Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

meds12_2

dizzie wrote: »

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!

It's not about being a special case - teachers (the pension scheme I am most aware of) have already taken a 2 year pay freeze while inflation soars, on top of years of below inflation pay increases - we are already helping to plug the deficit. I don't want anyone "propping" me up, but think that 20% of my total pay - invested for 40 years, should come up with a decent pension - I'd be happy to be able to take my 20% and invest it in my own choice of fund - as does my private sector partner, as it is - there is no option to invest the 14% currently paid by my LEA as the government uses it for general spending and doesn't save it, and I am worried that by the time I come to retirement this alleged 14% will turn out to be worthless.

The fact is the Teachers' pensions were altered just a few years ago, in order to stop costs rising - we had to pay more, for longer, and the Office for National Statistics later agreed that Teachers' pensions were then affordable. We also had an agreement that if costs would exceed the amount placed into the pension then we would renegotiate and split the costs between contributing members - not burden the taxpayer. The coalition has refused to provide figures and simply says "we can't afford it". I'm sorry, I am sure even private sector companies have to justify how much is in their pension fund?

I just don't agree with the view that anyone - public or private should be made to work until they are 68. How can a builder or a care worker be expected to do that? Yes we have an ageing population (although we are all so obese that apparently we will die before our parents, and we all binge drink now, so what is the real life expectancy going to be?), but we also have massive youth unemployment. It seems daft to on the one hand pay employers 50% cost of hiring young person, whilst on the other making older people work longer for their pensions.

meds12_2

dizzie wrote: »

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....

But don't forget that the private sector employ accounting firms to significantly reduce tax for their employees, and many big companies pay no tax at all - maybe they should be asked to? You also have SAYE (save as you earn) schemes, bonuses and perks like share options in the private sector - my OH has put £6000 in his companies shares over the last 3 years - they are now worth £13k when they mature in Jan.

Obviously it differs from firm to firm, but my OH did a 3 week training course to get his job, whereas my job required a degree and a year's postgrad training (£30k student debt) and he brings home more money than me - despite me having 4 years service and a responsibility post - so I, from my experience, don't see the parity. Yes employment rights are better, and yes I have a better pension - but he earns more, for less work, and less important work at that.

dizzie

Jim,

No one likes a change for the worse, but it happens. We'll be affected by the child benefit changes in 2013. I'm not delighted about the idea, but resign myself to the fact that it is necessary for cutbacks to be made. Since we are not living on the breadline and it is not going to affect whether we can afford to keep warm or eat, I accept it. I also accept that my pension fund seems to have lost almost as much money than I've actually paid in over the past few years - I don't like it, but have to accept it as part of the economic climate.

I didn't fully accept (and still don't) the massive increase in student tuition fees. Our young people in society have been amongst the hardest hit by the recession and subsequent government measures. They have been disproportionally targetted.

But a public sector strike on such a massive scale will cost the country a lot of money in lost productivity and revenue and will only serve to worsen the economic situation. I don't think that PS workers should get poor pensions, but I do think that expectations of what everyone (in any sector) will get needs to be modified in the light of our increased lifespans and the fact that we are in such a bloomin' financial mess.

This is not one tiny part of the public sector striking. It will cause major disruption and loss to the country. To me, it feels like blackmail - we don't like what's on offer and so we are going to cause you (the government) financial and organisational pain on a massive scale (by striking) to make you change your minds. And what happens next? Do you get your way? Does the government water down plans so much as to leave your pensions relatively unscathed? To leave you on the sidelines of the cuts and the losses that everyone else is being subjected to? Or does the government refuse to give way? Do we move towards a "Winter of Discontent"? Of further mass PS strikes? Do we bring this limping country to its knees and give an open invitation for our country's credit rating to be cast downwards, making the money we have to borrow more expensive? Do we want to become another Greece and see even stricter austerity measures?

No one likes the medicine, but please let us all take it with some sense that in the long run, we will hopefully be saving ourselves from greater financial illness.

dizzie

Meds12 - I accept that you have had a pay freeze. That is no different to what has been happening in the private sector...and two of my close friends actually had to take a pay cut (I'm not talking about "real terms" in relation to inflation...I'm talking about a significant actual pay cut in their hourly rate. One friend now gets paid 5% less than she did two years ago and another had to accept a drop in hourly rate from £8.50 to £7.50/hour in order to keep her job (a heck of a wage drop eh?)

Secondly, companies may employ accountant to pay their "top dogs" in such a way to avoid taxes (e.g. dividends for company directors etc), but this happens only for the few "top dogs" (who could bloomin' well afford to pay more). This country has a lot of SMEs (small to medium private enterprises)...and a lot of people working for them. They do not have access to SAYE/ share schemes.

dizzie

michelle1506 wrote: »

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]

Seems low for a wage of £27k. What type of scheme are you on (? % contributions made by you and your employer) and is your current wage a lot higher than your average wage over your 30 years of service?

Stargazer57

michelle1506 wrote: »

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?

Michelle
Have you actually checked how the pension proposals will affect you - or have you just listened to your Union? The people worst affected by the changes will be the more highly paid such as senior civil servants and head teachers, with many of the lower paid not affected and some even better off.

Andy_L

J_i_m wrote: »

Just to add to my link to RCN about NHS pay scales. I'll give a brief outline of which bands apply to which roles. It won't be a completely comprehensive expianation because I don't really know the bands above my manager.

I'm not aware of anyone on band 1, I assume it may be domestic staff (cleaners etc) though those are often contracted out. I'm on band 2 as a care assistant. Band 3 is basically an advanced care assistant. I basically do band 3 work but am paid band 2. Band 4 tends to be for assistant therapists (occupational, sports etc) staff nurses are on band 5, charge nurses get band 6, whilst qualified therapists net either band 5 or 6. Ward/unit managers would be band 7. Above that I'm not sure though I'd imagine regional managers may be band 8 and CEO's would be top whack.

CEOs (unsurprisingly) aren't on AfC

tillycat123

dizzie wrote: »

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.

This is exactly what the public sector does not get. I wish the news would spend more time highlighting the size of 'pot' a private sector person has to accrue to get anything close.

I did have a giggle this morning, was dropping my OH off at the trains station, there was some chap with a sandwich board outside stopping people going in to ask if he could speak the them about the cuts. My OH does not mince his words and told in in no polite terms where he could shove his chat. He got a round of applause from the que of people at the station for doing it.

Stop moaning, Be thankful you have a job and even more thankful you have something when you retire that's not going down the drain when the stock-market keeps crashing.

Andy_L

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!

Is there a 3x lump sum as well?

A quick guesstimate puts you on £16k pa (or you've spent some years part-time), the "gold-plated" referes to the value of that £6k pension compared to what you've paid in

zygurat789

michelle1506 wrote: »

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]

Are you saying you're earning £27K, in a public sector pension scheme and after 30 years you'll receive a pension of £6k? (All at todays rates)