Incensed again

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

I hear others mention how private sector workers can earn more than public sector workers with the same qualifications, but is this true for nurses? can a nurse working in a private hospital earn more than one in the NHS?

I can earn 30% more doing shifts in a private hospital or working for an agency supplying care for the NHS- but would never do so.

cyclonebri1

BobQ wrote: »

Evidence is something that proves a claim to be true. We have no evidence, just some speculation by a few people who have so far produced no evidence its true.

Your post is not directed, therefore valueless. Please refocus and try again.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

I can earn 30% more doing shifts in a private hospital or working for an agency supplying care for the NHS- but would never do so.

Why not? do they get more because it is short term work with no benefits no pension contributions, longer hours, less breaks?

I don't work in that sector so I am curious as to why someone would not take up a 30% wage increase?

If I was to say it as some other people on this forum, so if you are not happy with the proposed cuts to NHS pensions and these coupled with pay freezes meaning a pay cut, then move to the private sector as you can earn 30% more.

atush

BobQ wrote: »

Evidence is something that proves a claim to be true. We have no evidence, just some speculation by a few people who have so far produced no evidence its true.

Wrong, annecdotal evidence has been provided from both family members/close contacts and some actual workers.

None of whom you choose to beleive and insist they are all liers. Sorry no one has since taken the decison to tear down notices and scan them as well as the leaflets mentionned. Maybe some one will, but even then I can only assume you will say they typed it up themselves.

Prudent

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

What's difficult to understand about a 1/60th pension accrual for each year worked.

Someone working 40 years on £35k pa therefore gets £35,000x40/60 =£23,333pa pension.

Except the scheme for someone who has been working that long is 80ths.

snowcat53

Prudent wrote: »

Except the scheme for someone who has been working that long is 80ths.

No reference was made to this being current, just how you work out pension for an accrual rate.

The only complication in future is that the salary is not final but career average/ As I understand the proposal is that every year's nominal 'contrinbution' to the pension is uprated by CPI. SO if someone's salary only goes up by CPI it's the same as a final salary scheme. The 10 k you earned 20 yr ago would count as 10k* CPI change since then, which might be 20k (or whatever)

Moby

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Your post is not directed, therefore valueless. Please refocus and try again.

No what he said made perfect sense. You started this thread....yet again..... and have said nothing new! I also think you need to refer to your own tag...'Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the freedom not to listen'
......you might learn something;)

cyclonebri1

Moby wrote: »

No what he said made perfect sense. You started this thread....yet again..... and have said nothing new! I also think you need to refer to your own tag...'Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the freedom not to listen'
......you might learn something;)

It may have made perfect sence in the right context but it was totally unclear what the comment was focused on?, had it been a reference to a quote I wouldn't have passed coment.

You're quite right, I have the right to post as I feel and see the situation, you have the right to reply or ignore.

Why did I start this post?, because there is something new to say inspite of you claiming not.

The pension reforms have been heavily watered down and to be honest I find the head in the sand attitude hopefully of the Unions, but I suspect the public sector workers themselves, hard to believe to say the least.

But as said you don't have to listen

Old_Slaphead

Prudent wrote: »

Except the scheme for someone who has been working that long is 80ths.

But the example was being based on what will happen in future

Old_Slaphead

Moby wrote: »

The fact is everyone pays for everyone else’s pension. Companies with occupational pension provision for their employees include pension costs when pricing their goods and services. All taxpayers pay for the cost of inadequate pension saving (increasingly prevalent in the private sector) through the tax and national insurance spent on increased take up of state benefits, NHS and council care services.

If my company provided a FS scheme, selling prices would need to go up by 10%. When you go to B&Q looking to buy the products we sell, you'll probably decide that the price premium is too much and buy the Chinese made one next to it. If we don't sell enought, B&Q will delist which means I have to make redundancies or scrap the pension scheme.

If I do make any profit I can't afford to give any pay rises as I have to continually keep investing in new equipment to remain price competitive.

It's a very tough world out there with seemingly endless government red tape to comply with. Busy fools is a term which springs to mind.