Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

The_Angry_Jock

Lovely walk into work this morning, streets strewn with placards. "we're all in it together" - except for the street cleaners who can tidy up our mess :money::T:rotfl:

bluesnake

UglyMug wrote: »

Current life expectancy means they’ll receive this for about 20 years. This was acceptable, a few years ago when life expectancy meant they’d receive it for about 5 years.

While not have gone through the entire post. A friend of mine is a recently retired pension manager for a large university.

The industry national figures (that he gave me) are that for men only.... if an average man retires at 60, he has an average life span of 12 more years. If he retires at 65, he has an average life span of 2 years. Researchers and academics do live longer than average person, and women live on average longer then men.

Apparently it is stress that shortens the life span. While people are generally living longer (on that pyramid graph). Unfortunately as time has gone on, an the world become more demanding, both men and women under stress die sooner.

I could save the country a quick £500 000, as once you become Prime Minister, you get the PM's salary for life, no matter how long one is in office - Why? How does this work as a pension model? The public should grade them an get Performance Related Pay.

UglyMug wrote: »

I didn't notice any Public Sector worker going on Strike when it was suggested their State Pension was increased by £40 per week.

We, UK PLC are the State. The Public Sector is a part of this -provided you have not opted out of the scheme. You sound like a politician - us and them mentality. How could anyone even think about complaining about giving our forefathers that bit extra. £40 a week does not go far, unless you are getting backhanders, pay-offs and 'expenses'.

MikeR71

I haven't read all the posts in this thread and frankly I don't have the time to. But I reading the OP and listening to what has been said in the media over the last few days I wanted to make a few comments.

Firstly I am a public sector employee (I am off today so I am not using your tax money to surf the net), and the amount of bile and vicious nonsense in the media directed at all those who work in the public sector has been nothing short of a disgrace. Despite what they want you to believe, the majority of public sector employees are not rich and they do not earn vast amounts of money. The reported average salary for public and private sector is misleading because the vast majority of public sector earn very very modest salaries.

Secondly, I have heard people ask why public sector pensions should be the way it is while those in the private sector have to do with much less. Well then go lobby the private sector fatcats to give their hardworking employees a decent pension. What are you going to achieve by downgrading public sector pensions exactly apart from creating thousands more poor elderly in the future? Is this what you really want?

Third, public sector is always the ones who carry the burden when an economic crisis occurs. This time too we are being punished for a crisis we did not create. Is that not enough?

Finally, we are talking about teachers, nurses, careworkers here. Ask yourselves, do these people do an important job or not? If you are moaning that one day of strike has caused inconvenience I think the answer is that yes, they do an important job. Well in that case PAY THEM A DECENT SALARY AND PENSION.

MikeR71

Ok, I have heard this argument too. people are living longer. So what are going to do? I know, let's cut their pensions so they can live longer years in poverty! Nice logic...NOT.

CLAPTON

MikeR71 wrote: »

Ok, I have heard this argument too. people are living longer. So what are going to do? I know, let's cut their pensions so they can live longer years in poverty! Nice logic...NOT.

just in the interest of logic and rational debate
what do you consider would be reasonable for a retired person to receive (total that is occupational and state pension)

Old_Slaphead

MikeR71 wrote: »

Third, public sector is always the ones who carry the burden when an economic crisis occurs. This time too we are being punished for a crisis we did not create. Is that not enough?

Really ? Can you give some examples ?

Did the fact that the public sector has been massively expanded over the last decade not contribute just a teeny weeny bit ?

How many job losses were there in public sector in 2008 (clue - they were expanding until 2010)

Just before the 2008 crisis, nurses & teachers & police had just negotiated a 3 year pay rise deal. In the interests of the economy and the fact that private sector were slashing jobs and payrates - did the Unions offer to postpone this commitment ?

ILW

MikeR71 wrote: »

Finally, we are talking about teachers, nurses, careworkers here. Ask yourselves, do these people do an important job or not? If you are moaning that one day of strike has caused inconvenience I think the answer is that yes, they do an important job. Well in that case PAY THEM A DECENT SALARY AND PENSION.

Would you suggest different pensions for the vast army of public sector bureacrats and pen pushers. Not all of the PS are caring types, but the unions seem very keen on only referring to them in their propaganda.

Weird_Nev

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Just before the 2008 crisis, nurses & teachers & police had just negotiated a 3 year pay rise deal. In the interests of the economy and the fact that private sector were slashing jobs and payrates - did the Unions offer to postpone this commitment ?

No. They didn't get the chance. The government simply refused to pay the agreed Police pay rise - which was sub inflation at the time of negotiation and even more so by the time it came to pay. They delayed and deferred, eventually paying the higher rate (1.5% in times of 3-4% inflation) 10 months late.

If you're not going to give us a pay rise say so.
Don't agree to a 3 year deal and then simply not pay it.

It's another reason we're not especially happy.

MikeR71

CLAPTON wrote: »

just in the interest of logic and rational debate
what do you consider would be reasonable for a retired person to receive (total that is occupational and state pension)

Well with the rising cost of living, the least they can do is honour the contract they made with those who entered the public sector at the time. Retrospective mugging is neither fair nor will help in the long term.
One compromise would be to introduce the new terms for those who enter public service in the future, say from April 2012. This way people at least will know what terms awaits them and can decide whether they want to work in the public sector or not.

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Really ? Can you give some examples ?

Did the fact that the public sector has been massively expanded over the last decade not contribute just a teeny weeny bit ?

How many job losses were there in public sector in 2008 (clue - they were expanding until 2010)

Just before the 2008 crisis, nurses & teachers & police had just negotiated a 3 year pay rise deal. In the interests of the economy and the fact that private sector were slashing jobs and payrates - did the Unions offer to postpone this commitment ?

The best example I can give you is the pay freeze. Many people already can't make ends meet because they haven't had a pay rise for 2 years while their other bills have gone through the roof. Now asking them to pay nearly £100 more a month too?

I agree that under Labour the public sector grew unnecessarily big. I am not Labour voter and never have been. Blair and Brown destroyed the economy. So I am favourable to cutting unnecessary public sector jobs to save money. But those that are needed, like teachers and nurses should be allowed to live and have their contractual terms honoured.

ILW wrote: »

Would you suggest different pensions for the vast army of public sector bureacrats and pen pushers. Not all of the PS are caring types, but the unions seem very keen on only referring to them in their propaganda.

Yes, pensions should be capped. The problem is inequality will always exist because many in the private sector will get pensions that are worth millions. But the least the government can do is to not keep screwing the public sector just because they can't touch the private sector fat cats

ILW

MikeR71 wrote: »

Yes, pensions should be capped. The problem is inequality will always exist because many in the private sector will get pensions that are worth millions. But the least the government can do is to not keep screwing the public sector just because they can't touch the private sector fat cats

What percentage of private sector employees get a pension worth millions?

How many of these are paid for by taxpayers?