Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

Ygor wrote: »

On the ukpublicspending website, the £129bn is for state pensions and sickness and disability rather than occupational pensions.
It claims its source material is PESA2011. I suggest you look there.

Thankyou for the clarification, I misread the figures. But I think the point still stands in relation to the budget in general and how pensions (state pensions) are the single biggest item in the country's budget and hence why changes need to be made to retirement ages and why it is a struggle for the state pension to be increased to more reasonable levels.

hugheskevi

Thankyou for the clarification, I misread the figures. But I think the point still stands in relation to the budget in general and how pensions (state pensions) are the single biggest item in the country's budget and hence why changes need to be made to retirement ages and why it is a struggle for the state pension to be increased to more reasonable levels.

I don't disagree, but that isn't what is happening, at least not for today's pensioners and arguably those within about 10 years of retirement.

State Pension expenditure in real terms will be more than £10 billion higher in 2015/16 than in 2010/11, which is a big increase when compared to the total cost of public service pensions at £30billion.

A lot of the increase is due to the much vaunted Triple Lock uprating, not just normal demographic change.

There was an interesting blog earlier in the week in the Telegraph which is worth reading.

jem16

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

I kind of see this as a non-issue and one of the flimsiest arguments against raising retirement ages.

Wasn't meant as an argument against raising retirement ages.

There are very few jobs at the moment for new teachers. Usually jobs become available when teachers retire which won't happen now for longer. I can't see the job situation getting much better much sooner.

The_Angry_Jock

Then maybe there's too many teachers being trained.

jem16

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Then maybe there's too many teachers being trained.

We've been saying that for years.

Still loads of probationer teachers that can't get a job after their year's probation and it keeps increasing each year.

The_Angry_Jock

So to solve the problem you guys will sacrifice 7/8 years of your career and retire at 60 instead of actually trying to get the big cheeses to address the real issues?

J_i_m

jem16 wrote: »

Just like to know how you feel.

Why are you in a union? I'm genuinely interested in your reasons.

How do I feel? I feel bored of debate for one. I was initially worried that my pension contributions were going to go up by a significant amount yet I'd get a smaller pension for it. The available information seemed to assure me against that fear, this was before this revised proposal.

Why did I join the union? I joined on the advice of my manager because our trust are reducing the staff numbers on many wards. Therefore I perceived that my job could be under threat. It had nothing to do with pensions.

jem16

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

So to solve the problem you guys will sacrifice 7/8 years of your career and retire at 60 instead of actually trying to get the big cheeses to address the real issues?

I'll be retiring at age 60 because I want to. I'm sure everybody else will do as they wish.

All I'm pointing out is that I wonder how it will affect teaching jobs.

jem16

J_i_m wrote: »

Why did I join the union? I joined on the advice of my manager because our trust are reducing the staff numbers on many wards. Therefore I perceived that my job could be under threat. It had nothing to do with pensions.

I too joined my union for the legal protection it offered in case of employment issues.

Problem is though we can't pick and choose which bits we want the union's support with. What would happen if the union turned round and said they couldn't support you with your redundancy problem as you hadn't supported the rest of the members with their pension problem?

System

dshart wrote: »

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.

I believe that your figures re pension costs are flawed. The public sector pension funds are currently cash rich - i.e. we are paying more in contributions than are being paid out in pensions to the retired. Yes, I realise this will change over time with increased life expectancy, but not to the degree that the government are cutting the pensions. The problem is that the government are not using this surplus to invest in the future pension fund. They are using it to cut the deficit elsewhere. Effectively this is a public sector tax.

Again I am not saying that the pensions should not be reformed. They should, but not to the degree the government are talking about. It would be nice whilst we are on a pay freeze (then a 1% pay rise cap in the following years), not to have to pay increased contributions to our pensions. I would then accept a reduction in pension.

Finally in terms of the unions holding the country to ransom, well firstly, I did not go on strike and will not because I have patients to look after. Again, this is why I get particuarly annoyed when labelled greedy. At the end of the day though, employees do have the right to strike if their terms and conditions are under threat. If you walked into work on monday and was told your pay was being halved for example, you would be on strike im sure and I would not be labelling you greedy, nor holding anyone to ransom.