Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

jem16

Andy_L wrote: »

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

Which seems to rule out the Public Sector pensions. The ones who are keeping it so far seem to be private sector.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

What?? you think it doesn't?? do you think the rise in the retail price index is irrelevant??

As we are talking about pensions - BobQ was specifically talking about his deferred pension - then I would assume it was in relation to that.

Of course RPI affects all of us but it seems that the government thinks pensioners ( and in particular state pensioners or public sector pensioners) are not affected by RPI, only CPI.

sheffield_lad

worldwheeler wrote: »

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.

What a load of left wing, told you so, up the revolution, Russia has it right TOSH!

There is NO race to the bottom, what has happened is the private sector has recognised final salary pensions were unaffordable and they have dealt with this. Leaving the gigantic elephant in the waiting room the public sector.

I think some sectors of the PS do have it good an example being firemen who often have plenty of time for part time jobs thanks to the rotors which effectively let us pay them for sleeping on some shifts.

There is a massive waste of money in the PS check back on this thread where a worker was complaining of having staff cut from 14 to 5 yet she says the are barley coping, meaning 7-8 would be fine 50% less staff!!!!!!!

We hear the NHS is the nations crown jewel as free access to all but do you seriously think the NHS always gives world class service?

If you had the money would you not go private?

This anti capital tosh is just about acceptable when we are growing but in harsh times we need to trim and the big fat cow is the public sector, many who loose their jobs will do so through retirement and the posts won't be replaced maybe the PS worker will have to work just that little bit harder in future and maybe we may also see an improvement in efficiency's and standards.

In times like this I think everyone in both sectors should be thankful to have a job.

BobQ

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

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

The RPI affects us all in the here and now , of course it does, but that is not the point I was making.

My retirement income does not rely exclusively on my 10 years in the civil service, my point is that I can see why some public sector workers are annoyed with the change to CPI however lucky they are to have an index linked pension compared to the many people who do not. The effect of the CPI change is to reduce the benefits they earned in the past compared to what they were promised. I can also see how the act of making such a change would make public sector workers doubt anything that the Government said.

BobQ

howee wrote: »

What a load of left wing, told you so, up the revolution, Russia has it right TOSH!
.
..............
In times like this I think everyone in both sectors should be thankful to have a job.

I agree with your first and last lines but its becoming an unhealthy obsession with some people to denigrate the public sector.

I cannot defend waste in either sector and I agree that there is a different imperative in the private sector for eliminating waste. However, there are large parts of the public sector that do a good job, work hard and perform a valuable function.

I do not think it helps to suggest that everying would be better in the private sector. You mention the NHS. The actual cost of the NHS is about 7% of GDP, in the US its 15%. Which is more cost effective the holy grail of the private US system or the NHS?

What most public sector origanisations lack is good management. The elimination of waste in the public sector is largely down to its poor managers but the assumption that you do it all by privatisation is flawed.

You can reduce costs in any organisation at the expense of quality. If Fire Service shifts can be reorganised so that staff work more efficiently fine but I for one would not want the fireservice manned by low paid, low skilled staff using poor quality equipment purely to enhance private profits. Nor wopuld I wish people to die because some time and motion expert had decided that they could reduce response times without anyone noticing just to pay their shareholders. The track record of privatisations in recent times is not really that great.

sheffield_lad

Bob I agree with you privatisation is not always the answer but in times like this we really do need to make cost savings across the public sector and if these savings cannot be made I don't see why privatising parts is not a bad idea.

I also believe the unions hold the public sector back and make it more difficult to reform as they see any form of change or savings as a threat to them.

dizzie

FACT: We are all living longer

I don't know when the state retirement ages of 65 (men) and 60 (women) were set, but it was a considerable time ago. Since then, with advances in medicine, the average life expectancy has lengthened significantly.

FACT: It is not affordable!

We cannot afford to financially support people by continuing to pay them the same weekly/monthly amount for longer. The trouble is that the wheels of government move slowly, so because we have not made significant adjustments on a regular basis, the reforms appear to be more drastic.

