Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Vicky496

There's a lot of nasty comments on here!

In my opinion the government will get what it pays for. If it wants to pay less for pensions and less for payroll that's fine as long as they don't mind a reduction in staff quality.

The contributing factor is though that staff are being cut as well. This means those of us that are left are being asked to do more and more, but for less/the same money. Moral is pretty low and with the public so against us how long will it be before all the decent staff give up and leave for the private sector?

I'm already on a low wage compared to what I could get in the private sector with a maths degree. I enjoy teaching which is why I don't grumble too much about the pay, but at this rate I'm starting to think I might be better respected and valued as a city banker!

Hmm I wonder why there's a shortage of maths specialists?! lol

J_i_m

There are nasty comments from both sides of the fence.

atush

:rotfl:

Starship9 wrote: »

Is this good or bad - I've lost the plot

I've recently retired from the Civil Service aged 51 with a £17,000 PA pension and a £50,000 tax free lump sum. I'd worked 33 years but had my actuarially reduced pension enhanced as part of the package - I think that cost the Government around £150K on top of the above maybe more ????.

I thought that was a reasonable deal - the chance to be retired for as long as I have worked, as long as I stay reasonably healthy. Or is this sort of thing frowned on these days :undecided

Happy to accept a CPI rather than RPI annual uprating though. I'd be getting zero then 1% for the next few years if I'd stayed in my job :sad:

Well, it is frowned on by me. You retiring on that much at such a young age. But then again, I don't expect you care what i think:p

Having said this, my BIL retired even earlier with an enchanced pension as he was 'under stress; or some such hogwash. 12 months later, he has miraculously regained full health, and a new full time job all the while taking his pension. So the two of you bear some responsibility for the deficit. Along with Fred the shred, of course:rotfl:

sheffield_lad

J_i_m wrote: »

I have a distinct feeling this debate is forever doomed to go round in circles.

My conclusion, I can afford to contribute more into my pension and it's not the end of world if I have to work a little longer for it as I doubt I could live on NHS pension alone anyway.

I don't necessarily see myself still in the public sector later in my working life, the chances are that I won't be physically fit to work on the wards (I suspect I have arthritis and I'm not even 30 yet!) But if I'm mentally fit I'll see what other work I can find.

Good for you J I M, that's how we all should be thinking, I don't want to be doing my currently job either after 60 and like you I will look for something less physical until I retire at 68.

Also nice to see your willing to contribute to your old age, I am 42 and will be very suprised if future governments don't have to adjust further on pensions we are all getting older and we all need to work out how we are are going to live comfortably in old age

omeuwen

Not a joke, just good for retail. Finally a large group of people with disposable income getting some Christmas shopping done. That's what the economy needed very much !

BobQ

Starship9 wrote: »

Is this good or bad - I've lost the plot

I've recently retired from the Civil Service aged 51 with a £17,000 PA pension and a £50,000 tax free lump sum. I'd worked 33 years but had my actuarially reduced pension enhanced as part of the package - I think that cost the Government around £150K on top of the above maybe more ????.

I thought that was a reasonable deal - the chance to be retired for as long as I have worked, as long as I stay reasonably healthy. Or is this sort of thing frowned on these days :undecided

Happy to accept a CPI rather than RPI annual uprating though. I'd be getting zero then 1% for the next few years if I'd stayed in my job :sad:

I infer that you were made redundant rather than an ill health retirement. Part of me says good luck to you, part of me thinks you are very lucky, But equally I can imagine that may people working very hard in jobs that do not have pensions will think that this is the sort of situation that proves the excesses of the public sector.

BobQ

Vicky496 wrote: »

In my opinion the government will get what it pays for. If it wants to pay less for pensions and less for payroll that's fine as long as they don't mind a reduction in staff quality.

The contributing factor is though that staff are being cut as well. This means those of us that are left are being asked to do more and more, but for less/the same money. Moral is pretty low and with the public so against us how long will it be before all the decent staff give up and leave for the private sector?

I'm already on a low wage compared to what I could get in the private sector with a maths degree. I enjoy teaching which is why I don't grumble too much about the pay, but at this rate I'm starting to think I might be better respected and valued as a city banker!

Hmm I wonder why there's a shortage of maths specialists?! lol

Getting what you pay for is true of all organisations as is those who stay doing more work as their colleagues leave.

The abuse levied at public service workers on here, sometimes misses the point that the original objectives of offerring a good pension in both the private and public sectors was to encourage loyalty and enable the organisation to pay below market rates. These days loyality is not rewarded very much.

There are many jobs where its no longer necessary to incentivise people this way. The skills required to work in clerical and admin roles, to manage people finances etc are not that different in any job and its relatively easy to recruit for vacancies and little training is needed.

Where the public sector will lose out if it goes too far on the pensions changes is in jobs that benefit from significant experience such as teaching, scientific research, paramedics, nursing. The public sector has a lot of these kinds of jobs (as does the private sector). Of course nobody is indespensible but when an experienced person leaves replacing them can take a significant learning curve.

The politicians like some of the mindless public do not understand this but if "they" make such changes, yes you will be better off using your skills in something like banking and accept that the rewards of teaching do not pay the bills or facilitate a good retirement.

In the nineties, politicians decided that we did not need as many nurses and doctors. When it became evident that we did, we could not just pop out and recruit them be had to bring in loads from other nations while we worked out how to replace the training facilities that we had closed and it took years to train enough skilled and experienced people.

sheffield_lad

BobQ wrote: »

Where the public sector will lose out if it goes too far on the pensions changes is in jobs that benefit from significant experience such as teaching, scientific research, paramedics, nursing..

And do you really think this deal is too far?

I think its far to generous an offer, my deal a pension with the same retirement age, contribution and benefits of the average private sector pension.

That really would be fair on all taxpayers (inc PS workers).

My own view is many on Wed don't have a clue of what they have been offered and only see this as big bad Tory gov robbing their pensions, often proved here with teachers not even understanding the deal on the table, but that might have been the unions plan.

swiss69

Regardless of the pension debate, people whether private sector or public sector workers will have less disposable income for the foreseeable future.

This means less pension saving for private sector workers, less spending on non essential items and this will have a knock on effect on unemployment.

I expect Unemployment to hit a record high in the next few years, shops to be closing left, right and centre and economic growth to be negligible or negative.

History shows that where this happens, conflicts arise and crime escalates.

We are in for a very poor decade compared with the last one.

Ultimately those who inherit will do well and those that dont may well struggle.

sheffield_lad

swiss69 wrote: »

Regardless of the pension debate, people whether private sector or public sector workers will have less disposable income for the foreseeable future.

This means less pension saving for private sector workers, less spending on non essential items and this will have a knock on effect on unemployment.

I expect Unemployment to hit a record high in the next few years, shops to be closing left, right and centre and economic growth to be negligible or negative.

History shows that where this happens, conflicts arise and crime escalates.

We are in for a very poor decade compared with the last one.

Ultimately those who inherit will do well and those that dont may well struggle.

I agree I don't think the boom years like we had pre 2008 will ever return, maybe that's a good thing as it was only built on debt, we keep saying its the bankers but we all know it was down to us and our debt the problem only came to light when we were finally told NO to using tomorrows pay cheque today.

The gov response is the same one you would have got regardless of who had one the election, with one exception I think this gov will stick to the task and bring down the debt. But this leads to hard times for many a fact of life but holding a banner saying, No to cuts and no to pension reform is simply laughable it has to happen you know it I know it we all know it.

PS, not sure about the empty shops, I have spoke to several businesses who have successfully renegotiated their rents which in some cases have reduced by 75% Its no good for a shop to be empty landlords know this.