Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

carolt

bendix wrote: »

Curiously, the public sector can't see that because - let's face it - they arent spending their own money, they are spending taxpayers money so it doesnt matter.

I support enough less well off people as it is with my taxes paying for welfare. I don't see why I should pay extra to subsidise people in jobs because they are incapable of saving like everyone else has to.

Because they took often low-paid jobs on the understanding that they were sacrificing pay levels today but would be compensated by getting better pensions later.

I can see the arguments in favour of changing the rules for those going into the public sector in future; though you might need to up the pay levels to attract staff if you do.

But I don't think you should take away benefits already accrued.

After all, we've all paid millions through our taxes to pay bankers' contractual bonuses - this is just the same.

Except most public sector employees were far lower paid, and unlike bankers, really rely on these pensions to have any standard of living in retirement at all.

And as I've said, I strongly believe this should apply in the private sector too. I believe there is some compensation in the private sector for those who've lost their pensions where their companies fail? - correct me if I'm wrong here - but I don't think it goes far enough.

If getting high pension contributions was important to you, you could have gone for a job where they were included. Instead you went for a high-paying job where they weren't included, but you could afford to make your own provision instead. Your choice. What's the problem?

bendix

carolt wrote: »

Because they took often low-paid jobs on the understanding that they were sacrificing pay levels today but would be compensated by getting better pensions later.

I can see the arguments in favour of changing the rules for those going into the public sector in future; though you might need to up the pay levels to attract staff if you do.

But I don't think you should take away benefits already accrued.

After all, we've all paid millions through our taxes to pay bankers' contractual bonuses - this is just the same.

Except most public sector employees were far lower paid, and unlike bankers, really rely on these pensions to have any standard of living in retirement at all.

And as I've said, I strongly believe this should apply in the private sector too. I believe there is some compensation in the private sector for those who've lost their pensions where their companies fail? - correct me if I'm wrong here - but I don't think it goes far enough.

If getting high pension contributions was important to you, you could have gone for a job where they were included. Instead you went for a high-paying job where they weren't included, but you could afford to make your own provision instead. Your choice. What's the problem?

Sigh. You know what, carolt . . . At the end of the day, we see things so differently, we'll never get anywhere close on it. Suspect it's not worth arguing over.

Frankly, at the end of the day, I couldn't give a toss about what the public sector gets or doesnt get. It's a theoretical debate

I'm happy with my lot, making my own way in the world, knowing that whatever pension benefits I get genuinely belong to me, with my own name on them, and can never be taken away.

At one level I feel some empathy for those who might lose pensions benefits; on another, I feel . . . well, you chose this path, a path that is blatantly susceptible to government interference, you've only got yourself to blame.

Of the two positions - mine or theirs - I know which I feel happier in.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

Because they took often low-paid jobs on the understanding that they were sacrificing pay levels today but would be compensated by getting better pensions later.

I can see the arguments in favour of changing the rules for those going into the public sector in future; though you might need to up the pay levels to attract staff if you do.

But I don't think you should take away benefits already accrued.

After all, we've all paid millions through our taxes to pay bankers' contractual bonuses - this is just the same.

Except most public sector employees were far lower paid, and unlike bankers, really rely on these pensions to have any standard of living in retirement at all.

And as I've said, I strongly believe this should apply in the private sector too. I believe there is some compensation in the private sector for those who've lost their pensions where their companies fail? - correct me if I'm wrong here - but I don't think it goes far enough.

If getting high pension contributions was important to you, you could have gone for a job where they were included. Instead you went for a high-paying job where they weren't included, but you could afford to make your own provision instead. Your choice. What's the problem?

I don't think anyone would condone retrospective legislation but going forward the scheme should be affordable - clearly, long term, the current scheme is not.

No-one objects to the low paid benefiting (up to maybe £25,000) but there are now an aweful lot of public sector jobs paid well above average which are accruing significant liabilities for future generations. Why should a well paid doctor, teacher, policeman expect to receive a heavily subsidised pension while the mere hotel cleaner/factory worker/farmhand etc etc is not entitled to a similar, if proportionate, benefit? A very attractive pension scheme also attracts 'job blockers' which inhibits staff turnover and fresh thinking in organisations.

The absurd amounts paid to a very few bankers are not of benefit 99.9% of the private sector (indeed it is from our coffers that much of their income is generated). These, like MPs, have received benefits way ahead of any contribution they've made to society and certainly shouldn't be regarded as the 'norm' and a stick to beat most of the private sector with. Many of us are struggling small businesses trying to provide a modest level of income to our hardworking and often under-rewarded employees.

