New pension proposals

grizzly1911

atush wrote: »

Divide and rule? Not really, but they can decline to listen to their unions on this issue and vote to take up the offer.

Divide and rule in the sense that the Government has bought off 25%(10/40ths) of the workforce.

Interesting that they have not offered the option not to increase contribution but offer a reduced pension payment.

At the end of the day it is just an increased in "tax" as there is still no guarantee that the provisions will not be changed further in the future.

grizzly1911

RichandJ wrote: »

I don't really see amything remotely amusing about the fact that part of my earnings are stolen from me under threat of forcible incarceration to fund other people.

I'd love to play some more, but I have to do some work.

In the case of the NHS you are not just "funding other people" you are paying towards an insurance for yourself.

If you didn't pay through this method then it would need to be insured elsewhere, probably at a higher cost.

You may have the benefit of private health cover but I doubt they will be much bothered if you need treatment in A&E, perhaps having been hauled out of A RTC or should you find yourself unlucky enough to have a chronic long term illness.

The clinicians in the NHS IMO do a remarkable job hampered by bureaucracy and political madness.

No - I don't work in it.

jamesd

jebervic wrote: »

Well my ballot paper sent off, voted "No" to strike, but how many have already voted who may have also voted no if the knew of this concession?

Thanks for not kicking what's still a gift horse in the mouth.

It's worse than before but still far better than the deals available to new private sector employees and somehow the increase in life expectancy has to be funded. That life expectancy increase is a boon courtesy of government spending and the work of those in the NHS and others. Shame it has to be paid for but that's life.

Moby

The Government is cynically following divide and rule tactics and has made this offer very close to the action on 30/11/11. They are not negotiating genuinely and do not care about reaching a consensus. Win or lose..........we are back to the industrial relations of the Thatcher era. High unemployment and deteriorating working conditions for many millions of people while those in power do not try to reach consensus but play us off against each other.

chucknorris

NAR wrote: »

The only concession made worth talking about is for the over 50's as at 1 April 2012. :T

Are you sure about that? I'm 54 on Jan 8th but as I started as a lecturer last year my retirement age is 65 (not 60) so I thought that I must be excluded from this concession. Are you saying that I am in fact included?

Dr_Wu

chucknorris wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'm 54 on Jan 8th but as I started as a lecturer last year my retirement age is 65 (not 60) so I thought that I must be excluded from this concession. Are you saying that I am in fact included?

The thread is about (or started off about anyway) NHS pensions specifically, where the standard retirement age is 60. Have a look back at the first few posts.

snowcat53

chucknorris wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'm 54 on Jan 8th but as I started as a lecturer last year my retirement age is 65 (not 60) so I thought that I must be excluded from this concession. Are you saying that I am in fact included?

Also as a lecturer you presumably are in USS which is not a public sector scheme affected by these proposals

jamesd

Moby wrote: »

The Government is cynically following divide and rule tactics and has made this offer very close to the action on 30/11/11.

Didn't you notice that the government backed off and adjusted the planned delay in retirement ages for many women and some men recently? Why be surprised when they have learned from that experience and do a similar thing for the public service pensioners who are closest to retiring?

It may work as divide and rule but it's also a sign that they learned something and are trying to treat those with less planning time better than originally planned IMO.

In any case the true divide and rule issue here isn't between the groups of union members, it's between the tax payers who are doing much of the funding of the pensions and the ones receiving them. Both need a fair deal and keeping the original terms for a longer life expectancy isn't fair for the tax payer part of the group.

If you do want the original terms, try working out how to reduce life expectancy by five years or so for public sector employees to get them back to the original deal terms. That's daft but is what it would take to get there. Instead what would happen is that health care funding for all of the population would be cut to fund the pensions and society as a whole would suffer a reduced or less increased life expectancy. It's not just about pensions, even if that is the main subject.

snowcat53

I sent off my no vote to my uniion also, but they are clearly spoling for a fight with the Govt, whatever the offer's merits. I am not one of those who believes Unions are obsolete - they can be a fanatastic source of support and help, and have done sterling service in improving working lives. But too many of our union leaders want to strut on the political stage.

chucknorris

Dr_Wu wrote: »

The thread is about (or started off about anyway) NHS pensions specifically, where the standard retirement age is 60. Have a look back at the first few posts.

I know but I (obviously incorrectly based on your response) assumed that the NHS pension would be comparable to the teachers pension in that most have a retirement age of 60 but recent starters have a retirement age of 65.