Public Sector Strike(s)

abaxas

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Public sector workers do fund their own pension, we also get a contribution from the government, the same as many private sector workers do from their employers.

You don't pay our pensions, you pay for a service, our employer then pays us a pension from their income. Same as someone buys something from your company, they are not paying your pension they are paying for a service. By your logic I could argue that you getting money from the NHS means that tax payers are paying for your pension too.

Private sector workers' reactions would likely be the same if they had been paying into something and the rules were suddenly dramatically changed, leading to you getting less, paying more and working longer than you had originally planned for. All this on top of pay freezes, caps and cuts. The difference is that successive governments have brain washed the private sector into accepting these types of changes without a fight and made you think that a race to the bottom is the way to go.

The issue is that private pensions companies can go bust (and have).

The only risk to public sector pensions is change on monarch as this negates the validity of contract.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats one answer. Slightly lazy one.

The other is to look at America. The Pharma company I worked for made more in relative head per population from the UK, as more of their drugs got used.

For example, if someone needs 2 inhalers here, preventer and reliever. They will take both. They may not use both, but they will take them. It costs so little, and in many cases, nothing to have both.

In the US, it will cost that patient. They won't take the preventer unless abosultely neccesary.

The drugs are just examples to get the point across, not an actual case.

People are quite happy in this country to go to their GP and get a prescription and then pop the antibiotics in the cupboard as they are feeling better. That's a last resort in many other countries. You certainly don't take to waste.

this is an odd post which appears to argue that it's a good idea to have a state funded healthcare system because it encourages people to 'draw down' the provision of services they don't really need, because they can and they don't have to pay for it at the point of delivery. i would say that is one of the major problems of having a system which is, for all intents and purposes, free at the point of delivery.

other countries appear to be doing a better job by having services provided by a mix of the public and private sector with some usage charges. it seems that we'll never get anything remotely as sensible here because people freak out when you suggest that the NHS might not be the best possible model for healthcare provision, and accuse you of trying to dismantle the welfare state and say that you want their granny to be chucked down a well when she has a cough.

Credit-Crunched

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Public sector workers do fund their own pension, we also get a contribution from the government, the same as many private sector workers do from their employers.

You don't pay our pensions, you pay for a service, our employer then pays us a pension from their income. Same as someone buys something from your company, they are not paying your pension they are paying for a service. By your logic I could argue that you getting money from the NHS means that tax payers are paying for your pension too.

Private sector workers' reactions would likely be the same if they had been paying into something and the rules were suddenly dramatically changed, leading to you getting less, paying more and working longer than you had originally planned for. All this on top of pay freezes, caps and cuts. The difference is that successive governments have brain washed the private sector into accepting these types of changes without a fight and made you think that a race to the bottom is the way to go.

This did happen, find me an employer that is still paying a final salary pension in the private sector! None they have all moved from DB to DC schemes due to the costs involved.

Lord knows that would happen if the gov. tried to introduce DC into the public sector.

"pay freezes, caps and cuts" no different to what has been happening the real world for the past 5 years

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Public sector workers do fund their own pension, we also get a contribution from the government, the same as many private sector workers do from their employers.

You don't pay our pensions, you pay for a service, our employer then pays us a pension from their income. Same as someone buys something from your company, they are not paying your pension they are paying for a service. By your logic I could argue that you getting money from the NHS means that tax payers are paying for your pension too.

Private sector workers' reactions would likely be the same if they had been paying into something and the rules were suddenly dramatically changed, leading to you getting less, paying more and working longer than you had originally planned for. All this on top of pay freezes, caps and cuts. The difference is that successive governments have brain washed the private sector into accepting these types of changes without a fight and made you think that a race to the bottom is the way to go.

