Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

Apart from the small detail that 'bog standard' teachers don't earn anything like 45K, teachers require 1 year post-grad training, which is exactly the same as lawyers.

But:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/starting-salaries-for-city-lawyers-soar-to-pound60000-400918.html

makes clear that lawyers earned (in 2007, when these figures date from - feel free to find more recent ones) "In their first year, they can generally expect a wage of about £33,000, rising to £38,000 in their second year."

It would take a teacher about a decade at least to reach that same level. Incidentally, this compares very favourably to the public sector, even at starting point:

"By comparison, a junior doctor can expect a £20,741 starting annual salary, a newly qualified secondary-school teacher can expect £19,161, and an Army officer fresh out of training would be on £27,068."

But the real crunch comes later - after just a further 2 years, which is all it takes to qualify as a solicitor (no further exams to pass, just need to hang onto the job for 2 years), the same solicitors will enjoy a vastly higher salary than their public sector counterparts. See:

"Starting salaries for City lawyers have broken the £60,000 mark for the first time as demand for new talent soars, an analysis by a leading legal recruitment firm has found.
Newly qualified solicitors at London's top firms have seen salaries rise by 16 per cent in the past 12 months, with many now hitting £64,000 a year, according to the specialist legal recruitment company, Hughes-Castell. A decade ago, a newly qualified lawyer could have expected to earn £25,000 a year. But now they can earn double that through their basic wage, and many firms also top up the salaries with so-called "golden handcuffs" of more than £10,000 for their newest recruits when they sign up."


NB Couldn't be bothered to look up more recent figures, but I know the most recent figures are higher still.


So my point made I think. Imagine 2 identical graduates (please try and remember that teaching is a graduate job) - both leave university with identical degrees, one becomes a lawyer, one a teacher. From day 1, the lawyer will be earning over 50% more. From year 3, the difference is over 30 grand a year. And the gap between them just grows wider every year.

So whilst I'm trying really hard to feel sorry for all these underpaid lawyers cruelly being forced to subsidize the pay and pensions of teachers, I just can't.

I do feel sorry for their tedious jobs, long hours and the crushing office politics (I did work experience in a couple of solicitors' offices, but my urge to giggle was far too strong...).

But not their salaries!

The teacher should have been a lawyer. This is why the lawyer earns more - he is smart.

Davesnave

donaldtramp wrote: »

A great proportion of your pension was paid up by taxpayers, FACT. Yes, I think I would have contributed a little more if I'd been in the private sector. Oh dear, that doesn't sound so dramatic, does it? FACT, I'd still have a decent pension, and I'd have enjoyed other benefits not available to public servants.
You are just one person out of millions of people who over the coming decades will bankrupt Britain so I don't fall for this "it's just poor little me and my almost trivial pension". I didn't say 'poor little me.' nor did I describe my pension as 'trivial.' What a distortion. To my mind, it's a just reward for the responsibility of the job I did for 33 years, but certainly not over-generous. I was putting a human face on the data, that's all.

What about all the low paid private sector staff who have had NO pension yet have contributed to YOURS through taxes?? Yes, what about them? They should have been treated better. That doesn't mean others should be treated less well!

You distrusted British industry and went running for the safety of the public sector because you didn't trust their ability to overthrow unions. No, there was much more to it than that. Read my post. However, even if that had been all there was to it, I would have made a very rational decision, given the state of British industry in the 70's.

I have no doubt in my mind that you will be right behind those strangling, petty unions when it comes to defending the ludicrous public sector pension entitlemnents. I'm no longer a union member. The one time I needed back-up from the union, they proved totally useless. Most people in my profession join the union for the legal protection it gives them. Increasingly, it's needed too.

Strange what happens eh?
Sure is. A person devotes most of their working life to doing a job well, then someone called Donald comes along after the event and says they want to remove some of the incentive for doing the work. Would you do that with people who work for the public sector, like contractors? ("Ah yes Mr Smith, you may have accepted this plastering job at £x, but now I want to pay you 10% less. It's to stop the country going bankrupt you know.")
I don't care what the unions think. Public will is against them and with little public support, they will be broken and laws and entitlements will be changed.

