Public Sector Strikes

JMike

There are jobs everywhere. If the public sector don't want theirs, they can find another and let some of the jobless have theirs.

antrobus

paramedic wrote: »

... This essentially means that the government is able to borrow money from the NHS pension scheme at a preferential rate.

Err no it doesn't. That's because the NHS Pension Scheme doesn't have any money to lend anyone. All it has is liabilities of £287.6 billion.

Whirlee

Rotor wrote: »

As for the contract- it's clearly not a breach of contract. If it were you would be in court now not going on strike.

Are you kidding me with this? The union did take the government to court over changing the redundancy terms. They WON the case.

So the government changed the law.

When your employer is the government contracts and employment law mean nothing, they can change them whenever it becomes inconvenient.

As for all these people making various assumptions/calculations about public sector pensions, unless you know whether they're in classic, premium or nuvos you might as well be plucking figures out of thin air.

Whirlee

Also whilst we're here it makes me really sad that there is so little respect for the work of people in the public sector. I've had a number of roles in the public sector (and worked in the private sector) some of which involved me doing deeply unpleasant and harrowing things on behalf of the British public. I'm not saying it was selfless - I got paid, I developed useful skills. Despite this it would be refreshing if just occasionally the government, the media or the public recognised that a lot of public sector jobs are very hard and deserve our respect.

Flyboy152

JMike wrote: »

There are jobs everywhere. If the public sector don't want theirs, they can find another and let some of the jobless have theirs.

There's always one. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Flyboy152

Whirlee wrote: »

Also whilst we're here it makes me really sad that there is so little respect for the work of people in the public sector. I've had a number of roles in the public sector (and worked in the private sector) some of which involved me doing deeply unpleasant and harrowing things on behalf of the British public. I'm not saying it was selfless - I got paid, I developed useful skills. Despite this it would be refreshing if just occasionally the government, the media or the public recognised that a lot of public sector jobs are very hard and deserve our respect.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Never, ever going to happen, not in this parliament it isn't and specifically when Rupert Murdoch is in charge.

Rotor

Whirlee wrote: »

Are you kidding me with this? The union did take the government to court over changing the redundancy terms. They WON the case.

So the government changed the law.

When your employer is the government contracts and employment law mean nothing, they can change them whenever it becomes inconvenient.

As for all these people making various assumptions/calculations about public sector pensions, unless you know whether they're in classic, premium or nuvos you might as well be plucking figures out of thin air.

As you say ; so it's not ,legally , in breach of contract

secondly who could possibly work for an employer like that . They wouldn't be able to recruit ; numbers would plummet. No wait a minute!

Thirdly, classic premium nuvo - all egregious to the private sector worker. It's a quibble over level of unfairness. The average private pension gets nowhere near even the lowest of your pensions (by premium i assume you mean e.g the fire/police service and nuvo the nhs for example - which still doesn't reach Hutton proposals let alone fairness with the true funders )

Whirlee

Rotor wrote: »

(by premium i assume you mean e.g the fire/police service and nuvo the nhs for example - which still doesn't reach Hutton proposals let alone fairness with the true funders )

Why would you assume that? No, that's not what they are at all.

However, it makes it clear that you assume you know far more than you do. If any further evidence was needed.

Rotor

Wow - use of unexplained jargon tries to win the point. You've made me look it up now and what do I see written right accross the top, straddling both categories - "substantial employer contributions"
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/NS_PCO-2011_tcm6-1868.pdf

Perhaps classic and premium are much worse though. lol

"premium" ....... they're all frickin premium mate!

gregg1

Rotor wrote: »

Ha ha - I.m sure many in the public sector agree with you. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
I've been avoiding the thread to avoid a rant but the teachers they taunt and goad me so.
Just received the email to say school is closed on thursday. So thats a days earnings lost and a days schooling for my children lost. Collateral damage I suppose.
Still if "losing the argument" is synonymous with wanting to put the education and future of children before demands for increasing pension benefits (at a time when private pensions are plummeting) then guilty as charged.

Come on mate - no-one is asking for increased pension benefits, merely for the Government to adhere to the terms of public sector contracts. If the Government are going to start messing about with peoples' contracts then they should have made the bankers the first to be hit - they have done far more damage to the economy than all the public sector put together.

I get a little bit fed up with this being aimed purely at teachers as well - there are other professions striking as well you know. But of course, teachers would appear to be easy targets.

As I said before, I have every sympathy with parents. I understand that they will struggle to find someone to look after their kids during the strikes for the bargain price of 40p per hour which is what a teacher does it for!!!