Council strike: support it or not?

Our_John

Good luck to every single one of the strikers.... who can honestly say that when a person takes a job at a given rate of pay, and for a given period of time, the terms can be changed without fair consultation...... IF it was the other way around then the Local Authority/Government employers would certainly cry FOUL! Let's stick to fairness and justice for all not decamp into us and them!

IvanOpinion

So maybe someone will explain to me where the money is expected to come from? It can't come from the private sector because their pensions have already been raided therefore the only way is to increase tax, reduce benefits or make those that are going to benefit from it pay for it.

Is it fair ... no ... but the private sector caught onto that several years ago and the public sector still seems to be in cloud cuckoo land thinking some one is going to manufacture some money for them. It is very unfair that a split is being made but maybe the entire private sector should go on strike over this as well ... but then again they don't really have to because they have wised up and started making provision.

Ivan

Daddio_2

The money to pay these pensions will come from a separate fund into which these workers have paid 5% of their wages for all their working life and which already has the funds to pay them.

John Prescott and his civil servants (all of whom can retire at 60 with better conditions than the strikers are asking to retain, and who have contributed nothing for this priveledge) have instigated many false rumours and nobody has been able to quash them.

Pensions are not paid out of council Tax.

I work for a council but am neither a Union member nor will I benefit under rule 85.
I previously worked in Health where I could retire at 60 but where there was no separate fund to pay pensions, Gordon Brown took all the 5% paid by the staff to spend today and hopes to find the money when the pensions become due (presumably out of general taxation.)

treacle

I am a Local Government employee and for 10 years have been paying into the pension schme. When I entered into the scheme I did so under the Rule of 85 which allows retirement at 60 if age plus service totals more than 85. I pay 6% of my monthly salary into the scheme.

I am a well educated law graduate who chose to work in the public sector where I felt I could get increased job satisfaction by providing services to local people. I could have gone into the private sector and earned double my current salary, but I didn't. However by not doing so I was originally happy in the thought that I would be provided with a reasonable pension.

Now the government wants to move the goal posts under the veiled threat of having to comply with European discrimination rules and to avoid a so called "black hole deficit".

However approximately 3-4% of council tax goes on the LGPS, and if it didn't fund members' pensions, we would all have to pay higher taxes for benefits and state pensions for them.

The proposed cuts to the LGPS will cost the government £2 billion in higher state benefits and state pensions. And at the end of the day, that cost would be passed onto the taxpayer.

And unlike every other public sector pension scheme, the LGPS saves taxpayers and the government money. Contributions are invested and last year 28% of the value of the scheme came from investments.

It cannot be right that my colleagues who work in the Police, NHS and Fire Service will retain their pension status. It is a shame that the strikes will continue as the only people to lose out in all of this are the taxpayers paying my wages - and believe me I am not happy about that.

webwiz

Daddio wrote:

The money to pay these pensions will come from a separate fund into which these workers have paid 5% of their wages for all their working life and which already has the funds to pay them.

John Prescott and his civil servants (all of whom can retire at 60 with better conditions than the strikers are asking to retain, and who have contributed nothing for this priveledge) have instigated many false rumours and nobody has been able to quash them.

Pensions are not paid out of council Tax.

I work for a council but am neither a Union member nor will I benefit under rule 85.
I previously worked in Health where I could retire at 60 but where there was no separate fund to pay pensions, Gordon Brown took all the 5% paid by the staff to spend today and hopes to find the money when the pensions become due (presumably out of general taxation.)

I am afraid you have got your facts completely wrong. Local Authority pensions are paid out of Council Tax. People who are already pensioners get swinging increases in Council Tax every year whilst their state pension goes up only in line with inflation. All the Council workers in this forum compare themselves with Government workers who forced the government into a u-turn and kept their retirement age of 60, but instead they should compare themselves with the poor s*ds in the private sector who would give their eye teeth for a local authority type pension.

ducatiman

I will absolutely not support these selfish b**stards. I'm fed up of Council Workers etc... disrupting my life because they are not happy about decisions made from above. How would they feel if their rubbish didn't get collected or they couldn't get to work just because I was unhappy about a decision my boss made! If they don't like it, get another job, they're just a bunch of layabouts anyway, looking for any excuse to walk out on strike to have another day off.

bobsa1

I've just caught up with this thread and had to post again.

This is not a private sector/ public sector debate. The real issue is around a change in terms and conditions without any consultation. The fact that this affects a greater number of low paid and women workers, who carry out a public service and the unfair treatment the government is trying to give local govt workers as opposed to nurses, police etc.

The fact that private sector employees have been treated badly by their own pension funds surely does not mean that it is okay for the govt to treat public sector workers in the same way.

Daddio_2

I am sorry but you have been misinformed. Pensions are paid out of funds saved in and invested by separate Pension Funds - which are independant from the councils. Like nearly all employer pension scheme the councils contribute into the pension fund also for each employee whilst they are employed.

The council pays nothing to it's pensioners, this all come from the separate pension fund.

Also if I may quote from a letter dated this month from my LGPS

"xxxx Pension Fund's financial situation is presently very sound and does not support the ODPM's concern that the LGPS is under financial strain. Our Assets total around £6.3 billion and our annual income from contributions and investments exceeds the amount we pay out in pensions each year by more than £150 million"

steady__eddie

I fall into the category of one of "these selfish b**stards" referred to in a previous post. Not being a member of a Trades Union or the Local Government Pension Scheme, I decided to cross the picket line yesterday.
I listened to my colleagues points of view and they listened to my position namely that my days wages were being used to fund my own private pension. My own circumstances dictate that I could not benefit from the 85 year rule or indeed an 105 year rule. Having entered my depot, I was signed in by a token member of management and told that I would not lose my days wages and I could go home as there was no supervision on site. I explained that I was a lone worker and that I only usually encountered any supervision if there was an L in the month but this cut no ice. I would have picked up my wages, had I have been able to work yesterday but this "money for old rope" approach disturbs me so I am going to donate my "ill gotten gain" (less tax and N.I.) to charity.
My colleagues were speaking to me today (no tins of black paint about) and some union members in my position vis-a-vis the 85 year rule expressed concern about the next strike rumoured to take place on the 2nd and 3rd of May.

jan59

Sorry, no support from me. Yes, it is about a change in terms and conditions, - welcome to the real world. Consultation is not negotiation. The government could consult/listen, then make the changes anyway. We have all been told things in the past that are not true for the future (or the present). Look at endowments, look at the burst of the dot-com bubble which cost pension schemes, endowments etc. Slump in housing market etc etc. Nothing stays the same and there are few guarantees - except death and taxes of course!