Public sector wellcome to the real world

ILW

Koicarp wrote: »

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.

Is it not the case that the only reason it is in surplus is due to the very high rate of employer contribution? (or taxpayers money to put it another way).

hugheskevi

Is it not the case that the only reason it is in surplus is due to the very high rate of employer contribution? (or taxpayers money to put it another way).

Nope.

Being an unfunded scheme the normal definition of surplus (assets exceed liabilities) isn't applicable.

Instead, the definition is payments to pensioner members less receipts from pension contributions from employees, which is used for statements such as the fund is in surplus.

Contributions exceeding payments is in no small part due to the growth in employment, taken from this website

• There were more than 43,890 additional doctors employed in the NHS in 2010 compared to 2000.
• There were 74,663 more NHS nurses in 2010 compared to ten years earlier.
• 2,125 more practice nurses were employed by GPs in 2010 than ten years earlier.

Of course, obligations to pay historic pensions have very little to do with current contribution receipts aside from similarities in name, so it is a bit of a meaningless comparison. This is quite a nice demonstration of why it is meaningless - one of the best responses to a growing 'deficit' on this definition is to employ even more staff, build up more unfunded pension liabilities...you can see where that leads you in the longer run.

On the other hand, the Government are extremely fond of using the definition, so I suppose what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak

boxerman

:mad::mad:

moggitymog wrote: »

I work as a nurse for the NHS, the main reason I remained in the NHS for the last 12 years is because of the pension, no need to bother now, lets hope everyone doesn't leave as that will be the time when the government start to sell it off

Well put Moggitymog, I worked in the nhs for nearly 40 years, and think that I saw the best of it, I'm still on the bank, covering hols, courses etc, but it isnt the happy place to work like it was as it seems everything is being run down, and starved of funds, despite the politicions retoric, then they will say it isnt working, and it will be privatised, so I think thats why they are trying to get every body to leave, to make it easy for them,:mad:

ILW

boxerman wrote: »

:mad::mad:

Well put Moggitymog, I worked in the nhs for nearly 40 years, and think that I saw the best of it, I'm still on the bank, covering hols, courses etc, but it isnt the happy place to work like it was as it seems everything is being run down, and starved of funds, despite the politicions retoric, then they will say it isnt working, and it will be privatised, so I think thats why they are trying to get every body to leave, to make it easy for them,:mad:

What difference does it make who employs the clinicians etc, as long as the service is provided free to the patient?
This is not a political point, just nobody has ever seemed to explain it.

Tiddlywinks

OP - PLEASE change the thread title to "welcome" as opposed to "wellcome" - it's getting on my nerves now .

cyclonebri1

boxerman wrote: »

:mad::mad:

Well put Moggitymog, I worked in the nhs for nearly 40 years, and think that I saw the best of it, I'm still on the bank, covering hols, courses etc, but it isnt the happy place to work like it was as it seems everything is being run down, and starved of funds, despite the politicions retoric, then they will say it isnt working, and it will be privatised, so I think thats why they are trying to get every body to leave, to make it easy for them,:mad:

And from someone recently retired from 40 years in engineering I can categorically state that that is mirrored perfectly in private industry.

We can no longer compete in the world market without some corners being cut. ie, employment expenses. What happens in the sector that funds the public sector will inevitably tighten the spending in that sector.

It's simply the expoited 3rd world getting their own back;)

dtsazza

NAR wrote: »

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.

Weeeellll... I'm still not sold on the point of having legally-recognised unions or strikes (in that I don't believe that the country would be a worse place if neither had any particular status).

The employers, unless it breaches terms in existing contracts, are at liberty to propose to their employees whatever changes they see fit*. The employees are at liberty to accept, reject, or propose alternative conditions.

Unless of course you can't go to your employer and negotiate a pay of say £36,000 a year with 1% contributions. In that case, I'd consider that the crux of the problem rather than the "skipping the unions" bit.


*and don't violate employment-related laws.

dtsazza

jackyann wrote: »

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.

It's a good point - but then if pay is fixed for a given position it implies that anyone is as good as anyone else there. In that respect it seems that the skills argument is often overlooked in that you can't reward a more effective worker accordingly.

Above and beyond that, you're right in that it's difficult/impossible to determine what a "fair" wage is for a nurse (of "average standard"), as much as it is for e.g. a receptionist or fast food server.

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)

I used to work as a care assistant in a nursing home, and you're right about the pay. That said, the majority of the people working there were doing so because they felt it was the "right" thing to do, rather than because of the pay. Still, regardless of principles there comes a point where you'd like to be able to afford a decent standard of life - and if you can double your pay while reducing your hours by a third, that's always going to be quite the temptation...

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!!!!

That's the kernel of this issue from both sides, it seems - efficiency. I don't think anyone would actually begrudge a public sector worker earning a large amount of money, so long as they felt that their taxpayer funds were being spent effectively and efficiently. Personally I'd be happy to "suffer" tax rises so long as I could see that the money was going towards good things - e.g. fast, cheap, timely public transport; a very effective criminal justice service; much better quality state schooling, etc.

Ultimately then it seems perhaps that those who would call for lower remuneration are (if rational) assuming that one could hire sufficient workers of the same quality for that reduced pay. Or they're just bitter. It's difficult to call either way.

Koicarp

dtsazza wrote: »

Weeeellll... I'm still not sold on the point of having legally-recognised unions or strikes (in that I don't believe that the country would be a worse place if neither had any particular status).

The employers, unless it breaches terms in existing contracts, are at liberty to propose to their employees whatever changes they see fit*. The employees are at liberty to accept, reject, or propose alternative conditions.
*and don't violate employment-related laws.

My employer- a large NHS Foundation trust encourages union membership among it's staff, I guess because it would rather negotiate with a handful of people rather than the 12000+ employees. There would be a hell of a queue at HR if it were otherwise.
Our union (the RCN) also takes a leading role in education and standards in health and social care, and provides a couple of million pounds worth of public liability insurance, which is also quite useful.

geelamch

why be jealous of what others receive,stand up and fight for the same for yourself!!!!!!!!
We may be in recession but some employers are growing cash rich in this period.We may be jealous of gov employees vbut this is the standard the gov has set so if your employer does not follow then maybe the employee should look at what he should be be asking of his employer,or is it a case of blame others for your own weaknesses