FACT: There are only two options:

1. Either we accept a lower weekly/monthly pension in retirement or
2. We work for longer and make the average retirement period shorter

...or of course a combination of these two, in order to achieve a balance.

OPINION: It is only right that changes be applied across the board

1. That is why they are increasing the state pension age (which will affect everyone eligible to claim a state pension)

2. That is partly why the annuity rates for pension funds have nosedived. Insurance companies realise that people are living longer so they have to stretch that money out so it will last. This leaves people two options: (i) you either accept a pension that is only about ONE THIRD of what it used to be for the same pension pot total....or you work for longer, retire later and get perhaps nearer HALF of what it used to be.

3. Public sector pensions cannot be left unscathed since that offers protection to a large population within our society that is not afforded to anyone else. A combination of a higher retirement age and a lower annual pension payment is necessary. However, the government are being nowhere near as hard-nosed as the private insurance companies are being. No one is suggesting that public sector pensions be slashed by two thirds to mirror what is happening to private pensions. I think that the government deserves a little credit for this.


...of course, the other option is that we go back to a more primitive healthcare system reflective of the 1950's NHS. If we go back to using only a tiny fraction of the drugs and medical procedures that are available today, we can perhaps reduce life expectancy!!! It's a barbaric idea, but perhaps it will make us grateful that we are living longer. More importantly, perhaps it will make us realise that there are bound to be knock-on effects of increased life expectancy to the economy....and hopefully most of us will realise that we cannot have our cake and eat it!

Finally - at one time the country could just keep on borrowing and borrowing to maintain our spending. But it has just about spiralled out of control. To use an analogy...we're getting rather close to our huge overdraft limit and if we breach it, then interest rates on borrowed money will start to rocket. Then, we might be joining Greece in economic freefall!

Moby

Quote ILW:-
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?

I'm saying the exact opposite..... the users of these services will receive a lower level of service for the reasons I gave. I also said that introducing the profit motive into such areas is immoral because such services should be provided on the basis of need. The profit motive will contradict this aim because the profit mechanism is based on reducing costs thereby reducing quality and not doing the things properly that are hard and financially unrewarding eg caring for the elderly, supervising criminals, mental health services etc. Southern Cross Care Homes scandal ring a bell???

Why do you think we are seeing so many low paid, poorly qualified people working in social care and mental health. They are taken on by private company's to do very difficult jobs for disgusting rates of pay..... while the shareholders take the profits from the contracts issued on taxpayers behalf by the Govmt. The bottom line is nothing is free in this world and in the end someone has to pay for cost cutting and profit...sadly its usually the vulnerable and the poor.

howee wrote: »

What a load of left wing, told you so, up the revolution, Russia has it right TOSH!


This anti capital tosh is just about acceptable when we are growing but in harsh times we need to trim and the big fat cow is the public sector, many who loose their jobs will do so through retirement and the posts won't be replaced maybe the PS worker will have to work just that little bit harder in future and maybe we may also see an improvement in efficiency's and standards.

In times like this I think everyone in both sectors should be thankful to have a job.

Howee you 'grateful for what you have' doffing your cap to your perceived betters attitude does a complete disservice to your class. Your attitude is the reason why the rich and powerful will always oppress the rest of us. For a point of reference just look at how Cameron is doing everything he can to protect London financial centre from being accountable for their actions while the rest of us can suffer wage freezes, unemployment, cutbacks in services etc.

sheffield_lad

Moby wrote: »

Howee you 'grateful for what you have' doffing your cap to your perceived betters attitude does a complete disservice to your class. Your attitude is the reason why the rich and powerful will always oppress the rest of us. For a point of reference just look at how Cameron is doing everything he can to protect London financial centre from being accountable for their actions while the rest of us can suffer wage freezes, unemployment, cutbacks in services etc.

