Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

BobQ

Oog wrote: »

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? Oog

Of course you can, but what is the point of ballots if you take part and then ignore the outcome.

Oog wrote: »

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? Oog

If you really want to show solidarity you would accept the result of the ballot. You could ask your union if you can join the picket (numbers are limited) but I cannot think any union would accept the help of a member who had ignored the strike. Have you any idea what a picket is for? Its to persuade in a lawful manner those who are not striking. You would have to be a real hypocrit to try and persuade someone to strike when you do not have the inclination to do it yourself.

If you speak to your union reps you will discover that anyone doing a critical front line job will be encouraged to work normally. There is no intention to put lives at risk its just a protest over lack of meaningful negotiations.

Oog wrote: »

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

Well if you as a youngster cannot be bothered to stand up for your conditions it should not surprise you if those with 5 -10 years to go do not bother. After all they are the ones with the least to worry about. Those with the most to lose are those with a career ahead of them and expecting a few promotions.

Unions are not arguing that there should be no changes only that the changes should be managed in a differet way. By not protesting, you are saying to the government keep increasing my contributions and reducing my benefits I really do not care.

Lady_Aga

Zelazny wrote: »

All depends when you retire. For the time that you're in the scheme, conts of 1.5% are fairly small. With investment returns of 5% over inflation, you'll have a fund of a little over £9k when you leave. If you immediately retire (at age 65 or so) then you'd be looking at a pension of ~£350 (with attaching spouse's benefit and increases in line with inflation).

If instead you worked 20 years from age 20 to age 40, then kept the fund for another 25 years (and it continued to benefit from investment returns at 5% over inflation), you'd have a total fund of around £31k, and that would provide a pension of £1,200 per year, or thereabouts.

Thanks for that. Much obliged to you. Doffs cap.

CLAPTON

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.

super

just quote a reference for me to read

BobQ

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.

Accusing someone of cherrypicking is to miss the point. The average salary of MacDonalds staff is lower than BAE Systems because MacDonalds is largely a low skilled workforce and BAE Systems is largely a high skilled workforce. The average salary of the DWP is much lower than the MOD for similar reasons. Both prove nothing other than the type of employees is different in each case.

What matters for your argument is whether a a nurse with certain skills in the public sector is paid more or less than nurse with similar skills employed by BUPA, inclusive of the total reward package each receives. Unless you do a like for like comparison you are the one who is cherrypicking.

Of course reducing public sector salaries will have an effect, as would terminating their pensions completely. In the short term it might just demotivate the workforce but as the economy grows again, staff will leave and then people like you will be moaning that public services are poor. Those managing the services will find they either need to offer more competitive salaries or benefits in kind like good pensions.

To be fair I can see that this may not matter for some lower skilled public sector jobs but it will have a more significant impact on highly skilled jobs thar take significant time to train and gain experience (nurses, scientists, teachers, firefighters etc). Of course when your relative dies because the paramedic has only been on a two week first aid course you can reflect on this.

dshart

CLAPTON wrote: »

super

just quote a reference for me to read

The original quote was provided by Koicarp in another thread and the figure quoted was £3.1 billion, which he corrected above. I believe the figures were taken from the Hutton report but I am not sure.

Whilst searching for those figures I came across an interesting article linked below, which gives an insight to public sector pay and counters the argument that public sector workers pay is less than the private sector. It is worth a read.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Public_and_private_sector_terms__conditions_and_the_issue_of_fairness_-_May__11.pdf

Maybe Koicarp can provide a link to the original quote.

Moby

dshart wrote: »

The original quote was provided by Koicarp in another thread and the figure quoted was £3.1 billion, which he corrected above. I believe the figures were taken from the Hutton report but I am not sure.

Whilst searching for those figures I came across an interesting article linked below, which gives an insight to public sector pay and counters the argument that public sector workers pay is less than the private sector. It is worth a read.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Public_and_private_sector_terms__conditions_and_the_issue_of_fairness_-_May__11.pdf

Maybe Koicarp can provide a link to the original quote.

As always its hard to compare like with like though:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens

CLAPTON

dshart wrote: »

The original quote was provided by Koicarp in another thread and the figure quoted was £3.1 billion, which he corrected above. I believe the figures were taken from the Hutton report but I am not sure.

Whilst searching for those figures I came across an interesting article linked below, which gives an insight to public sector pay and counters the argument that public sector workers pay is less than the private sector. It is worth a read.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Public_and_private_sector_terms__conditions_and_the_issue_of_fairness_-_May__11.pdf

Maybe Koicarp can provide a link to the original quote.

thanks very much for the reference: an interesting read.

certainly the figures are quite startling although largely unexplained

I do find disappointing (although maybe I misssed a bit) that there is no reference to the blinding obvious obseravation that private and public salaries are usually out of sync
i.e. private incomes are quick to rise when times are good and the public lag behind (cf. school without a single maths or physics teacher, nurses leaving to become hair dresssers etc etc) but also private incomes are quick to drop when times are bad.
So one really needs to look at the incomes over the cycle rather than just 2 years.
Similarly with pensions; just repeats again about introducing DC pensions without any constructive suggests how to improve them for all people


anyway very interesting

DCodd

Moby wrote: »

As always its hard to compare like with like though:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens

The telling parts

ONS statistician Jamie Jenkins said the public sector employs more older workers, and has more highly skilled jobs. Nearly 40% of those working in the public sector have a degree or higher education qualification compared with less than a quarter in the private sector. If those employees are compared, public sector staff earned 5.7% less than those in the private sector.

