Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

I see the unions are now saying that the government never formally tabled the new offer and that is why they are still going on strike.

The problem with the whole issue is that both sides are playing a political game and to tell the truth neither side really care about the people affected by it. To them it is a game to get one over on the other side. It wouldnt matter if it was tory or labour in power the issue would be the same. Whoever was in power would still need to make cuts somewhere and anytime this happens there are objections from the people affected.

Someone mentioned earlier how the libs had suggested an extra 1p tax with split between health and education and how this was not popular, well put that another way and ask people to pay an additional 1p in the pound to fund public service pensions and I think you would get a clear NO answer. But that is in effect what is happening with additional government funds going to pay these pensions where there is a deficit.

Koicarp

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

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

Humans are incapable of altruism. Look up definitions and you'll see that there has to be no reward. That lovely warm feeling you get when you're going home knowing you have done a worthwhile job and helped those who needed you to do so? That's your reward, I know, I have it too.
However if my union goes ahead and has it's vote in the new year, I'll vote to strike, and I'll strike. Nobody will expect nurses in critical areas to do so, so you have nothing to worry about, as the NHS Employers stated on BBC news 24 this morning, that they are collaborating well with unions to ensure this is the case.

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

It wouldnt matter if it was tory or labour in power the issue would be the same. Whoever was in power would still need to make cuts somewhere and anytime this happens there are objections from the people affected.

A labour government would value the schemes, publish the results and we would pay whatever was required, as we agreed to do under "cap and share".
Signing off now for a couple of weeks in the sun- (booked a year ago!).

dshart

real1314 wrote: »

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:

But I am in the private sector, so how do I benefit from the strike. They are costing me money by going on strike so why should I support them.

What about all the contracted out services such as school dinners, if the schools are closed the school dinner staff from private companies will not be required, will they still get a days wage?

The only fighting I have had to do for my pension is with myself to make sure I put enough away into a private pension for my retirement. I have never had a chance throughout my employment to join a DB scheme and the highest employer contribution I ever managed to get was 7.5%. So I save as much as I can and pray that it will be sufficient to get me a comfortable retirement at some stage depending on how many more raids the government does on private pensions. The thing is at the end of the day my pension is not going to cost you a penny wether it performs very well or very poor, the whole risk is with me and not in some collective arrangement.

The public sector workers are going on strike for their own benefit and not for the benefit of others.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

A labour government would value the schemes, publish the results and we would pay whatever was required, as we agreed to do under "cap and share".
Signing off now for a couple of weeks in the sun- (booked a year ago!).

So why did they never publish them during all the time they were in power?

Have fun in the sun, you were lucky you were not travelling on Wednesday as I hear there could be some disruptions with public sector workers in immigration going on strike and the airlines being told to reduce the numbers of flights.

real1314

dshart wrote: »

But I am in the private sector, so how do I benefit from the strike. They are costing me money by going on strike so why should I support them.

What about all the contracted out services such as school dinners, if the schools are closed the school dinner staff from private companies will not be required, will they still get a days wage?

The only fighting I have had to do for my pension is with myself to make sure I put enough away into a private pension for my retirement. I have never had a chance throughout my employment to join a DB scheme and the highest employer contribution I ever managed to get was 7.5%. So I save as much as I can and pray that it will be sufficient to get me a comfortable retirement at some stage depending on how many more raids the government does on private pensions. The thing is at the end of the day my pension is not going to cost you a penny wether it performs very well or very poor, the whole risk is with me and not in some collective arrangement.

The public sector workers are going on strike for their own benefit and not for the benefit of others.

Well, firstly, pensions and pension provision is relative; if one gets eroded, others get eroded. Current thinking is that as the private sector has suffered, the public sector should suffer; However if the public sector does not suffer, then conversely the suffering of the private sector should be reduced.

Secondly; why didn't you take a job in the public sector then, if a defined benefit scheme was so important to you? Should others lose because you made a bad choice? Isn't it a private sector ethos that people "win" by making risk-based decisions? :cool:

bjo_2

why should i and other public service workers have to pay for Camerons Cabinet pensions
aproximately £ 25000 each yearly
if they can not afford mine
Liam Fox resigned got a £17 000 payoff
if i resigned could be sanctioned for 26 weeks

dshart

real1314 wrote: »

Well, firstly, pensions and pension provision is relative; if one gets eroded, others get eroded. Current thinking is that as the private sector has suffered, the public sector should suffer; However if the public sector does not suffer, then conversely the suffering of the private sector should be reduced.

Secondly; why didn't you take a job in the public sector then, if a defined benefit scheme was so important to you? Should others lose because you made a bad choice? Isn't it a private sector ethos that people "win" by making risk-based decisions? :cool:

You havent really followed my posts have you. My argument has not been that private pensions are worse that public pensions so they should be brought to the same level. My argument is that I believe that public sector pensions are unaffordable in their present form as in addition to the employers contributions they require additional funds. The use of private pensions to compare is to show how much better of public sector workers will still be even after the changes.

