Unions and Pensions

barbarawright

Meeper wrote: »

I'd start an e-petition on the government's website, but I don't think there are 100,000 people left in the UK who the various unions wouldn't blacklist for signing!

How exactly would unions do that when there hasn't been such a thing as a closed shop for more than 20 years?

I've been a Unison member since its formation and never has a union rep suggested that my pension (local government) is anything other than excellent value as it is currently. If we all think it's so rubbish, we are we going on strike in its defence?

Moby

lvader wrote: »

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.

Don't seem to recall too many complaints from house owners when their properties were growing in value. Also don't remember the Tory opposition at the time calling for people to reign in their spending! Fact is so many of us had our snouts in the trough we didn't think about the long term consequences. The bankers and speculators were only too happy to take your money, churn it and reinvest it in never never land so long as they could take their profit! Labour got too close to the bankers and the city and is culpable for not regulating them but remember who the real deregulators are.....yes the Tories of course!

Andy_L

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

up above the 10% level which, with all due respect, would have teachers, nurses and firefighters on the streets.

Fire (& police) already pay 10%+

dshart

cvd wrote: »

In fact, Lawson and Lamont together took more then Brown from private pensions. (figures from Institute of Actuaries).

The tribal nature of British politics ensures there is no hope of any good government in this country.

I totally agree with you and I do not believe this argument is about whether you vote tory or labour or anything in between. My stance would be the same no matter who was in power. The fact is there is a huge national debt which is growing and unless something is done things will be much worse in the future. The public sector pensions debate is only one of the issues, but this does not mean it should be ignored.

As is such common advice on this forum maybe we need a SOA for the country to see where savings can be made. I am sure if it was listed down in this way quite a few would agree that one of the items that could be reduced was the deficit in public service pensions.

atush

You are well out of order with such an accustaion. If Meeper was one of those guilty of this, I am sure he would not longer be in the business. Many left the business after having to pay the heavy claims or could no longer get insurance.

StevieJ

atush wrote: »

You are well out of order with such an accustaion. If Meeper was one of those guilty of this, I am sure he would not longer be in the business. Many left the business after having to pay the heavy claims or could no longer get insurance.

I have removed the post as I can see how that may be misinterpreted, I meant Financial Advisors as a group in the past as opposed to Unions as a group.

atush

StevieJ wrote: »

I have removed the post as I can see how that may be misinterpreted, I meant Financial Advisors as a group in the past as opposed to Unions as a group.

As well you should. Thanks.

Meeper

Shame. Would have been interesting to have seen the post. Ah well.

Thicko2

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

And my point, which I apologise for if not expressed clearly, was that in essence armed forces already get paid 6-7% less than the Independent Pay Review Board suggest that they should be for the job that they carry out, to help cover pension costs. Raising that by another 3.2% will take individual contribution therefore up above the 10% level which, with all due respect, would have teachers, nurses and firefighters on the streets.

I also dont see any of the professions noted in your response already in the process of reducing in size by 16% (RN), 12% (RAF) or 8% (Army), with further significant reductions in size all but guaranteed by 2015.


D_S

Devon - the last time they published/leaked figures my contributions are planned to go up from 7.5% to 13% over the next 3 years in the NHS. 2.3% additional employee contribution is certain in 2012/13 up to 9.8% unless the unions win any further concessions from the government.

In terms of headcount - if you look at the fall in public sector employee numbers over the last period you will see significant public sector headcount reduction. I need to do more research but i suspect that local authorities, police are probably ahead of armed forces in headcount reduction. Health and teachers probably more protected.

Thicko2

Moby wrote: »

Don't seem to recall too many complaints from house owners when their properties were growing in value. Also don't remember the Tory opposition at the time calling for people to reign in their spending! Fact is so many of us had our snouts in the trough we didn't think about the long term consequences. The bankers and speculators were only too happy to take your money, churn it and reinvest it in never never land so long as they could take their profit! Labour got too close to the bankers and the city and is culpable for not regulating them but remember who the real deregulators are.....yes the Tories of course!

I think the irony of the current growth foreacast of the current condem administration is that they rely on individuals debts to increase further over the next 3 years!