Civil service pensions review

Andy_L

TREVORCOLMAN wrote: »

What the daily wail doesnt tell you is that the vast majority of public sector workers are paid far less than the national average. But of course this doesnt sell papers.

As the median public sector wage is higer than the private sector then, by definition, more than 50% are paid more than the national average.
What the mail won't say is that this is due to all the low pay/skill jobs being privitised skewing the public sector average up.

TREVORCOLMAN wrote: »

A relative showed me their pension statement the other day.

For 23 years service forecast is:

£3k per year pension and £10k lump sum - not what I would call gold plated!

So they are either on ~£10k/pa and/or have spent a lot of that time as a part-timer. Either way the amount of pension is "gold-plated" compared to what they have paid in

dizzybuff

The government is treading on very thin ice at the moment , cutting the majority of the public sector will and I stress will cause distruct remorse and alot of strikes. Although you are all going on about public sector pensions, we generally have longer service and stay in jobs we like. I love my job , I love serving the public. However some reductions are going to cause distaste in the public sector. The government soes not want for one to loose the trust of the police, fireservice , ambulance service etc. That alone would be catrastrophic for their next election campain. But what would I know Im just a public sector worker on a less than average pay serving you all day in day out.

Old_Slaphead

dizzybuff wrote: »

The government is treading on very thin ice at the moment , cutting the majority of the public sector will and I stress will cause distruct remorse and alot of strikes. Although you are all going on about public sector pensions, we generally have longer service and stay in jobs we like. I love my job , I love serving the public. However some reductions are going to cause distaste in the public sector. The government soes not want for one to loose the trust of the police, fireservice , ambulance service etc. That alone would be catrastrophic for their next election campain. But what would I know Im just a public sector worker on a less than average pay serving you all day in day out.

Do you have alternative solutions to getting the massive level of public indebtedness down - much of which has been caused by the huge expansion of state spending over the last decade?

The cuts the government are proposing will only take public spending back to 2006 level.

dizzybuff

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Do you have alternative solutions to getting the massive level of public indebtedness down - much of which has been caused by the huge expansion of state spending over the last decade?

The cuts the government are proposing will only take public spending back to 2006 level.

Cuts can be made without reducing staff. MPs for example , there were no propositions to amalgamate them . Expenses repay and get the bloody banks to repay what they owe.

Quangos are going , making some of my freinds redundent , CPS have already announced cuts and court closures, Police are jumping the band wagon and presparing for cuts. All in all the Cheif of the superintendents association was very correct in saying christmas will be one for criminals.

Regardless of which party is in , with the cuts they make they are going to have to reap what they sow.

Old_Slaphead

If you cut MPs and their expenses by say 25% you might save £40million. Public spending needs to be cut by 1000x more (ie £40BILLION) just to take it back to 2006 level.

In 2000 there were approx 5 million public sector employees. Even after much contracting out, in 2010 there were over 6 million. Many of the people in these jobs had well above average pay increases and very costly pensions.

The country is spending on public services massively more than it's earning and as a consequence will have to pay much higher interest charges to fund the debts unless something drastic is done.

The 20-25% public sector cuts will affect private industry just as much but there really isn't much alternative (other than the Labour policy of cutting at a slower rate - but all this does is prolong the austerity and save the problem for your offspring to resolve). Unless of course you have any realistic alternatives.

bendix

dizzybuff wrote: »

The government is treading on very thin ice at the moment , cutting the majority of the public sector will and I stress will cause distruct remorse and alot of strikes. Although you are all going on about public sector pensions, we generally have longer service and stay in jobs we like. I love my job , I love serving the public. However some reductions are going to cause distaste in the public sector. The government soes not want for one to loose the trust of the police, fireservice , ambulance service etc. That alone would be catrastrophic for their next election campain. But what would I know Im just a public sector worker on a less than average pay serving you all day in day out.

Let them strike. Who cares? The days of the general public supporting the nurses (angels, remember), police and public sector generally when they strike are long gone. We are not in the early 1980s now when there was a genuine sense that we were all in together.

