Public sector wellcome to the real world

2sides2everystory

melancholly wrote: »

my only strong opinion is that the government has adopted a divide and conquer approach between the public and private sector that a lot of people are wholeheartedly buying into. this anger against each other seems desperately sad when the government is meant to be encouraging the 'big society' rather than the split society.

Yes it is sad but it is something being managed not by politicians so much as top civil servants who do make it happen.

And there is nothing we can do about it unless we really worked together but that's a little like suggesting neighbours like Palistine and Israel might do so too.

In this thread I have picked up that long term public service workers do not seem to have a tendency to open-mindedness for very long or indeed any big society beyond their own domain. They do not stray far from their own domain. It reminds me somewhat of how it was when I got to the position of realising I must change my first job which was pretty good, but ultimately too much on rails and uneventful other than in terms of selling my soul further down the line than most people wished to 25 years ago. It was quite a wrench - being in the comfort zone can restrict the view.

So I jumped out of the confortable nest and found I could indeed fly, and that's partly how I still find great contentment. I also have gained contentment from fighting injustices - grey hairs too, so please do not assume that injustices are in anyway left to the public sector to sort out. Generally, bearing in mind that large sectors of the public sector have it in their job description (fighting injustice and disorder) it is a little frustrating that many things don't get fixed a bit faster than they do.

Whether I am right or wrong, I still see lots of feathered nests in the public sector. A lot of fledglings many who can undoubtedly fly and who for sure are not cuckoos, and don't eat their brothers and sisters but who are content nevertheless to count feeding time as a right. It is a little sad that many might never quite understand the enormity, the breadth and the imperative of the existence of a world outside. Sure many of them see the particular ugly bits like Moby surviving each day managing his quota of criminals without getting a brick through his window, but doesn't it seem that the public sector generally seem to see their private sector neighbours as transients? - a bit like the views of indigenous robins and blackbirds with their own favorite treetops and territories tolerating the migratory interlopers sometimes up earliest and calling loudest from the same vantage points (if I dare still compare ornithological abode constructs!).

tinkers

Amazing all this bickering between the poorer end of society, whether private or civil service just what the Daily Mail intended and of course the government..................divide and conquer.......divide and conquer the masses!!

Wake up people how much did the governement bail out the banks for and we are in another uneccesary conflict which has cost £250 million in just over 2 months. Seriously think about what you are being told to think...............

PS I am not a public sector worker by the way

melancholly

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Yes it is sad but it is something being managed not by politicians so much as top civil servants who do make it happen.

i think blaming this on the top civil servants alone says a lot about your bias to be honest. i think the rhetoric from the politicians is far worse than anything else. given that this is your viewpoint, it does suggest that you are quite fixed in how you see things, as much as the public sector workers that you accuse of the same thing.

taking your interpretation of the report on pay as an example, i think a lot of people on both sides are taking a position and looking for reasons to justify that, rather than looking at the facts and seeing what emerges from them. instead of taking an overall view people are missing the wood for the trees. one tiny fact cannot be taken out of context, but that's exactly what this debate has become.

there is also, imo, too much of an emphasis on demonising and making stereotypes based on a handful of acquaintances (from both sides). this just makes people defensive and everything descends.

maybe as a society we just enjoy other people's misery too much and try to put them down to feel better about ourselves. this depresses me!

cyclonebri1

ani_26 wrote: »

I get the feeling theres generaly a public misapprehension, that the self employed are second class citizens, and the contribitions the they make only entitle them to a reduced state pension?

If this were the case, there would never be the second class citizenship of the self employed, and no one would ever take the decision to be creative and resourceful, and try to be self sufficient / self funding.

Ok, so there will be times when it goes pear shaped. We are in an economic recession, but i'm sure the self employed know and try their best within their limitations to ensure they have plans. After all, this is what they excel at.

As for the general misapprehension i've seen, that the self employed are not entitled to full state pension, maybe facts should be checked, as this may not always be the case?

