Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

sheffield_lad

Koicarp wrote: »

Have I missed it J I M or have you not yet told us which union you are in?

Last time J i M mentioned working on Wednesday he was called a scab. How nice of his fellow workers to believe and think like this. All together my AR*E

PS, nice to see Red Ed being well errrr useless, saying they need to talk but only laming the government ummmm no reason to side with the unions is there Ed

BobQ

ILW wrote: »

Could any public sector striker please explain to me why I should be forced to pay for your pension, from which I receive no benefit whatsoever.

Thirty years ago I left the civil service with a preserved pension index linked to RPI, after working there for 10years, If at the time the Government had said there was no pension I would have used this information in comparing salaries with other jobs. If they had said their 10% pension contributions were invested in a money purchase scheme I would have known how much I had and been able to track what it would buy. But what they did is told me that I had a guarateed defined benefit pension.

Its not my fault they "pocketed the contributions and/or used them to pay current pensions. They (on behalf of the public) made a promise to pay me a pension based on these contributions. They made the scheme "unfunded" not me, I had no say in this. As a now private sector taxpayer I am also expected to contribute to this and other commitments past governments made.

So the answer to your question is that you should pay for the same reason that you will pay for the past commitments of any Government.

The fairest way of dealing with unfunded schemes is for the Government to accept past commitments and pay them from taxation as they currently do. As people die the cost will fall. What they are trying to do however is devalue the promises made in the past by using CPI indexation.

sheffield_lad

I have just pinched this from another thread but look PC workers at whats on offer in 'real world'

Hello,

We are having some changes to our companies pension, and we have to make choices between which pension we'd like.

Choices are:
- 1/80th accrual DB (costing 9% employee contribution)
- 1/60th accrual DB (5% employee con.)
- Defined Contribution plan (Pension Saver - company pays 10% of salary in)

Not fantastic I think you will agree, come on guys heads out of the sand, land back on earth and say hello to the real world

sheffield_lad

BobQ wrote: »

They (on behalf of the public) made a promise to pay me a pension based on these contributions.
So the answer to your question is that you should pay for the same reason that you will pay for the past commitments of any Government.

.

My company and the Gov promised the rest of us retirement at 65, my company told me final salary both long gone yet not a Dickie bird out of me.

Why? Because we are living longer and the promise is a promise neither the gov or the business can keep.

BobQ

howee wrote: »

My company and the Gov promised the rest of us retirement at 65, my company told me final salary both long gone yet not a Dickie bird out of me.

Why? Because we are living longer and the promise is a promise neither the gov or the business can keep.

So the final salary benefits accrued when they closed the scheme were not honoured? What happened?

sheffield_lad

BobQ wrote: »

So the final salary benefits accrued when they closed the scheme were not honoured? What happened?

Nope they pension is frozen, I have now moved to a defined 1/68th with 10% contribution

BobQ

howee wrote: »

Nope they pension is frozen, I have now moved to a defined 1/68th with 10% contribution

So why cannot the Government close the current final salary pension schemes (and honour its commitments to date) and then strart a new scheme based on whatever they think is affordable in the future?

sheffield_lad

BobQ wrote: »

So why cannot the Government close the current final salary pension schemes (and honour its commitments to date) and then strart a new scheme based on whatever they think is affordable on the future?

Baring the change from RPI to CPI they are doing aren't they? and won't the change to CPI also effect me, the difference being I accept it.

WhiteHorse

real1314 wrote: »

Therefore we must, for the economic well-being of the nation, provide education from the public sector.

How did the nation manage with regard to education before the welfare state ? Answer - better, as the literacy rate was higher.

real1314

WhiteHorse wrote: »

How did the nation manage with regard to education before the welfare state ? Answer - better, as the literacy rate was higher.

There's really nothing to add to this. It just needed to be quoted.

I think even the most anti-Public Sector and pro-Private Sector would accept that you are just trolling in a facile manner. :cool: