Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

J_i_m

I must say... I do not consider my pension to be deferred wages. The NHS contributes 14% I put in about 5% or there abouts. If I were to opt out of the pension tomorrow would my net wages suddenly shoot up by 19%? No of course they wouldn't.

The thing is... An NHS pension by comparison is significantly better than pretty much anything currently in the private sector, I do think that needs to be acknowledged.

I'm not against my contributions going up, in fair honesty they're going up by less than 1% for me so I can hardly claim it's unaffordable.

However... One of today's announcements was that there are going to hundreds of thousands less public sector workers, I don't know if that means shutting places down or selling them to the private sector but it does feel like they are trying to sneak my job and pension away from me by the back door.

zorro10

i also favour the continental approach

WhiteHorse

ILW wrote: »

Please stop referring to Gubberments, it is rather childish and very annoying.

I think you'll find that it's a sideswipe at the Americans.

ILW

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's a sideswipe at the Americans.

It is still annoying.

FLAPJACK

Regionalised pay has been around for years.

Work for a company who has offices in London...you get "London Weighting" worth around 4k now I think, even LW is "regionalised" depending on where in London you work as there is Inner and Outer LW, outer being a lower figure.
If you work in London your LW is added to your "pensionable" pay so in effect even your pension is regionalised too.

Work for the same company in the North and you don't get any of this.....the reason why?

I was told that it's because it is more expensive to live in London than the North...the same reason applies to why "general" pay appears to be regionalised.

Ps: Of course those people who are going up to Salford to man the new BBC outfit will still get their LW for a couple of years.....that was the union deal...and subsidised rentals too.

lsv

It is really a skewed perspective the OP has of public sector workers. We have to really feel some sympathy; this is clearly an individual who has/had a fairly decent paying job who has, disappointingly, been shafted in terms of what their pension will pay out.

It is clear that they have no concept of public sector salaries in terms of the examples used. 30k / 50k salaries? only for a very few. You really need to get some concept of what average salaries actually are in the public sector. You also need to get an understanding of what low paid, hard work has in terms of impact to workers and their lifestyle and expectancy after retrial.

This strike is merely a distraction, a means of burying bad news (a point which Al_Mitch raised very well), a divisive means of segregating public and private sector workers.

Ultimately, this distraction underpins the erosion of workers rights. It is a key tool in then governments arsenal to refocus the frustration of the public to the easy target (in this case public sector workers). Perhaps the frustration should be levied back to those in power - How are they getting on changing their pension scheme? although in fairness they inherited a magnitude of financial problems didn’t they?

Today the public sector - tomorrow (and yesterday) the bankers. Didn’t they get some sort of bail out? When is it we are going to see some return on our (the taxpayers) investment? Do we not question the bonuses and pensions of our tax payer owned banks, bankers and indeed their pensions?

In some cases the public sector need a bit of solidarity from out private sector frienimies. Given that a lot of public supplied services will be out of action tomorrow (libraries, leisure centres, some non essential health care, schools, etc) I think we will see an early peak in spending (early Christmas shopping?) can't be bad can it?

I'm under no allusions that, by the time I come to retire, my pension scheme as I know it will have vastly changed (undoubtedly to my detriment). I know that it is over funded at this point (I know full well that others are under-funded). I do agreed that change is needed - but, really, OP, ask yourself this question - if you were in the same position would you accept the proposal or would you strike? Really? Christmas shopping it is then.

lsv

dori2o

dshart wrote: »

Yet so many of the public sector workers who post on here are happy for new entrants to be offered these new conditions that they themselves reject. The say this on one hand and then they proceed to say we should all unite and support them. I am afraid that people who post like that are only concerned for their own well-being and do not really care about others.

I see you have missed the point completely.

When those newer entrants into the public sector start work, they sign a contract which includes the new pension scheme as part of the renumeration. They have the option not to take the pension, they have the option not to take the job offer.

However, those who have been in the public sector for a number of years signed a contract with the government, which the Gov't also signed confirming the T&C's of that employment and it's associated renumeration.

The argument is that they should not now be allowed to change the existing terms in operation of those who THEY have already agreed the T&C's with.

In contract Law it takes agreement of all parties to change the T&C's of a contract. The T&C's cannot change without the agreement of all parties tied to the contract.

That is of course unless you are the government and you simply change the law to suit your own agenda.

pioneer22

dizzie wrote: »

Pioneer, I've worked in both sectors so I have some insider knowledge from both. Why would you love me to come and do your job for a few days? Do you think I wouldn't cope? I can assure you that being on call in a hospital 24/7..and now running a business has made me a pretty tough cookie. Perhaps we can do a swap?

Try being a doctor for an hour.

pioneer22

howee wrote: »

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).

Try working as a doctor maybe then I will feel for you what I would do for a lunch break or a break at all. Anyway im off to work! cheery o.

MCGONIS

dizzie wrote: »

MCGONIS, That benefit claimants do not like benefits officers is rather predictable. They will have one agenda...i.e. to get more dosh...and you have to apply the rules.

But I do not feel that the general public (or the private sector for that matter) dislike public sector workers. Some of us just dislike the fact that you are striking over pensions. This is because we feel you will still get a good deal and one that is far superior to our own pension provisions /QUOTE]

Hi thanks, I have worked at B&Q, then British Gas, then British Rail (Scotrail), then British Telecom, then ScottishPower, then Victoria Wine Company and then the Social Security. Each post was only 2 years maximum, I am going back 20 years. I knew a pension was something you must sign up for. You would be daft not too. They are all final salary schemes. Even when I was 18 years old, I signed up. Because it was the best thing to do.

Where I now work, I come across pensioners that have saved umpteen smal pensions across their careers. When it comes to claiming, they get nothing from the Pension Service and so phone for a Crisis Loan and I have to deal with all the moans and groans.

It's nice to hear your comments. Personally, I could not care less about a pension, as I say, if you don't have one, the state pays one. If you have one, you don't get the same top up. And everyone I speak to thinks they should get more.

My pal that works at SKY television gets free TV worth £50 a month. Her wage is the same as mine. Her perk is the free sky tv, I though my perk was my pension.

But all I hear is the public are paying my pension through tax. Well who is giving my friend free SKY tv through their charges?

Scunnered and on a downer. Would rather just go to work and be hated by customer than both.