Council strike: support it or not?

swillykev

I support the council workers strike 100% (and no I am not one!)They have paid into it and it is another government con to say this country can't afford it.To argue that Council workers should not retire early just because private sector workers have to work until 67 or 70 or more is also a con.There is no reason why we shouldn't follow their lead.If its good enough for that fat bloated plutocrat Digby Jones to retire at 60 so should the rest of us.
I hope the Unions go on the offensive with this after the council workers.This is a rich country and there is no reason why everyone shouldn't retire early at 60 or even 55.Put the MP's on the same salariies as the rest of us,scrap their expenses and subsidised food and drink in the Houses of Commons and Lords,get out of Iraq,scrap Trident ....need I go on? There would be squillions left for the rest of us to live in luxury until our dotage!Come on Martin...you know i'm right!

jonfev

The issue about pensions is almost academic. Basically the average Council Worker is seen as a tea drinking jobsworth who wastes your council tax. As such, even if they were taking action because their employers had decided to introduce regular beatings with a large stick, your average man on the Clapham Omnibus would not support any industrial action.

The truth is that whilst there are a few council employees who just about fit the above description, the vast majority are overworked, under resourced, abused by their customers, no perks (generally even gifts have to be handed over or refused) and they are regularly inspected by Government, audited both internally and externally and answerable to Councillors, MP's and a vindictive press. How does this compare with the private sector?

Despite all this, the vast majority want to do a good job, give good service and this drives them to stay in the employ of local government. So their pension should not be changed and the private sector should look to enhance their pensions if there is considered to be a problem. As stated by other posters the other issue is that the pension conditions for council employees will differ depending on which job you do but all drawing from the same scheme, that cannot be fair or equitable.

starandy

I have been a local government officer for 34 years. The pension rules are: for each year of service, you receive one eightieth of your last year's salary as your LG pension. So, if you joined at twenty, you could retire at sixty on half pay. If you had only started in LG at forty then you could retire at sixty on quarter pay - ie: twenty eightieths of your last year's pay. The money that we pay in - is taken from our salaries each month - is, I believe, 6% of our pay. And, no - we do not get the state pension until we are sixty-five - just like every other mortal out there. There is an awful lot of mis-information being distributed by the press and other media, but the facts are as above - we only get out what we put in - over and above the national insurance we pay. I think the police can retire after thirty years on two-thirds pay, but that's hearsay and hopefully this can be confirmed by a policeman. Anyway - the long and short of it is that we are given the option to retire and take our paid-for pension at sixty at the moment. Some authorities do apply the 85 rule which says that if your age and length of service add up to 85 then you can retire - but, once again, only on a pension as large as you have contributed and certainly not the state pension until you are 65.
I hope this has cleared up a few misunderstandings.
Andy

U-J

There seems to be a lot of misinformation around. I work for a council and went on strike yesterday for the first time. Our pension fund is buoyant, and even COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) are siding with the unions and are fighting the Scottish Executive over their plans to change the pension rules.

Mado

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.

Have you heard the newd that life expectancy is getting longer?
Do you know that there are less workers now to support every pensionner than 10/20 years ago and that this will drop further in the coming years?

I think pension age should be the same for everyone. I am a woman. Did women come marching down when the rule was cahnged to 65 regardless of gender. I don't think so.
Public and private sector.

And if you are lucky enough to afford living a few years from your savings, lucky you.

MJD

floss wrote:

You should try to explain to my father who has been working for the same council since he was 21 (he is now 58) why he has to add on an additional 5 years to his service. He has worked longer and harder than most of those in the police and fire brigade and yet they are both allowed to retire early!

He has made his own provision outside of his local government pension so bang goes you arguement about paying more in! He has recently been told by the Chief Executive of his council that he is not allowed to retire early as it will cost the council too much!

There is no loyalty shown here - after 37 years service he is being given a two fingered salute and yet my brother in law who is a policeman will be retiring at 48 with a nice fat pension and a huge lump sum. Tell me, where is the parity in this situation. If they are going to attack government officers then it should be ALL of them not just those who do the dogs work that nobody else wants to get involved with.

