Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

cyclonebri1

serious_saver wrote: »

That would be a good idea.

Personally I don't blame them for striking. I would do the same if I was in their position. The same as any other contract, they signed up to one deal and now it's being changed. I would be p*&^%ed too.

In this country we seem to have an attitude that because the private sector get treated worse, we should bring the public sector down to the same level. Instead we should be trying to find a solution that improves the lot of those working in the private sector.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

But they are striking and they aren't seeking a solution so that one's dead in the water.

When manufacturing died in this country so did decent wages decent pension schemes and fair conditions.

The public sector didn't have to change, untill now that is.

grizzly1911

I can see the argument from both sides having a foot in both camps.Part of the problem is that the Government hasn't effectively communicated the changes and is trying to make those changes to bluntly. The writing has been on the wall for decades yet they want to put a brake on things like flicking a switch.

I have a private sector scheme. The employer took action over 10 years ago. It was a generous DB scheme. They brought in a new scheme for new entrants and offered the a voluntary DC scheme for existing members at first. They gave clear illustrations for individuals to make informed decisions. They offered to more than match contributions to make the scheme appear attractive. For members with longer service it wasn't attractive but for people with less service it didn't appear that bad. After perhaps 5 years they then enforced the change for everyone unless they opted out. Existing benefits were ring fenced and became deferred with an inflation link.

I accept that due to Government dithering we don't have that 5 year run in option.

My wife works in the NHS in a clinical front line role. She is on one the many schemes which is a 1/80th scheme. Other schemes have been downgraded as recently as 2008 reducing the benefits, increasing contribution and trading cash lump sum for pension benefits.

My wife has received virtually nothing to advise her how she would be impacted by the proposed changes. We have little idea what it means in £'s at the end of the day either in contribution or benefit apart from the extended retirement age.

The increase in contributions is effectively a tax because there is no guarantee as to the benefit it will bring. There is no guarantee that benefits won’t be eroded further.

We can appreciate the arguments and future uncertainty going forward if the contracted benefits to date were at least ring fenced.

IOO the Government should take stock and offer some options, communicated and illustrated at the personal level. Those options should be more progressive and allow ring fencing of existing provision or more tapering of existing benefits based on age/service. This has been partly acknowledged by the 10 year cut off proposal.
Other options could include:-

Keep existing contributions but reduce the payout at retirement bot in pension and or lump sum

Ring fence existing contributions with a taper benefit base on service/age maintaining an inflation link. Moving to the new contribution system accruing for the remaining period or allowing them to opt out completely from this point forward, or opting out of the increase contribution with a reduced benefit

as examples.

All changes should be fully illustrated.

I would add that my wife's pension, whatever happens isn't that big a deal as many years were on an ad hoc basis, though choice, whilst bringing up kids. This was personal choice for which we made alternative arrangements through prudent saving.

Public sector staffs do contribute via NI toward the basic element of state pension too.

Whilst there are undoubtedly jobs worths and overpaid executives and senior managers a number of the tasks performed by the public sector would have to be paid for privately if not through taxation. I would suggest that for most the cost wouldn't be any cheaper and in many instances would be considerably more. Of course if you want wide spread rioting, your house to burn down or someone frisking you for evidence of medical insurance before dragging you out of an RTC then fine
There are many in both the private and public sector cannot realistically afford to contribute to a pension at anything like at realistic rate and this needs to be looked at too.
"Well off" pensioners do have their personal allowance clawed back and do contribute to the economy by purchasing extra goods & services, claiming less state benefit and care costs, paying additional Duty, VAT, council tax etc. Reducing this contribution, through a lower pension available, will have an impact in the long term.

My wife didn't enter her career for the pension or the pay it was a vocation. When she is helping reattach a leg, or someone’s face that looks like red porridge after accident, or resuscitating a cardiac patient at 3:00 in the morning funnily enough pay and pension aren't paramount. The pay and conditions a have been severely eroded in the last 5 years, frozen pay, reduced pay due to extra hours being introduced at the same salary, anti-social hours pay schemes being curtailed by many reforms started pre this Government but that debate is for another thread along with health tourists.

tartanterra

Backbiter wrote: »

The latest figures regarding the Teachers Pension Scheme (not 'fund', as there is no fund as such - it doesn't operate like that) show that, since its inception in 1923, £46.4 billion pounds more has been paid in by teachers than has been paid out.

