Public Sector Strike(s)

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Andy_L wrote: »

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.

He/she/it is unable to comprehend this simple explanation.

julieq

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

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

You know what happens in the private sector when this sort of thing is announced?

Someone holds a general meeting and puts up a powerpoint showing the balance sheet, often with the pension fund liabilities attached.

And they explain that we have the choice of either going out of business, or having to cut jobs, or making some savings. Usually the savings also include redundancies anyway.

That does kind of take the sting out of the instinct to fight. But good luck to you. You've just lost a day's pay and irritated a lot of people who have had to scrabble around finding childcare or rescheduling appointments.

Unfortunately you in the public sector just think you can tap into a bottomless supply of someone else's money and you're somehow entitled to do that whatever the economic or financial reality. What makes you think that it's acceptable for someone else to pay your pension if you're not prepared to contribute something approaching the costs yourself?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

An area I would like to see improved within the public sector is the tolerance allowed for people on sick....

I'm all for 6 months @full pay ( I have benefited from this due to serious illness) what I see though are people taking the mick, minor ailments headaches and colds taking a lot of time off which I don't feel should be tolerated and aren't tolerated in the private sector. I was attending work 3days out of 5whilst receiving chemotherapy recently others have a runny nose and are off for a week.

heathcote123

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

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.

So why is it that vitually every study done shows that public sector get a higher wage like for like than the private sector?

abaxas

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Selfish and greedy = Defending signed accrued contractual rights.

The contract is only valid inside the law.

The law is very tight on pensions and defined what is 'retirement'. Removal of that legislation would mean you could never retire or take your contractual right to a pension.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

julieq wrote: »

You know what happens in the private sector when this sort of thing is announced?

Someone holds a general meeting and puts up a powerpoint showing the balance sheet, often with the pension fund liabilities attached.

And they explain that we have the choice of either going out of business, or having to cut jobs, or making some savings. Usually the savings also include redundancies anyway.

That does kind of take the sting out of the instinct to fight. But good luck to you. You've just lost a day's pay and irritated a lot of people who have had to scrabble around finding childcare or rescheduling appointments.

Unfortunately you in the public sector just think you can tap into a bottomless supply of someone else's money and you're somehow entitled to do that whatever the economic or financial reality. What makes you think that it's acceptable for someone else to pay your pension if you're not prepared to contribute something approaching the costs yourself?

Again, the Hutton report stated that public service pensions are affordable..... What we do expect is:

Contractual agreements to be upheld. SIMPLES:T

Freeze our pay.
Cut jobs.
Inrease our workload.
Make us more efficient.

But don't expect us to roll over when you attack our pensions as well.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

heathcote123 wrote: »

So why is it that vitually every study done shows that public sector get a higher wage like for like than the private sector?

LINK?:rotfl:

paulmapp8306

Well, Im public sector and I dont support the strikes. I am in a public sector pension scheme as well.

What seems to be overlooked is that a public sector pension is optional. Its not like you get your contributions deducted at source without agreeing. if the terms have to be changed due to affordability then fine. If you like the new terms stay in. If you dont - opt out and find a private pension instead. I really think its that simple.

I agree that changing the terms retrospectivly isnt on. If youve paid for 20 or 30 years already with an agrteed payout at an agreed point linked to an agreed interest rate then thats what should be paid on contributions already made BUT for any future pension contributiuons the new rules should be applied. I guess the only action against retrospectivly changing the T&Cs is through the courts - european in needed, and not strike action.

However, I will state again - you have a CHOICE. Pay in to the pension with the terms on offer or opt out and find a private one with better returns (if you can). Personally Im will wait until the new terms are finalised and then decide whether to stay in or move to another private scheme, or alternative investmnets.

Until then im in work today - as should all public sector workers with a brain be.

ILW

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Again, the Hutton report stated that public service pensions are affordable..... What we do expect is:

Contractual agreements to be upheld. SIMPLES:T

Freeze our pay.
Cut jobs.
Inrease our workload.
Make us more efficient.

But don't expect us to roll over when you attack our pensions as well.

In the real world, contracts are worth nothing when the money runs out. Why do those in the public sector feel they are different to everybody else. Your employer is broke.

Emy1501

julieq wrote: »

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.

I work in the private sector and get a final salary pension. it has recently been closed to new members and current members will now have to work till 65 rather than 60. My wife is a teacher but is being told she will have to work till she is 68 rather than 60. pay in 4-5% more and get less. Also pay freeze this year and next plus rises of 2% for the next 2 years when the avergae pay rises for the private sector have been 2.5% a year. Why can't the changes be similar to my company. Maybe private sector companies are taking advantage of their staff. Many still seem to be making a huge profit.

Yes her pension may be better than many but its the whole package people look at when they take a job.

And yes she could go and work in the private sector where you can teach 16 children instead of 30 have longer holidays, less paperwork, dont need a teaching qualification and do not have to teach challenging children.

Nothing wrong with cuts but in real terms my wife will have taken the equiv of a 15% cut in pay over 4 years and will have to work longer etc. Seems the government have gone a bit to far here.