Public Sector Strikes

Flyboy152

Squidd wrote: »

Always more than prepared. If people want to waste their time and money, that's their choice.

I think you need to review your understanding of Trades Union legislation and employment law then, because I really don't think you are.

fluffnutter

Squidd wrote: »

As an employer, I would assure you that such action would (quite rightfully) result in an immediate invitation to pick up your P45 as a result of your gross misconduct.

As an employer, you want to be checking out employment law

musicmaker29

last I read, the local gov pension scheme where I live was covered 85% by contributions, 15% by the employers.

The big mistake people seem to make is comparing schemes where the employer contributes to other schemes where they don't contribute, obviously to give maximum disparity.

And then there's the bigger question - why do we work all our lives, giving our precious time on this planet to one company/employer or a few, only to then accept a paltry, quite frankly CRAP, retirement amount? This is not a race to the bottom.

relic

gregg1 wrote: »

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!!!

Do you truly believe that?

Not only was it the labour governments fault allowing this to happen (they allowed it to happen to fund their own overspending), it was also inevitable that the public sector would have to come crashing down. For years and years the public sector has been overspending, and under achieving. Any private sector business which had the directors throwing money at it like they goverment do, would not only be expected to achieve targets, but blow them out of the water.

The public sector is now coming to terms with what the rest of the population of the UK have had to deal with over the past 10 years. Both of my parents work in the public sector, and especially my mother doesn't realise how great she has it. Over the past few years she has had 6 months off sick with full pay, they paid for her to do a doctorate, have funded various trips to observe how they work in foreign countries, pay rises above the regional average, expenses benefits, and so many more things I don't really want to go into. Yet she still believes that the public sector is behind.

People should stop living with their head under the sand, and get real.

Rotor

musicmaker29 wrote: »

last I read, the local gov pension scheme where I live was covered 85% by contributions, 15% by the employers.

The big mistake people seem to make is comparing schemes where the employer contributes to other schemes where they don't contribute, obviously to give maximum disparity.

And then there's the bigger question - why do we work all our lives, giving our precious time on this planet to one company/employer or a few, only to then accept a paltry, quite frankly CRAP, retirement amount? This is not a race to the bottom.

Why would you call it a "race to the bottom". How about 'race to equality' or 'race to parity' with those who fund your pension. Anyway hutton proposals go nowhere near parity as he makes clear in his report. You will still have a generous pension afterwards (yes , relative to most others), just not as good as now.

Gavin83

relic wrote: »

The public sector is now coming to terms with what the rest of the population of the UK have had to deal with over the past 10 years. Both of my parents work in the public sector, and especially my mother doesn't realise how great she has it. Over the past few years she has had 6 months off sick with full pay, they paid for her to do a doctorate, have funded various trips to observe how they work in foreign countries, pay rises above the regional average, expenses benefits, and so many more things I don't really want to go into. Yet she still believes that the public sector is behind.

But its not true for all public sector departments is it? Your mum might have it easy but it doesn't mean all public sector employees do. None of that would happen where I am.

It's like comparing one private sector company to another.

Flyboy152

relic wrote: »

Do you truly believe that?

Not only was it the labour governments fault allowing this to happen (they allowed it to happen to fund their own overspending), it was also inevitable that the public sector would have to come crashing down. For years and years the public sector has been overspending, and under achieving. Any private sector business which had the directors throwing money at it like they goverment do, would not only be expected to achieve targets, but blow them out of the water.

The public sector is now coming to terms with what the rest of the population of the UK have had to deal with over the past 10 years. Both of my parents work in the public sector, and especially my mother doesn't realise how great she has it. Over the past few years she has had 6 months off sick with full pay, they paid for her to do a doctorate, have funded various trips to observe how they work in foreign countries, pay rises above the regional average, expenses benefits, and so many more things I don't really want to go into. Yet she still believes that the public sector is behind.

People should stop living with their head under the sand, and get real.

How much money does you mother earn now and how much would she earn in the private sector at a comparable level?

Rotor

musicmaker29 wrote: »

last I read, the local gov pension scheme where I live was covered 85% by contributions, 15% by the employers.

The big mistake people seem to make is comparing schemes where the employer contributes to other schemes where they don't contribute, obviously to give maximum disparity.

And then there's the bigger question - why do we work all our lives, giving our precious time on this planet to one company/employer or a few, only to then accept a paltry, quite frankly CRAP, retirement amount? This is not a race to the bottom.

You say LGPS is "covered " 85%-15% - I reckon your not paying enough in!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11996504
Assets £132 bn - Liabilities £232bn
can you pop a bit more in please

Storck

gregg1 wrote: »

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!!!

The government are adhering with the contracts, people do not lose what they already have. They are then going to change the contract, just like has happened in most private sector jobs. If you do not like the new contract then leave. Simple answer. Do not expect me as a tax payer to fund your pension any more than my employer funds mine.

I think the reason they can not start with the bankers is two fold. One they do not directly employee them and secondly most have done nothing wrong. That would be the same as punishing all teachers if one school over spends.

As for the 40p bit are you saying that teachers are just child minders? If so then I think you need to look at the job more carefully.

gregg1

Storck wrote: »

The government are adhering with the contracts, people do not lose what they already have. They are then going to change the contract, just like has happened in most private sector jobs. If you do not like the new contract then leave. Simple answer.I think the reason they can not start with the bankers is two fold. Do not expect me as a tax payer to fund your pension any more than my employer funds mine.

One they do not directly employee them and secondly most have done nothing wrong. That would be the same as punishing all teachers if one school over spends.


As for the 40p bit are you saying that teachers are just child minders? If so then I think you need to look at the job more carefully.

That is exactly what is happening, teachers ARE being punished, and not just teachers don't forget, it applies to all public sector workers (who incidentally are taxpayers as well!!)

The Government could easily have found a way to change the Bank's contracts particularly after all the public funds which were ploughed into the Banks but they chose not to.

I do not need to look at the job more carefully at all but am thinking you maybe should try it out for yourself prior to giving advice. Unforutunately to many parents that is exactly what teachers are there for -to babysit!!!