It might be in your mind whats done is done but governements have the ability to change the law especially if there is backing from the public.
There is going to be a lot of re-writing of entitlements as this black hole is dealt with.

I have suggested that these predictions of yours may have an element of truth in them, to the extent that we all should share in the job of removing the burden of this nation's debts. However, the country will not do better through making older people poorer. Those without adequate pension provision, regardless of which sector they come from, may therefore do better in any redistribution of resources than 'lucky' people like me. I can live with that.

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

22K! That's barely a starting salary! See my figures above. If solicitors are earning 60K plus after just 2 years in the job, then what the average salary is I wouldn't like to say.

That's less than the national average, which includes unskilled, part-time, manual etc.

Graduate jobs pay far more.

Are you sure you're an accountant?

You are talking about a small number of solictors in magic circle firms. This is not normal or usual. SusieSue is right, 22k is a much more realistic figure.

However, 45k for an equality and diversity officer for a fire service in derby is a diabolical liberty and he should be sacked, as should the morons who invented that job.

donaldtramp

carolt wrote: »

Diddums.

I don't understand why you don't get a job in the public sector if you think it's so cushy?

Did you get turned down for a job in the public sector once, and have been nursing a grievance ever since? I just don't get the anger. Yes, some jobs pay more than others. If yours doesn't pay enough, get a better one.

End of problem.

Well Carol I've clearly explained my thoughts
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=24604855&postcount=135

and the best response you come up with is "diddums":rolleyes:
Then you attempt to have a little snidey go about me being turned down from a public sector job and suggest my salary is not "paying enough".
:rotfl::rotfl:

Trust me, I am more than happy with my income.;)

What is unbelievable is that I still don't think you get it:rolleyes:

I DON'T want a job in the public sector. I am sick of PAYING for it.
My point is, Britain is sick of paying through the nose for the public sector.

Got it???

Old_Slaphead

savemoney wrote: »

Too late for my council

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/news/Councils39-pensions-shock-for-tax.5592863.jp

COUNCIL tax payers are facing a massive bill to fund Scarborough Council's pension scheme which is more than £60 million in the red.

If you think that's bad wait until after the next 3 yearly LGP pension funding review in 2010. The underfunding will be massive and throw into question (even more than now) the sustainablity of what is a funded scheme.

nb - the report is out of date...now only 3 FTSE100 companies offer FS pension schemes for new entrants - think that's Tesco, Cadbury & Diagio.

donaldtramp

The private sector pays better for equivalent work and people. I don't mind that; I made my choice, and, unlike donald trump, I'm happy with it.

But don't try to pretend that private sector types are (a) paid more because they're intrinsically 'better', or, (b) illogically, that at the same time, the poor private sector workers are all paid less, as donaldtrump claims.

Nope you still don't get it do you Carol?:rolleyes:

I am happy with my choice.
I never claimed that all private sector workers are paid less, never once.

We are simply paying too much for a bloated state.

I am struggling to believe that you have a degree as you claim. Does Oxford do degree courses in knitting?

Andy_L

bumpoowee wrote: »

We keep hearing this but I don't buy it.. looking quickly on the NHS site, most non-managerial nurses jobs pay around £30k and the higher ranking ones are up to £45k. In addition to the other NHS worker's perks I'd say this is on the generous side for what is essentially an unskilled job.

Nursing stopped being an unskilled bed-making, bum-wiping job years ago. It's now a graduate profession (as is paramedic-ing, if that's a real word) & pays low £20k on completion of training.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

Apart from the small detail that 'bog standard' teachers don't earn anything like 45K, teachers require 1 year post-grad training, which is exactly the same as lawyers.

But:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/starting-salaries-for-city-lawyers-soar-to-pound60000-400918.html

makes clear that lawyers earned (in 2007, when these figures date from - feel free to find more recent ones) "In their first year, they can generally expect a wage of about £33,000, rising to £38,000 in their second year."

It would take a teacher about a decade at least to reach that same level. Incidentally, this compares very favourably to the public sector, even at starting point:

"By comparison, a junior doctor can expect a £20,741 starting annual salary, a newly qualified secondary-school teacher can expect £19,161, and an Army officer fresh out of training would be on £27,068."

