90% Public Sector Final Salary Pension Meltdown Scandal

bigheadxx

Generali wrote: »

Arthur Scargill (leader of the National Union of Miners) went to the TUC after the 1987 election and proposed a National Strike with the aim of bringing down the Thatcher Government. That was the first time that I thought that socialism might be a bad idea.

Far more man days were lost to strikes in the 1970s than the 80s BTW. Check series 30 on the NSO website for details.

Post war the number of days lost through strike action was during the winter of discontent (78/79) seconded by the miners strike in the early eighties. The lowest ever figure was recorded in 1992 after the reforms of the 1980s had come to fruition. What we see now, after a prolongued period of labour in power is strike action increasing year on year.

Generali

bigheadxx wrote: »

Post war the number of days lost through strike action was during the winter of discontent (78/79) seconded by the miners strike in the early eighties. The lowest ever figure was recorded in 1992 after the reforms of the 1980s had come to fruition. What we see now, after a prolongued period of labour in power is strike action increasing year on year.

Presumably the reasons for increased strikes under Labour are an increased likelihood that they'll cave in and also simply that state employees are more likely to be unionised and more likely to strike and the size of the state tends to increase under Labour Governments.

bigheadxx

Generali wrote: »

Presumably the reasons for increased strikes under Labour are an increased likelihood that they'll cave in and also simply that state employees are more likely to be unionised and more likely to strike and the size of the state tends to increase under Labour Governments.

Unions also still provide more than half of all labour party funding, with many MPs sponsored by one union or another.

Andy_L

Generali wrote: »

The current generation benefits from current public servants so should pay their pensions as well as their salaries. Why should our kids pay the pensions of the servants we used?

because we are paying the pensions of servants out parents used and changing from one system to the other results in the generation that does the change paying twice.

Andy_L

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Thing is, they cant touch defence pensions at least, those who are in the armed forces who have already accrued pension. Reason? They work off an X factor, which accounts for pensions provision. Any cut in pensions would IMMEDIATELY result in class action by all serving HM forces members to recoup the loss in pay they had as a result of pensions provision. To be fair, Pensions and salary accounts for ony 2 Billion of the budget, If I were in the bigger Organisations, NHS, MOD civil service and Department of work and pensions, I would be Sh*tting it.

The pension's bit of the x-factor only allows for an employees contribution not the entire cost. The millitary pension is in the same boat contractually as all the other unfunded public sector pensions.

mbga9pgf

Andy_L wrote: »

The pension's bit of the x-factor only allows for an employees contribution not the entire cost. The millitary pension is in the same boat contractually as all the other unfunded public sector pensions.

Agreed. But part of the reason for having a supressed wage scale was down to the X-factor, something that cannot be retrospected and in fact doesnt exist in the civil service. Lets see them try it. I guarantee the money owed as a result of suppressed wages for the past 20 years worth of earnings would have them running for the hills.

Lets see them try and cut squaddie pensions and see what happens next. As a matter of fact, the 2 annual billion pensions and employment budget of the MOD is, despite the mess we are in, small fry when you consider the fallout that would occur as a result of a retrospection in armed forces pensions. And yes, I still am on AFPS 75.