Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

sharnad

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Surely the only public servants a country could operate with are politicians? ie caretakers. Everything else could be privatised.

I'm not advocating this in any way though

Since the private sector costs way more than the public the country could not afford to privatise everything

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

Koicarp wrote: »

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.

Altruism is defined as a concern for the welfare of others.

As regards 'that lovely warm feeling' believe me, I do not get that every day!

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

dshart wrote: »

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?

The tories are too scared to say they want to get rid of the NHS outright...give them time though and they will erode it away like they tried to do in the 80s and 90s.

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

The simple answer is to tax the rich and redistribute the wealth to the people at the bottom of society. No blaming people for being poor and not having a job, they are victims of a system that they had nothing to do with setting up.
No government has the balls or inclination to do this as the majority are millionaires with a public school background. Why would they? Its a mirage that there is room at the top for the aspirational in society put about by thatchers government in the 80s fulled by the selling off of council housing and manufacturing industry and the subsequent breakdown of communities leading to the social problems we have in society today.
It is crass to blame single mums, white working class in low paid/no work. Quite frankly so called 'chav bashing' is the last acceptable prejudice accepted in todays society.

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

will-in-estoril wrote: »

Indeed. There are no greater examples than PFI, or privately-operated IT services within govt departments. Once the private sector gets its nose in the trough ALL it cares about is maximising profit for its shareholders, nothing else. Public service just does not come into it.

I agree, the current thinking is that if its not making money then its got to be got rid of. Some things cannot be labelled with a monetary value.

J_i_m

sharnad wrote: »

Since the private sector costs way more than the public the country could not afford to privatise everything

Well put simply if the public services were to change to private all tax payers would most probably be financially worse off. I envisage we'd be paying for hospitals, policing, teaching etc like we do with insurance policies. And due to the importance of many of them it'd probably be a legal requirement to have them just like car insurance.

There might be competition yet invariably costs and prices would go up every year like everything else does.

Still if that were the case, and public sector pensions didn't exist, I guess there'd be slightly less bickering over this particular disparity issue.

Stargazer57

Ygor wrote: »

This extra value is only provided by an open market. This doesn't exist for unfunded pensions as they can't invest in corporate bonds.

Actually purchasing corporate bonds would deprive the Treasury of £17.7bn a year. So expect taxes to go up in the short term.

I'm not advocating funding public sector pensions - although one benefit of that would be greater financial discipline. I'm advocating charging public sector employees for the quality of the guarantee they are being given. At the moment they aren't just not being charged for the guarantee, they are being given it at a discount by the use of this ridiculous 3.5% discount rate.

J_i_m

will-in-estoril wrote: »

Indeed. There are no greater examples than PFI, or privately-operated IT services within govt departments. Once the private sector gets its nose in the trough ALL it cares about is maximising profit for its shareholders, nothing else. Public service just does not come into it; nor does any regard for the tax payer.

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

I agree, the current thinking is that if its not making money then its got to be got rid of. Some things cannot be labelled with a monetary value.

Well I wouldn't lay the blame for that on the private sector. It's a shameful fact that the government and public services are often all to ready to waste Huge amounts of money. Examples: Tony Blair's obsession with ID cards, or the NHS's super duper computer system. Both have had vast fortunes spent on them and yet neither are actually going to be used, it's a disgraceful waste of tax-payer money and extremely unproductive work by the MP & executives involved. Remember that point of view is coming from a public sector employee.

However, any private sector company involved is invariably doing a job asked of it by the public sector, one it requires payment to do.

I may have opened yet another can of worms here.

dizzie

I didn't see many teachers protesting madly when student tuition fees were trebled and funding for HE teaching was cut by 80%. Why not - because it didn't affect them!

It annoys me immensely when people use euphemisms like "employer" when it comes to contributions to public sector pension schemes! Well, I have news for you: the employer is the cash-strapped British taxpayer. And I can tell you that I feel extremely irked to hear the public sector whinge when my living costs and taxes are rising, when my kids face saddling themselves with a lifetime of debt if they go on to uni, and my own private pension pot is limping along woefully.

Do I want to continue to fund public sector pension schemes to the same level? NO!! Do I think it is reasonable that public sector workers should be asked to accept a lower pension or contribute more and work for longer? YES!! That reflects my own circumstances in the private sector - why should i subsidise a luxury for public sector workers that will not be available to me.

And you can "Blah, blah, blah" about pensions being deferred salary. Well there may have been a time when the gap between public and private sector wages was significant. At such a time, benefits like pensions made up for the lack of pay parity. But the situation has changed; public sector workers are no longer poorly paid compared to the private sector, so how can we now justify gold-plated pensions as "deferred salary"?

I have NO TIME for the people striking next Wednesday! And it makes me sick when people talk about "serving in the public sector" like it is some sacrifice they made. Fact - it is a job, like any other! And if you are not happy with what the public sector has to offer, why not try your hand in the private sector. I can assure you, the grass is far from greener. But let's get one thing straight - the state and we private sector taxpayers DO NOT OWE YOU A JOB. Why not start living in the REAL WORLD!

Yorkie1

Stargazer57 wrote: »

I'm not advocating funding public sector pensions - although one benefit of that would be greater financial discipline. I'm advocating charging public sector employees for the quality of the guarantee they are being given. At the moment they aren't just not being charged for the guarantee, they are being given it at a discount by the use of this ridiculous 3.5% discount rate.

You conveniently forget the fact that for the majority of comparable positions, the public sector pays lower salaries than the private sector. That's where the 'charging' comes in. It's the overall remuneration package.