Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

worldwheeler

howee wrote: »

Count yourself lucky they still want you to have an over generous pension scheme, if it was up to me you would have no better and no worse than the average private sector pension that really would be fair.

The peasants will fight each other to be the masters cheapest, hardest working, earliest dieing slave. READY, SET..... GO now race to the bottom for your owner. The council workers get a bigger pension than me and shouldn't; I would do the fireman's job for less; the nurse should count themselves lucky they are still working. All this is music to the ears of the soon to be new private owners of any public service that are being [STRIKE]given away[/STRIKE], sorry, sold. MORE profits for the owner class.
The system which has taken the pension money on a set of promises is now reneging on the promises and it will simply watch the slaves bite each other to the bone and smile as even less has to be given back. Start to realise the system is parasitic and it will feed off the very bones of peoples labour. It's a game, the table is rigged, the dice are loaded and the house will always win. If any challenge is made to the capital house then the challenger is taken out the back and given a good kicking, (miners 1980's)
Unless people see the system needs to be changed then all the arguing is like using each other as a shield in front of the machine gun nest and never actually dealing with destroying the nest.

cyclonebri1

BobQ wrote: »

I think this depends on how you define retrospective and its at the heart of the judicial review arguments.

I have a preserved civil service pension that I earned many years ago. The value of this pension since I left has been preserved by RPI. In a few years when I draw it, the pension with have less value than I was expecting and will grow at a lower rate than I had been promised. Yet my pension was earned 30 years ago.

So I think its a retrospective change. Had my private sector pension fund informed me that they were repaying some of my pension fund to my employer because times are hard I would have been equally displeased.

But I have to say that the Government's changes are very clever since it has convinced people like you that they are behaving in an honest way!

Bob, the RPI affects all of us, you will get the pension you were promised, and dare I say it is a very generous pension, :T:T, congratulations, you are 1 of the few winners

jem16

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Bob, the RPI affects all of us,

How does it affect all of us?

Moby

gfplux wrote: »

Skipping through all the posts one theme for me has emerged.
Most posters FROM the public sector describe waste and inefficiency in their particular organisation.
Simple answer PRIVATISATION.
That will get rid of of waste, inefficiency and poor performing people.
Please don't suggest the customer will suffer. Most private company's with a public face provide a good service to their customers.
I am not talking about company's with no public face like water or gas but company's like Tesco, Virgin, McDo etc.

As well as being inaccurate about the public sector you are also ignorant as to the 'simple answer' of privatisation. As previously said.... privatisation creates its own problems. It drives down working conditions and salaries for the workers. Further more introducing privatisation into criminal justice, health services, social services etc reduces the quality of services provided because emphasis is placed on reducing costs and the biggest part of that is staff costs ie you always end up with the lowest common demoninator. eg look at the report from the recent Care Homes scandal. You also are attempting to create a market in areas which are inappropriate for market competition. Its simply immoral to use market forces in health care, education, criminal justice, social services etc.

Quote Cyclonebril:-

This is the single most understood point of the whole issue

No problem then is there! Or did you mean to say something else?

Old_Slaphead

Moby wrote: »

As previously said.... privatisation creates its own problems. It drives down working conditions and salaries for the workers.

From that statement, would I be right to conclude that you therefore think that generally the public sector is therefore currently better remunerated on a like-for-like comparison? (That somewhat goes against the grain of a lot of opinion which seems to indicate that many in the public sector think otherwise).

Andy_L

jem16 wrote: »

How does it affect all of us?

Not quite all, but a fairly large proportion

Everybody who has a DB pension that doesn't specifically specify RPI

All people with an entitlement to the state pension, both basic & S2P, although to an extent that is offset by the "triple lock" on the basic state pension

MikeR71

Isn't it a fact that one problem with privatisation is that the bosses can pay themselves hiddeous amounts without the government being able to do anything about it?

No thanks. No more privatisation.

howee wrote: »

You must be joking, yes the stupid one's who believed the unions. (we had a teacher a few pages back who thought her pension would be £7k and no lump sum). lol

Do you really think people will retire early because they have been asked for a 3% contribution rise lol

to sum up 'its not as good as it used to be but bloody hell its still a fantastic deal compared with whats out there'

Well I can tell you my personal situation is such that if I have to pay an extra 3% it will take me over what is affordable and I WILL have to opt out. I have so many outgoings that already by the 3rd day of the month I am down to nearly £150. I simply can not afford what will be another £80.

I do worry about it a lot. But then I figured that if I opt out and get the cash at least I live better now. I will hope to die before I am 67 so I don't have to live in poverty in my old age.

This is all music to a conservative's ear.

Old_Slaphead

MikeR71 wrote: »

Well I can tell you my personal situation is such that if I have to pay an extra 3% it will take me over what is affordable and I WILL have to opt out. I have so many outgoings that already by the 3rd day of the month I am down to nearly £150. I simply can not afford what will be another £80.

I do worry about it a lot. But then I figured that if I opt out and get the cash at least I live better now. I will hope to die before I am 67 so I don't have to live in poverty in my old age.

You won't be in poverty in your old age if you can somehow find the extra.

An £80pm extra payment presumably means you're on a salary of £40,000 - which assuming you've worked 40 years will give a pension of £26,666pa.

Add in a state pension of £5000 - you'll be quids in.

Most of us can only dream of such income in our dotage.

ILW

Moby wrote: »

As well as being inaccurate about the public sector you are also ignorant as to the 'simple answer' of privatisation. As previously said.... privatisation creates its own problems. It drives down working conditions and salaries for the workers. Further more introducing privatisation into criminal justice, health services, social services etc reduces the quality of services provided because emphasis is placed on reducing costs and the biggest part of that is staff costs ie you always end up with the lowest common demoninator. eg look at the report from the recent Care Homes scandal. You also are attempting to create a market in areas which are inappropriate for market competition. Its simply immoral to use market forces in health care, education, criminal justice, social services etc.

Quote Cyclonebril:-


No problem then is there! Or did you mean to say something else?

You seem to be implying that the users of these services are of secondary importance to the employee.

If the private sector can deliver the same level of service at a lower cost, or a better level of service at the same cost - What is the problem?

cyclonebri1

jem16 wrote: »

How does it affect all of us?

What?? you think it doesn't?? do you think the rise in the retail price index is irrelevant??
, Juesss man don't you shop??

And don't get me started on different ways of measuring pension/benefit entitlements, backfired a little on the Gov methinks:rotfl: