide not to join.

I believe this to be one of the aims - so then the schemes can be closed as " no one wants to join" so then they can make everyone take out private pensions thus creating more money for their friends

"Given the teachers pension is self funding"

Lol where did you dig up this gem of information.

how is it possible to finance an undefined cost with a pre-defined contribution?

Teachers pay into a defined contribution scheme. The payments should
go into a properly administered fund, as final salary pension schemes
used to. Teachers pension contributions actually go to the government
and pensions are paid from government funds, just like the state
pension.

If you had a private company like the public sector and its revenue was reduced, then it would either go to the wall or have to lay people off.

Unless it's a bank, of course.

i do find the 'teacher pension' example interesting - £6k a year is a lot - if we suppose most folk pay 5% of their salery, and its matched by their employer, you have to earn 60k/year to get a pension of the same size in the private sector (almost double what the teacher would be earning)..

There's a clue there in your final parentheses.

I believe this to be one of the aims - so then the schemes can be closed as " no one wants to join" so then they can make everyone take out private pensions thus creating more money for their friends

More likely current pension funds will be ringfenced with no new applicants. All new employees will probably be on Local Government Pension V2, which will be either reduced benefits or something tweaked like accrual rates.

Basically like most private companies have done with their pension schemes.

Sancho - the teachers pension has a cap on the government contribution - any shortfall must come from either reduced benefits or increased contributions.

There is no undefined cost to the taxpayer possible

Maybe a stupid question, but how does a pension become 'self funding'? Is there an assumption that the taxes from a teacher will cover their pension costs, or that the £x billion given to education each year covers the cost of the pension payments?

don't forget the teachers pension is on top of their state pension.

And Im sorry but teachers get a shit hot pension deal.
I worry about working next year and worry myself to death over the lads that work for me and wanting them to still be in a job next year, not pissing about worrying about another 3% additional contribution.

TJ if a lot of teachers retire early and a lot of new teachers dont take up the pensions will all the other teachers rally round and "top-up" the shortfall.

And it still isnt self funding, it should be, but its not, its the same argument as road tax fuel duty, it all goes to central government and they waste it.

There's a clue there in your final parentheses.

not sure what your point is? that teachers should keep the same pension but earn £60k/annum? nearly triple the national average? It would get better quality teaching staff through the doo, granted..

Sancho - thats what the new scheme does - any shortfall has to be made up from contributions. This scheme was reviewed recently to arrive at the position where is sustainable with no open-ended commitment from the taxpayer.

Central government wastes money? you mean they don't spend it on services they chuck it in landfill?

TJ if a lot of teachers retire early and a lot of new teachers dont take up the pensions will all the other teachers rally round and "top-up" the shortfall.

That's how the scheme's set up, yes.

I worry about working next year and worry myself to death over the lads that work for me and wanting them to still be in a job next year

We (6th form college) had redundancies in the summer. Probably more to come too.

not sure what your point is? that teachers should keep the same pension but earn £60k/annum? nearly triple the national average? It would get better quality teaching staff through the doo, granted..

Teachers' take home pay is (relatively) low. To compensate, they get a bigger pension.

Teachers' take home pay is (relatively) low. To compensate, they get a bigger pension.

is it? an AST (advanced skills teacher) can take home up to 64k, or 60k outside of london. with 65 days annual paid leave, that's already a pretty well compensated package. If you pro-rata 64k with 27 days leave (around average for a private sector job), that's a 77k package.

is it? an AST (advanced skills teacher) can take home up to 64k, or 60k outside of london. with 65 days annual paid leave, that's already a pretty well compensated package. If you pro-rata 64k with 27 days leave (around average for a private sector job), that's a 77k package.

The average teacher's salary is around £32K. They also spend a fair amount of their evenings marking and preparing lessons. Cherry picking to suit your argument looks a bit petty...

The average teacher's salary is around £32K. They also spend a fair amount of their evenings marking and preparing lessons. Cherry picking to suit your argument looks a bit petty...

if that's true, it suggests the average teacher's career is 6 years and they don't (on average) apply for any of the additional salery packages (such as AST, TLR, pay for excellent teachers, deputy/head teacher, etc etc).

