We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Unions and Pensions
Comments
-
Knowing what I know about how the economy and these things work, I wouldn't be fighting it, no. I'd be realising that I've had it too good for too long and be grateful that the benefits I will have post-reductions are still significant compared to the amounts I had contributed over the years and fantastically large compared to private sector equivalents.
Time for a little grown-up perspective.
While you might dispute that public sector salaries are much lower than equivalent private sector jobs now, they certainly were 20 years ago. Maybe the way for long term public sector workers to rationalise the current situation is that they are now getting the benefit of the lower standard of living they have experienced for much of their career?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
These were political decisions too. Why were those with private pensions not fighting these things at the time?
Our only way to fight this was at the poling booth, and let's just say that it didn't exactly go as planned,I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
While you might dispute that public sector salaries are much lower than equivalent private sector jobs now
Public sector salaries lower than private sector? Pull the other one!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
14 Nov 1988 I started my Civil Service career and under the rules of the Principal Civil Pension Scheme I joined I was not required to contribute to my pension.
Fast forward to approx 2000 when I was "encouraged" to change my pension options but there was no financial incentive for me to change.
2005 The Classic Pension Scheme is closed to new members, but old gits like me can still contribute, they bring in Nuvos & Premium Schemes for new members and again try to get me to change - but again there is no incentive for me to change and the Civil Service were promised there would be no more changes.
2010 Everything changes again (for the worse !)
The question has to be asked how many of you would accept a negative change of circumstances without fighting it ?.
You joined the civil service and you did not have to make any contributions, then someone said "hey that's not right you should be paying something" and you wanted a incentive to change. Then a bit later they say "Hey you are still not paying enough" and again you said you wanted something. Cant you see what's wrong in your logic, you have a very good pension scheme and you are eventually being asked to contribute towards it and you always want something in return.
Nobody is saying you should take it lying down but at least try and understand why you are being asked to pay more and work longer to get a pension that will still be better than equivalent person in the private sector. With that logic every time you asked for a pay rise your employer should say yes but only if you work more hours!!!!0 -
I think you failed to see the word Equivalentgadgetmind wrote: »Public sector salaries lower than private sector? Pull the other one!0 -
Those on strike will lose their pension accrued on 30th. By the way I thought the school leavers would be taking up all those wonderful new jobs in the private sector the Govmt keeps telling us are being created:rotfl:gadgetmind wrote: »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!
Quote Meeper:-
Fount of all knowledge now are we....as well as your expertise on employment law!;)Knowing what I know about how the economy and these things work,
Such a martyrI wouldn't be fighting it, no. I'd be realising that I've had it too good for too long and be grateful that the benefits I will have post-reductions are still significant compared to the amounts I had contributed over the years and fantastically large compared to private sector equivalents.
Simply patronising to millions of people...but its easy isn't it when you are anonymous!Time for a little grown-up perspective.0 -
By the way I thought the school leavers would be taking up all those wonderful new jobs in the private sector the Govmt keeps telling us are being created:rotfl:
We're expanding headcount by 20% per annum but we need good grads. Those who can't get good degrees are perhaps best steered towards other sectors.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Those who can't get good degrees are perhaps best steered towards other sectors.
Don't talk yourselves down gadget...I'm sure you are all useful for something....even if you do whinge a lot!;)0 -
I think you failed to see the word Equivalent
No, I saw it, and even when looking at like for like, the public sector would need a lengthy pay freeze for salaries to come into line, and this is *without* taking pensions into account.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/public-and-private-sector-earnings/2011/rep-public-and-private-sector-earnings.html
'allowing for differences in “types of job and characteristics of employees... as far as possible,” workers in the public sector enjoyed 7.8 per cent better pay.'
Note that the private sector *does* in general reward high achievers more than the public sector, but lower down the ranks, the public sector is extremely generous.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
While you might dispute that public sector salaries are much lower than equivalent private sector jobs now, they certainly were 20 years ago. Maybe the way for long term public sector workers to rationalise the current situation is that they are now getting the benefit of the lower standard of living they have experienced for much of their career?
Bob, I see your logic, but I was of the understanding that pension reforms were such that any accrued benefits (i.e. benefits accrued whilst there may have been a significant public - private sector pay differential) were protected. I took this to mean that if someone is three quarters the way through their working life, then three quarters of their pension is calculated on what was agreed initially, and only the remaining quarter of their pension will be liable to reforms based on their current and future earnings. If the pay differential has closed, then that seems fair enough.
My thoughts are that they should concentrate more on protecting the pension rights of the lowest paid, but put an annual cap the level of taxpayer contribution that is paid into an individual PS pension scheme. Why should the taxpayer pay a far greater subsidy into the pension pot of a very well paid worker but less into the pot for a lower paid worker? Surely if you are very well paid, you can afford to sacrifice a greater percentage of your salary if you want a whacking great pension at the end of your working life.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards