We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !
Comments
-
-
-
Well that's a grown up response Michelle! Don't you like debating...or do you just like to sulk when people have different opinions?0
-
michelle1506 wrote: »Quite honestly that's more fool you for not taking your lunch break!
I never class it as something I have to taken as its 'my right', exactly why I never have sickies either, I don't class them or use them as a 'use them or lose them' mentality.0 -
michelle1506 wrote: »Quite honestly that's more fool you for not taking your lunch break!
Would you say that if someone who went without got promoted over you because they were considered to be more committed to their clients?0 -
The Office for National Statistics would agree with you. But possibly not in the way you might think.Pay parity between public and private, we could all come on here giving examples to suit our arguments but I still think there is generally a divide between them both (my opinion).
If you look at the publication here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2010-ashe-results/index.html, Figure 10 on page 26 makes interesting reading, as does the accompanying explanation:
"The difference between private and public sector median earnings for full–time employees increased between April 2009 and April 2010. Private sector median gross weekly earnings were £473, up 2.0 per cent from 2009. Public sector earnings were £554, up 3.0 per cent (see Figure 10). Public sector mean gross weekly earnings (£622) were also higher than those of the private sector (£589)."0 -
The Office for National Statistics would agree with you. But possibly not in the way you might think.
If you look at the publication here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2010-ashe-results/index.html, Figure 10 on page 26 makes interesting reading, as does the accompanying explanation:
"The difference between private and public sector median earnings for full–time employees increased between April 2009 and April 2010. Private sector median gross weekly earnings were £473, up 2.0 per cent from 2009. Public sector earnings were £554, up 3.0 per cent (see Figure 10). Public sector mean gross weekly earnings (£622) were also higher than those of the private sector (£589)."
Averages prove nothing.
The average pay of NHS workers is higher than the average pay across all of the economy.
That's because the Nurses, Doctors etc are all given salaries appropriate to their work.
The cleaners and other low paid workers "in the NHS" are often contracted out to the private sector. There are extremely few "low paid" jobs in the public sector as such. Because those jobs have all been contracted out. (How many times does this myth need to be exposed?) :cool:0 -
As with gender pay comparisons, differences in gross weekly earnings do not reveal differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. This is due to differences in the composition of the public and private sectors. For example, many of the lowest paid occupations, such as bar and restaurant staff, hairdressers, elementary sales occupations and cashiers, exist primarily in the private sector, while there are a larger proportion of graduate–level and professional occupations in the public sector2.
Indeed it even says so in the text if people can be bothered to read it.
Rather like the hutton report itself i find, contributions to the debate would be far more beneficial if people researched issues.
0 -
Right in that case, we need to/are going to negotiate a small proportion of (your words), salary.
I pay 3% more since this April, I am now going to be working until I am 67, I have lost my final salary and now have a career average.
I accept all of the above (thank god), we are all living longer. So if I and millions more accept this why can't (some), PS workers?
Putting your head in the sand will never work, their is a massive gulf in FAIRNESS between private and public and with fewer and fewer private workers having any pension why should they be subsidising yours? Which is exactly what they will be doing if the reforms didn't happen.
The vast majority of the public sector accepted such issues in the 2007 changes, e.g. civil service to career average salary, new entrants to 65 retirement age, increased contribution rates for higher paid people. Crucially a risk sharing cap to limit employer contributions at the current rates.
Ironically the scheme that is causing the most demand on the treasury, the armed forces was not reformed and even now they are not being asked for additional contributions depsite requiring most tax payer support.
The Hutton report identifies that this approach is working in terms of GDP reductions going forward.
From a purely NHS perspective, yes it is pay as you go, but it has made, i believe, a positive contribution back to the treasury every year since inception, last year circa £2bn back to the treasury. I really wish that could be called upon in the future for funding needs. Read the Hutton report. My employer and me (granted we are funded by the state) but if you want a universal healthcare system recently identifed as one of the best and most efficient models in the world, you have to accept this. Even Mr Cameron seems to approve of it. There is no other seperate treasury top up etc to the NHS scheme.
What strikes me personally as a member, is the extra contribution being raised, e.g. myself from 7.5% to 13% employee contribution over the next 3 years, against a pay raise confirmed today of 2% over the same period. These additional amounts are not boosting my pension nor shoring up the scheme. It is being used as a quasi tax for defecit reduction purposes.
Like all/some of us i am making similar other sacrafices of raising VAT, loss of child benefit, extra NI etc. I suspect over the period of this condem government i am seeing a 25% reduction in my living standards.
Job security has also gone, look a the OBR report, a further 750k of public sector jobs to be lost.
I agree on fairness but i would also suggest there is significant inequity in pension provision between the boards and workers in the private sector. As an employee my focus would be on that.
Fairness also appplies to peoples legitimate expectations of the deals that they signed up to, particularly when the changes last made in 2007 appear fom the best evidence to be having the desired effect.0 -
The Office for National Statistics would agree with you. But possibly not in the way you might think.
If you look at the publication here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2010-ashe-results/index.html, Figure 10 on page 26 makes interesting reading, as does the accompanying explanation:
"The difference between private and public sector median earnings for full–time employees increased between April 2009 and April 2010. Private sector median gross weekly earnings were £473, up 2.0 per cent from 2009. Public sector earnings were £554, up 3.0 per cent (see Figure 10). Public sector mean gross weekly earnings (£622) were also higher than those of the private sector (£589)."
To get a more accurate picture You'd need to look at median examples over a longer period of time. These figures fluctuate.Would you say that if someone who went without got promoted over you because they were considered to be more committed to their clients?
If a company uses skipping lunch to judge the level of someone's commitment I'd think that company was frankly rather dysfunctional!I never class it as something I have to taken as its 'my right', exactly why I never have sickies either, I don't class them or use them as a 'use them or lose them' mentality.
Are your kids employed as chimmney sweeps and do you serve them gravel for breakfast and do you live in a shoe box on side of motorway?;)Agree with Dizzie, I have worked 6 days a week for the past 15yrs and rarely have a lunch hr (unless you class the apples in the car).
You choose to do that because commission forms part of your reward in whatever you do? or is it that you just want to make other people happy?;)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards