Unions and Pensions

antonic

As a civil servant I DO agree that I should have to contribute (I have had 23 years of not contributing so far!) AND I intend working till 62 (when I have done my 40 years in the Classic pension scheme when I would have done the maximum 40/80ths) but what I do object to is being asked to pay more when its going to the national debt NOT my pension !.

So I will be out on strike on the 30th !.

Meeper wrote: »

They don't have to work longer. They can stop working whenever they like. They just won't be able to draw on the full pension benefits until that age.

Moby

lvader wrote: »

So a government should never held responsible for it's actions because the other parties may or may not have done the same thing and the people that benefited from the mistakes didn't complain? Thats the problem with borrowing, it's not the current voters that end up paying.

That's hypocrisy for you ....Labour were held responsible because they got too close to the city and bankers and spent 40 billion bailing out the banks. Now we need to claw it all back and re-invest it in public services.

rpc

antonic wrote: »

I do object to is being asked to pay more when its going to the national debt NOT my pension !.

But as it is a government expense, your pension is part of the national debt/deficit! Your salary and your pension are just "money the government spends" as much as any other government expense. The national debt is a result of the "money the government spends" being more than the money it takes in, so your pension is inextricably linked. Reducing the costs of public pensions in future reduces the annual deficit - they aren't separate and cannot be separated!

StevieJ

dshart wrote: »

So please stop comparing with non-existent schemes.

Non-existent? not yet although even the best has succumbed a little (Accrual 54th to 60th and retirement age 60 to 65 for new members).

http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/pensions/scpf/resources/faq/

dshart

antonic wrote: »

As a civil servant I DO agree that I should have to contribute (I have had 23 years of not contributing so far!) AND I intend working till 62 (when I have done my 40 years in the Classic pension scheme when I would have done the maximum 40/80ths) but what I do object to is being asked to pay more when its going to the national debt NOT my pension !.

So I will be out on strike on the 30th !.

The problem is that public pensions are part of the reason for the national debt as they are not self funded so the deficit has to be taken from government coffers. The reason for the change is not to pay off the national debt but to stop the drain on government coffers that is increasing the national debt.

All you are being asked to do is to pay a fair amount and work lonenough to ensure the pension you get is properly funded.

dshart

StevieJ wrote: »

Non-existent? not yet although even the best has succumbed a little (Accrual 54th to 60th and retirement age 60 to 65 for new members).

http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/pensions/scpf/resources/faq/

Thanks for finding one that is still in existence, but the point I was making and have made in many posts is that such schemes are few and far between and majority of private sector workers do not have access to such schemes so using one of the better private schemes still in existence is not right to base a comparison on.

atush

antonic wrote: »

As a civil servant I DO agree that I should have to contribute (I have had 23 years of not contributing so far!) AND I intend working till 62 (when I have done my 40 years in the Classic pension scheme when I would have done the maximum 40/80ths) but what I do object to is being asked to pay more when its going to the national debt NOT my pension !.

So I will be out on strike on the 30th !.

So, you have 23 years of a generous FS pension built up w/o paying a bean. and you admit, you believe it is fair you contribute. You are denying the fact that your pension has helped create a deficit.

But you are going on strike? I think you just want a day off ;-)

gadgetmind

atush wrote: »

But you are going on strike? I think you just want a day off ;-)

I wonder if pension accrues for the day they all spending sitting around at home? If not, I suggest the strikes are made longer and more frequent, perhaps even full time, and we could then get some school leavers (on DC pension!) in to do the work instead.

That would fix the deficit pretty quickly!

Squiggybank

I work for a university in admin, I'm not in a Union, I opted out of the LGP and have no intention of striking later this month.

I was rather annoyed to have just found out that I have to complete and return a form stating that I confirm I will work as normal that day. If this form is not returned by 29th they assume you are striking and dock your pay. The problem is I only found out about this 'form' when I over colleagues speaking about it, I was not included on the email distribution list. Me any how many others?

Also if you are unfortunate enough to be sick on this day you MUST provide a doctors certificate (they will reimburse you)

I just find it annoying that ordinary folk with no intention of striking could be penalised here if they did not receive the form or are sick but for one reason or another can't get the medical certificate. Surely it would be better to assume that staff are going to uphold their contract and come to work unless they say they are striking.

Sorry for the moan it just annoyed me a bit

StevieJ

Squiggybank wrote: »

I just find it annoying that ordinary folk with no intention of striking could be penalised here if they did not receive the form or are sick but for one reason or another can't get the medical certificate. Surely it would be better to assume that staff are going to uphold their contract and come to work unless they say they are striking.

Sorry for the moan it just annoyed me a bit

Good point could be long queues at the Docs on that day