As regards private sector contributions - many have also taken relatively low paid jobs in that sector only to see our FS schemes closed because of unaffordability. Triple wammy - many of us have lost pensions, had below inflation or nil pay rises for years and even pay reductions over the last 12 months. Public sector are currently enjoying 2-3% pay rises this year (and get pay rises most years even if it is occasionally marginally below inflation) whilst 1.5 million further redundancies are expected to go in private sector in 2009.

There are many, many more lower paid in the private than in the public sector and they're getting no help at all from the taxpayer to provide for their old age. On the contrary, some are actually being penalised for doing so.

For many working in SMEs, we've seen neither the gravy train that's applied to the public & finance sector over the last 10 years - GB has seen to that with his overall irresponsible custody of the economy and private pension provision and his penchance for creating a top heavy, ultra bureaucratic nanny state..

carolt

I don't think we disagree really, fundamentally, Old Slaphead (BTW, it feels very peculiar addressing someone by that name... :eek:) - at least not on pensions.

I'd disagree with some of your political views - I don't have a problem with a 'big' state per se, though I'd totally agree that the current govt have misdirected it and wasted loads of money in many ways.

I also don't agree that public sector workers are well paid - there are many, many poorly paid public sector workers, and most don't get beyond middle income at most. Certainly, most would be far better paid in the private sector for equivalent work. Before we get on to the same debate as above, I do appreciate that this applies less (if at all) outside London and the big cities - but the difference is very marked there.

I totally agree with you re sympathy for those in the private sector who've lost their final salary schemes - my heart goes out to them.

CFC

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I don't think anyone would condone retrospective legislation but going forward the scheme should be affordable - clearly, long term, the current scheme is not.

No-one objects to the low paid benefiting (up to maybe £25,000) but there are now an aweful lot of public sector jobs paid well above average which are accruing significant liabilities for future generations. Why should a well paid doctor, teacher, policeman expect to receive a heavily subsidised pension while the mere hotel cleaner/factory worker/farmhand etc etc is not entitled to a similar, if proportionate, benefit? A very attractive pension scheme also attracts 'job blockers' which inhibits staff turnover and fresh thinking in organisations.

The absurd amounts paid to a very few bankers are not of benefit 99.9% of the private sector (indeed it is from our coffers that much of their income is generated). These, like MPs, have received benefits way ahead of any contribution they've made to society and certainly shouldn't be regarded as the 'norm' and a stick to beat most of the private sector with. Many of us are struggling small businesses trying to provide a modest level of income to our hardworking and often under-rewarded employees.

As regards private sector contributions - many have also taken relatively low paid jobs in that sector only to see our FS schemes closed because of unaffordability. Triple wammy - many of us have lost pensions, had below inflation or nil pay rises for years and even pay reductions over the last 12 months. Public sector are currently enjoying 2-3% pay rises this year (and get pay rises most years even if it is occasionally marginally below inflation) whilst 1.5 million further redundancies are expected to go in private sector in 2009.

There are many, many more lower paid in the private than in the public sector and they're getting no help at all from the taxpayer to provide for their old age. On the contrary, some are actually being penalised for doing so.

For many working in SMEs, we've seen neither the gravy train that's applied to the public & finance sector over the last 10 years - GB has seen to that with his overall irresponsible custody of the economy and private pension provision and his penchance for creating a top heavy, ultra bureaucratic nanny state..

Spot on. Those saying that public sector is poorly paid compared to private sector are living in a dream world or vastly overrate their talents.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

I also don't agree that public sector workers are well paid

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Certainly outside of 'The City' anyway. Nb..... why can't more CS jobs be relocated to the provinces if living costs are so high ????

On the road where I live - 2 neighbours, both policemen, have retired at 50 on 2/3rds pay (for the next 30+ years) and are still working p/t for the force. We've also a teacher who has taken early retirement with generous pension and now gone back on supply. They're probably raking in a guaranteed income of £40k+ for part-time work in a relatively poor part of the UK.

Virtually everyone I know is employed in public sector (hardly anyone in 'real' jobs ie manufacturing) and main topic of conversations we have is not house prices but how early can they retire, what cruises are available and which exotic locations have been visited over the summer hols!! (ps I still consider myself to be working class though many of my contempories think of themselves as middle class....whatever that means)

My LA is paying more out in police pensions than it's actually paying the incumbent officers - so for that service at least, costs will be going up and services provided down, for the forseeable future anyway.

carolt

Out of interest, where do you live? It does sound extreme, I agree; that said, policemen get extra good pensions because it's a dangerous job, and not one you can do as well when elderly (face it, we wouldn't fancy having a load of 65 year olds wrestling a violent thug to the ground, say). Same goes for eg firemen.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you live? It does sound extreme, I agree; that said, policemen get extra good pensions because it's a dangerous job, and not one you can do as well when elderly (face it, we wouldn't fancy having a load of 65 year olds wrestling a violent thug to the ground, say). Same goes for eg firemen.

Also, they have a lower life expectancy due to the stresses of their jobs and the damage caused by shift rotation.

carolt, I think you missed a question I made earlier about your teaching background. You stated that you have zero final salary pension and I asked whether you could have had teachers pension entitlement from your earlier career (i.e. if you worked in state schools). You may have built up a teachers pension without realising, or perhaps you've built up FS pensions if you worked in FE or HE establishments?

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you live? It does sound extreme, I agree; that said, policemen get extra good pensions because it's a dangerous job, and not one you can do as well when elderly (face it, we wouldn't fancy having a load of 65 year olds wrestling a violent thug to the ground, say). Same goes for eg firemen.

I live in Nottingham (home to Her Maj's Customs & Revenue). As said before, relatively few jobs around paying what, would in London, be classified as half-decent wages. I don't think Nottingham is 'extreme' - I just think that your view of wages in London (I'd probably suggest that Birmingham, Edinburgh & Manchester have similar profiles) is out of step with what's happening in most of rest of UK.....a fact supported by the ONS stats that 'across the board' - public sector salaries are higher than private. You may not agree but trends clearly show that there's been a (pay)role reversal over the last decade.

Re. police retiring at 50 - there's plenty of jobs police can still do in the later stages of their careers when their experience can be brought to bear.....after all it's not like our society doesn't need a helping hand with low level law and order. For example...deskbound jobs, all that searching the undergrowth for clues, speed cameras, training & mentoring, court preparation work, counter work, school liason, surveillance, data prep, working with young kids etc etc. - all policework isn't dangerous by any means.

Age 50 isn't by any means old these days as many police go back and do p/t work or security jobs. My neighbours don't look too decrepit by any means as I'm sure their golf & squash clubs will testify.

baileysbattlebus

carolt wrote: »

I don't think we disagree really, fundamentally, Old Slaphead (BTW, it feels very peculiar addressing someone by that name... :eek:) - at least not on pensions.

I'd disagree with some of your political views - I don't have a problem with a 'big' state per se, though I'd totally agree that the current govt have misdirected it and wasted loads of money in many ways.

I also don't agree that public sector workers are well paid - there are many, many poorly paid public sector workers, and most don't get beyond middle income at most. Certainly, most would be far better paid in the private sector for equivalent work. Before we get on to the same debate as above, I do appreciate that this applies less (if at all) outside London and the big cities - but the difference is very marked there.

I totally agree with you re sympathy for those in the private sector who've lost their final salary schemes - my heart goes out to them.

Carol, I agree with most of what you say - there are many public sector workers who are not well paid.

I spent my working life in industry working for large international companies (2 American and 1 Japanese). When I took early retirement - after 6 months at home I went contracting to a government agency (2.5 years) - and then for our local council (6 months).

Most of the lower level public sector employees I met and worked with probably would do as well if not better in the private sector - mostly they were about the same as lower level employess in the private sector (some better, some worse) - and in the industries I worked in would have been better paid than in the public sector.

It was when you started to get to the more senior grades, and not very senior at that - that, IMO, a lot would struggle to get jobs doing what they were doing let alone get the same money in the private sector. Don't get me wrong, some were good at what they did - and some were good managers - but generally they were in the minority - where I was anyway.

But in the time I was there things were starting to change - the staff appraisal system for one - was moving to a more results orientated system - more like the private sector. But on the other hand it wasn't the staffs' fault that appraisals weren't results orientated. Previously they had to be positive. People didn't "fail" on their appraisals. While I was there I had to monitor and appraise a person who was unable to do their job properly or consistently, it ended up in dismissal - personally, if it had been upto me - I would have looked for something more suited to their abilities instead of dismissal.

When you started work for them at a lower level - you often started as part of a group of new starters and you were put where staff were needed - not necessarily where your skills, if any, would be best utilised - so you could end up through no fault of your own doing something you were completely carp at.

One of the things I found was that there was a serious lack of training, training was done by colleagues - instead of everyone learning in a standard way - they were taught the way a colleague worked - so everyone worked differently and to different standards. In the dept I looked after I produced a training manual and gave someone the position of trainer. So all of the operational staff were singing off the same hymn sheet. Pretty obvious really - but if you've worked like that for years you would just accept it.

I did enjoy working there though. People were excellent.