Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

cyclonebri1

MikeR71 wrote: »

We already saw this last week with all the fuss over public pensions. Many people demonised public sector workers, requesting that their pensions be cut. It's as though they feel good knowing that another group of citizens will get screwed and has to live in hardship. This was the saddest part for me, to know this is what we have come to, begrudging others their modest living.

Let's not forget, we are not talking about some rich section of the society here. We are talking about teachers and nurses, careworkers and firemen. Yet there were many who wanted their bread taken away. It was disgusting and I felt ashamed on their behalf.

But did you feel equally ashamed when (not in the headlines) all the private sector workers were similarly shafted?. Ill answer for you, no, you didn't.

This topic is all about exposure and focus.


Said before and will say again, it's been a divide and conquer issue. OK the focal point missed the private sector, they were hit by a scattergun approach, and it worked. But when the cannon comes out the public sector want support??, none from me chaps

Again it's not about demonising anyone, it's about getting the private sector to reaslise that there is an issue here, and it's not us and them.

jem16

J_i_m wrote: »

What are you suggesting? For me to opt out of my pension?

No not at all - that would be stupid.

Yo are a member of a union which called for strike action based on a ballot of its members. You decided that you did not wish to strike, as is rightly your choice, as you believed the original offer to be a fair offer.

Now because many of your colleagues supported the union ( even though they too may have disagreed with the decision), the government has made an improved offer. Some of your colleagues will have to pay more to allow you to not pay more for a year.

Now I know it's a hypothetical question as the offer was made to all NHS staff but do you feel right in accepting this?

System

Having read through this thread I can see that the government have already won on this issue.

It was the government who created the 'public v private' sector divide on this issue in order to get the private sector opinion on their side. And it has worked.

Yes public sector pensions are good, but I never heard anyone in the private sector moaning about this before the government started wielding the axe. Pensions are part of the package of employment, along with salary, working hours, holidays, flexibility etc...

If the government change the terms and conditions of the pension scheme, then how long is it before they change other terms and conditions within the public sector?

I do work in the public sector as a healthcare professional. If I moved to the private sector I would expect to earn around 20% more in salary, but receive a poorer pension. I chose the public sector because I found the job to be more rewarding. I now find it staggering to be labelled 'greedy' by the private sector moaners. How can I be greedy for working in a job that pays 20% less? Do I moan about the disparity of salary with the private sector? No.

Dont have a go about our pensions, they are not the reason the country is in this mess and reforming the pension system will not get us out of the mess. Why dont we look at better ways of stabilising our finances, such as pulling out of these ridiculous wars, cutting benefits to the lazy, stop giving millions in foreign aid, plus manage the greedy at the top of the chain, starting with politicians (look at THEIR pensions!)

dshart

payvpac wrote: »

Having read through this thread I can see that the government have already won on this issue.

It was the government who created the 'public v private' sector divide on this issue in order to get the private sector opinion on their side. And it has worked.

Yes public sector pensions are good, but I never heard anyone in the private sector moaning about this before the government started wielding the axe. Pensions are part of the package of employment, along with salary, working hours, holidays, flexibility etc...

If the government change the terms and conditions of the pension scheme, then how long is it before they change other terms and conditions within the public sector?

I do work in the public sector as a healthcare professional. If I moved to the private sector I would expect to earn around 20% more in salary, but receive a poorer pension. I chose the public sector because I found the job to be more rewarding. I now find it staggering to be labelled 'greedy' by the private sector moaners. How can I be greedy for working in a job that pays 20% less? Do I moan about the disparity of salary with the private sector? No.

Dont have a go about our pensions, they are not the reason the country is in this mess and reforming the pension system will not get us out of the mess. Why dont we look at better ways of stabilising our finances, such as pulling out of these ridiculous wars, cutting benefits to the lazy, stop giving millions in foreign aid, plus manage the greedy at the top of the chain, starting with politicians (look at THEIR pensions!)

I do not believe that the government created this so called public/private sector divide. People in the private sector have always known there were differences and these were generally accepted. As people have said, if we wanted those conditions we could have opted to work in the public sector. The issue arose when the government says that public sector pensions were unaffordable and the public sector unions decided to hold the country to ransom by calling the strikes. It was then that people in the private sector started coming out and voicing their opinions that the changes to the pensions were justified for the various reasons given.

If you have read all the posts then you would have read responses to claims from health workers that they could earn 20% more in the private sector. Yes you can earn 20% or possibly more, but at what cost, no holiday pay, less sickness benefits, no employer pension contributions etc. I know I for one have never called public sector workers greedy but I do believe they have to face the reality that the country cannot afford their pensions as they currently stand. Companies in the private sector have realised this for years and that is why majority of DB schemes in the private sector have been closed.

