Public Sector Strike(s)

andybenw

FTBFun wrote: »

I think its fair to say this won't happen. Despite the issues with forces' pay (which I think is horrendous), reducing pensions will be such a massive PR error I can't see any government doing this for the foreseeable future.

Well the change from RPI to CPI has lowered pensions already by around 15/20% over their lifetime.

Next up is a change from final salary to career average.

Next is a probable increase from retirement age of 55 to 60.
What this means for a squaddie retiring after 22 years is a reduction from 22/37 of pension to 22/42 of pension. ie a reduction of 12% of pension.

All this is without a possible 'contribution' having to be made. For those who do not know Armed Forces pay is currently abated to make up for pension.

tonycottee

julieq wrote: »

Ah OK, no problem. Very happy to pay your pension as well as mine anyway, and it's lovely that you're being sniffy about a deal which any private sector worker would tear your arm off to get.

You know, if you don't like working 12.5 hour days you're very welcome in the private sector (where incidentally we also pay for our own drinks). You will have to pay more for your retirement, you won't get as much pension, you'll be paid against a regular assessment of your performance, and you'll be at risk of redundancy during economic downturns without much warning, but otherwise it's great here, really.

Actually, to save time, would you just like me to add you to my credit card?

So why didn't you go for a job in the Public Sector then?

julieq

tonycottee wrote: »

So why didn't you go for a job in the Public Sector then?

Because I preferred to work somewhere that generates wealth and creates jobs, and I was prepared to make my own pension provisions rather than expecting someone else to pick up the tab.

tonycottee

julieq wrote: »

Because I preferred to work somewhere that generates wealth and creates jobs, and I was prepared to make my own pension provisions rather than expecting someone else to pick up the tab.

So you chose a job based on helping the economy rather than yourself? You are a wonderful person.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

julieq wrote: »

Because I preferred to work somewhere that generates wealth and creates jobs, and I was prepared to make my own pension provisions rather than expecting someone else to pick up the tab.

HAHAHA Poor Julie:T

She chose not to look after a dying person TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to protect the innocent TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to educate and guide our children TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to go to war and risk death TO CREATE WEALTH
She chose not to risk her life fighting fires TO CREATE WEALTH

The list goes on, Don't make out that the work you do is somehow morally greater than a pubic sector worker. :beer:

FTBFun

tonycottee wrote: »

So you chose a job based on helping the economy rather than yourself? You are a wonderful person.

Because, of course, everyone who enters the public sector does so out of civic responsibility.

tonycottee

FTBFun wrote: »

Because, of course, everyone who enters the public sector does so out of civic responsibility.

Who made that suggestion?
Anyway, plenty of people do it because of job security and the decent pension scheme. Not sure if you've heard about the pensions, but...

julieq

OK, the products my company makes are used by the NHS to save lives. Tick that one.
They're used by suppliers to the armed forces to create lower cost body armour. Think that one is covered too.

Not entirely sure how the public service protects the innocent, except in that it protects otherwise sensitive but workshy office slackers from having to be exposed to the workplace bullying of performance assessment and non collective pay review. Anyway I can't help there much.

I make no claim about the morality or not of my work. But it does generate wealth and it does create jobs. And it pays for the public sector.

On the other hand, all we get from elements of the public sector and the unions is nonsense about angelic nurses, soldiers in harms way, firemen, dedicated teachers and so on. Somehow you never talk about the people turning up on flexitime with extended friday pub lunches to shuffle planning applications around or any of the slightly less worthy jobs. So if anyone is trying to bypass the argument by spuriously claiming the moral high ground, it's not me.

The issue is simply this: why should you not fund your own pension? Why, when I get a worse deal than you should I be asked to subsidise it? If the situation was reversed, what would your reaction be exactly?

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

OK, the products my company makes are used by the NHS to save lives. Tick that one.

So without the public sector, you would be up the creek?

Interesting!

How much does your company cream from the NHS? Pharmaceutical by chance? If so, just how much wealth is drug protection making you?

I've worked for a major pharma company and also in the public sector in the NHS. There were key differences.

The pharma company had absolutely no job safety. The public sector has oodles.

The pharma company gave me a hire car wherever I needed to go and paid me for the time I spent driving there. The public sector expect me to use my own personal time to travel and my own personal car to travel there.

Swings and roundabouts.

End of the day, we'd all lose out immensly if it wasn't for the public sector.

Theres an element of truth that public sector worker don't "pay tax" as it were, as it's recycled money. But its an extreme argument. At the end of the day, the percentage taken from the salary is the same. Public or Private. It's just different ways of suggesting how little people are worth. Which in itself, is a rather saddening thing to be doing.

on this thread and now the other one, it seems both public and private are arguing simply to trample over one another. A shame really. We all contribute. Some people grow products. Some people make drugs out of those products to save lives. Some people make sure people are getting those drugs correctly prescribed to people to save lives. Some people put their own lives at risk to try and save anothers life.

All we can do here is shoot everyone down, trying to hammer them down into a worthless pulp to make ourselves feel better.

noodle_doodle

Of course, if pensions are seen as an unreliable way to plan for your old age, with the gubment willy-nilly changing the terms depending on the boss-eyed ideology of whoevers oozed into power at any given time, then people will turn to more physical investments, such as say houses, keeping the prices high. Well, that's the young'uns off the housing ladder for the forseeable future, and why we won't see a housing price crash either....