[Closed] Oh look, more strikes

Heres a thought all you private sector employees greeting about not getting a pension, why not try and save for one.

My pension costs me £200 per month, how many of you even put that away.

Why not ask you company directors to stop take massive bonuses and giving shareholders huge payouts and actually pay into a pension for you all.

Or is that too easy, your so brain washed that you are happy with company bosses average pay going up by 50% last year. Dont know about you but i have a 2 year pay freeze. On average the private sector pay rose by 2.5% last year.

Oh and my pay in the private sector would be approx £10k more than i get as a teacher. I would have a contributory pension, bupa, healthclub and a few other perks so dont act like people in the public sector dont know how it works.

My pension is part of my pay, simple as that. Its what i signed up to and i cant see how they can change it on a whim, cause they cant be arsed taxing a few rich bankers.

I think of my pension as a part of the whole package of employment: you'd be daft not to accept a company car, health club membership or bupa if it came with your job wouldn't you? And you would factor a car into the decision about whether or not you were going to work for the actual salary you got, no?

So what is wrong with using a great pension package to sweeten a wage that doens't properly reflect your qualifications, experience, responsibility and stress?

Alternatively, I will gladly accept a pay rise in order to pay into a 'private' pension fund (with all its middlemen) to have the same size pension whenever they actually let me retire. Although I am not sure that will represent as good value for money as doing it in house though. But then that isn't the point either is it. It's not about saving money, it's about good ol'fashioned Conservative principle, the same way as the current health reforms will save very little money and spend more of your income tax on shareholders dividends and less on your nan's leg ulcers.

Its what i signed up to and i cant see how they can change it on a whim

Lots if not all private sector employers pension schemes (which people "signed up to") have substantially changed (for the worse) in the last 5-10 years.

There's no final salary scheme any more at my place, it's all invested in stock market funds. My "pot" lost £26K in value in the last 12 months.

^^ Bloody hear hear, Stevewhyte, well said.

My public sector pension - even after the proposed changes - is still better and more secure than my private pensions are. Existing pension rights are being ringfenced under the proposals, after all.

I'm really sorry that some of my colleagues feel that they will be losing out, but the fact is that the basic wages for staff in our agency are now pretty close to private sector levels, we still have generous holiday entitlements, sick pay and flexi time, and even though I know my current job will be gone in 2 years due to changes in legislation, job security is still pretty good compared to the private sector.

Seems to me that it is very childish and selfish to threaten to "bring the country to it's knees" when we were all quite happy to ride the wave when the public sector was expanding and times were good.

Just my opinion, fwiw

Lots if not all private sector employers pension schemes (which people "signed up to") have substantially changed (for the worse) in the last 5-10 years.

Which is pretty crap.
It would be interesting to know whether the private pensions have been shafted in the same way and the same extent across Europe, or whether it's a reflection on UK regulation.

allthepies - Member

Lots if not all private sector employers pension schemes (which people "signed up to") have substantially changed (for the worse) in the last 5-10 years.

Yes i was in one, but what hey did is close the pension scheme to new emplyees and they had to go onto a money puchase scheme.

But i guess you caould always move to a better employer, and maybe when enough people level your currrent employer then they will get their act together.

I just dont get why people beat up on the public sector, what do you want a private poplice force, all schools private with £20k a year fees. Private fire service.

Get real, have a think why the public sector came in to being, have you any idea what it was like 100 years ago.

I just dont get why people beat up on the public sector, what do you want a private poplice force, all schools private with £20k a year fees. Private fire service.

Most of those here bleating about the public sector are either interested in eliminating the public sector for politically idealogical reasons, or brainwashed types that the idealogical types have preyed upon for the last thirty years.

Because the private sector is the one paying for the public sector's pension.

Oh please we pay paye too and many other taxes as well as contribution so no I'm sorry we pay for our pension.

The 30 November "day of action" is being co-ordinated by the TUC and could involve members of 20 trade unions in the public sector.

What a complete waste of time. Why don't they stop farting around with completely pointless one day strikes - surely they must have figured out by now that they achieve absolutely nothing ?

If you're in dispute with your employer and you decide to take strike action, then stay out until some sort of acceptable resolution/compromise has been achieved. Otherwise don't bother - no employer is going to cave in because you've taken a day off work ffs. It amounts to little more than an extra day's bank holiday for them to deal with.

