Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

Why is it that virtually every time you hear a public sector union spokesman bleating about how hard done by their members are, they always have to say "it's the bankers fault"?

I dont know, maybe because its the bankers fault.

ruggedtoast

A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit
claimant are sitting at a table sharing
12 biscuits.

The banker takes 11 and says to the
...Daily Mail reader:
"Watch out for the benefit claimant,
he wants your biscuit".

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I dont know, maybe because its the bankers fault.

It is not though, we just have too many public sector employees.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

It is not though, we just have too many public sector employees.

No we dont. We have too many bankers. Except in my branch of HSBC. All we have there is a lot of ATMs and a harrassed woman with a clipboard and some leaflets about life insurance.

nicko33

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No we dont.

Oh yes we do!

FrankieBoyle

I felt incensed last night watching the news. A head teacher is going on strike because his/her pension is going from £75k to £45k pa. What planet do these people live on? I can only dream of such a pension. I would need a pension pot of £1.25m to get a pension of £75K (currently £100k buys an annuity of £6k) or £750k pot to get a pension of £45k.

These public sector workers need to get real and stop whinging. They don't know how lucky they are and the fact that they are striking just makes me sick!!!!

I'll get off me soap box now:o but I'm still mad as hell!!!!

N1AK

tomterm8 wrote: »

It is, however, absurd to think people can be squaddies when they are 65... or firefighters... or carers.

Which is:
1/ Why no one is suggesting Firefighters or Squaddies continue to 65.
2/ No reason to hand them early retirement pro bono. I don't know many people who can do very physically demanding manual lifting work at 65 either. They don't get handed 5 years free leisure time. Try being a gymnast at 50 etc.

You won't find many coppers on the frontline at 55. A very large number of them have moved to desk roles by that point. I've got extensive family links to the police force so this isn't blind conjecture. Every single one of the 6 family members I have who have retired in the police force was not doing a physically demanding job at the end.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I should think crime would rocket instantly, anarchy would set in, and people would be left to die in hospital beds and in their own homes.

I think it would probably be a little less sudden in practice. I doubt even the most ardent union shills would suggest hospital strikes which would lead to patient deaths.

The police can't strike, if they did anyway I expect the TA/Army would have to be used in some capacity. Even without policing I don't think there is a flood of barely constrained criminality that would surge instantly.

I don't intend to belittle the importance of the public sector. A lot of what it does is important, but the vast majority of what it does could be survived without for a short period.

vivatifosi

N1AK wrote: »

I don't intend to belittle the importance of the public sector. A lot of what it does is important, but the vast majority of what it does could be survived without for a short period.

I'd agree with that. Plus, although trade union membership is higher in the public sector than private it is far from total; you would still get people going to work.

Its also worth saying (I have a local government pension) that some schemes are already on a career average basis. I know mine is and I've been a member of that for two years, so some parts of government have already moved towards such schemes.

sammyjammy

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'd agree with that. Plus, although trade union membership is higher in the public sector than private it is far from total; you would still get people going to work.

Its also worth saying (I have a local government pension) that some schemes are already on a career average basis. I know mine is and I've been a member of that for two years, so some parts of government have already moved towards such schemes.

I'm a Civil Servant, I don't disagree with you about numbers in a union, the trouble is (or the good thing dependant on how you look at it) is that the lower paid staff that actually deal with the public, pay the benefits, take the new claims to benefit etc are the ones in the union. There was recently a strike in some Contact Centres in Jobcentre Plus, it was supported by over 80% of staff in these offices support the strike by not attending work on those days.

The Public sector is over staffed but the problem is in the backroom, too many (incompetant) managers and not enough people actually helping the tax payers and doing the day job. Sadly it'll probably be the lower paid more useful people that go with the proposed loss of Jobcentres and Benefit Centres.

I think the Careeer average pension proposal is very sensible nad I have no problem with it, the biggest hit for me will be an increase in contributions at a time of no pay award and increasing inflation/petrol/food prices.