Nowadays, those in the private sector feel increasing resentment that at a time when hundreds of thousands of jobs were being cut in the private sector, the public sector increased by 300,000 or more.

Sorry - you misunderstand the mood of the population as a whole. If the public sector strikes, most of the population will not give a damn (how could we tell if civil servants went on strike, for example, or the quangos?), and those that do will just feel complete hostility to them.

bendix

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

If you cut MPs and their expenses by say 25% you might save £40million. Public spending needs to be cut by 1000x more (ie £40BILLION) just to take it back to 2006 level.

In 2000 there were approx 5 million public sector employees. Even after much contracting out, in 2010 there were over 6 million. Many of the people in these jobs had well above average pay increases and very costly pensions.

The country is spending on public services massively more than it's earning and as a consequence will have to pay much higher interest charges to fund the debts unless something drastic is done.

The 20-25% public sector cuts will affect private industry just as much but there really isn't much alternative (other than the Labour policy of cutting at a slower rate - but all this does is prolong the austerity and save the problem for your offspring to resolve). Unless of course you have any realistic alternatives.

It's such a ridiculously easy argument isn't it? The number of public sector employees who hope to curry favour by pointing to MP expenses, not realising it's a sideshow. It's almost as if they are deliberately deflecting attention away from themselves.

NAR

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

In 2000 there were approx 5 million public sector employees. Even after much contracting out, in 2010 there were over 6 million. Many of the people in these jobs had well above average pay increases and very costly pensions.

Please provide the proof for this outrageous statement!

My pay increase 2006 2%, 2007 2%, 2008 2% 2009 £270 lump sum (tax and NI to be deducted); 2010 expected NIL; 2011 expected NIL, because of pay freeze. I'm middle management civil servant.

Old_Slaphead

NAR wrote: »

Please provide the proof for this outrageous statement!

My pay increase 2006 2%, 2007 2%, 2008 2% 2009 £270 lump sum (tax and NI to be deducted); 2010 expected NIL; 2011 expected NIL, because of pay freeze. I'm middle management civil servant.

Nurses, doctors, teachers, police, LA staff (under the guise of job evaluation/equal pay). Many (not all) of these have/are currently benefiting from a 3 year paydeal of around 9% whilst many have others in private sector have had pay cuts.
I grant you that many CSs haven't benefited as much from the government's largesse (but FWIW your pay increases over the past 5 years have been much greater than mine) but that doesn't mean that the public sector, in general, hasn't done well.

dizzybuff

bendix wrote: »

Let them strike. Who cares? The days of the general public supporting the nurses (angels, remember), police and public sector generally when they strike are long gone. We are not in the early 1980s now when there was a genuine sense that we were all in together.

Nowadays, those in the private sector feel increasing resentment that at a time when hundreds of thousands of jobs were being cut in the private sector, the public sector increased by 300,000 or more.

Sorry - you misunderstand the mood of the population as a whole. If the public sector strikes, most of the population will not give a damn (how could we tell if civil servants went on strike, for example, or the quangos?), and those that do will just feel complete hostility to them.

When police staff do service will slowly grind to a halt. Call center sitaff can walk out and will , no one will be deployed. Althought he back office function may take a while to grind to a halt it will. Police cant strike they are the queens servents and cant .

Nurses doctors etc will strike as with the fire service the Army will only be able to do so much . Teachers will strike meaning parents will have to take time off to look after their children.

Okay you dont support the public sector , its amazing how many green eyes come out as soon as there is a deficite.

I work in the public sector . We are struggling. Butat the end of the day it isnt the police , nhs , fire services fault.

The government created quangos and funded them , created more civil service jobs in westminster so jo bloggs nephew could have a 40k a year job.

The governement should have thought how much money it was ploughing into the emergancy services and local councils. But it didnt, it should have thought about bailing the banks out buit it didnt.

Yes money needs to be found, but taking it from education and the emergancy services is just asking for trouble.