As far as I'm concerned teachers etc, deserve to get screwed by this government - if they lack the guts to stand up to them.

MoreCashThanDash - Member

My public sector pension - even after the proposed changes - is still better and more secure than my private pensions are. Existing pension rights are being ringfenced under the proposals, after all.

Nope - they are not.

ernie_lynch - Member

As far as I'm concerned teachers etc, deserve to get screwed by this government - if they lack the guts to stand up to them.

You know something mate you might be spot on there.

Cameron et al are like Thacher turned up to 11, and for the life of me i cant understand why people dont see it.

Well before you comment oh look more strikes you need to find out why.

People slammed Robert Maxwell for what he had done to peoples pensions

What this Coalition government has planned for you, like it or lump it is to make
Though's whom are in this pension to start paying another £ 50 quid more.

OK this won't be over night but over time But this is to pay for the deficit
Nothing towards there pension.
The Government can only say well this pension is still better than a private one.

The Government are shiting themselves has they have included the Doctors whom
pay a lot more into this pension scheme and that they may pull out of.

Theres a lot more but can't be assed to type it.

One thing is too and this includes everyone in a pension or not is that the Government has we know
have put up the age of retirement.
This is not so you pay more into the pension fund and puts a bit more in ones pockets
But again the money you pay in over the extended years is to pay off the deficit.

So before you say OH Not Another Strike. Just think how this will eventually effect you !

Isnt it the case that we cant afford public sector pension that are so much better than everyone elses. There still going to be better than most but not quite as good?

As workers you have a right to strike but I suspect you wont get much public sympathy.

We cant afford, or wont afford, you mean you would rather spend tax money on subsidies for Westminster cantees, propping up bankers bonuses, funding wars. Paying for so much cr@p you have no idea.

Stay civil boy.

Well if the truth hurts sonny.

I suspect you wont get much public sympathy

They're not asking for sympathy.

And if wages and conditions were dependant on "public sympathy", then bankers wouldn't have a pot to piss in.

.....as well as a lot of other people.

No Ian - thats a total lie put out by the tory propaganda machine.

take the NHS pension - more is paid in every year than is taken out and has been so for years and it has already been reformed. take the teachers already reformed - government contributions are capped - any deficit will be made up by increased contributions

Public sector pensions are low, affordable and cheap. This is all about finding the enemy within to pick a fight with.

Cutting public sector pensions will not save significant money as most of the cut will then have to be topped up by benefits. average public sector pension is only a few thousand a year not enough to take yo out of benefits anyway

I hope you dig roads or something and arent a teacher. If you are a teacher a day or two at home will benefit our kids as well as our pockets.

TJ

Whats the purpose of the changes if they dont save money, surely no political benefit in a random scrap with nurses etc?

I think you will find there are plenty of other ways to save money.

But as usual we find a Tory governemnt picking fights with the public sector.

If you are a teacher a day or two at home will benefit our kids as well as our pockets.

Keep the debate at the level of puerile playground taunts won't you.

It's so much easier than attempting to provide a constructive argument when you're struggling.

Response to an insult, theres anither post with a grown up question if you want a go a that.

IanW - Member

TJ

Whats the purpose of the changes if they dont save money, surely no political benefit in a random scrap with nurses etc?

It about propaganda - remember Cameron is a PR man. Its about the enemy within. find someone to blame and its also divide and conquer tactics.

good tory tactics to pick a fight wit public sector workers having first spread lies to try to stop any wider public sympathy for them

this way greedy public sector workers can be blamed - and the government will get more money in the short and medium term - its only when people start retiring with the new lower pensions that the costs will kick in in increased benefits

Response to an insult

Insult - what insult ?

If you're referring to me, my comment was a clear statement of fact.

This :

"I hope you dig roads or something and arent a teacher. If you are a teacher a day or two at home will benefit our kids as well as our pockets".

Is without doubt, a comment worthy of puerile playground taunts. And puerile playground taunts are undeniably easier to provide, than a constructive argument when you're struggling.