No, I think it's widely assumed that they will fiddle enough income in their time to fund their retirement, without offence of course but it is a widely held view:o

ILW

It,s not about divide and conquer, many in the private sector have resented the high level of public sector pensions for years. Mainly due to the fact that they are forced to pay for them. I do not hear public sector workers offering to subsidise private sector pensions. It is the forced inequality that annoys many.

dunstonh

As for the general misapprehension i've seen, that the self employed are not entitled to full state pension, maybe facts should be checked, as this may not always be the case?

The only time a self employed person can be paid some S2P or SERPS (or graduated if you want to go back further) is if they built up some entitlement during a period of employment or received some credit for it.

Class 2 & 4 NI paid by self employed gains no entitlement for state additional pensions. Just the basic.

That said, the self employed typically pay less tax and NI. So, they have the scope to provide their own provision which is what most decent self employed people will do. Its really only the low earning self employed or those with poor money management that are not likely to do it.

melancholly

ILW wrote: »

It,s not about divide and conquer, many in the private sector have resented the high level of public sector pensions for years. Mainly due to the fact that they are forced to pay for them. I do not hear public sector workers offering to subsidise private sector pensions. It is the forced inequality that annoys many.

well the issue is that not all public sector pensions are the same. some are funded by general taxation but a lot of self funding. my biggest frustration of this debate is that so many private sector employees don't contribute to a pension (madness) and that all public sector pensions are the same. some are funded by general taxation and some by contributions. no-one even seems to talk about these differences. i'm not even sure if reform across the board is needed, even if it is unsustainable in some sectors.

(and i bet those at the top in the public sector wish they could have a bonus culture like those at the top in the private sector..... personally, i think the state should set an example of how to look after employees. for that, i'm happy that they offer more part time jobs, give a living wage at the lower end and have far more equality for women. does that mean i should resent the pensions too? i don't know.

but it certainly isn't as simplistic as people are making out. this is a shades of grey debate, not a black and white one. having seen the link in one of Martin's recent blogs, i can also see how small a proportion of overall spending pensions really are compared to bailing out the banks, for example. i think people really overestimate the actual costs a lot.)

cyclonebri1

melancholly wrote: »

well the issue is that not all public sector pensions are the same. some are funded by general taxation but a lot of self funding. my biggest frustration of this debate is that so many private sector employees don't contribute to a pension (madness) and that all public sector pensions are the same. some are funded by general taxation and some by contributions. no-one even seems to talk about these differences. i'm not even sure if reform across the board is needed, even if it is unsustainable in some sectors.

(and i bet those at the top in the public sector wish they could have a bonus culture like those at the top in the private sector..... personally, i think the state should set an example of how to look after employees. for that, i'm happy that they offer more part time jobs, give a living wage at the lower end and have far more equality for women. does that mean i should resent the pensions too? i don't know.

but it certainly isn't as simplistic as people are making out. this is a shades of grey debate, not a black and white one. having seen the link in one of Martin's recent blogs, i can also see how small a proportion of overall spending pensions really are compared to bailing out the banks, for example. i think people really overestimate the actual costs a lot.)

Jesus chap/fella/girl

We are not talking about individuals at the top of their sector.
They will always be judged as just that, individuals, and paid accordingly private or public sector.

This is about the rank and file, cannon fodder, in each sector, they are "eeeek" roughly equal if you accept public sector workers have to commit murder to be fired???????????


Reforms accros the board?....... chap the private sector has been reformed by gradual neccessity, welcome to 2011. maybe?

Koicarp

Re:SERPS are all of the public sector pensions contracted out? I know when I joined the NHS scheme it was compulsory to contract out, but not sure about the rest? What sort of difference (if any) does it make to the notional "pots" that the anti's refer to?

ani_26

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No, I think it's widely assumed that they will fiddle enough income in their time to fund their retirement, without offence of course but it is a widely held view:o

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

I'm going to die of laughter. Is this what you really think. Seriously?