Public sector wellcome to the real world

cyclonebri1

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Quite easily. In my job within private sector during Christmas production period, I did break 100 overtime hours within a month .

I worked an average of 20hrs/wk overtime during my 38 year long career as an engineer. All of it paid for many a year but none for the last few.
Easy done if you go in early, leave late and work virtually every weekend.

That's the reason I'm retired at 55, pretty well off, but physically totally wrecked. Back gone, knees gone, not a lot still working if the truth be known.
Pretty much a situation

Debbie_A_3

I have only had a brief scan through this thread but the strength of feeling against public sector workers is palpable. I am a teacher. I am well qualified (1st class degree and PhD) with 20 years experience. I manage a department and I work hard for typically 46 weeks a year. I am not complaining: I do enjoy my job but I have never earned enough to pay higher rate tax, and never had a bonus or company car. The pension that I was "promised" 20 years ago does compensate for this. It doesn't come cheap (20.5% of salary split between me, 6.4%, and my employer, 14.1%). Indeed our contributions went up four years ago in order to make it "sustainable".

I do appreciate the feelings of those in the private sector whose pensions have already been destroyed. I am sorry that they have suffered. But public sector workers did not cause this problem and some postings are little more than schadenfreude

Sorry, didn't mean to rant
Debbie

dunstonh

It doesn't come cheap (20.5% of salary split between me, 6.4%, and my employer, 14.1%).

You are right, it doesnt come cheap. You pay a tiny 6.4% gross (which is just over 5% net) and the taxpayer pays the rest. The actual cost if you had to buy the same level of benefits in the private sector would cost you around 20-40% of your pay.

Its not that you have the pension but the fact that some in the public sector believe they deserve to be paid private sector wage whilst getting public sector wage.

bigjl

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Quite easily. In my job within private sector during Christmas production period, I did break 100 overtime hours within a month . by working late and weekend. I am assuming bigjl did the same.

100 hrs a month O/T is very common in my trust.

If you do one extra 12 hr shift that is nearly 50 hrs a month.

You didn't realise that most NHS staff and Police do 12 hr shifts?

We mostly do three twelves a week and every fourth week do 4 shifts.

Most i ever did in a month was around 160 hrs, but that was including a couple of 15 hr shifts when i got a late job.

Sorry to ruin your image of public sector.workers doing 30 hrs a week and getting massive pensions.


The reason i left out the bit about additional years is that a lot of public sector workers do.similar to.ensure a decent pension.

Wether i pay it or not is irrelevant, it is what my pensions costs me.


Why not have a pop at the career shirkers that are eating the country iut of everything whilst not paying in a penny during their entire lives.

These are the people that public sector workers see and get abuse from everyday.

But if public sector work.is so.easy come and join us.

If you think you can cope that is!

bigjl

dunstonh wrote: »

You are right, it doesnt come cheap. You pay a tiny 6.4% gross (which is just over 5% net) and the taxpayer pays the rest. The actual cost if you had to buy the same level of benefits in the private sector would cost you around 20-40% of your pay.

Its not that you have the pension but the fact that some in the public sector believe they deserve to be paid private sector wage whilst getting public sector wage.

I love it.

You completely overlook that all public sector workers are also tax payers.

If it wasn' t for Gordon Brown having to beg borrow and steal to pay for the benefit bill then private pensions would be the same if not better than public sector pensions.


If the banks and the EU hadn't been such a financial millstone around the neck of the UK then private pensions wouldn't be paying such low returns.

You are also forgetting that many public sector workers were on very inferior pay for 20 yrs and now in the last 5/10 yrs they have caught up a bit and you all want a moan up.

It is pure jealousy, pure and simple.


Many NHS workers have to retire early due to physical disabilities caused by their public service.

This is the position i am.in. Give a decade to the service of the ou lic and get sacked with statutory notice on the grounds of capability, how would you like that.

I am now involved in a fight to get the pension that i have paid for fair and square.

I am fed up with this country.

Most people know.nothing about what actually goes on and rely on the press for everything they think they know.

Well this country is on the brink of financial collapse.

Not caused by an overinflated public service but on the excessive demands on the public services by the massive underclass that think a life on benefits is the way forward.

Lets blame hard working public sector workers not those getting 30k a yr in housing benefit plus other benefits. Having not paid in a penny.

There are council estates in London where hardly anybody works but there are planty of fancy cars parked up.

So lets have a benefit cap. It is the only thing that will stop this once great coutries decline.

cyclonebri1

bigjl wrote: »

The reason i left out the bit about additional years is that a lot of public sector workers do.similar to.ensure a decent pension.

Wether i pay it or not is irrelevant, it is what my pensions costs me.