How sad that this tripe is being peddled by a teachers union, whose employees I would assume had a reasonable level of education.

Clearly, any pension fund (even a notional one) should have a healthy credit to meet future liabilities. It's so simplistic that even a child in year 2 should understand it.
Also, bear in mind that the majority of this figure is the employers contribution. Which as a taxpayer, is actually my money.
Further to that, there are more current members than current pensioners in the scheme and future liabilities are rapidly escalating.

Let's face it, there is minimal sympathy for public sector workers from the general public itself.
Most of us in the private sector feel that the public sector should be reflecting the private sector. Not just in pay and pensions, but also retirement age.
In the current economic climate, this is definitely not the case.

As someone whose taxes are used to pay for public servants, it seems only reasonable that those employees (because they are employed by all the private sector workers like myself) should not be employed to the financial detriment of myself.

I believe that the size of employers contribution towards public sector pensions is not reflective of general society and therefore, unjustifiable.

If public sector workers workers want decent pensions, then they should do what the majority of us in the private sector do, and pay for it themselves.

Incidentally, before the usual suspects start churning on bankers bonuses/executive pay, I'd like to point out to them that most of us in the private sector are not banking or business executives.

Strike and be damned. The general public are completely indifferent to your plight.

Footnote

Information on the teachers pension scheme from the BBC website ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446829 ):

How much is paid in?

Employees pay 6.4% of their salaries and employers pay 14.1%.

Not bad for some, eh? Change is long overdue, I would say.

J_i_m

Astush, I a not making out that teachers are numpties at all, indeed I was actually saying they work harder and longer than the general public give them credit for.

If you want to create the impression that you aren't working hard... Well that's your choice, but please don't infer that I'm making you out to be numpties because I am not doing so.

Backbiter

tartanterra wrote: »

The latest figures regarding the Teachers Pension Scheme (not 'fund', as there is no fund as such - it doesn't operate like that) show that, since its inception in 1923, £46.4 billion pounds more has been paid in by teachers than has been paid out.

How sad that this tripe is being peddled by a teachers union, whose employees I would assume had a reasonable level of education.

Clearly, any pension fund (even a notional one) should have a healthy credit to meet future liabilities. It's so simplistic that even a child in year 2 should understand it.

Clearly you are too simple to understand that that is NOT how the scheme works. There is no fund. Contributions cover the pensions of those in retirement. Future liabilities are covered by contributions NOT YET RECEIVED. And the liabilities are PROJECTED TO FALL OVER THE NEXT 40 years - or haven't you read the Hutton report?

Also, bear in mind that the majority of this figure is the employers contribution. Which as a taxpayer, is actually my money.
So the part of my remuneration package that I don't see until retirement is actually YOURS? Gosh. Are we all too simple to work out what 'remuneration' actually means?

Further to that, there are more current members than current pensioners in the scheme
Yes, that's how the scheme works. Current members fund the pensioners. The scheme has run at a surplus. Which is where the figure of £46 billion comes from. This isn't in a 'fund' - it's been spent by the Government on other things down the years. And the Unions are NOT demanding it back - they are pointing out that the scheme has been self-funding over its history.
Not only that - there is an agreement in place since 2007 that contributions will rise when the next Government valuation demonstrates that they must to meet the scheme's liabilities.
and future liabilities are rapidly escalating.
The Government hasn't even valued the scheme, and are refusing to do so, so you are making that up.
The Hutton report projections - based on the 2007 reforms - are that public sector pension liabilities (as a proprtion of GDP) will fall from 1.9% to 1.4%.

By all means have a strong opinion, but at least base it on facts not ignorance. And don't call me 'simple' for posting something about teachers pensions you clearly either did not know or did not understand.

tartanterra

Backbiter wrote: »

By all means have a strong opinion, but at least base it on facts not ignorance. And don't call me 'simple' for posting something about teachers pensions you clearly either did not know or did not understand.

If that's the best counter argument you can come up with, it's a sad reflection on the education system in this country.

Anyway Lofty, you just crack on with your unjustifiable arguments. I've no intention of getting into an argument with a numpty.:D

Backbiter

tartanterra wrote: »

If that's the best counter argument you can come up with, it's a sad reflection on the education system in this country.