But the real crunch comes later - after just a further 2 years, which is all it takes to qualify as a solicitor (no further exams to pass, just need to hang onto the job for 2 years), the same solicitors will enjoy a vastly higher salary than their public sector counterparts. See:

"Starting salaries for City lawyers have broken the £60,000 mark for the first time as demand for new talent soars, an analysis by a leading legal recruitment firm has found.
Newly qualified solicitors at London's top firms have seen salaries rise by 16 per cent in the past 12 months, with many now hitting £64,000 a year, according to the specialist legal recruitment company, Hughes-Castell. A decade ago, a newly qualified lawyer could have expected to earn £25,000 a year. But now they can earn double that through their basic wage, and many firms also top up the salaries with so-called "golden handcuffs" of more than £10,000 for their newest recruits when they sign up."


NB Couldn't be bothered to look up more recent figures, but I know the most recent figures are higher still.


So my point made I think. Imagine 2 identical graduates (please try and remember that teaching is a graduate job) - both leave university with identical degrees, one becomes a lawyer, one a teacher. From day 1, the lawyer will be earning over 50% more. From year 3, the difference is over 30 grand a year. And the gap between them just grows wider every year.

So whilst I'm trying really hard to feel sorry for all these underpaid lawyers cruelly being forced to subsidize the pay and pensions of teachers, I just can't.

I do feel sorry for their tedious jobs, long hours and the crushing office politics (I did work experience in a couple of solicitors' offices, but my urge to giggle was far too strong...).

But not their salaries!

Your link refers to city lawyers who are a law unto themselves. The salaries are certainly not representitive of the country as a whole. The salaries offered are usually just to the very cream of the crop - and it's somewhat disingenuous of you to compare amounts paid for 'top talent' with that of your average new teacher with a 2.2 lifestyle degree.

I can only assume from your info that most of your acquaintances are 'high flyers' in London

In the sticks hardly anyone earn £60k+ let alone that after 2 years. Try looking in Accountancy Age for any jobs outside of the public sector - they simply don't exist. Any vacancy for a qualified accountant paying £40,000 - you'd get killed in the rush!

I know plenty of accountants, some even in local government, who earn same/less than teachers and work many more hours. Minimum entry to Accounting Institutes is a degree - then there's (unlike inteaching) 2 or 3 years of hard study.
Many who enter the legal industry end up doing conveyancing &/or ambulance chasing work which is relatively low pay. Highly paid solicitor/accountants usually have to generate their own income stream - so it's a case of being paid by results.

For info, I work for a smallish, profitable engineering company in Midlands with 100+ employees. Only the 2 directors earn above £35k (they earn around £55k - no employer pension, no company cars, no bonuses, no job security etc) and they work, at least, 7 days a week !

Experienced teachers, who have not achieved promotion, can eventually expect £35-40k + 20% employers pension + lots of free time + job security (which isn't available to many these days).

As a group, I certainly don't think teachers underpaid. Anyway, for many degree holders, teaching is the default option as many are not bright enough to go into any of the professions.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Ah, right.

Actually, the figures I quoted are not my own invention - please refer to the link if you won't believe me.

I think you're getting confused by the definition of 'newly qualified' re solicitors; that means a solicitor who has done a 1 year post-grad Law course, followed by 2 years of articles (paid training). The 60K figure referred to the salary paid on qualification, ie after 1 year of training and 2 years of work = equivalent to a teacher with 2 years of work under his/her belt, not a lawyer on day 1 of their job. That figure (ie what would be called a starting salary in most professions) was 33K.

However, either figure is 50-100% more than a teacher would earn at the same point in their career.

Its not articles any more. For a huge proportion of Lawyers its actually two years pre the traning contrat (a CPE and an LPC), and only one if Law was the first degree. I have many solicitor friends who earn sub £20k in the less prestigious areas of law, including one of my close girlfriends. As she says however, she's around to watch a film or have a drink with me in the evening, unlike DH! There is also An ILEX route into law for paralegals. This is mpore like the old articles (for which no degree was needed, at least for sometime, I'm not sure about the bit inbetween when our parents generation might have looked at law careers and when mine did!)

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

nb - the report is out of date...now only 3 FTSE100 companies offer FS pension schemes for new entrants - think that's Tesco, Cadbury & Diagio.

Wrong, it is four