Have been 'insulted' by the truth ? ......don't be so sensitive 💡

someone go and look at the demographics and stop arguing over political prejudices.
We're an ageing population. As is most of Europe and the States (and China and Japan as it happens)

Private sector pensions are funded through contributions made over a lifetime and invested in the stock market (which have their own issues right now). But essentially the money is saved up in advance.

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...

The ageing population means there are going to be too few workers to pay for the pensions promised to public sector when they retire.

So unless you want our kids to be burdened with massive taxes for their working lives, we have to reduce the amount they pay for public sector pensions. In any case if they think the taxes are too high they'll probably just emigrate and then we're totally screwed, or have super high immigration...

It's simple maths, not a political debate.

Isnt the goverment on behalf of us all cutting costs in all areas, defence, benefits, jobs and on this occasion pensions. I understand the point about reduced income perhaps being topped up by benefits but that logic suggests we should just increase the state pension for all to a point which no other costs are incurred.

Sorry chaps, I understand the anger but havent yet heard any justification for a strike.
Anyone subject to this new deal will likely live to a hundred years old and recieve a better pension than the average given to the private employer taxpayers who fund there employment.

It would be nice to have a different system but barring that thr numbers still have to add up.

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...

Nope -= some are fully funded

yes it is simple maths - the public sector pensions are affordable and will not need an increase in taxes.

take the teachers fund - governments contributions are capped so no taxpayer liability there. take the NHS - more paid in each year than is taken out - and that has been the case for decades - the government / taxpayer has made and continues to make a huge profit on it.

Both these schemes have already been reviewed to make them sustainable and affordable - and anyway if pensions are reduced the the benefits bill will increase as most public sector pensions are too small to take people out of benefits

Other public sector pensions are fully funded with ring-fenced funds

I'd happily swap my public sector pension for an MPs pension or even a private sector company director's pension pot,wouldn't we all?
As has already been said public sector pensions were reviewed for affordability and sustainability a few years back and adjusted accordingly with staff recruited after 2006/7 having a retirement age of 65 rather than 60.

Lols, the ecconomy is political, thats what its all about.

Its not how much money is there, its how do you want to spend the money thats the issue.

Buy the way, so your happy with me paying for current pensionars and also my own pension. This issue has been growing for 40 years. It was resolved in 2007, yes i know its not popular to look at the truth but pensions were reformed in 2007.
Move forward 3 years we have the happy Toff Tory party in and they get the rugger boots on and want to give the public sector a kicking.

I'd happily swap my public sector pension for an MPs pension or even a private sector company director's pension pot,wouldn't we all?

Feel free to try and become a MP or private sector company director then. No one's stopping you. 🙂

It's simple maths, not a political debate.

Economics is never simple maths. If it was, then we wouldn't be in this global mess, and everything would have been predicted by everyone.

It is however about choices and priorities.......in other words, politics.

ernie_lynch - Member

The 30 November "day of action" is being co-ordinated by the TUC and could involve members of 20 trade unions in the public sector.

What a complete waste of time. Why don't they stop farting around with completely pointless one day strikes - surely they must have figured out by now that they achieve absolutely nothing ?

If you're in dispute with your employer and you decide to take strike action, then stay out until some sort of acceptable resolution/compromise has been achieved. Otherwise don't bother - no employer is going to cave in because you've taken a day off work ffs. It amounts to little more than an extra day's bank holiday for them to deal with.

Yup... Lots of unions seem to have signed up for the same approach, "We want to minimise disruption to the public". It's ridiculous though- they still get criticised for striking, but they kneecap the effectiveness of the strike. Possibly useful for raising the profile of a case and as a declaration of intent/commitment but these ongoing strings of 1-day strikes that are talked of just seem to get all the disadvantages without some of the advantages.

If life is so rosy in the private sector (by the way Steve, the 50% pay rise for directors relates to FTSE100 companies only - so less than 1000 directors - without the shareholders (many private pension funds!) those companies would have no raison d'etre, no employees, no tax...; and I don't know anyone who's had a 2.5% p.a. rise since 2008 without changing jobs) then the public sector employees could really put their money where their mouth is and go and find a job in the private sector (except there aren't any - and the stigma of working in the public sector makes some of you unemployable!). Market forces would then force government to correct the "imbalance" to retain key staff.

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?