It probably is the right figure if you bring part time teachers into play, and eliminate heads etc, but thats a bit of a distorted scale. Even so, if you pro-rata the holidays out, its nigh on 39k. I'd say that kinda salery doesn't need a compensatory pension. I'm not saying teachers are overpaid, I'm suggesting they probably don't need a pension package worth nearly double what a similar private sector employee would earn

My other half is a teacher, so I know how much time is spent marking/lesson planning. Most teachers average about 4 hours/day on lessons, so it seems spending 5 doing other activities would pretty much bring them up with the average private sector worker?

You want the real truth?

Union membership is on thre decline, so unions must be seen to be active in favour of their members or even more people will think "why be in a union?"

The unions know the current public spending is unsustainable but you know they gotta rty and look good

if that's true, it suggests the average teacher's career is 6 years and they don't (on average) apply for any of the additional salery packages (such as AST, TLR, pay for excellent teachers, deputy/head teacher, etc etc).

By definition, those additions are not available to the majority. You're cherry picking again.

The maximum pay on the main payscale is £31,552, full time.

http://www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales.aspx

I think that teachers do a difficult and stressful job, for which they are just about adequately remunerated. Their pension is part of that remuneration.

By contrast, my wife teaches adults in the private sector and earns far more than that. She also gets 35 days holiday.

Sancho stop talking common sense. Seriously.

here is one of the places where you can dig up the gem - to be fair it is financed by members contributions but it is actually a notional fund rather than an actual fund
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00405.pdf

Like most of the public service schemes, the Teachers’ Pension Scheme operates on a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) basis. 5 This means that employer and employee contributions are paid to the sponsoring government department, which pays out pension benefits, netting off the contributions received.
The Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) is “notionally funded”. This means that periodic valuations are carried out as though there was a fund. Contributions are set on the basis of these valuations. Gerald Rhodes in his 1965 report, “Public Sector Pensions”, explains that notional funding as an arrangement was first developed for the Post Office (PO) scheme. The PO scheme had originally been part of the Civil Service scheme (a PAYG scheme). In order that the cost of pensions could be “fairly” represented in the PO accounts, it was decided to conform as nearly as possible to normal commercial practice and to assess what the position would have been had the scheme been funded.6
The TPS was set up in the 1920s as a notional fund because it was decided that a real fund would be too expensive:
The pension fund for teachers was set up in the 1920s. It was established as a notional fund to which teachers and their employers were required to contribute prescribed amounts towards the costs of pensions. Notional funding was preferred to real funding because the setting up of a real fund was considered too expensive at the time (though real funds were retained for other local government employees and for universities). Before that teachers’ pensions were paid on a non-contributory basis similar to civil servants.7
The TPS regulations require an account to be maintained, known as the Teachers’ Pension Account, to which contributions from members and employers are credited and from which expenditure on benefits is debited. A notional investment income is assumed on the balance in the account. However, contributions from members and employers are paid to the Exchequer, and the Exchequer effectively meets the cost of all benefits.8
A Working Group set up in 1997 looked at the funding basis and decided that no fundamental change. A change to a funded scheme, it said, would involve significantly higher costs for a period of almost fifty years:

I suppose we could argue the toss but payments are based on a "fund" even though the fund is not real but it has accounts. so we could both argue the case - probably fair to say I overstated the case but their payments are based on what they have paid into the "fund"

TJ if a lot of teachers retire early and a lot of new teachers dont take up the pensions will all the other teachers rally round and "top-up" the shortfall.

My other half is a teacher, so I know how much time is spent marking/lesson planning. Most teachers average about 4 hours/day on lessons, so it seems spending 5 doing other activities would pretty much bring them up with the average private sector worker?

Whats the Labour Party view on this?

"Whats the Labour Party view on this? "

They're not supporting the strike. If you could find out exactly what they are in favour of, could you let me know, as I'm at a complete loss.

If you could find out exactly what [s]they[/s] we are in favour of, could you let me know, as I'm at a complete loss.

You are Ed Miliband and I claim my £5.