The figures do not take into account bonus payments (unless they were made in April) or perks like company cars, which are more common in the private sector, or pensions. Independent research group Incomes Data Services (IDS) estimates that £20bn of bonuses was paid in the private sector between January and March. Self-employed workers are also not covered in the ONS data, so excluding many highly paid private sector staff.

JustinCredibleGillespie

Released from NIPSA

Media Questions and Answers
Q1 Surely this is just public sector unions looking after their own members?
A Public sector workers are entitled to take action to protect themselves. The Government
has launched an attack on their pensions, on their pay and on staffing levels. It is
important that someone stands up to this government and public servants, in taking strike
action, are also taking a stand against the attacks on public service provision, whether that
be health or education cuts or cuts in other important public services.
By taking a stand to defend jobs public servants are defending public services and local
communities because public services are essentially labour intensive and cuts to jobs in
the public sector automatically mean reduced and less comprehensive services for people.
Q2 Why are you taking strike action when negotiations on pensions are ongoing? Is your
action not premature?
A Government spokespersons make this point as well. They are being economical with
the truth. The government has already taken unilateral action without any consultation,
either with union or public service pensioners when it changed the inflation measure for
public sector pensions in payment. The change from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the
Consumer Prices Index (CPI) will cut the value of public service pensions by at least 15%
over the period of someone’s retirement. Someone who receives a pension of £7,000 per
year stands now to lose in the region of £21,000 over a period of 20 years. This is based
on the fact that the CPI is on average three quarters of one per cent lower than the RPI per
year. This is calculated by 20 years x ¾% = 15% and taking 15% off the value of a £7,000
per annual pension over a period of 20 years.
Q3 Why should public sector workers be immune from tightening their belts? After all
the private sector has faced redundancies and they don’t have pensions or pensions
anywhere near that of public servants.
A Public sector pensions are quite low for the vast bulk of public servants. The average
pension is as follows:

In Local Government it is under

£4,000 per year and for women in this area it is £2,800.

In the Civil Service it is on average

£6,199 per year.

In the Health Service it is

£7,230 on average and this figure is inflated because it includes

doctors and consultants.
In fact the payment of these pensions saves the public purse because it takes many public
service pensioners out of entitlement for social security payments. The social security
budget will increase significantly if public service pensions are cut. This is a false economy
nothing to do with finance and therefore it is driven by ideology not financing and/or cost.
Q4 But surely the public cannot afford public sector pensions at the current levels?
A There has already been changes, negotiated by the trade unions to keep the cost of public
sector pensions from increasing.
These changes involve substantial increases in the amount of money public servants
contribute to their pensions and an increase in the age of entitlement to a pension.
Since 2007 when these changes were introduced there has been a 55% increase in
contributions from staff.
Cost sharing has been agreed and this provision when triggered will mean employees will
pay yet more again.
Despite the scaremongering the forecast figure for public sector pension costs according
to the governments own Hutton Report, as a % of GDP is likely to fall over the next 50
years stabilising at 1% of GDP.
Q5 But you haven’t answered the question, why should public servants have better
pensions then workers in the private sector?
A Firstly private sector employers took pension holidays in the “boom” years and then
have used the recession to abandon pension provision for their employees so they can
maximise their profits. The same employers, using the Institute of Directors and the
Confederation of British Industry attack public sector pensions precisely because it puts
pressure on them as employers to provide decent occupational pension provision.
The employers want a race to the bottom. Instead they should be looking to enhance the
pensions of their employees.
Q6 But surely companies are struggling to stay in business and any increase in pensions
for staff will result in businesses closing and workers being made redundant?
A1 Most companies in the UK especially the larger companies are still making big profits.
They also pay their Directors and top staff exorbitant salaries and the pension pots for
Executives in those organisations are worth millions of pounds. If they redistributed this
largesse then workers in low and middle income jobs could receive a better pension deal.
The proper comparison is not the pensions received by workers in the public sector
compared to those in the private sector. The real comparison is between the gold
plated pensions, worth millions of ££s paid to Board members and Directors and those at
the bottom.
Top earners in the economy especially in the private sector avail of generous tax relief on
pensions and while this has been rationalised recently it still involves a major subsidy from
the public finances to maintain pensions at the top of the private sector.
The value of a FTSE (Footsie) 100 Director is 23 times the average occupational pension
per year, a staggering £224,000 per year.
A2

