Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

grizzly1911

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Point well made.

This is the point by eroding the pension provison and conditions of employment such as the retirement age in such manner as proposed the state will inevitably end up picking up the tab further down the road.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

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)

Providing they keep what they have "earned" under the existing contract, now that contract is being broken, then I am sure a way forward could be negotiated. Especially if they were given a free choice over whether to actually withdraw from any further participation in the scheme or take a reduced package, in the future, for not increasing contributions now.

Then when everyone has been ground down to the lowest common denominator we can all then start to pick up the pieces through increased taxation for all.

As your pension sounds like it is going to be less than wonderful you will no doubt need to be bailed out at some point unless you have an alternative investment source.

ILW

BobQ wrote: »

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.

That is not necessarily the case.

xylophone

I have paid (and paid well!) for plumbing, building and electrical work etc. I have never resented this because 'the labourer is worthy of his hire", (I am dependent on his expertise), has trained (and needs to pay for on-going training where appropriate) and anyone with any sense knows that a tradesman has to cover all manner of expenses besides paying himself a living wage. However, surely it is not unreasonable to expect that he should make provision for his pension from his earnings? Presumably he sets his rates to enable him to do so?

With regard to public sector pensions, these employees entered into a contract with their employer and that contract should be honoured. Would not the tradesman object if I agreed his costs at the outset (and entered into a contract to pay them) and then told him at the end that I couldn't afford it? I'd quickly be finding myself in court, I think!

sheffield_lad

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Providing they keep what they have "earned" under the existing contract, now that contract is being broken, then I am sure a way forward could be negotiated. Especially if they were given a free choice over whether to actually withdraw from any further participation in the scheme or take a reduced package, in the future, for not increasing contributions now.

Then when everyone has been ground down to the lowest common denominator we can all then start to pick up the pieces through increased taxation for all.

As your pension sounds like it is going to be less than wonderful you will no doubt need to be bailed out at some point unless you have an alternative investment source.

I have no issues with them keeping anything they have already put in but going forward the PC worker gets the average private sector pension what could be fairer?

As for my pension I pay in 10% for a defined 1/68th not good (especially that even after reforms teachers & nurses will pay less in grrr), but better than the millions of private sector workers who will have nothing.

Stargazer57

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.

These figures are on the NUT website: http://www.teachers.org.uk/pensions

If my pension scheme had a notional fund that was funded by notional contributions from the employer with any excess over benefits automatically being returned to the employer I can guarantee two things:

1 it would have a surplus that was a lot larger than 46 billion after 88 years. I reckon it would be 100 or even 200 billion.

2 I wouldn't attempt to insult the intelligence of the public by claiming that the size of the surplus meant anything.

But why should we expect the NUT not to insult our intelligence.

sheffield_lad

xylophone wrote: »

With regard to public sector pensions, these employees entered into a contract with their employer and that contract should be honoured. Would not the tradesman object if I agreed his costs at the outset (and entered into a contract to pay them) and then told him at the end that I couldn't afford it? I'd quickly be finding myself in court, I think!

Yes but that's not real world is it?

Most in the private sector accept we now have to work from 65 to 68, as it was agreed at the time I was 18 I would retire at 65 should I complain? lol

I lost my final salary pension along with millions of others deal we squeal and stirke? Err no we thought yep real world living longer no complaint. I was told 7% did not cover my pension any more and from April it needed to be 10% again did I get on the phone and yell we have a contract lol, err nope again real world.

All most in the private sector want is a bit of fairness but how can you not accept that the world and life expectancy has changed?

I will give you a clue, you would if you took your heads out of the sand lol.

dshart

grizzly1911 wrote: »

As your pension sounds like it is going to be less than wonderful you will no doubt need to be bailed out at some point unless you have an alternative investment source.

Who is going to bail out the private pensions?

The simple answer is no one. The people with poor private pensions will have to make do with what they have coupled with the state pension if it is still around when they retire.

But the attitude of public sector workers is that they were promised something so they must have that no matter what the cost to everyone else. The funds to keep the promises in public sector pensions will have to come from increased taxes whether direct or indirect.

I like how people say they can change the rules for new entrants but ours must stay the same in one breath while in the next breath they say we should all be supporting each other for better pensions. What they mean is support us now so we can keep our generous pensions and then once we have what we want then we can forget all about it again.

The basic fact is that public sector pensions are part of the hole in the countries finances so despite the promises that were made there needs to be changes. Because if there is no change in the country's finances (and by this I mean not just pensions) then we will all suffer even more down the road when the country goes broke.

dshart

xylophone wrote: »

I have paid (and paid well!) for plumbing, building and electrical work etc. I have never resented this because 'the labourer is worthy of his hire", (I am dependent on his expertise), has trained (and needs to pay for on-going training where appropriate) and anyone with any sense knows that a tradesman has to cover all manner of expenses besides paying himself a living wage. However, surely it is not unreasonable to expect that he should make provision for his pension from his earnings? Presumably he sets his rates to enable him to do so?

With regard to public sector pensions, these employees entered into a contract with their employer and that contract should be honoured. Would not the tradesman object if I agreed his costs at the outset (and entered into a contract to pay them) and then told him at the end that I couldn't afford it? I'd quickly be finding myself in court, I think!

You say that the plumber or electrician is "worthy of his hire" and you do not begrudge paying for it, yet so many including you with the comment "and paid well!!" think they charge too much or are out to fleece people when they work. Yet many of the people who say this also go on about how they in the public sector are valuable workers and demand to be treated fair. Surely by the same token we should get those services a cheaply as possible just as you want from a plumber or electrician.

If you entered into a contract with a plumber and could not afford to pay him at the end of the work, he would have the option to take you to court but if you were genuinely broke that would still not get him his money. In a lot of cases it might be worth his while taking a lower payment just so he got something (after all this is the advice given to a lot of people with debt problems on this forum). The country is heavily in debt and needs to cut costs, everyone can demand what the government owes them with welfare, benefits, pensions etc. but once the money runs out and they cannot borrow anymore what happens then? You can scream and shout and take them to court but if the coffers are empty you will not get anything.

The country needs to post on the debt free forums with a SOA so we can find out where savings can be made. I am sure in such a case most people would look at the public sector pension costs and advise that cuts can be made there. There are also many other areas that savings can be made but that still does not detract from the fact that savings can be made in public sector pensions.

J_i_m

I think, and I may be equally guilty that this debate is decending into personal insults, both sides of the stick have come up with worthy points yet both are equally as inflexible.

To be honest... Regardless of what people might think I don't believe we'll see major strikes... The unions may have "voted" to strike, yet most of the members didn't even vote, many didn't even receive their ballot papers.

If I'm on the Rota to work on the day of the strike then I'll go in and work as normal.