Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

private sector is proven to be much more efficient and better managed that the public sector

Rolls Royce (for older posters)
Nuclear Power (too cheap to bill)
British car industry in general
Concord
Gang of four at Rover
Privitised railways
Northern Rock
RBS
Lloyds
BHOS
Marconi
Thomas cook

and a few more

I general, private sector firms that are badly run go under (or should do). The badly run public sector organisations just tend to keep on wasting more and more money.

sharnad

gfplux wrote: »

The sooner the private sector is allowed to run Government services the better.
I was for many years completely apposed to this but have been convinced over the last decade or so that public services of all kind can not deliver the services we can afford.
Public ownership of these services has proven a failure, give the private sector a chance. They can't be worse than what we have got at the moment.
Militant Government workers striking on Wednesday should remember what happened to the car workers who used to hold this country to ransom in the past.
Today's car worker cares about their product, works in an efficient organisation producing what the public want.

if they go private it wil cost a hell of a lot more

sharnad

gfplux wrote: »

The sooner the private sector is allowed to run Government services the better.
I was for many years completely apposed to this but have been convinced over the last decade or so that public services of all kind can not deliver the services we can afford.
Public ownership of these services has proven a failure, give the private sector a chance. They can't be worse than what we have got at the moment.
Militant Government workers striking on Wednesday should remember what happened to the car workers who used to hold this country to ransom in the past.
Today's car worker cares about their product, works in an efficient organisation producing what the public want.

when anything in the public sector is outsourced to the private sector it costs a lot more money

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

I general, private sector firms that are badly run go under (or should do). The badly run public sector organisations just tend to keep on wasting more and more money.

e.g the banks?

BobQ

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

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...

As I said no one needs an excuse not to strike and I am not questioning your motives.

My point is that many non-strikers cite moral or principled stands as the reason they will not strike when their reasons are more self serving.

Ygor

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Tell that to the unfortunate beneficiaries of the Financial Assistance Scheme who spent the best part of a decade stripping off on whichever beach was nearest to the Labour Party Conference before they got any pension at all. I think they can see the value of the guarantee I am talking about. So too can those people whose pensions are determined by market returns. If they want a guarantee, in advance, of what their pension will be they have to accept a lower return.

It seems guarantees are only valued when risks don't pay off.

It was the pensioners that wanted the government to step in after their companies went bust. Not NAPF setting up a contingency fund in case their company went bust.

Those whose pensions are determined by market returns only value guarantees when returns don't meet expectations. If they did value guaranteed returns, they would have plumped for them.

I accepted a lower return when the guarantee was made. The suggestion now is that the guarantee shouldn't be honoured and I should accept an even lower rate of return. Odd guarantee and I can't invest elsewhere

Stargazer57 wrote: »

There's very little economic difference between having unfunded public sector pensions and choosing to fund them by issuing a large volume of gilts and index-linked gilts. In theory such an issuance shouldn't affect the market price of gilts at all.

Well that goes against the laws of supply and demand. Is the theory here that these extra gilts won't be traded and so won't affect prices?

Stargazer57 wrote: »

3.5% may have been a reasonable rate to use before 1997 when rates had been between 3% and 4% for long periods. Following the step change over the next 18 months, and the further decline, the market rate is around 0.5%. Are you seriously claiming that to discount future payments at 3.5% does anything other than massively understate their value?

No, I'm claiming during periods when the market is low, 3.5% understates their value compared with other investments. During periods when the market is high, 3.5% overstates their value compared with other investments. This is the nature of a stable rate.

BobQ

ILW wrote: »

When was the last major private sector strike?
I would exclude BA from this as most of the employees still thing they work for the public sector.

You will be had pressed to find many. Why would private sector workers even consider striking when so many of them are non-unionised, work for near minimum wages, no pensions and have other minimum employment conditions. Fortunately for them, they will feel so much better when then they see the public sector equally emasculated and we will all be equally in it together in Dave's New World.

ILW

BobQ wrote: »

You will be had pressed to find many. Why would private sector workers even consider striking when so many of them are non-unionised, work for near minimum wages, no pensions and have other minimum employment conditions. Fortunately for them, they will feel so much better when then they see the public sector equally emasculated and we will all be equally in it together in Dave's New World.

And these are the people whos taxes are being used to pay for what many consider to be a bloated and inefficient public sector.

BobQ

ILW wrote: »

Rather public Sector attitude, that the only way to improve things is to spend more money.

Some recent experience I have had with the NHS showed an incredible waste of time a money, purely down to sloppy admin. That costs nothing to improve if you just sack the people that make mistakes and take on others that are more capable.

There is no excuse for 5 separate aborted consultations with a highly paid consultant that could not be done due to either the records not being there, or the wrong ones being supplied.
probably cost hundreds at least, but I would be very surprised if anybody took resposibility.

I agree with you but spending money on the NHS did help improve it. The inefficiencies you quote are indefensible and should be dealt with as well. But why did this not happen?

Its unlikely that the problem is due to low level administrative staff, more likely a failure of senior management. What offends me is that trusts have taken on so many senior managers at grossly inflated salaries but they have not introduced more efficient practices although have of course pocketed their over inflated salaries and bonuses and will no doubt be taking the pensions that go with them as they move to preside over the private sector run replacements for the Trusts.

ILW

BobQ wrote: »

I agree with you but spending money on the NHS did help improve it. The inefficiencies you quote are indefensible and should be dealt with as well. But why did this not happen?

Its unlikely that the problem is due to low level administrative staff, more likely a failure of senior management. What offends me is that trusts have taken on so many senior managers at grossly inflated salaries but they have not introduced more efficient practices although have of course pocketed their over inflated salaries and bonuses and will no doubt be taking the pensions that go with them as they move to preside over the private sector run replacements for the Trusts.

That is where a highly unionised public organisation falls down, nobody take any responsibility and in the end it is the service user and taxpayer that pays the price.