Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Old_Slaphead

DCodd wrote: »

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.

DC - you can cherry pick the numbers all you like but the pensions have always been justified, across the board, as to make up for low public sector pay.

Except for maybe London, that's definitely not now the case.

If the government can't negotiate a pension settlement then the answer's simple - no further pay increases for public sector workers until the average pay is 15% below the private sector average. Given that it's currently several percentage points higher then I reckon that will take about 5-10 years.

DCodd

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

DC - you can cherry pick the numbers all you like but the pensions have always been justified, across the board, as to make up for low public sector pay.

Except for maybe London, that's definitely not now the case.

If the government can't negotiate a pension settlement then the answer's simple - no further pay increases for public sector workers until the average pay is 15% below the private sector average. Given that it's currently several percentage points higher then I reckon that will take about 5-10 years.

But that is the whole point Old Slaphead, the figures you suggest are the cherry picked ones. They do not reflect a like for like comparison.

RBS, Lloyds etc being included in the public sector pay averages have pushed the public sector pay rates upwards and reduced the private sector pay rates as well. It also has to be said that the last time I looked at the ONS's figures, the pension contributions, notional or otherwise were included in the pay figures. However, depending on which of the sets of comparisons you looked at, the private sector bonuses and dividends were not.

cyclonebri1

dshart wrote: »

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.

Says it all really then does'nt it, :T:T. ie, at present it's unaffordable.

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

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.

It was me and the figure was £3.1bn. I find this bit of the Hutton report interesting- "receipts from employee and employer contributions to the NHS scheme in England and Wales (totalling £8.1billion in 2009-10) currently outweigh the cost of paying pensions and lump sums (£6.1 billion in 2009-10). In contrast, contributions to the armed forces scheme totalled £1.7 billion, compared to pension and lump sum payments of £3.5 billion.[FONT=Frutiger 55 Roman,Frutiger 55 Roman][FONT=Frutiger 55 Roman,Frutiger 55 Roman]a"[/FONT][/FONT]

Of course there are no suggestions to alter the armed forces scheme, whilst other schemes which currently take in more than they pay out are told they must pay more for less.

J_i_m

The armed forces look after security of us all, often at high risk to themselves. Yes it's their choice but since it's to our overall benefit then the least we should do is support them.

In many ways this ongoing political scrap shows that there could be an argument for all pension schemes to be scrapped and have just one national state holders one, that way you'd hope there would be less disparity.... You know what though? It'd never happen! Someone somewhere would always find a reason to be disgruntled.

emg

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

No one can make you strike. There are, however, very strict rules on picket lines (you are only allowed 6 at a time and one must be a union rep) so you may not be able to just join in. Also, most of the unions are only planning to picket in the morning and are directing members to attend the public rallies which are starting around noon.

We are also agreeing exemptions with our NHS trust as our issues are not with them and our aim is not to disrupt their business. There is no way we would condone putting peoples lives at risk (and of course the last thing the unions want is some daily mail headline saying someone has died due to the strike, remember the girl who slipped on ice and died last year when the schools were closed and the headlines blamed it on the teachers?).

real1314

J_i_m wrote: »

The armed forces look after security of us all, often at high risk to themselves. Yes it's their choice but since it's to our overall benefit then the least we should do is support them.

In many ways this ongoing political scrap shows that there could be an argument for all pension schemes to be scrapped and have just one national state holders one, that way you'd hope there would be less disparity.... You know what though? It'd never happen! Someone somewhere would always find a reason to be disgruntled.

The NHS work for our benefit; Teachers work for our benefit. Every part of the civil service is set up to work for our benefit.

e.g the jobcentre promote the idea that the idle should get into work (as a crude explanation of their role). And some of them have suffered threats of violence; some of them have been assaulted.

Other than the current situation, how would your point have worked for members of the armed forces who were never in conflict?

Your point makes no sense. It's an issue of economics.

nb. It's funny how many anti-public sector pensions people on here are fretting over the potential for the 40% tax break on pension contribution being axed.
£43k+ wages and they complain about provision for other who made a choice to take a job that mostly pays much less than that. :cool:

Le73Uq86Uv

howee wrote: »

And another one rolls up with their head in the sand, the public sector schemes are unaffordable we can't afford not to reform these schemes.

Where do you think the money will come from to continue subsidising the schemes? Let me guess you blame the bankers, they can pay for it lol.

Why don’t we just make pensions illegal and be done with it as we cant afford them anyway. Then lots will die of hunger and cold weather saving the rich a lot of money.

And why is it that we can still give billions away to support other countries when we have no money?

Lets hope we dont bail out another bank as we have no spare money.

Or is it all lies?

And by the way The NHS pension is affordable and not in deficit.

Also write and ask your MP and ask what index his/her pension is increased by? and see if they are saving the tax payers money and preaching what they preach.

Le73Uq86Uv

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

atush wrote: »

yes, you can choose not to strike.

But can you live with yourself after if colleagues strike and lose money to help protect your pension?

Lady_Aga

Zelazny wrote: »

I go away for two days and this goes from a 3 page thread to a 10 page monster :-)

Me too. What's going on?