I have no problem with other people having better pensions than me, there are quite a few private sector workers that have much better pension provision than me and I do not complain, after all as you say if I want those conditions then I should seek work there.

I do not see how you get a performance link between private pensions and public sector pensions. If the public sector pensions do not make changes then there is a good chance my private sector pension will suffer as the government may raid it again to help pay the deficit in public sector pensions. If my private pension investment goes badly how will that affect any public sector pension? they are defined benefit, no matter what happens they are supposed to pay out at a guaranteed level (unless the government change the goalposts RPI/CPI)

real1314

dshart wrote: »

You havent really followed my posts have you. My argument has not been that private pensions are worse that public pensions so they should be brought to the same level. My argument is that I believe that public sector pensions are unaffordable in their present form as in addition to the employers contributions they require additional funds. The use of private pensions to compare is to show how much better of public sector workers will still be even after the changes.

Strangely, I haven't treated this entire thread as yours, and paid attention just to your posts, no; this is not your total perspective vortex.
However, if you contend that the government need to add to funds on top of employee and employer contributions, could you explain which schemes you are referring to and where you have sourced your information? Are these funded or unfunded schemes?

I have no problem with other people having better pensions than me, there are quite a few private sector workers that have much better pension provision than me and I do not complain, after all as you say if I want those conditions then I should seek work there.

But you are complainin about pubic sector defined benefit schemes; Evidently you say you do not complain about private sector schemes, but you do complain about public sector schemes

I do not see how you get a performance link between private pensions and public sector pensions. If the public sector pensions do not make changes then there is a good chance my private sector pension will suffer as the government may raid it again to help pay the deficit in public sector pensions. If my private pension investment goes badly how will that affect any public sector pension? they are defined benefit, no matter what happens they are supposed to pay out at a guaranteed level (unless the government change the goalposts RPI/CPI)

Employers who wish to attract employees do so by offerring attracting remuneration. If public sector schemes are seen to be a good reward, private sector employers will feel greater pressure to offer similar schemes; This is how a market system operates. It only fails if the person making choice (in this case the employee) fails to consider fully the offer.

Now, bear in mind that I'm responding just to the points you raised here. I suspect you haven't reviewed every post I've made either, so I won't make facile points againstsomething I posted on this thread a week or so ago. :cool:

Backbiter

dshart wrote: »

So why did they never publish them during all the time they were in power?

They did. Well, they valued the Teachers' Scheme and there is a requirement to value the other schemes, too. It's available here:
http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/resources/pdf/TPS%20-%20financial%20note%20July%202007.pdf

The discovery of an approximate £3bn shortfall led to the changes in 2007, which upped the retirement age to 65 for new entrants and increased contributions for teachers. This was not an ANNUAL shortfall, but the difference between projected pension payments for teachers in the scheme (currently aropund 650,000) and projected contributions over the coming decades: £163bn coming in, £166 bn being paid out. The average teacher pay is around £35,000, of which 20.6% goes into the pension (6.5% teacher, 14.1% employer). So with an average of £7.5k going in from 650,000 teachers annually, the scheme is worth quite a bit - around £5billion a year, so the last valuation foresaw a £3bn shortfall over the next 35 years. The annual shortfall was £85million - not far off what Real Madrid paid for Ronaldo. Between 650,000 teachers, it took a combination of later retirements for new entrants and extra contributions for current teachers. Per head, the increase needed was £130 per year, or just under £11 a month.

Hutton concluded that these reforms made the scheme sustainable, as the liabilities were projected to fall, and the increased contributions made up the £85million annual shortfall. Any further shortfall would have to met by increased teacher contributions, but no further Government contributions. The unions agreed to this.

This Government has refused to carry out an updated valuation. The NUT contends there has been overpayment into the scheme of £48bn, which would more than make up for any temporary shortfall, but the Unions are not demanding this back. They are asking the Government to
a) value the scheme
b) implement any changes that the valuation would require.
The Goverment plans go way, way, way beyond this, without even valuing the scheme - 50% rise in contributions, 6-8 years longer before retirement, a career average pension, and a cut in the value of the pension (RPI>CPI). A typical teacher will be £100-300,000 worse off as a result, so losing a day's pay in taking strike action is peanuts by comparison. Even the over 50s, who the Government claims will be unaffected, will lose tens of thousands, and be £100 a month net (or more) worse off for the rest of their teaching career.

The most recent annual statement for the Teachers Scheme showed the scheme had a shortfall for the last financial year of just under £12million, which works out at £17 per member of the scheme, or £1.50 per month. This was unexpected, and was down to an unforeseen rise in the numbers retiring early and taking their (actuarily reduced) lump sums. £12million is quite a small hole to fill, split between 650,000 teachers.

If the next valuation shows a further shortfall, of course teachers should pay more. They have already agreed to this.

What have the Government got to hide?