Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

answer the simple question
what do you consider to be a reasonable and fair pension for public sector pensioner?

I think a 10% employer contribution is reasonable maybe even generous given the current economic climate.

What is reasonable for average ps employee, IMHO, would therefore be whatever the person has accrued to date in existing scheme plus whatever the 10% + employee contribution can accumulate in future DC scheme.

atush

Oog wrote: »

This possibly should be a new thread but here goes...

If I am in the Union and they decided to strike next Thursday but I voted 'No' (for various reasons including how the pensions question was posed and actually agreeing that things will and have to be renegotiated) can I chose not to strike?

I want to show solidarity but I do not want to put the public's lives at risk by not doing my job. Could I do this by supporting the picket line in my lunch break for example?

I don't feel the Strike will a) help gain support for pension change discussions - changes are inevitable over the next 35 years until my colleagues and I retire - or b) highlight the fact that Public sector individuals are currently doing a lot to try and save money, minimise service disruption and job losses and keep up the good work that most of us (yes - I can hear you, oh, the great disgruntled) try to give. I wouldn't want to lose the option of joining a pension scheme but I also recognise that it has to be affordable on some level.

I accept I may feel differently if I was going to retire in the next 5-10 years but I'm not.

Thanks, (Scabby) Oog

yes, you can choose not to strike.

dshart

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

Why knock the public sector for having a pension scheme, how about the private sector complaining that ours is not very good and not protected.

Ask the goverment to provide a fully protected pension sytem backed up up by public funds if required.

Keep knocking the public sector will not improve yours or make it safer all it will do is weeken all pension provision for all.

Its not a case of knocking the public sector. Yes the private sector would love to have the same guarantees as the public sector for their pensions with the government providing that guarantee. But the simple problem is where the money is coming from to pay for all thses guarantees.

The problem is that the country is in debt and the public sector pensions are one part of this debt and that is what needs to be reduced. It is not a case of dragging their pensions down to those of the private sector it is a case of getting rid of the additional funds required ontop of contributions to keep paying these pensions.

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

Its not a case of knocking the public sector. Yes the private sector would love to have the same guarantees as the public sector for their pensions with the government providing that guarantee. But the simple problem is where the money is coming from to pay for all thses guarantees.

The problem is that the country is in debt and the public sector pensions are one part of this debt and that is what needs to be reduced. It is not a case of dragging their pensions down to those of the private sector it is a case of getting rid of the additional funds required ontop of contributions to keep paying these pensions.

That is all well and good but once this is done, it is done. During any future boom years this will not be revisited. Not by the Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This is a permenant, effective wage reduction for the Public Sector.

Koicarp

Oog wrote: »

This possibly should be a new thread but here goes...

If I am in the Union and they decided to strike next Thursday but I voted 'No' (for various reasons including how the pensions question was posed and actually agreeing that things will and have to be renegotiated) can I chose not to strike?

I want to show solidarity but I do not want to put the public's lives at risk by not doing my job. Could I do this by supporting the picket line in my lunch break for example?

I don't feel the Strike will a) help gain support for pension change discussions - changes are inevitable over the next 35 years until my colleagues and I retire - or b) highlight the fact that Public sector individuals are currently doing a lot to try and save money, minimise service disruption and job losses and keep up the good work that most of us (yes - I can hear you, oh, the great disgruntled) try to give. I wouldn't want to lose the option of joining a pension scheme but I also recognise that it has to be affordable on some level.

I accept I may feel differently if I was going to retire in the next 5-10 years but I'm not.

Thanks, (Scabby) Oog

We all have the freedom to choose.
I take issue with those who vote, then find the vote didn't go their way and chose to follow their own path. Personally I think if a vote has been held I should strike/or work, with my fellow union members if that is what the members decided to do. Of course as an RCN member I have never voted on strike action as we've never had a vote.
There are some jobs which genuinely do preserve life and as such workers in those areas will be exempt from strikes. My wife works in A&E and would be exempt whilst the service I provide should make life easier for my clients but wouldn't save their lives, so I would not be. Intensive care unit nurses would expect to be exempt as would HDU and CCU staff, but clinic staff wouldn't. J I M has posted on this thread stating that he will work, but as he works in a secure unit there are not only care issues at stake but security issues, so I doubt any union will expect or want it to have no staff that day. I'm employed by the NHS but work partly with a council and the local council staff are currently negotiating exemptions with their HR department there. The council's exemptions will include childrens home staff and warden's for the elderly etc. but probably not road repair gangs.
The RCN hasn't voted on a strike, but has asked members to support the other unions in their strike (in their own time), and has asked members to refuse to work overtime to cover strikers' shifts.
If you think your work area should be exempt, you can discuss it with a union rep, and then be welcomed onto their pickett line during a lunch break.

dshart

DCodd wrote: »

That is all well and good but once this is done, it is done. During any future boom years this will not be revisited. Not by the Tories, Lib Dems or Labour. This is a permenant, effective wage reduction for the Public Sector.

Why should it be revisited in future years? If the employers and employees contributions are used to fund a pension pot that is invested to pay out the pensions with no further calls on additional funds to meet guarantees then there should never be a need to revisit this issue as they would be in the same position as people with private pensions.

The problem is that there is no way the contributions no matter how they were invested (unless in booming economic climate) could afford to pay out the defined benefits that public sector workers get.

CLAPTON

dshart wrote: »

Why should it be revisited in future years? If the employers and employees contributions are used to fund a pension pot that is invested to pay out the pensions with no further calls on additional funds to meet guarantees then there should never be a need to revisit this issue as they would be in the same position as people with private pensions.

The problem is that there is no way the contributions no matter how they were invested (unless in booming economic climate) could afford to pay out the defined benefits that public sector workers get.

well we don't know, as although the government has a statutory duty to publish the pension notional fund values they repeatedly refuse to do so.
superficially it seems odd they won't publish as in your view at least it will clearly show the pensions will require additional funds

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

Why should it be revisited in future years? If the employers and employees contributions are used to fund a pension pot that is invested to pay out the pensions with no further calls on additional funds to meet guarantees then there should never be a need to revisit this issue as they would be in the same position as people with private pensions.

The problem is that there is no way the contributions no matter how they were invested (unless in booming economic climate) could afford to pay out the defined benefits that public sector workers get.

But your assuming that the pensions are a perk, they are not. They are part of the remuneration package of the job.

People can quote headlines that public sector pay has caught up with or past the levels of private sector pay but only when you compare like for like in the professions do you see the disparity. The pension is to offset that disparity.

dshart

CLAPTON wrote: »

well we don't know, as although the government has a statutory duty to publish the pension notional fund values they repeatedly refuse to do so.
superficially it seems odd they won't publish as in your view at least it will clearly show the pensions will require additional funds

There were figures quoted in one of the other threads regarding public sector pensions which showed there for the 2009/2010 year a deficit to the tune of £3.4 billion. People argue that the LGPS is fully funded and invested and the teachers pension they think is fully funded but the government will not publis notional fund values, but at the end of the day there is still a drain of £3.4 billion which is in addition to employers contributions. Get rid of that additional drain on the country's finances and public sector workers can have whatever pensions they want.

dshart

DCodd wrote: »

But your assuming that the pensions are a perk, they are not. They are part of the remuneration package of the job.

People can quote headlines that public sector pay has caught up with or past the levels of private sector pay but only when you compare like for like in the professions do you see the disparity. The pension is to offset that disparity.

The perk they have is the employers contributions that are in general higher than the equivalent in the private sector. But what is not right is the call on additional funds to meet the defined benefits of the scheme.