Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Old_Slaphead

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

By targeting everyone in the public sector, including the low paid, they have antagonised everyone.

But we are constantly being told that low paid jobs have been contracted out and that's why public sector salaries are higher than private.

Anyway, any lower paid have been relieved of any near term pension increases.

Prentice is always going on about the pension changes hitting dinner ladies and teaching assistants (as though they represent the majority of the public sector) when clearly they're not.

The government are missing a PR trick by letting the unions get away with this misinformation.

I think the new terms offered are a great deal for the public sector - too good in fact. The unions should have grabbed their hand off and then used the goodwill to mitigate some of the future joblosses/pay cap. Missed a negotiating trick there, methinks.

NAR

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Anyway, any lower paid have been relieved of any near term pension increases.

But they will have to work an extra 5 years to get a career average pension instead of a final salary one.

AaronM87

Remember when Teachers, Civil Servants, Ambulance staff, Nurses, Midwives, Doctors and Fireman crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No? Me neither!

If the government want to reduce the deficit why not ask the banks for our billions in bailout money back?

dshart

NAR wrote: »

But they will have to work an extra 5 years to get a career average pension instead of a final salary one.

I thought the figures worked out that lower paid workers had more benefit from a career average scheme rather than a final salary scheme.

dshart

Miss_J wrote: »

Not all areas are tightening their belts, take for example Northern Rock a bank that has been bailed out by the government for bad money lending decisions. Those employees who have been lucky enough to keep their jobs this year have been awarded a performance related pay bonus this year, some amounting to 5% of their pay. Coupled with the fact that some of them earn more a year than me as a qualified professional makes me a little angry at the fact the increase in my pension payments will be going in part to paying for the bank bailout.

I agree that this is scandalous and should never have been allowed to happen. But I guess the employees could say the payouts were justified because they reached their internal targets which was the agreement for them to receive bonuses. Hmmm, where have I heard a similar argument before........

sheffield_lad

AaronM87 wrote: »

Remember when Teachers, Civil Servants, Ambulance staff, Nurses, Midwives, Doctors and Fireman crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No? Me neither!

If the government want to reduce the deficit why not ask the banks for our billions in bailout money back?

NO but I rememember when they all maxed their credit cards out like the rest of us, if it so easy to tax bankers and business how come Labour didn't do it in their 14yrs!!

The country owes over £1 trillion!!!!! thats nothing to do with the defecit which just add's to the debt lol. Try looking at the deficit which was already there before the crisis.

We are living longer, even Labour would be doing this get your head out of the union book and look at the facts.

NAR

dshart wrote: »

I thought the figures worked out that lower paid workers had more benefit from a career average scheme rather than a final salary scheme.

They do if they work the extra 5 years! Why should they?

dshart

NAR wrote: »

They do if they work the extra 5 years! Why should they?

Because that's the new retirement age. You could just as easily ask why should they live longer than was originally anticipated?

And remember they do not have to work the additional time, people can retire whenever they want it just means their pensions are adjusted accordingly or they may have to wait however many years to be able to take their pension.

worldwheeler

atush wrote: »

A lot of the problem was securitsed toxic debts from the USA where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. There was some toxic debt here (125% FTB mtgs, BTL) that borught down NR and BB but the trouble the biggies like RBS got into wasn't even based on UK debt.

But you are right, we all spent more than we could afford.

This is surely, the banks lent to people who could not repay. The banks should have held responsibility, and the hit, for this practice. After all when you go to borrow the risk is on the lender as they are the financial experts. Or, lots of tyre fitters, shelf stackers, teachers, secretaries, ect walked into banks and bamboozled financial experts into leading them £400,000+ for a house. The 84% of RBS the tax payers own is purely the toxic assets that will not be recouped let alone pay any profit. This has been a massive theft from the people of lots and lots of countries of the world to the benefit of the people who run and control the entire system.

Research: where does money come from? who owns a country's central bank? what is fractional reserve banking? what, or who, controls the "business cycle"?

AaronM87

howee wrote: »

NO but I rememember when they all maxed their credit cards out like the rest of us, if it so easy to tax bankers and business how come Labour didn't do it in their 14yrs!!

The country owes over £1 trillion!!!!! thats nothing to do with the defecit which just add's to the debt lol. Try looking at the deficit which was already there before the crisis.

We are living longer, even Labour would be doing this get your head out of the union book and look at the facts.

Give me the facts then chief.