Council strike: support it or not?

Mado

j-baby-scotland wrote:

Average pension talked about here, mostly women, mostly part-time... is £31.00 per week. Retaining element of employment in a lot of cases, now being swept away if allowed.

Hardly fortunes.

Maybe little money, but then they would have contributed little money to their pension too. But it's all about balancing the books.

Chances are many of these women will live up to their eighties or nineties. Or then again maybe not; because there will such a burden on the people left working that medical care for the elderly will no longer be funded to a decent level.

j-baby-scotland

They helped your kids cross the road, fed them their dinners... it was a condition of their employment... some for decades, in good faith.

Bullyboy tactics hitting them... failed with police, firefighters, nurses already.

Only a very small proportion of those striking are actually applicable for the '85' rule... s'called solidarity.

Mado

j-baby-scotland wrote:

They helped your kids cross the road, fed them their dinners... it was a condition of their employment... some for decades, in good faith.

Bullyboy tactics hitting them... failed with police, firefighters, nurses already.

Are they the first and only ones to be hard done by? What about those poor sould who lost their pensions entirely through no fault of their own?????

At least they WILL get one.

Poppy9

I'm a Local Govt. worker. I am a member of the superannuation pension fund.

When I started work in 1981 at the age of 18 it was compulsory for me to join the pension fund. No choice in the matter 6% of my pay had to be handed over. If I left Local Govt. within 2 years I could have a refund else it's tied up for 42 years until I'm 60. I'm now 42 and have been handing over without question my 6% to my pension fund. In return I have accepted lower pay rises than private sector. Pay is also lower but I accepted this not only due to working conditions but because I enjoy making a contribution to my local community. It may not be appreciated by most, but I feel I am making a difference. The pension fund is made up of contributions from staff 6% and whatever is needed from the council to maintain the fund. Currently it's about 12.75% but it varies each year. There have been periods where the councils have taken payment holidays as they thought the pension fund didn't require their input (overvaluing).

The retiring at 60 though is a fallacy for the majority of LG workers. Yes men who have worked full time for 40 years can retire at 60 on full pension but the majority of LG workers are females. Often low paid and will never acrue 40 years service. I myself have worked in LG for 24 years but have only 18 years pensionable service. This is because like many women I have taken a career break and work part-time. To get to 40 years pensionalbe service and full pension I either have to return to full time employment (for 22 years so I'll be 64) or work part-time for another 44 years (I'll be 86).

Currently I can choose to retire at 60 and take a pension based on years service. Under new proposals if I take my pension at 60 (5 years early) I will be penalised to the tune of 27% of my pension each year.

I fully understand that times have changed and we will all be working longer. I am happy to increase the %age I pay towards my pension. I am even happy (well as happy as anyone is) for them to say from now your pension contributions only buy the reduced pension but the payments made since 1981 are protected as this was a valid contract.

On working longer. If we all continue to work longer will there be any jobs for our children - perhaps a topic for another thread.

It should be noted that Civil servants have had their pensions protected yet their scheme is non contributory.

VeryTrying_2

Poppy9 wrote:

It should be noted that Civil servants have had their pensions protected yet their scheme is non contributory.

And it should also be noted that every year our representatives, the Members of Parliament, have voted themselves better and better pensions. Not to forget the Prime Minister and his closest cronies who have excluded themselves from the lifetime pension cap.

I think that nobody would strike if they knew that we were all in the same boat, but when you know that those taking these decisions about other people's pensions have their own snouts deep in the trough ....... how can that be fair?

Poppy9

Don't get me started on MP's and paid councillors:mad:

Do you think it's right that the Chief Executives salary of most councils is more than the Prime Minister?

ManAtHome

Fifer wrote:

Yes, but not by government chickening out on public sector pensions a second time. They need to revisit the first decision instead.

Wasn't the first decision the other side of that pesky election..?

VeryTrying - yup.

Poppy - how many Chief Execs get the odd 120k of 'unreceipted expenses' (and how do PMs on less than CEs get the odd £3million+ quidsworth of mortgages.. allegedly).

ReportInvestor

Mado wrote:

I guess the problem is that we should all retire at 65 but no govt has the b@lls to change the rules for all.

Don't you mean 70?

The government, and public opinion, are both way off the pace according to Lord Turner's report.

Mado

ReportInvestor wrote:

Don't you mean 70?

The government, and public opinion, are both way off the pace according to Lord Turner's report.

Maybe... but can't bring myself round to the idea :eek:

Wig

ReportInvestor wrote:

Don't you mean 70?

The government, and public opinion, are both way off the pace according to Lord Turner's report.

Shouldn't we at least start with 65 ?