Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

triticale

UglyMug wrote: »

So, there’s going to be a strike because of the apathy of the Union members who couldn’t be bothered to vote “NO”. Shouldn’t these rules be changed?

Yes they should.

I left the union over 10 years ago in dismay at how it was run, the attitudes within it. Rabble-rousing at its finest (and over nothing, back then).

I will hardly get any kind of 'gold-plated' pension, but it's better than nowt.

Yes I'm gutted that it's going to change (and yes, it will happen even if every single public sector worker went on strike, I've been around long enough to know when a decision is final) just as the two years of pay freeze has hit myself and colleagues hard, but at the end of the day we are grateful for a job - by far the biggest worry in the tea room is redundancies.

michelle1506

More bitter individuals I see. :rotfl:

BobQ

The OP needs to think though his arguments more closely. Public sector workers in the main are not opposed to change but object to the way this is being done. Those who have been employed for many years and are approaching retirement have been employed on the basis that during their employment thy have earned a certain pension and this is part of their reward package. When I joined the civil service in the 1970s I was paid 10% less than comparable private sector jobs. But to recruit and retain staff with my skills they offred a good pension. For 15 years I was paid less butaccrued a pension which when I left the public sector was presrved. Now I come to draw it the government reneges on the contract and indexes it at a rate that is less than they promised. Had I built up a longer pension over 40 years I think I would also be livid at the deceit of the changes. When I moved to the private sector I got a bigger salary, a final salary pension and bigger pension contributions for 20 years at which time the FS was closed. My employer still honoured this deal including payment of this with a capped index based on RPI. Since then I have experienced a personal pension scheme which I agree has been unimpressive. My point is that we all make life decisions but expect employers (especially the government) to honour the contract for deferrred benefits like pensions.

I agree that those working in the public sector should now (ie in the future) accrue pension benefits that reflect a different deal. Its any employers decision whether they pay a market rate salary or benefits in kind like subsidised pensions as part of the deal. If government wants to use pensions as a way of recruiting and retaining the best staff this is their decision. Salaries in the public sector always seem more favourable in recessions, but what matters are like for like job comparisons of toral reward packages between the secors. As I approach retirement , as a professional I could not afford to take the salary drop necessary to move into the public sector assuning the public sector pension is worth 20% extra.

jamesd

NAR wrote: »

Funny that every union except one got a clear yes to strike action.

Really? What percentage of members in each union voted for a strike? Not of those who voted, of all members.

UglyMug wrote: »

So, there’s going to be a strike because of the apathy of the Union members who couldn’t be bothered to vote “NO”. Shouldn’t these rules be changed?

There's no need. The majority of members can simply ignore the minority and turn up for work as usual if they want to.

Stikes that aren't supported by most employees have significant risks for unions, not least if they demonstrate that the unions didn't get a quorum and don't really have member support. That would invite legislation to require an absolute majority of all members before there could be strike action.

pauletruth wrote: »

now lets see have the bankers pensions been reduced mmm i bet not. oh hang on we cant punish those that got us into this mess lets blame the public workers.

It isn't the bankers that got us into this situation. It's largely the public sector workers. Notably those in healthcare who have contributed significantly to the increase in life expectancy that's causing the problem. Bankers can do many things but aside from the tax take that is partly used for health spending aren't very good at helping people to live longer.

BobQ wrote: »

Now I come to draw it the government reneges on the contract and indexes it at a rate that is less than they promised.

The government is also delivering longer life expectancies than were promised when you started out. Paying for those extra years in retirement is why there's an issue to deal with. Cut back the life expectancy and there wouldn't be an issue. But who wants that? We want the longer life expectancy so we have to pay for it somehow, as well as in the taxes that were spent on the medical care that helped to deliver it.

serious_saver wrote: »

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.

