Public sector wellcome to the real world

NAR

My point precisely is that 20+ years ago private sector salaries were higher and pensions were better than the public sector pensions. There were no complaints then about the "gold plated" pensions.

So because the private sector has been unable to successfully diversify the green eyed monsters have chosen to attack the public sector pension scheme. Small wonder the public sector workers have little sympathy for private sector workers and their pensions!

Just_landed

I am two years from retirement and am glad that these additional contributions will only affect me for a short time; also I will be lucky enough to retire at 60.
---
are you sure, I take it you are not expecting the state pension then ?

NAR

I won't be worrying about the state pension, when it comes it comes and will be taxed, due to the size of my gold plated pension!

Old_Slaphead

NAR wrote: »

So because the private sector has been unable to successfully diversify the green eyed monsters have chosen to attack the public sector pension scheme. Small wonder the public sector workers have little sympathy for private sector workers and their pensions!

Ultimately it's the private sector that funds public spending - so wages & pension costs will have to be slashed. You can't keep funding it on tick forever.

dtsazza

NAR wrote: »

My point precisely is that 20+ years ago private sector salaries were higher and pensions were better than the public sector pensions. There were no complaints then about the "gold plated" pensions.

So because the private sector has been unable to successfully diversify the green eyed monsters have chosen to attack the public sector pension scheme. Small wonder the public sector workers have little sympathy for private sector workers and their pensions!

I don't know if that's entirely accurate.

For one thing, the private sector is private, and so from the public's point of view can do what they like. However, what I would say is that if I were a shareholder in one of those companies back then I would have complained about the pensions - or at the very least suggested that they were a liability and proposed the same switch to DC that I mentioned above.

Of course it depends on the climate at the time - if everyone was offered DB pensions it may have been a major sticking point to change and as a result be unable to attract new staff. But at some point the penny dropped and private companies, being accountable for their expenditures, realised that DB pensions were unsustainable.

I don't think that's anything to do with diversification, I think it's a pragmatic response to the situation. Regardless of whether the companies were profitable or not, DC pensions are much easier for them to account for and allow the remuneration to be more appropriately tailored to both the individual's, and the company's, performance.


So now we're discussing public sector pensions, as a taxpayer I am a "shareholder" in the country, and as such I hold the same view: DC pensions for all, and then we can simply discuss what level of employer contributions go towards the pension. Much simpler and cleaner.

It's nothing to do with jealousy either - I get 4% contributions (1:1 match) and if a public sector worker was to get 20-30% contributions it wouldn't bother me as such. Likewise, if I were on a DB pension now (public sector or private) and was told we were to switch to DC, or pay more, I'd still agree with the logic behind it.

dtsazza

WaxiesDargle wrote: »

some people need to have a word with themselves....i would have thought that the majority of people that come on this moneysaving website are not the wealthiest...well not on the forums I go on anyhow...

yet here are some saying to the nurse, firefighter, copper...i haven't got it so neither should you....instead of bringing up the standard of living of everyone, its a race to the bottom....while the rich bankers who put us in this mess and who we bailed out are raking in the bonuses...

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the general sentiment (though it might describe some).

In some respects it's a difficult question; as jackyann asked, "what is the value of a nurse[/firefighter/copper] in a free market"? It's trickier with the public sector, because the rigidly set pay grades preclude a more dynamic method of establishing pay, so it's difficult to tell.

Just because the public sector isn't run for profit doesn't mean that it can afford to be profligate. Hypothetically if pay could be reduced 20% without affecting staffing levels, it means we could afford to have 25% more nurses, 25% more firemen, and 25% more police on the beat. Everyone would be better off in that situation.

So the question is whether the [pensions] are too generous, and whether they could be made less generous without driving everyone away. If they could, then arguably it's a responsible government's duty to the taxpayer to do so, in order to get the greatest level of public services with the lowest level of expenditure (taxation).

So asides from actually bitter people, the majority of people supporting the reforms are (hopefully) doing so from the basis of holding the government to account as a taxpayer.

And at the end of the day, if the new offer is so terrible that lots of public sector workers quit, I'm sure a higher offer will be brought in pretty quickly. (But then again with unemployment what it is, perhaps those vacancies would be filled pretty quickly anyway.)

NAR

dtsazza wrote: »

And at the end of the day, if the new offer is so terrible that lots of public sector workers quit, I'm sure a higher offer will be brought in pretty quickly. (But then again with unemployment what it is, perhaps those vacancies would be filled pretty quickly anyway.)

Quit? I think you will find their anger demonstrated in the worst ever public service strikes ever seen this Autumn. These will impact on everyone - hope you will be happy then.

Bottom line is Government are trying to impose changes by making them public and gauging public support, instead of negotiating with the unions. This is totally unacceptable and they and you will pay the penalty and suffer the consequences.

NAR

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Ultimately it's the private sector that funds public spending - so wages & pension costs will have to be slashed. You can't keep funding it on tick forever.

And of course public sector workers contribute nothing? Right! :huh:

jackyann

To me, one the issues is that there cannot really be a free market for some of the necessary public service workers. Who knows what you would negotiate to be rescued from a burning building?

You might keep staff levels if you reduced pay - would you keep quality?
I really don't know, as my specialised nursing skills would not be in demand in the private sector.
I do know that the abysmally low rate we pay "care" workers does not help them to feel good about the essential care they provide (I feel a vested interest as they provide care that was regarded as "nursing" when I trained)

Interestingly though, I understand that a number of independent schools negotiate their teachers' pay in a "dynamic" way, but most private hospitals stick to the NHS pay grades!!!!

Personally, I regard healthy, well-funded public services as vital not only for a just society but for a safe one.
I do have a lot of ideas about making public services more efficient, but they never ask me!!!!

Koicarp

Whilst government has an important duty to the taxpayer it also has an important duty to it's employees, to be a "good" employer.
Whilst pay is rigidly fixed with the pay bands (in the NHS) we tend to call it "the greasy pole" as during a career nurses often find themselves moving down it too! When Blair brought in the latest pay system many nurses who had followed the "specialisation agenda" (such as myself) and had been rewarded financially then found themselves downgraded as they were not managing staff.
There is also a slowly (but surely) developing market for services, my own job is being TUPE'd in a few weeks to another health services trust from the next town, whilst a paramedic practitioner service has gone to a private company. These moves will play a big part in the future in cutting the government's costs regarding pensions.
As I keep on saying though the NHS PENSION IS IN SURPLUS and Hutton says it is getting cheaper, so why the changes? If it's to help with deficit reduction just be honest about it.