Public Sector Strike(s)

andybenw

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

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

So you have a choice?? It was my understanding that you are in the forces just about to leave.

The outcome of this strike might not affect your already accrued pension, but it will certainly affect the pension of young soldiers and sailors who do not have the option to strike.

This is why the strikers need to be supported by forces personnel.

Peelerfart

It's OK going on about Firemen and nurses and the like meanwhile jobs like this have to suffer to and no-one seems to care,

"Post No.: 80000009210
Title: Beauty Therapist x 6
Directorate: Lifelong Learning
Salary: £15,725 - £16,830, pro rata for part time The grade and salary for this post are subject to Job Evaluation.
Salary Grade / Scale: 3
Spinal Point: 14-17
Other Information: Full time and part time hours available"


Have a heart out there please :mad:

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

ILW wrote: »

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.

The Hutton report rejected the idea that public service pensions were "gold-plated", pointing out that the average pension in payment was modest at about £7,800 a year.

And he rejected suggestions from employers' groups that public service pensions should be at the level of inferior private sector pensions, describing this as a "race to the bottom".

Lord Hutton also pointed out that the long-term cost of funding public service pension schemes had already been cut by 25%.

He pointed to measures such as uprating pensions in line with the typically lower Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

He also said some big schemes had already decided to raise the normal pension age for new recruits to 65 rather than 60.

julieq

There isn't a contractual obligation. If there were, Unison would be in the High Court now and it would be game over.

Hutton stated specifically that the proposed changes were was to counter the rising value of benefits due to increasing longevity, and the unfair sharing of costs between the employee, the employer and taxpayers.

You can read the report here

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/hutton_final_100311.pdf

elantan

tonycottee wrote: »

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

i cant get a like for like job in the public sector ... believe me if i could i would

FTBFun

I don't get the pension age being raised as something one could really complain about.

It is a fact that people are living longer due to improved medical care, diets etc. That's obviously going to cause some issues as people live longer - life expectancy has risen by approx 8 years for men since 1980 and 6 for women.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/interim-life-tables/2008-2010/sum-ilt-2008-10.html

julieq

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

The Hutton report rejected the idea that public service pensions were "gold-plated", pointing out that the average pension in payment was modest at about £7,800 a year.

And he rejected suggestions from employers' groups that public service pensions should be at the level of inferior private sector pensions, describing this as a "race to the bottom".

Lord Hutton also pointed out that the long-term cost of funding public service pension schemes had already been cut by 25%.

He pointed to measures such as uprating pensions in line with the typically lower Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

He also said some big schemes had already decided to raise the normal pension age for new recruits to 65 rather than 60.

Very partial and incomplete summary of the report.

The proposals are not "at the bottom" and there is therefore no race to the bottom. If you were racing with the private sector you'd have defined contribution or no company pension. You're right up at the top of pension provision.

They are a good deal, better than the private sector in most cases. You're just being asked to share the cost more fairly with the employer and the taxpayer. Which cannot be unreasonable, surely?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

julieq wrote: »

Very partial and incomplete summary of the report.

The proposals are not "at the bottom" and there is therefore no race to the bottom. If you were racing with the private sector you'd have defined contribution or no company pension. You're right up at the top of pension provision.

They are a good deal, better than the private sector in most cases.
So is it jealousy or what, Huttons report stated that minor changes could be made to make them affordable. Public sector workers will not just lie down to constant bombardment
You're just being asked to share the cost more fairly with the employer and the taxpayer. Which cannot be unreasonable, surely?

You're coming across very bitter and jealous... I'm glad your day has been disrupted.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

It's the public sector workers who are paid the least who are having to pay the price. The chancellor says it is fair for taxpayers but seems to forget that these low-paid workers pay their taxes and spend money in the economy too. If people are losing their jobs in tens of thousands and pay is frozen there is little money to spend and the economy doesn't grow.

The austerity plans aren't working. The government is only interested in short-term gain.
Once again the public sector is being made to pay for the crisis caused by the banking sector. The economy is heading back into recession. If the government was serious about turning the economy round it would invest in collecting the £120 billion in avoided, evaded and uncollected tax.

Graham_Devon

All that needs to happen, in reality, to the public sector pension is to change it TODAY going forward.

I don't think it's fair to suggest someone should lose 20% of their 10 years or whatever pension contributions. I also odn't think it's fair to suggest that because they were old enough to get that nice scheme, they should therefore continue to get all the benefits at the expense of making sure for new entrants, they get a worse ride.

Forget all this "we signed up to X" nonsense. !!!!!! happens, things change. Let people keep what they accrued under those terms, but things HAVE to change going forward, and it's unfair in itself to keep making it worse and worse for the younger joining up, just to make sure those who have at least enjoyed the better terms so far, keep on enjoying the better terms.

We are going to get a LOT more of this sort of thing though. Changes for the worse for young people to make sure that those who have had at least a chance to prosper continue to prosper.

We are seeing it with the pension age increase. "its not fair on us, delay it".

Things need to change. It's completely unfair to expect our children to carry ALL of the burden just so that we can continue on our nice packages and argue amongst each other as to who's the biggest leach in society.

Unfortunately we are all leaches at the moment. We want cuts, just not cuts that effect us. We want lower costs of living, so long as it doesn't mean that shareholders and pension holders lose out. We want our benefits, but we dont want to see others getting benefits. Private sector workers want to see public sector workers lose out. Public sector workers want to see private sector workers lose out. Current public sector workers want to see new public sector workers lose out. Private sector workers want to see new entrants lose out.

So long as its not US, and the buck is passed, it's fine and we all want reform. As long as, of course, that reform doesn;'t effect us today, tommorow, and doesn't effect any wealth we have built up in the past.

The most amusing thing is the national mimum wage and all this stuff about treating everyone equaly. Equal opportunities....theres enquiries as to why a women wasn't featured in the best sportsperson catergories etc. Discrimination is the biggest evil ever.

Unless it's age discrimination. Then thats just fine! if your 16, fook you, you can have a lower wage for the very same job than your 25 year old counter part.....brilliant. Bravo.