Unions and Pensions

atush

Who holds the most shares in companies? Not individuals, but in most cases pension funds. You know, that thing you pay into each month if you work in the private sector?

le_loup

jem16 wrote: »

The Unison result shows that only 30% of the membership actually voted with a 78% vote for strike action. What about the other 70%? Perhaps the membership as a whole did not want strike action.

Same with any ballot or election.
Shame but true.
Living where I do, we will always get a Tory MP .... regardless of what proportion of the population vote. Does that make the vote invalid?

atush

BobQ wrote: »

Saying it does not make it true. I cannot see any union in the public sector telling their members to leave their employers pension scheme. A rogue IFA maybe....but still unlikely.

There was just a post here a few days ago where a guy was at his sisters work (public service employee) and saw the Union leaflet and flyers saying exactly that- they had to strike because their pensions would be wothless and that they should all opt out and go private.

You saying it does not exist, does not make that man a liar.

jem16

le_loup wrote: »

Same with any ballot or election.
Shame but true.

Unfortunately quite true.

Living where I do, we will always get a Tory MP .... regardless of what proportion of the population vote. Does that make the vote invalid?

Obviously not as it wouldn't happen otherwise.

However does it fairly state the views of the membership as a whole? Ballots for strike action should be held in the same way as referendums which require a certain percentage return in the first instance.

Will the membership now get the chance to vote again based on the new proposals?

Meeper

And will the ballot only be considered "valid" if a minimum turnout is obtained? Should the lack of turnout be construed as a "no" vote? It does in my eyes, because if people don't turn out to vote yes, they obviously don't have sufficient passion about the matter to do so.

atush

BobQ wrote: »

Saying it does not make it true. I cannot see any union in the public sector telling their members to leave their employers pension scheme. A rogue IFA maybe....but still unlikely.

have a look at post 55:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/48215523#Comment_48215523

This is the latest, but there have been more reports here, incl from the actual workers. All asserting their unions had told them to opt out of their PS pensions. Which in my mind would be illegal for unions to do (as it is for IFAs to do as they can't do better on the open private market).

My only mistake was I thought it was his sister, but was his GF.

Fairzo

Meeper wrote: »

And will the ballot only be considered "valid" if a minimum turnout is obtained? Should the lack of turnout be construed as a "no" vote? It does in my eyes, because if people don't turn out to vote yes, they obviously don't have sufficient passion about the matter to do so.

Equally though they don't have the passion to vote "no". I suspect (but have absolutely no evidence before you ask!) that many might just go with the flow.

Speaking personally I'm nearly 54 and have 36 years in the LGPS so I won't be massively affected other than a few quid here and there. I entirely understand the views of private sector staff but there needs to be similar understanding that public sector workers will try and protect what they've got.

Andy_L

jem16 wrote: »

That's part of the problem though.

The Unison result shows that only 30% of the membership actually voted with a 78% vote for strike action. What about the other 70%? Perhaps the membership as a whole did not want strike action.

I suspect apathy, I think they just want someone else to wave a magic wand and make the problem go away.

If they had any opinion one way or the other its incredibly easy to vote yea or nay, Ballot paper gets posted to you, tick the box, stick it in the prepaid envelop & post it back to (usually) electoral reform services & its job done

atush

Of course they want to try to protect what they have. But they can't, as they are living longer and the country cannot afford it.

And I remain mystified when so many supposedly intelligent educated people (from teachers to nurses to parmadics etc) don't understand this very basic concept. It beggars belief.

After all, we had to come to this same realisation in the private sector where FS pensions were closed, perks like cars, xmas parties etc all taken away. Even private health care premiums now have to be paid by the employee. It is very hard, but it is life as we know it.

Fairzo

atush wrote: »

Of course they want to try to protect what they have. But they can't, as they are living longer and the country cannot afford it.

And I remain mystified when so many supposedly intelligent educated people (from teachers to nurses to parmadics etc) don't understand this very basic concept. It beggars belief.

After all, we had to come to this same realisation in the private sector where FS pensions were closed, perks like cars, xmas parties etc all taken away. Even private health care premiums now have to be paid by the employee. It is very hard, but it is life as we know it.

Don't disagree but it's a natural instinct of self preservation. If the roles were reversed I wouldn't anticipate much sympathy.