I completely agree with you - it is very unfair for your father - the goalposts have been moved after the game has started.

On the point of your brother in law who you seem to emphasise will be retiring at 48 with a nice fat pension and a huge lump sum to put it into a more factual context

Your brother in law joined the Police at 18 and will 'retire' after 30 years service as per his conditions of service.

Your brother in law will have paid for his pension to the sum of 11% of his salary during those 30 years - this is not something which is given to him free ~ if you had spent 30 years paying 11% of your salary into a building society or bank account you would expect to be able to withdraw the proceeds at the end of the term! At 11% I believe you will find that this is the highest if not one of the highest public sector workers contribution.

Your brother in law had no option in doing this once he chose the profession he chose - he could not then opt out it was compulsory.

Yes your brother in law can take a 'huge lump sum' although I am not sure what your definition of 'huge' may be in the great scope of things - it is called a commutation. Your brother in law can elect to commute part of his pension into a lump sum in exchange for less pension - in effect he has to take a gamble on whether he is going to die young or not.

It also depends upon your interpretation of the word 'retire'. What your brother in law does with the rest of his life may depend upon how financially astute he has been during his 30years - the pink and rosy view of retire is that he will take up a new hobby, spend time in the garden, take two or three foreign holidays a year etc - on the other hand he may have to consider it redundancy rather than retirement as he may have to go out and find another job. He will not receive his state pension until age 65 like the rest of us.

MJD

Mado wrote:

Have you heard the newd that life expectancy is getting longer?
Do you know that there are less workers now to support every pensionner than 10/20 years ago and that this will drop further in the coming years?

I think pension age should be the same for everyone. I am a woman. Did women come marching down when the rule was cahnged to 65 regardless of gender. I don't think so.
Public and private sector.

And if you are lucky enough to afford living a few years from your savings, lucky you.

I believe that the pension age is the same for everyone - state pension age is 65. What is being disputed (I believe) is the occupational pensions which have been paid for by the employees.

In short if you had spent, say 30 years, paying a percentage of your wages into a pension fund having been told that after 30 years it would pay out enough for you to give up work and perhaps take a part time job how disgruntled would you feel if you were then told you had to work another 5 years - and pay in another 5 years worth of contributions - before any payout was made? i would imagine it would rather knock any plans that you had made for six!

silverelephant

As a council worker and union member I was on strike yesterday. I therefore have to forfeit a days wages (fair enough because I wasn't working) and payback into the pension scheme that is causing all the arguments.

So why did I strike? Because they are trying to divide between what are essentially all Council workers. In our authority teachers are as much council workers as the bin men and both do thankless jobs but why should one of them have their rights protected and not the other. It should be everyone or no-one, plain and simple.

I am only 30 and by the time I get to retire there is likely to be no state pension to speak of and everyone will be working until they're 80 anyway!

IvanOpinion

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.

This is the point .. 5% does not cut it .. it is not going to provide enough. The advice I am getting is somewhere between 15-20% (although I am half way through my working life). None of us can guarantee that there is going to be a state pension when we retire .. yet we still have to pay into it.

People must be given credit for the proportion of their working life that they have been contributing into a scheme... but the rules need to change and the sooner the better. People striking demanding this that and the other is not going to pay the pension scheme ... putting more money aside will ... by all means strike .. it is time that the deadwood was cut out of the civil service (after all it wastes up to 70% of every penny it is given ... according to its own audit office).

Ivan

jon-e-boy_4

IvanOpinion wrote:

This is the point .. 5% does not cut it .. it is not going to provide enough. The advice I am getting is somewhere between 15-20% (although I am half way through my working life). None of us can guarantee that there is going to be a state pension when we retire .. yet we still have to pay into it.

Ivan

Still the whole point is that local government employees paying into the same pension scheme i.e. teachers, police, higher and further education employees, council staff, etc. should be kept on the same terms and conditions on their pension that was offered on their contract. If we ALL have to pay more and if we ALL have to work to 65, fair enough.

The debate is not about the differences between public and private sector, this is part of the labour fuelled media spin to divert attention away from whats happening. My friends in the private sector don't moan about my pension and I dont moan about there car and private health care etc!!