The argument that public sector workers should be treated the same as private sector

workers is used to pillory public servants.
The reality is that thousands of households in Northern Ireland have family members
working in both the public and the private sector. It is perverse to suggest that because
the member(s) of the family who works in the private sector has been made redundant
or suffered a pay cut or has no pension that the member(s) of the family employed in the
public sector should suffer the same treatment. Doing this would represent a double hit on
ordinary families.
The fact is that many of our female members employed in health, education and local
government on low wages and with a small pension provision have husbands and partners
who worked as plumbers, joiners, bricklayers, quantity surveyors, clerk of works, etc in the
construction industry and who have been made redundant. Their families are relying on
the income from our members to get by and it is very very difficult for these families.
Q7 But your strike is going to badly affect the public, the vulnerable and those
depending on public services. How can you justify this?
A The strike action has to be put in perspective. This is a one day strike to highlight the
governments attack on public service workers but it will also highlight the attacks on
public services. We know that the strike will affect the public but we will be taking steps to
provide emergency cover to ensure peoples health and safety. (continued overleaf)
It is the government itself which is attacking the public. Its austerity programme will do
untold damage to health and education services and to a whole range of other public
services. The government is engaging in an act of unprecedented vandalism against the
public and the services they rely upon.
The economic recession caused by the banks and financial institutions has created the
public spending finance deficit.
It is at the banks and at the government that the public should be venting their anger. The
unacceptable banking practices precipitated the crisis and the government has decided
that working class people, low and middle income families should bear the greater
proportion of the burden. This is unacceptable.
The real culprit is the government and it should be pressed into reversing its policies which
will lead to a health and education service, library closures, increased unemployment,
higher cost of living and hikes in VAT.
Q8 Only 67% of your members voted in favour of a strike with a turnout of 43%.
You really don’t have a mandate for this action?
A Yes we clearly do. More than a two thirds majority for strike action is a massive
endorsement for the action. The questions on our ballot papers meant that members
knew exactly what they were voting for. The coalition parties at Westminster were voted
in on manifestos which said nothing about attacking pensions or dismantling the welfare
state. They have no mandate for their extremist agenda.
Successive governments have placed stringent legal restrictions on our rights to take
strike action. Our ballots were conducted within the law and a majority voting in favour is a
significant achievement at a time when people are afraid for their jobs and their families.
The government is being hypocritical when it questions the legitimacy of our mandates.
The current government wasn’t voted in by a majority of those entitled to vote yet it has
no qualms forcing through measures which will damage the lives of millions of people. If
you accept the government’s argument on this issue then by the same token, by the same
logic, it has no right to form a government or make decisions which no one voted for.

Old_Slaphead

JustinCredibleGillespie wrote: »

Released from NIPSA

The change from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the
Consumer Prices Index (CPI) will cut the value of public service pensions by at least 15% over the period of someone’s retirement. Someone who receives a pension of £7,000 per year stands now to lose in the region of £21,000 over a period of 20 years. This is based

on the fact that the CPI is on average three quarters of one per cent lower than the RPI per year. This is calculated by 20 years x ¾% = 15% and taking 15% off the value of a £7,000 per annual pension over a period of 20 years.

Do these guys understand simple arithmetic.
Maybe pension is 15% lower at end of year 20 but over the 20 years it's down an average of half that !!

Public sector pensions are quite low for the vast bulk of public servants. The average pension is as follows:

In Local Government it is under £4,000 per year and for women in this area it is £2,800.

In the Civil Service it is on average £6,199 per year.
In the Health Service it is £7,230 on average and this figure is inflated because it includes doctors and consultants

These figures are distorted by part time working and short service employees.
Maybe quoting pensions per year worked (FTE) would be a much better guideline.
If someone works 40 years at £25,000 salary the average pension is £12500pa (assuming 1/80ths).

If, instead of 1 person, that job was done by 40 people each serving just 1 year, the average pension would be £625pa !!

Since 2007 when these changes were introduced there has been a 55% increase in contributions from staff. Cost sharing has been agreed and this provision when triggered will mean employees will pay yet more again.

55% of very little is still not much. Many were paying as low as 1.5%
I understood the average went up from 5% to 6.5% - that's 'only' 30% or 1.2% after tax

Despite the scaremongering the forecast figure for public sector pension costs according to the governments own Hutton Report, as a % of GDP is likely to fall over the next 50 years stabilising at 1% of GDP.

Thought the figure was 1.4% and over the next 50 years the average will be higher.

Firstly private sector employers took pension holidays in the “boom” years

At the governments insistance - to avoid hiding company profits in (then) overfunded pension schemes

The employers want a race to the bottom. Instead they should be looking to enhance the pensions of their employees.

Give us a clue how. UK consumers prefer to buy cheap imports. Any profit needs to be continually reinvested in new capital equipment to stay competitive. Union are alway mithering about lack of investment too!

Most companies in the UK especially the larger companies are still making big profits.

Most employment in this country is provided by SMEs. Large companies are usually worldwide operations.

Top earners in the economy especially in the private sector avail of generous tax relief on pensions and while this has been rationalised recently it still involves a major subsidy from the public finances to maintain pensions at the top of the private sector.

Tax relief on executive pensions was significantly more generous under Labour.