Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

NAR wrote: »

Which is an IMPOSED change to their Contract of Service, which is why so many are on strike today!

Okay, how about the government agree to let you keep your current public sector pensions but only pay them out till what used to be the average age people lived till.

I am sure there would be outrage at this, but hey its what the contract of service was based on.

Andy_L

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

What distortion do you mean? Why should pension funds distort the economy? And the funds would not necessarily be invested in share only but in a wide basket of different vehicles.

The funds themselves won't, but the government, being responsible for their value, may (will;)) be tempted to make dicisions to maintain their value rather than what's necessaraly right for the country's economy as a whole. Or, conversely, invest in failing British companies to prop up the economy rather than in the best interest of pension members (like they're expecting pension funds to do now)

Alternatively they could use their votes as shareholders to influence company behaviour (eg voting on excessive executive pay )

EDIT: I think I've misunderstood you - you mean DC schemes rather than funding the current DB schemes. In which case then yes, there is no political distortion, although you still have the short/medium term cost increase

Old_Slaphead

NAR wrote: »

Which is an IMPOSED change to their Contract of Service, which is why so many are on strike today!

Well pay rises aren't contractual - would you agree to give all those back in exchange for keeping your supposedly contractual pension entitlement ?

afc80

snowcat53 wrote: »

Later you say you are on 27k.

So how do you get 6k pension? That does not compute.

Assuming you stay on 27k
If 80ths scheme, then 30/80 x 27k = 10,125 pa.
If 60ths then 30/60 x 27k = 13,500 pa

PS I see others got there before me! Plus possibly a lump sum on top of 80ths pension

i had a look at my pension last night online, i have 22 years service and am on £25,500 pa, my pension is worth just under £8,000pa as off last April, the lump sum is capped i think at £18,500, i can increase that of course for loss of pension which i will do as i will be dead before i hit 70 given my current lifestyle.

Im quite happy with that, i will be well off in retirement. I am on strike today because i want to keep all the benefits that i already have. Im a selfish barstard. If i was English i would probably be a tory rather than a Scot nat. :rotfl:

I know it is a great pension and i want to keep it as is. If that means flexing our muscles then so be it.

Anyone with half a brain would want to protect such a good final salary pension. I hope the Govt caves in. Maybe they should scrap trident and stop following the yanks all over the world in stupid wars to pay for my pension?.

I work for money not for love and want to keep all my perks, (the only one is the pension), does that make me bad?

atush

No, not bad. Maybe a tad selfish lol.

dizzie

pioneer22 wrote: »

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.

I don't need to try working as a doctor Pioneer (I'm married to one and he trained in the days long before the new contract...at a time when juniors had to work mega hours in a week). Even he will say that the doctors get a fantastic pension deal and will acknowledge that it is reasonable for the government to review what they can really afford to pay in pensions! I myself was a hospital pharmacist and there were times on call when you didn't get much of a break because of the workload. Getting bleeped at 3.00 in the morning when you've finally managed to get to bed to hear that you have to go and make up iv benzylpenicillin bags in a sterile laminar flow cabinet for a seriously ill meningitis patient isn't a doddle of a job...you need to be methodical, accurate and thorough in your aseptic technique and it's not easy if you are sleep deprived. As I say, I think things are much better from a long hours point of view since the European Working Directive came into force.

See, I know that people do a worthwhile and valuable job in the public sector and I have never disputed that. I simply feel that the country's finances are in such a state that the country can no longer afford to support public sector pensions in the way they used to.

What about this rhetorical example to use as an analogy: A person has a child and decides put away £50 per month for their future. Perhaps they intend to give them this to help them fund university when they are 18. They do this successfully until the child turns 14, then something unexpected happens. They lose their job and have to take one that is much lower paid. They are really struggling to make ends meet from day to day and have to review their finances. Most parents love their kids, but they have to be practical. What would they do? Would they continue to save that £50/month and drive themselves further into debt? Or would they think, " I'm going to have to reduce what I can pay into Little Jonny's savings account each month and hope he'll understand that I did my best and gave him what I could afford in the end" ?

Think about it. If you hold out for a much better pension deal than that which is on the table, the cuts will have to go elsewhere. What if that means making even more people in the public sector redundant? Would you rather get a good pension (albeit not as good as you were hoping for) or your P45?

ANGLICANPAT

[QUOTE] "If public sector pensions were completley self funding with no further calls on cash from government coffers then they would not be an issue. I have no real issue with the average public sector pension contributions being around 20% ~ 23% of wages (made up of employer and employee contributions in varying percentages) even though the employers contributions are generally higher than can be obtained in the private sector, but I do have an issue when on top of this additional funds are required to pay the pensions." [/QUOTE]

But isnt the NHS pension scheme still totally self funding? Isnt it a case of superannuation is paid in by staff plus their employers contribution causing a massive surplus each month -- the first call on which is to pay out pensions, and after that the Govt creams off the still sizeable surplus for whatever they may want it for - bombing Iraq --- or other such useful stuff , and then when theyve squandered that surplus instead of ringfencing it for the future, they want to renege on the arrangements they made with employers years ago, employees who planned their futures on the rules as they were then .

cyclonebri1

dshart wrote: »

BTW what are all the people who support the strikes doing on here at this time, shouldn't they be out manning the picket lines and attending rallies to show their support rather than taking the day off to post on here and do their christmas shopping.

Quite simply, it's novelty value, never having had to fight for anything has to be worth celebrating.:T:T:T


I really am looking forward to the 2nd 3rd 4th..... 20th day of the strike, then maybe the private sector will see the support from the rest of us:rotfl::rotfl:

dizzie

"The IFS said today that public sector workers have better pay and pensions than the private sector:

On the day schools, hospitals and courts were hit by the biggest strike in a generation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) revealed that, after “controlling for education, age and qualification” to make the comparison fair, male public sector workers earn 4.3pc more than those in the private sector.
A pay freeze this year and next for the public sector’s 5m workers and the 1pc annual rise for the following two years, which the Chancellor halved from 2pc in his Autumn Statement yesterday, will only see wages for men fall in line with the private sector in early 2015. However, the public sector will continue to enjoy far better pensions.
Even if the Government’s proposed pensions reforms are accepted by the strikers, IFS director Paul Johnson said, “they will leave public sector workers with pension provision on average substantially more generous than those enjoyed by private sector workers. "

Andy_L

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

But isnt the NHS pension scheme still totally self funding? Isnt it a case of superannuation is paid in by staff plus their employers contribution causing a massive surplus each month -- the first call on which is to pay out pensions, and after that the Govt creams off the still sizeable surplus for whatever they may want it for

Yes, but only becasue of increases in staff over the past ~10 years. As those new recruits retire that will reverse & the scheme will pay out more in pensions than it receives in contributions. AIUI the CS scheme is in the opposite position because of its workforces differing demographics
Its something of an irrelevance which position an unfunded scheme is in at any particular moment in time