Very well said, certainly more constructively phrased than I would of put it:T

I do pay into my pension, 3.5% to be exact:D, my wages are about to be frozen again as I earn over £21k, I'm not happy with my salary being frozen but I'm willing to accept due to the current economic climate. What we don't appreciate is government suggesting that Pension's are gold plated when they are clearly not. In the private Sector the AVG salary would be a few £k higher and I knew that when I signed my contract. It's the bombardment that the public sector is now experiencing that is most disagreeable. Accrued rights should not be thrown away in a great race to the bottom.

julieq

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Public sector workers do fund their own pension, we also get a contribution from the government, the same as many private sector workers do from their employers.

You don't pay our pensions, you pay for a service, our employer then pays us a pension from their income. Same as someone buys something from your company, they are not paying your pension they are paying for a service. By your logic I could argue that you getting money from the NHS means that tax payers are paying for your pension too.

Private sector workers' reactions would likely be the same if they had been paying into something and the rules were suddenly dramatically changed, leading to you getting less, paying more and working longer than you had originally planned for. All this on top of pay freezes, caps and cuts. The difference is that successive governments have brain washed the private sector into accepting these types of changes without a fight and made you think that a race to the bottom is the way to go.

The contributions of the government plus your contributions would give about half the pension you get as an equivalent in the private sector You are asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the rest. What we as private sector taxpayers would like you to do, very specifically, is to contribute more so that your retirement costs are your responsibilty, as ours are. Now can you please tell me what is wrong with that?

And the private sector has seen PRECISELY the same thing. It's not a question of being brainwashed, it's a question of hard commercial reality. Please, this is not a race to the bottom. You are being offered a FANTASTIC deal. You simply wouldn't get close to that in the private sector. In the private sector, you would be seeing your old deal closed, and offered a defined contribution scheme or nothing at all. Like Unilever yesterday.

Because with the increases in life expectancy and the changes in the working demographic, defined benefits are essentially a pyramid scheme. The only reason they're practical at all is that the public sector is relatively small in comparison to the private sector.

andybenw

julieq wrote: »

As usual, you're making strong and valid points. There's a populist line about "we should support our heroic soldiers whatever it costs" I'd like to steer clear of, but I do think there are very strong reasons for looking at the armed forces as special cases, and you make them well.

That doesn't extend to a blank cheque, but we do need an effective and professional defence force, and that does require a very strong overall package. However bad my day might be, I'm unlikely to be risking my life or even putting up with some of the privations of the forces. So I think most people would broadly support a good deal for the armed forces.

Thanks for that.
I admit the public sector is bloated at present but that is already being dealt with by job cuts, pensions are a seperate issue. If further job cuts are required then as long as they are targetted to non essential jobs then I suppose so be it. The government do not seem to distinguish however between essential and non essential.

But that is off point. This strike has been caused by the governments failure to engage in negotiation. I have explained my viewpoint on this in other posts. I feel I must support public sector workers in this strike. Bear in mind that apart from a vote every 5 years the right to strike is about the only instrument workers have when fighting for their rights, be it as part of the public or private sector.

thegirlintheattic

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

This did happen, find me an employer that is still paying a final salary pension in the private sector! None they have all moved from DB to DC schemes due to the costs involved.

Lord knows that would happen if the gov. tried to introduce DC into the public sector.

"pay freezes, caps and cuts" no different to what has been happening the real world for the past 5 years

and you moan about it but didn't fight. That's your problem. We are fighting for it.

abaxas

andybenw wrote: »

This strike has been caused by the governments failure to engage in negotiation.

Making 2 million people look selfish and greedy is all part of the negotiation. If anything I would expect the government to reduce their offer.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

abaxas wrote: »

Making 2 million people look selfish and greedy is all part of the negotiation. If anything I would expect the government to reduce their offer.

Selfish and greedy = Defending signed accrued contractual rights.

Andy_L

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Read the paragraph above and it answers it :eek:

Paying double time on Sat to make up for the shortfall on work done during the week

Still makes no sense, on flexi time people still need to do their hours. Overtime would only be needed if there is more work than can be done during the week. Flexitime might even reduce the need for overtime as people/managers can flex hours from a quite period to a busy period.