Council strike: support it or not?

tee_pee_2

I don't think striking is the way forward but when other groups have done it and won a better deal it sets a precedence I don't want to strike I i don't want to lose a days pay

MrSmartprice

The problem here is that the unions have not made it clear why the workers are striking, so most people seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Someone even claimed the other day that council workers get their old age pensions at 60.

When people join a local authority they become part of the LGPS. They pay a percentage of their salary towards a pension and they have always been able, subject to enough years service, to claim the pension at 60, men and women. (That's equality after all.) It is the deal they pay in for, and so they have every right for it to be honoured. It is not any sort of preferential treatment, just what they contracted to.

The scheme is not as generous as some civil service schemes, or those of the police where they seem to go at 50 in many cases. The LGPS pays 1/80 of final salary for every year's service up to 40. So you can retire on half pay if you get the 40 years in. Currently those doing this have paid in since 1966, or earlier. That's when they got the promise of a pension at 60 if they paid in. Incidentally, you can carry on to 65 but you don't get any more, even if you carry on paying past 40 years.

What is happening is the same as anyone else who has been fleeced on their pension, and the workers have every right to protest that the goalposts are being moved due to government incompetence. Others wouldn't put up with it, so why should they? There have been many lies told in the gutter press about this strike and it's time they got their facts right.

IvanOpinion

real1314 wrote:

We all pay for each others wages / pensions in the final analysis.

... but some people make a realistic contribution .. 5-6% is not even close to being realistic.

Ivan

D-B_5

It seems to me that we should all be protesing against the government not protecting existing pensions, both public and private. Mains points of this arguement include:


- the government are being asked to honour an existing contract

- employers took payment holidays in the 1980s while employees continued to pay full contributions

- employees pay 6% of their wage

- long term savings are made by the government because not only do they not have to pay out pension credits, the benefits that accompany these credits are not payable either (so two people could actually be receving roughly the same amount per week, but because one of them is via a pension credit top-up they are better off with the additional benefits)

- the governement should be protecting private pensions too, mechanisms should be put in place to stop private/company pensions being looted

- the governement also have a shortfall in their own pension fund, but have managed to find public funds to ensure that it is topped-up


As far as I am aware, briefings are being sent to the press daily by trade unions, but it is up to the media if they report and what perspective they take on the information provided, which prompts the thought that we are being spoon-fed a particular point of view.

jon-e-boy_4

IvanOpinion wrote:

... but some people make a realistic contribution .. 5-6% is not even close to being realistic.

Ivan

So why does my pension funds say they have been on target for the last 15 years?

Why are they not asking for a bigger contribution?

This is what was offered when I signed my contract with the University, with them matching my 6%. The University and the LGPS don't even agree with the move from Two Jags.

So what is really going on!?!?!
Looks like a bit of pension fund skimming from the chancellor. . .

tee_pee_2

god I don't get this at all it is so confusing and I don't consider myself thick. I am really tempted to opt out of the pension scheme esp as I am now part time and it only £50 a month and use it to over pay the mort. At least I can see it doing something constructive and I know the house is mine at theend.

IvanOpinion

jon-e-boy wrote:

So why does my pension funds say they have been on target for the last 15 years?

Why are they not asking for a bigger contribution?

If you are on a final salary scheme it is possible that they will be expecting someone else to make up any shortfall.

This is what was offered when I signed my contract with the University, with them matching my 6%. The University and the LGPS don't even agree with the move from Two Jags.

the world was a very different place 15 years ago ... things change ... the government has proven that it will change the T&C as and how it feels like it ... each individual has to look at their own needs, make some decisions and ensure that they are provided for .. we can not trust this government (or any subsequent government) to deliver anything that was ever promised in the past. This is why I say people have to open their eyes .. the unions can jump up and down all they like today .. but that will never pay the pensions of tomorrow.

So what is really going on!?!?!
Looks like a bit of pension fund skimming from the chancellor. . .

nothing new there then

Ivan

Former_MSE_Archna

Poll Title: Poll Started 28 March 2006. Council workers are fighting for their pensions, the plan is to shift retirement age to 65 rather than 60. Their strike means disruptions and closures to public transport and schools. Do you support their strike? Which of these is closest to your view?

No. It'll cost billions. Why should we pay more when we've to retire older too? 29.6% (1327 Votes)
Yes. Pensions are important, it's unfair to change the terms 29.5% (1322 Votes)
No. Though it's unfair, other public sectors will retire at 60, all should be at 65 21.3% (955 Votes)
Yes. It's unfair, they're losing these rights but other public sector workers aren't 19.3% (867 Votes)

Total Votes: 4474

Poppy9

Good poll results but I still think it's a misconception in the public eyes (fuelled by the govt.) that all Local Govt. workers will retire at 60. This is not what is happening now and won't be in the future.

As I mentioned in a previous post there are many reasons why the majority of LG staff will be working to 65 at least:

1. People have families later in life and have to pay for further education. Not possible to do that even on a full pension with 40 years service unless you get another job.
2. Majority of staff are female & low paid and were excluded from the pension fund.
3. Many women have taken career breaks or work part-time so they cannot acrue 40 years service by age 60 (or even 65)
4. Most new starters with the councils are age 25+ so therefore need to work to 65 to have full pension.

IvanOpinion wrote:

the world was a very different place 15 years ago ... things change ... the government has proven that it will change the T&C as and how it feels like it ... each individual has to look at their own needs, make some decisions and ensure that they are provided for .. we can not trust this government (or any subsequent government) to deliver anything that was ever promised in the past. This is why I say people have to open their eyes .. the unions can jump up and down all they like today .. but that will never pay the pensions of tomorrow.

So would you accept it if a life assurance company that you had paid into for 20+ years wrote to you to say they will not pay out the 100k promised on your death but only 50k as times are hard and their funds have not performed as required and it would be unfair of new policy holders to make up your shortfall?

IvanOpinion

Poppy9 wrote:

So would you accept it if a life assurance company that you had paid into for 20+ years wrote to you to say they will not pay out the 100k promised on your death but only 50k as times are hard and their funds have not performed as required and it would be unfair of new policy holders to make up your shortfall?

Sounds a bit like my endowment policy at the minute

As I have said numerous times people who have been working under a set of terms and conditions should have those terms and conditions honoured for the time that they were on them on a pro rata basis ... however things are moving on and new terms and conditions are required into the future.

Therefore, and this is only an example, if there is an agreement of 60% of salary for working 40 years with a retirement date of 60 however at some point a new set of T&C gets put in place for a money purchase scheme with a retirement age of 65. If someone did 20 years until the old system then they should be entitled to 30% of their final salary upon reaching the age of 60. They may however have to work longer to get their remaining pension but I would say they should be entitled to have the option of retiring at 62.5 if they wish (or carry on to their full retirmenet date ... works both ways).

However it may all be academical since according to a report on the radio last night pensions schemes have recovered massively in the last two months (that might just be governmental hype though .. bury the head in the sand and hope it goes away )

Ivan

Ivan