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn while total borrowing is £122bn and what we spend on healthcare is £123bn. 18% of the budget is on pensions and it is the largest single category of government spending. So saying the pensions are not part of the country's debt problem is wrong. Yes people should get a decent pension for their years of service but not at the cost of everything else. The government has to look at all ways of cutting its spending and with any budget balancing exercise you always look at the big cost items first and then go down the list.

atush

Moby, this is left led rubbish.

After last night this statement looks distinctly hollow. We are now effectively sidelined as a second rate influence in Europe. The French German led axis of 17 countries will now forge ahead with their own plans, about 9 other countries will also follow leaving us sidelined.

It is not hollow to sit on the sidelines and watch the eurozone cycling down the drain. It looks, (to the east and other areas) like distinctly good a practice in self preservation. Self preservation (ie the preseration of the UK) is actually the job of HM govt of the day whichever flavour they might be.

UK gilts are being seen as a 'safe haven' in the euromarkets at the moment.

hugheskevi

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn while total borrowing is £122bn and what we spend on healthcare is £123bn. 18% of the budget is on pensions and it is the largest single category of government spending. So saying the pensions are not part of the country's debt problem is wrong. Yes people should get a decent pension for their years of service but not at the cost of everything else. The government has to look at all ways of cutting its spending and with any budget balancing exercise you always look at the big cost items first and then go down the list.

What is the source for these numbers?

J_i_m

jem16 wrote: »

No not at all - that would be stupid.

Yo are a member of a union which called for strike action based on a ballot of its members. You decided that you did not wish to strike, as is rightly your choice, as you believed the original offer to be a fair offer.

Now because many of your colleagues supported the union ( even though they too may have disagreed with the decision), the government has made an improved offer. Some of your colleagues will have to pay more to allow you to not pay more for a year.

Now I know it's a hypothetical question as the offer was made to all NHS staff but do you feel right in accepting this?

Not quite sure what you're expecting or wanting me to say to this.

Are you one of these people chomping at the bit to label people as scab?

dshart

hugheskevi wrote: »

What is the source for these numbers?

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

Moby

howee wrote: »

Spoken like a true union man lol, you are getting a tad too excited about what this means, no one is going to stop buying British goods, we all think that Britain does not manufacture anymore but we are actually the 6th biggest manufacture in the world.

What Cameron has done is woke us from the sleep walk which is constitutional Europe. No one ever voted for this we voted for a trade agreement.

The world is our trade partner not Europe we can trade with everyone.

Cameron is in thrall to his Tory party funders in the city, (to all you union knockers who are they accountable to by the way)! and his own right wing headbangers....his stance has nothing to do with the wider interests of this country. He has cut us adrift from all future decisions of consequence regarding trade etc by alienating lets think .....about 26 of our neighbours who provide 40% of our trade. Only a fool would think otherwise! I'm aghast at posters on here being unable or unwilling to grasp this. The one thing history teaches us.....is whatever your stance you have to have a seat at the table. China, Brazil, India etc will not be interested in having a separate deal with us....they will deal with the power centre in Europe! Cameron is an embarrasement and Sarkozy shafted him. He had dinner last night with about 30 of his tory backbenchers who toasted his bulldog spirit apparently......:rotfl:These people do not care at all about the interests of individuals who use these forums to save money or make the right financial decisions. They are purely driven by their own desire to hold on to power and protect their privileges. Its unbelievable what is happening in this country now.....but the Daily Mail readers will continue to lap it up:p

It'll be interesting now what stance Clegg takes....will he show some backbone and principle and fight this madness as a pro European Liberal Democrat surely would?......or will he only be to happy to keep his ministerial car and 'Deputy PM' title.:rotfl:

J_i_m wrote: »

Not quite sure what you're expecting or wanting me to say to this.

Are you one of these people chomping at the bit to label people as scab?

Jim the only strength a union has is the unity of its members.... especially during a dispute. It strengthens the hand of the negotiators to achieve a better outcome for everybody. Surely if you join a union you would agree it would be with the intention of abiding by its decisions? especially during such a crucial time!

MikeR71

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But did you feel equally ashamed when (not in the headlines) all the private sector workers were similarly shafted?. Ill answer for you, no, you didn't.

there you go doing it again, us vs them.

Yes of course we have all been disgusted at the way big corporates in the private sector amass profits while they pay their staff minimum wage at best. this was never the issue.

All i am saying is what happened last week was disgusting because those in the private sector begrudged nurses and teachers and firemen for getting more. it was as though by wanting public sector to be cut it somehow goes into their pockets, which it doesn't.

no one in the public sector would begrudge the ordinary private sector workers an equal pension. but this should be achieved by putting pressure on the big company bosses to raise pay their staff a decent wage and pension, and not by creating more poverty by lowering public sector pensions..

I hope what i am saying is clear enough.