Anyway Lofty, you just crack on with your unjustifiable arguments. I've no intention of getting into an argument with a numpty.:D

Run away, then, and chuck out schoolyard insults - first 'simple' and now 'numpty'. They do you no credit. And all because your argument has been exposed as not grounded in facts.
Maybe you'll now go and tell your mechanic that you own his pension fund and his fitted kitchen because you funded them with your repair bills.

BobQ

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

I'm not saying that at all and nothing I've said suggests that, what I saying is that many of you public sector bods instist on repeatedly telling us that you are doing equivilent jobs better and cheaper than the private sector, if that's the case then why are you outsourcing?

I do not work in the public sector, but I did many years ago and have friends and relatives that work in both sectors. So I can be more objective. Also I am not responsible for the postings of others.

Outsourcing (public or private) relies on the principle that you offer to do the job more cheaply than it was done before. You do this by reducing the quality of the service provided and the terms and conditions of employment of the employees doing the work.

As someone who has profited personally from the policies of outsourcing public sector work initiated by Thatcher, I have to say I am neither proud of the substandard quality of many outsourced services I have seen or of the fact that it has created an economy with so many low paid and unpensioned workers who will rely on the state in their retirement. I was taken in by these radical changes to shake up the public sector in those days and made a lot of money from such businesses.

Working people have become soft in my view in allowing themselves to be exploited, conned by all sorts into a belief that they do not need unions. The same manipulative forces are now turning the private sector against the public sector. Sure its their right to hate unions, but the only question is when they realise who is exploiting them.

grizzly1911

tartanterra wrote: »

Let's face it, there is minimal sympathy for public sector workers from the general public itself.

In your opinion perhaps.

As someone whose taxes are used to pay for public servants, it seems only reasonable that those employees (because they are employed by all the private sector workers like myself) should not be employed to the financial detriment of myself.

Or perhaps we could just disband the public sector and then you could pay for private companies to do similar tasks. Of course you may feel you don't need all the services at this moment in time. Don't expect to use them when you do or be prepared to pay a big fat premium. Or of course you may wish to self insure, which on an individual basis will be more costly, than a block scheme.

I believe that the size of employers contribution towards public sector pensions is not reflective of general society and therefore, unjustifiable.

That argument is a valid point but it has no doubt been traded at some point aginst an actual pay increase or such like as it is a cheaper way to provide the same outcome.

If public sector workers workers want decent pensions, then they should do what the majority of us in the private sector do, and pay for it themselves.

They already pay NI and personal pension contribution under an employment contract. Many private sector schemes also have employer contributions too.

Incidentally, before the usual suspects start churning on bankers bonuses/executive pay, I'd like to point out to them that most of us in the private sector are not banking or business executives.

Obvious just as 90%+ of bank employees don't pick up big fat bonuses and pensions either.

Strike and be damned. The general public are completely indifferent to your plight.

In your opinion

The public sector schemes do require overhaul the current way forward is blunt and is far from well thought out. It has been badly communicated and badly sold to existing members of the schemes.

It is another tax on public sector staff for little or no contractual obligation by the employer.

sheffield_lad

BobQ wrote: »

Working people have become soft in my view in allowing themselves to be exploited, conned by all sorts into a belief that they do not need unions. The same manipulative forces are now turning the private sector against the public sector. Sure its their right to hate unions, but the only question is when they realise who is exploiting them.

I don't need anyone to turn me against the public sector what I know is at the moment public pensions are unaffordable and more importantly for me unfair. Plenty of private sector workers don't have a pension yet they are subsidising the public sectors. Private workers are being told to work until 68 yet public sector workers expect to retire at 60.

We all work hard, we all pay tax's and we all want a decent income when we retire. The difference between the sectors is the private sector realise that working longer, paying more in & getting less back is reality of the world we live in. where as the public sector worker can't accept this change and wants the rest of us to subsidise their pension for them.

Current situation = not fair on the taxpayer
Deal on table= still unfair on taxpayer but better

My solution, the PS pension is equal to and no bettrer than the average private sector pension.

I wonder what the public sector would think of that deal, (after we revive them from their shock lol)