Unions and Pensions

RobertoMoir

atush wrote: »

I have to agree with 100% of your argument.

Unions have in the past, performed a useful and necessary function. But today seem to be full of union reps who are in 'never never' land in their thinking. They think money, company sales and prospects/profits, and the economy are supplied by a magic tree or something. They advise employees to ask for things that could put their companies out of business and them out of work.

And i truly am beginning to think it should be made law that Union reps are not allowed to discuss pensions with their members, as all they seem to do it try to put people off joining them even if they are good.

I have to agree with this. I'm a unison member where I work (and I think there still is a need for unions in the public sector) but I really do think they're out of touch with the real world - especially when they rejected the revised pensions offer from the govt, which I thought was a very reasonable compromise.

I won't be striking.

Moby wrote: »

At least their ideals are pro-social. whereas I somewhat doubt a Financial Adviser goes into work every morning thinking about how he can benefit others that day!:rotfl:

If the union really are advising members to leave a good company pension scheme then I somewhat doubt that whoever came up with that one was thinking about "how he can benefit others that day!". In fact, I'd love to know just what they *were* thinking.

atush

Roberto, if you come across any union reps saying things like members should opt out of the PS pensions let us know, and keep any literature you may be given.

We have had reports here from NHS workers, and someone present at a Teachers union meeting where such things were said/on leaflets. But we have others here who don't believe it, so any evidence would be great to know for sure if this is going on. It is detrimental to Memebers, and IMHO should be illegal.

CLAPTON

atush wrote: »

Roberto, if you come across any union reps saying things like members should opt out of the PS pensions let us know, and keep any literature you may be given.

We have had reports here from MHS workers, and someone present at a Teachers union meeting where such things were said/on leaflets. But we have others here who don't believe it, so any evidence would be great to know for sure if this is going on. It is detrimental to Memebers, and IMHO should be illegal.

I'm sure you will find that unqualified people giving financial advice is already against the law.

le_loup

atush wrote: »

Roberto, if you come across any union reps saying things like members should opt out of the PS pensions let us know, and keep any literature you may be given.

We have had reports here from MHS workers, and someone present at a Teachers union meeting where such things were said/on leaflets. But we have others here who don't believe it, so any evidence would be great to know for sure if this is going on. It is detrimental to Memebers, and IMHO should be illegal.

You really do have an agenda here. You seem to want it to be true.
Are you standing for parliament? Oh, I forgot, you don't actually live here.

atush

No agenda from me, I just beleive what workers and others who have posted here about it have said.

So looking for the evidence that others here asked for, because they refuse to believe it.

RobertoMoir

atush wrote: »

Roberto, if you come across any union reps saying things like members should opt out of the PS pensions let us know, and keep any literature you may be given.

Even if I chose not to post it here, I'd certainly not let such a thing go past without complaining.

We have had reports here from NHS workers, and someone present at a Teachers union meeting where such things were said/on leaflets. But we have others here who don't believe it, so any evidence would be great to know for sure if this is going on. It is detrimental to Memebers, and IMHO should be illegal.

Agreed - while they obviously have to have some input into schemes overall as part of the collective bargaining of a union, they shouldn't be giving personal advice to members, even if they really did know what they were talking about when it came to the scheme they aren't going to know enough about the individual they're talking to to advise them properly.

Andy_L

BobQ wrote: »

Your comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of unions. The "chubby, uneducated" rep you denigrate does not purport to be an employment lawyer but can seek advice from those with such expertise.

Do you consult a consumer lawyer everytime you have a consumer problem?

and s likely to have been trained by the Union so not uneducated either

dshart

Moby wrote: »

That underestimates what Blair did. He did keep to Conservative spending limits but this couldn't last...... if you remember the country was in a terrible mess regarding the run down condition of our infra structure, (condition of our schools and hospitals, waiting lists etc) and the money had to be spent to make up for this and to be fair... bring public sector salaries in line with their private sector equivalents.

So you were happy for the public sector salaries to be brought in line with their private sector equivalents, but now object to their pensions being brought in line too. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

lvader

Moby wrote: »

Also before the crash of 2008 Labour's economic policy was successful....with high growth...relatively low unemployment, sustained low inflation, minimum wage introduced etc.

All created on the back of the house price boom, uncontrolled personal debt and massive government overspending. Well done Labour, they truely ended boom and bust...with the mother of all boom and busts.

Thicko2

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Thicko2 wrote: »

Armed forces, when will the details on shifiting them from 0% contribution to something be coming forwards.

QUOTE]

Just for info,

Armed Forces pension contribution and benefits are calculated at source, and taken into account when deciding salaries. ie, salaries are lower by x%, because it already uses the difference to help pay for the pension pot.

So, whilst it looks like there is a zero % contribution, wages are x% lower than they would be otherwise (I think i recollect a figure of 6/7% being bandied about by the pension scheme guy...but that was a couple of years back and memory fading fast lol).


D_S

My point remains when will the armed forces recieve a proposal to raise their contribution level from 0% to something like 3.2% to be in line with the rest of the public sector.

It is this scheme which is generating the big headline figures on public section pension defecits in year. Not the NHS, LGPS or teachers.