Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

real1314

howee wrote: »

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) Choice 1
- 1/60th accrual DB (5% employee con.)Choice 2
- 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

Erm, let's work through some figures.
For simplicity let's go with a salary of £20k
Choice 1: £20,000 per annum, at 9% Contribution = £1800pa;
Let's assume £45 years;
Contributions of £1800 x 45 = £81,000
At 1/80th gives 45/80ths of salary = £11,250 Pension

Choice 2: £20,000 at 5% Contribution = £1000pa;
Contributions of £1000 x 45 = £45,000
At 1/60th gives 45/60the of salary = £15,000 Pension


So, in summary, you are suggesting that the choice is between paying in £81k to get a pension of £11.25k
Or Pay in £45k to get a pension of £15k.

Erm, you really think this helped your case?

I hope you don't work in the public sector. We'd have been bankrupt decades ago and would all be emigrating to Tanzania to find work.
I realise the level of debate isn't very high, and is mostly uninformed ranting, but that sort of post really makes me laugh
:cool:

pauletruth

at ours the nurse manager is making a list of the strikers. quite rightly to manage the shifts but it does hint that those on the list will find things more difficult.

BobQ

howee wrote: »

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.

Yes it will affect you unless your scheme(s) specified RPI specifically. You can choose to accept it for the greater good if you wish but this does not mean others should do so.

real1314

Incidentally Howee, the whole ethos of many people's opposition to public sector pensions is that they are defined benefit schemes.

Regardless of the numerical flaws in your post, how does posting details of a private sector defined benefit scheme suggest that Public Sector defined benefit schemes are unfair?

Furthermore, even if we assume you got the contribution rates the wrong way round (in the public sector, that sort of error in a serious piece of work would have people calling for a sacking:D) ; Is a 9% Employee contribution for 1/60th Salary really draconian compared to PS schemes? I'd suggest not. And really, to compare like with like, we'd have to consider the total remuneration package, including employer contribution. What sort of employer contribution is going into that scheme?

All in all, that scheme seems pretty similar to a PS scheme. Nice work.
:cool:

Oog

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 in the future?

Isn't that what they have done in the NHS when we had to decide whether to change from the 1995 scheme to the 'more affordable' 2008 scheme which applies to all new employees?
(2008 changes were both good and bad but supposedly 'costed' -65 retirement age, not final salary, reduced annual pension, reduced lump sum, alterations to death in service conditions)

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

BobQ wrote: »

Nobody needs an excuse for not striking. I have heard many people's explanations for not participating in industrial action over the years. Morality is always a good one, it sounds so honourable and principled but is often a euphemism for I do not want to lose the money.

.

so, if your loved one was in a hospital bed in need of nursing care, you would perceive my moral stance with suspicion if I decided to stay and care for them rather than go out on strike?

Public sector workers are going to lose money that was promised to them through their pensions anyway if the new proposal goes ahead.

Believe it or not, altruistic people still do exist in todays society...

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

All can be had privately.

yes, education and health can indeed be had privately but for example in health, who do you think educates up and coming nurses and doctors? Us on the NHS wards thats who.

Does no-one believe in the collective good of society or has thatcherite philosophy become so entrenched in everyday thinking that people now believe that an individualistic outlook is natural?

We need public servants to run the country and support society, who will care for your elderly mother if you are out working 40+ hours a week in a town miles away and have a family to support? We all need the welfare state and I for one am thankful for it and proud to be part of the workforce.

real1314

UglyMug wrote: »

A Public Sector worker earning £30,000 contributing 10% (£3,000) a year for 40 years will get an index linked pension of £20,000 (based on 1/60ths). Current life expectancy means they’ll receive this for about 20 years. This was acceptable, a few years ago when life expectancy meant they’d receive it for about 5 years.

I didn't bother to examine this part of the initial rant too well (a mix of laziness, other things to do, and just not being bothered)....

But let's have a go.

Ok, we've got £3k a year contributions for 40 years. Total contribution without growth is £120k. The OP says that's ok, if they only get 5 years at £20k; Erm, so £120k paid in vs £100k paid out; The state benefits from pension contributions by £20k. That cannot be right!

However the OP doesn't like £120k paid in for 20 years x £20k paid out = £400k.
But we haven't considered any growth:- Is 5% growth a reasonable assumption?

So, £3k a year paid in at 5% growth.

What do we get after 40 years? £380k. That alone is sufficient to pay out £30k pa based on 20 years and a growth rate of 5%.

At 4% growth it would be £296k, which would pay out £22k for 20 years at 4% growth.

Of course the initial post was rather distorted by some simplistic assumptions about longevity, which rather distort things, however I haven't even considered the employer's contributions.

I did intend to fully analyse the post, but given the flaws in the first few lines, it would be a complete waste of time.

Now, can we have a debate that actually considers the key issues?
Without the ad hominem stuff and all the naive arguments? :cool:

dshart

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

yes, education and health can indeed be had privately but for example in health, who do you think educates up and coming nurses and doctors? Us on the NHS wards thats who.

Does no-one believe in the collective good of society or has thatcherite philosophy become so entrenched in everyday thinking that people now believe that an individualistic outlook is natural?

We need public servants to run the country and support society, who will care for your elderly mother if you are out working 40+ hours a week in a town miles away and have a family to support? We all need the welfare state and I for one am thankful for it and proud to be part of the workforce.

No one is saying get rid of the NHS or state schools, although getting rid of the NHS may help the situation as peolple would not live as long and thus the pensions would not be a problem

I notice a lot of the public sector workers keep mentioning the collective good, or that we should all support each other, when basically they are striking to retain their own benefits. Where is the collective good on the day you strike when thousands of private sector workers will also have to take the day off to look after their children or pay child care costs. What about the disruption to travel, hospital services etc is that for the collective good? How do the rest of us benefit from your actions?

real1314

dshart wrote: »

No one is saying get rid of the NHS or state schools, Some people have actually, quite a few seem to have no idea that the public sector actaully fulfills a useful function although getting rid of the NHS may help the situation as peolple would not live as long and thus the pensions would not be a problem

I notice a lot of the public sector workers keep mentioning the collective good, or that we should all support each other, when basically they are striking to retain their own benefits. Where is the collective good on the day you strike when thousands of private sector workers will also have to take the day off to look after their children or pay child care costs. What about the disruption to travel, hospital services etc is that for the collective good? How do the rest of us benefit from your actions?

Have a think about it.

You lose 1 day's pay if you have to stay at home; for one thing, you get some time with your kids. Maybe £85
If you work, but are disrupted you lose 1 or 2 hours in extra travelling; £10-£20.
Medical issues? Well, I'd expect anything urgent to be business as normal.

If your pension ends up 1/4 of 1/10th of 1 per cent better, you'll end up about even.

But, I think you've missed the point about collective good. If YOU didn't fight for your pension, you are not part of the collective good in someone else's fight for their pension. What sort of sponging; let someone else do it; lazy, attitude is that?

Get off your backside and get a {spine to fight for the rights in your} job? :cool: