Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

worldwheeler

dshart wrote: »

Its easy to just blame the banks and not accept any responsibility ourselves.

The risk in finance is on the lender. But here, and around the world, the financial industry has lent and lent and lent, taking a fee and interest payments, all immediately paid out in bonuses. Then the toxic loan book was sold to the public, with complicit politicians bending over for the bankers, for 100% of what the bankers said these toxic assets were worth. It has been a clear case of funnelling wealth from the people to the elite.

dshart wrote: »

The system may be wrong and flawed but till we can replace it with a better system we have to work within this system.

As long as the system is patched up and never challenged it will remain. No power regime will give up power without direct challenge.

dshart wrote: »

I guess the only other way to bring about the changes required is to run headlong into financial collapse and see what comes out of it. But that is a huge risk and could lead to many years of hardship worse than in many third world countries (I say worse because many of us here have never had to experience those type of conditions and so could not cope).

The course of action gov't is enacting will produce exactly the hardship you mention above. BUT, this hardship is to be levelled on the 99% while the 1% who caused the outrages of a financial system that is mathematically unsustainable sit back with their champagne and watch the peasants fight each other. MSM is used to confuse and divide the public into inward fighting and distract any scrutiny being focused on politics and the banks.

Ah but, the country is such bad financial state. Two years ago the gov't found, almost overnight, £1.4 trillion FOR the banks.
Does anyone know what a trillion pounds looks like?

ANGLICANPAT

Andy_L wrote: »

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

New recruits will also be paying in . Not everyone collects their pension long either, large numbers die . The workforce of the NHS remains at roughly a million or so give or take , and any fluctuations are more than mopped up by the massive surplus of contributions which the government should ringfence, not squander at will and then penalize the NHS workforce. The NHS pension is I believe sustainable when not creamed off. Government massaging and misrepresenting of the figures to mislead is whats going on.

sheffield_lad

worldwheeler wrote: »

Ah but, the country is such bad financial state. Two years ago the gov't found, almost overnight, £1.4 trillion FOR the banks.
Does anyone know what a trillion pounds looks like?

err yes http://www.debtbombshell.com/

but remember that money has not gone its in the bank shares, something I dabble in lol, they will make a good profit out of this eventually, the plan was for 2015 election so we could get tax break promises but that may now be a little bit further off, lets hope it does not come back in under Labour (a thousand more bus lane enforcement officers), and lets recruit more to the PS lol

sheffield_lad

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

New recruits will also be paying in . Not everyone collects their pension long either, large numbers die . The workforce of the NHS remains at roughly a million or so give or take , and any fluctuations are more than mopped up by the massive surplus of contributions which the government should ringfence, not squander at will and then penalize the NHS workforce. The NHS pension is I believe sustainable when not creamed off. Government massaging and misrepresenting of the figures to mislead is whats going on.

But large numbers are not dieing lol, they are living longer and longer, what do you think is going to happen when the baby boomers all retire? The ones coming in will not be able to pay for the masses who will be collecting their pensions.

NAR

dshart wrote: »

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.

Dear, dear and there was me thinking you had a little bit of intelligence. My mistake.

BobQ

dori2o wrote: »

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.

While I am very sympathetic to the need for good public sector pensions, your comments are absurd. I fully agree that accrued pension rights must be honoured (and the CPI changes are dishonest in that respect), but unless you have a contract that states that your employment conditions cannot be changed (unlikely), contract law is not much help. If your employer wants to change your terms and conditions you have a choice to accept it or reject it.

paparossco

howee wrote: »

But large numbers are not dieing lol, they are living longer and longer, what do you think is going to happen when the baby boomers all retire? The ones coming in will not be able to pay for the masses who will be collecting their pensions.

The NHS scheme requires the members to fund any shortfall so if the £2bn surplus turns into a shortfall the contributions automatically go up to cover it.

seggy1

Well at least they have a job to go to tomorrow not like alot of people think of us please do seggy1

BobQ

dshart wrote: »

On one hand people mention solidarity yet they are happy for a two tier system to be in place where new entrants into the public service are on poorer conditions. Taking it to the extreme you could have someone who joined the scheme the day before changes came into effect and someone who joined the day after, assuming both these people started at the same age and worked the same length of service and job why should their pensions be different? I know that if I was the second person I would be a bit peeved to say the least.

Seems to me this is quite standard practice. In the private sector over the past 15 years we have seen similar things where final salary schemes were first closed to existing staff, then later to all staff. Equally, public sector schemes have been changed and new employees allowed to join the least favourable one. The justifucation in all cases is that none of the changes are being made for reasons of fairness, only to save money. The employer does not usually want to aggravate the existing staff, they just want to manage costs by progressively moving staff to a new scheme. Also those that are on the new scheme are told the pension they will be on when they apply for the job. If they think its unfair they can refuse the job.

pjb1_2

jamesd wrote: »

DCodd, I'd be happy to agree to equalising terms between public and private sector based on supply, demand and a free market. If public sector teachers can find places paying more than they get now, good luck to them in moving to those jobs. That's already an option that they have. Same for doctors and nurses, find a higher paying job, best wishes for a successful move to it. Rubbish collection? Admin? Same, no problem to let people move if they can find a job offering them more or better conditions.

Private sector employers get the law changed for their benefit so no reason to expect a public sector employer to refrain from doing that.

Isn't that exactly what happened with dentists? Would be interesting to see the cost of health care, education, etc. if it was only available privately. Not saying it would be better or worse, but I'm guessing there would be a fair few people unhappy for the outcome. Not to mention of course the people who think nurses and teachers are somehow imoral if the train at public expense then go and work for private companies.

And people who didn't vote are somehow responsible for the strike- how does that work?