So you think the tobin tax would be a success do you lol. We can all bash bankers lets blame them for this mess it has nothing to do with my and your personal debt and the fact we have for the last 10yrs spent more than we earned. London overtook NY as the worlds financial centre a few years ago why tax London to death and encourage banks to move abroad. Do you think France are not very envious of the position London is in?

As the world power moves east we will find it harder and harder to compete for manual jobs / manufacturing etc. Where we can compete is in area we can use expertise, like them or loath them we have workers in an industry who are actually the envy of the world. We need Cameron to protect them/this.

J_i_m

I hate to stick my nose back into this. I'm not going to backtrack on my last post which accepts that reforms are needed, I'll be retiring later etc.

Yet and this has been my sticky wicket from the get go, there are still far too many people here who assume that they basically pay other peoples wages/pensions etc. They do not. They really need to get this silly idea out of their heads.

Money goes around in circles within the ecomony. Take the NHS, yes it's funded by tax payers money of course it is. But it seems people assume the money simply evaporates into nothingness. They forget that all the consumables, drugs, technical products, vehicles needed are produced by and bought from private companies (perhapps some things are imported). The wages? The vast majority of any average persons wage goes on living costs, mortgage, utility bills, shopping, leisure. Tell me this, how many public sector run supermarkets, energy providers, car servicing garages are there?

The point is... Not one person (unless you happy to be filthy rich) can claim to be funding someone else's wage, because technically then they are funding yours in return. The whole "I'm a tax payer and I pay for you!" is so incredibley short sighted.

Now I'm just waiting for one of these people to accuse me of having my head hurried in sand.

CLAPTON

dizzie wrote: »

FACT: We are all living longer

I don't know when the state retirement ages of 65 (men) and 60 (women) were set, but it was a considerable time ago. Since then, with advances in medicine, the average life expectancy has lengthened significantly.

FACT: It is not affordable!

We cannot afford to financially support people by continuing to pay them the same weekly/monthly amount for longer. The trouble is that the wheels of government move slowly, so because we have not made significant adjustments on a regular basis, the reforms appear to be more drastic.

FACT: There are only two options:

1. Either we accept a lower weekly/monthly pension in retirement or
2. We work for longer and make the average retirement period shorter

...or of course a combination of these two, in order to achieve a balance.

OPINION: It is only right that changes be applied across the board

1. That is why they are increasing the state pension age (which will affect everyone eligible to claim a state pension)

2. That is partly why the annuity rates for pension funds have nosedived. Insurance companies realise that people are living longer so they have to stretch that money out so it will last. This leaves people two options: (i) you either accept a pension that is only about ONE THIRD of what it used to be for the same pension pot total....or you work for longer, retire later and get perhaps nearer HALF of what it used to be.

3. Public sector pensions cannot be left unscathed since that offers protection to a large population within our society that is not afforded to anyone else. A combination of a higher retirement age and a lower annual pension payment is necessary. However, the government are being nowhere near as hard-nosed as the private insurance companies are being. No one is suggesting that public sector pensions be slashed by two thirds to mirror what is happening to private pensions. I think that the government deserves a little credit for this.


...of course, the other option is that we go back to a more primitive healthcare system reflective of the 1950's NHS. If we go back to using only a tiny fraction of the drugs and medical procedures that are available today, we can perhaps reduce life expectancy!!! It's a barbaric idea, but perhaps it will make us grateful that we are living longer. More importantly, perhaps it will make us realise that there are bound to be knock-on effects of increased life expectancy to the economy....and hopefully most of us will realise that we cannot have our cake and eat it!

Finally - at one time the country could just keep on borrowing and borrowing to maintain our spending. But it has just about spiralled out of control. To use an analogy...we're getting rather close to our huge overdraft limit and if we breach it, then interest rates on borrowed money will start to rocket. Then, we might be joining Greece in economic freefall!

20% of the country are over retirement age (that's an approximate fact)

what share of national income do you think is affordable for the that 20% to enjoy?

what share do they currently enjoy?

I only ask because you KNOW that the current pensions aren't affordable so you are in an excellent position to know tha facts about this.