Chap the fact that most in the private sector have to do too, (if they've the sense and the money), has escaped you though.

Even the lowest paid public sector workers get a reasonable pension scheme compared to factory workers etc, it's there for all to see.

This thread was not about bashing public sector workers, it was trying to put over the fact that the government has suddenly realised what the industries have practised for years applies equally the them??

No bashing on my part,
, stop it

cyclonebri1

will-in-estoril wrote: »

AKA a race to the bottom.

Yes put like that it is, it's just that they gave a private sector a head start,

dunstonh

You completely overlook that all public sector workers are also tax payers.

Still a net drain on the public purse.

You are also forgetting that many public sector workers were on very inferior pay for 20 yrs and now in the last 5/10 yrs they have caught up a bit and you all want a moan up.

Exactly the point. It was the fact that they were on lower pay in the past that made the pension acceptable as it was effectively a reward for spending a life in public service, earning less than the private sector.

However, when the wages of the public sector increased to levels where you could often not say that any more, then the pension benefits are much harder to justify.

Many NHS workers have to retire early due to physical disabilities caused by their public service.

No different to private sector.

This is the position i am.in. Give a decade to the service of the ou lic and get sacked with statutory notice on the grounds of capability, how would you like that.

I'm self employed. I get even worse protection than you. However, you can insure yourself for issues like that just as you can in private sector.

Debbie_A_3

dunstonh wrote: »

You are right, it doesnt come cheap. You pay a tiny 6.4% gross (which is just over 5% net) and the taxpayer pays the rest. The actual cost if you had to buy the same level of benefits in the private sector would cost you around 20-40% of your pay.

Its not that you have the pension but the fact that some in the public sector believe they deserve to be paid private sector wage whilst getting public sector wage.

Hi Dunstonh,
Thank you for your posting. It was more measured than many I have read, but I did think that you were being a little bit unfair reducing my 6.4% contribution to 5%. Everyone gets tax relief on their pensions. Indeed some people enjoy 40% or 50% tax relief
I do think the teachers pension scheme is very good and I have always viewed the employer contribution as part of my "remunertion package". It has kept me sane when I have compared my salary with friends and relatives with similar qualifications and levels of responsibility in the private sector.
The changes now fill me with gloom. I could cope with an extra 3% in contributions (though it would hurt in the middle of a pay freeze and 5% inflation); changing to average salary isn't a huge issue for most teachers because the pay structure is relatively flat after the first ten years; changing the indexing from RPI to CPI is major - but I suspect that this argument will be lost. The "final straw" for me is the increase in retirement age. Teaching is physically and mentally draining. Please don't misunderstand me: I love my work, but I cannot envisage being able to go on beyond age 60. What is more likely is that I end up on long term sick from my late 50s to late 60s. I wonder whether this is being factored in by whoever is calculating the projected savings made by these changes.

Debbie

dunstonh

Thank you for your posting. It was more measured than many I have read, but I did think that you were being a little bit unfair reducing my 6.4% contribution to 5%. Everyone gets tax relief on their pensions. Indeed some people enjoy 40% or 50% tax relief

The good thing is that you know that. Many that post on here dont appear to.

You seem to have your head screwed on and have identified that you feel is the one that is difficult for you. I wish more in the public sector were like you. I only have issues against the unions who are totally misrepresenting the changes and those in the public sector that are falling for it.

On the rally, the 24 hour news interviewed some people and one was a teacher who said he had a number of jobs and would get 10 years service in the teachers pension scheme which would only pay him £4000 and it was a disgrace. For someone in the private sector to match that they would need a pension fund worth £200,000 and that would cost around £1290pm (gross) for 10 years. With his teachers pension we can work out he is earning around £32000 a year. So, the cost in the private sector to get the same level of benefit would be 48% of their wage.

It is hard to have sympathy with those that dont know the issues are just ranting they are hard done by. Whereas with those that have identified the relevant issues and are going to be quite hard hit by it then you can have sympathy.

As for the age increase to 65, thats a tough one. Age 65 today is comparable with life expectancy 20 years ago. So, there is logic in increasing the age.

Also, there are options for those that want to finish earlier. That is to make more provision to allow you to do it. However, to do that, you need time. So personally, I wouldnt make the changes to anyone who is in the scheme with less than 20 years to go until the scheme retirement age but would make the changes to those with more than 20 years. 1) it gives them a chance to plan 2) in 20 years time, life expectancy increases further so the increase in age is easier to handle.

Career average is common sense. It would stop the abuse of late promotions into higher paid jobs where someone can do three years of service earning a lot more and get their pension based on those three years and not what they did before that. the vast majority will not be worse off with career average pensions. only those with late promotions or those that have been thrust into higher paid jobs after spending a fair bit of time in lower paid.