Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dizzie

Surely they must feel that they are special if they feel that they should be exempted from having to be victims of the financial austerity that is being dealt out to everyone else.

I'm as angry as anyone about how irresponsible the banks were to precipitate all of this. It seems that a very, very tiny fraction of the public sector were too big to be allowed to fail, so a special case was made for them and they got taxpayer's help. And I agree that the wishy washy politicians all panda to the "big boys"...because they want their nice cushy, well paid advisory role on their boards of directors when they leave office!

It is a fact of life that all parties panda to the very rich in society. I am told that yachts are VAT exempt! And there are tax loopholes that only the very rich can use (e.g. non-dom in UK and ship all your brass to your wife in Monaco!). As mu h as I hate it, the cuts hit the average working person (forget the "We're all in this together malarky"...David Cameron will hardly feel the pinch! They are taking about us average working people...but I am afraid that we private sector workers can not afford to prop up the public sector workers as we once did, because the government is using our taxes elsewhere (again sometimes controversially!). I am afraid you need to take your share of cuts in this tough new economic period. We can't afford to make you a special case!

dizzie

jem16 wrote: »

Of course it is.

As is most propoganda from both government and union sides.

Your point being?
.

My point being that you cannot compare the private and the public sector payscales if you are not comparing like with like...but I am sure that if the private sector was so much more rosy that there'd be more people making a move...and it's not happening...

cvd

If this website is correct in its information, then teaching does appear to be a unique case. I'm not aware that other private sector jobs offer the same guarantees!

Full time paid workers of some charities and housing associations have been allowed to join the LGPS scheme. Indeed, 25% of members of the LGPS scheme are not employed by a local authority.
GPs (who are self employed) and other members of the medical profession have been allowed to join the NHS scheme even though not employed by the NHS.
Hutton recommended that these arrangements should all be stopped. From the report

However, it is in principle undesirable for future non-public service workers to have
access to public service pension schemes, given the increased long-term risk this places on the
Government and taxpayers.

So he recommends that teachers in independent schools should no longer be allowed to join the public sector pension scheme. I have not heard a government minister mention this recommendation in the report.

hugheskevi

but I am sure that if the private sector was so much more rosy that there'd be more people making a move...and it's not happening...

One of the things not much discussed is that due to the change in revaluation from RPI to CPI, the 'golden handcuffs' impact of final salary pensions was increased.

Take a teacher aged 40 with 15 years service as at the time the pension scheme closes in 2015.

If that teacher leaves, their pension is revalued by CPI to age 60. Assuming salary of £35,000 that rises at 4.7% p/a and CPI at 2%, the teacher's pension would be £16,444 if they stay or £9,752 if they leave (assuming an 80th scheme, with automatic lump sum).

£6,700 of indexed linked pension from age 60 is going to cost a lot - perhaps in the region of £75,000 if you discount at about 5% p/a over those 20 years.

Those are quite strong handcuffs

dizzie

Okay CVD, you have educated me that there are a few people in the private sector able to take advantage of public sector schemes. I don't have a particular problem with that but:

1. It is not a reason to NOT reform public sector pension schemes and save taxpayer's money that needs to be used elsewhere.
2. Do you think that the public sector should get a better pension than a private sector worker?

I would still argue that there is greater pay parity between the public and private sectors these days, and that private sector workers on the whole receive fewer employer benefits and less generous pension schemes. There needs to be more equality in the system and the gold plated public sector pensions need to be downgraded slightly less generous silver plated ones. Don't worry, the rest of us will be on sticky back plastic plated ones....

michelle1506

My pension is forecast at 6k a year after 30 years service. This could hardly be described as gold plated! In case your are wondering I am a full time employee!


There needs to be more equality in the system and the gold plated public sector pensions need to be downgraded slightly less generous silver plated ones. Don't worry, the rest of us will be on sticky back plastic plated ones....[/QUOTE]

dizzie

hugheskevi wrote: »

One of the things not much discussed is that due to the change in revaluation from RPI to CPI, the 'golden handcuffs' impact of final salary pensions was increased.

Take a teacher aged 40 with 15 years service as at the time the pension scheme closes in 2015.

If that teacher leaves, their pension is revalued by CPI to age 60. Assuming salary of £35,000 that rises at 4.7% p/a and CPI at 2%, the teacher's pension would be £16,444 if they stay or £9,752 if they leave (assuming an 80th scheme, with automatic lump sum).

£6,700 of indexed linked pension from age 60 is going to cost a lot - perhaps in the region of £75,000 if you discount at about 5% p/a over those 20 years.

Those are quite strong handcuffs

It is an incentive to stay of course...if I want an index linked pension of even £9752 then I'd need a private pension fund of around £300,000 to achieve it. I can tell you that if I had to pay in contributions from a salary of £35,000 over 15 years to meet that target, I'd be living on bread and water because they would be so high.

Like I say, an incentive to stay. Just like any migration isn't it? There are usually both pull and push factors involved. Sounds like most teachers really know which side their bread is buttered...but they want to keep the jam as well.

dizzie

michelle1506 wrote: »

My pension is forecast at 6k a year after 30 years service. This could hardly be described as gold plated! In case your are wondering I am a full time employee!


There needs to be more equality in the system and the gold plated public sector pensions need to be downgraded slightly less generous silver plated ones. Don't worry, the rest of us will be on sticky back plastic plated ones....

[/QUOTE]

Michelle, I can't really make any judgement on that if I don't know what your salary is. If you are on say £10-£11k per year, then £6k is pretty good as a percentage of your salary. Most workers on that sort of wage in the private sector would not even be able to afford to save in a pension scheme and would be at the mercy of receiving state pension only.

But if you are on a low salary, then aren't the government prioritising the lowest paid to receive a proportionally better pension than a better paid worker?

J_i_m

I wouldn't be opposed to reforms and I maintain that I will not be striking. Like I stated earlier just so long as I can afford to live during my retirement (should I ever get to retire) then I'm happy. I'd like the reforms to go some way towards improving the basic state pension for everybody but I think we all know that is simply not going to happen.

My main gripe through out this debate how been this absurd "Your'e a greedy !!!!!!! and I pay your wages!" take on the whole issue.

michelle1506

27k Like I said hardly 'gold plated'!


Michelle, I can't really make any judgement on that if I don't know what your salary is. If you are on say £10-£11k per year, then £6k is pretty good as a percentage of your salary. Most workers on that sort of wage in the private sector would not even be able to afford to save in a pension scheme and would be at the mercy of receiving state pension only.

But if you are on a low salary, then aren't the government prioritising the lowest paid to receive a proportionally better pension than a better paid worker?[/QUOTE]