How? You can tax all to provide higher pensions for public sector workers but you can't do it for everyone or we'd just be taking tax money with one hand and giving it back with another, after government has taken its inefficiency cut and imposed whatever restrictions it wants on the money coming back.

CLAPTON

atush wrote: »

While if I were greedy I would agree, but this would actually be a terrible idea and we would end up like Greece.

it would be a more equal scheme
when pitched at an appropriate rate it would be affordable and fair

what has greece to do with it?

Ygor

UglyMug wrote: »

Raising the State pension and reducing these Public Sector Pension would be a good start.
I didn't notice any Public Sector worker going on Strike when it was suggested their State Pension was increased by £40 per week.

As they're contracted out, public sector workers won't get the £40 increase in the Basic State Pension.

dggar

jamesd wrote: »

Really? What percentage of members in each union voted for a strike? Not of those who voted, of all members.

There's no need. The majority of members can simply ignore the minority and turn up for work as usual if they want to.

Stikes that aren't supported by most employees have significant risks for unions, not least if they demonstrate that the unions didn't get a quorum and don't really have member support. That would invite legislation to require an absolute majority of all members before there could be strike action.

It isn't the bankers that got us into this situation. It's largely the public sector workers. Notably those in healthcare who have contributed significantly to the increase in life expectancy that's causing the problem. Bankers can do many things but aside from the tax take that is partly used for health spending aren't very good at helping people to live longer.

The government is also delivering longer life expectancies than were promised when you started out. Paying for those extra years in retirement is why there's an issue to deal with. Cut back the life expectancy and there wouldn't be an issue. But who wants that? We want the longer life expectancy so we have to pay for it somehow, as well as in the taxes that were spent on the medical care that helped to deliver it.

How? You can tax all to provide higher pensions for public sector workers but you can't do it for everyone or we'd just be taking tax money with one hand and giving it back with another, after government has taken its inefficiency cut and imposed whatever restrictions it wants on the money coming back.

What percentage of members in each union voted against a strike? Not of those who voted, of all members.

jamesd

Those who aren't interested in striking are less likely to vote. That's why the turnout is of particular interest in such votes. If it's low, though, it's easy enough for most of the members to just ignore the strike call in the same way that they ignored the vote.

The current government isn't in a great position to complain about such things, though, since approximately nobody voted it into power.

Moby

BobQ wrote: »

The OP needs to think though his arguments more closely. Public sector workers in the main are not opposed to change but object to the way this is being done. Those who have been employed for many years and are approaching retirement have been employed on the basis that during their employment thy have earned a certain pension and this is part of their reward package. When I joined the civil service in the 1970s I was paid 10% less than comparable private sector jobs. But to recruit and retain staff with my skills they offred a good pension. For 15 years I was paid less butaccrued a pension which when I left the public sector was presrved. Now I come to draw it the government reneges on the contract and indexes it at a rate that is less than they promised. Had I built up a longer pension over 40 years I think I would also be livid at the deceit of the changes. When I moved to the private sector I got a bigger salary, a final salary pension and bigger pension contributions for 20 years at which time the FS was closed. My employer still honoured this deal including payment of this with a capped index based on RPI. Since then I have experienced a personal pension scheme which I agree has been unimpressive. My point is that we all make life decisions but expect employers (especially the government) to honour the contract for deferrred benefits like pensions.

I agree that those working in the public sector should now (ie in the future) accrue pension benefits that reflect a different deal. Its any employers decision whether they pay a market rate salary or benefits in kind like subsidised pensions as part of the deal. If government wants to use pensions as a way of recruiting and retaining the best staff this is their decision. Salaries in the public sector always seem more favourable in recessions, but what matters are like for like job comparisons of toral reward packages between the secors. As I approach retirement , as a professional I could not afford to take the salary drop necessary to move into the public sector assuning the public sector pension is worth 20% extra.

Well put and helps place this issue in historical comparisons context.

k66yla

You may slag the unions off but where would you or your ancestors be without them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs