Public Sector Strike(s)

elantan

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

LOL, You're getting desperate now, My union PCS is paid for by its members, why would they defend you? NUMPTY

well i am in a union ... and i am in the private sector ... up until now i supported the public sector all the way ... never once thinking anything against the public sector .. always standing in their corner...

this strike however has made me think differently .... and now that i see ( certainly only you that has admitted this) the lack of support from people like you ... i have to wonder if i ever will support the public sector again ... your statement proves that you are looking after yourself and f**k everyone else especially those that are getting a worse deal ... i believe that everyone has the right to strike ... but we should be striking for everyone's pension and for everyones work contract ... not just the public sectors ... i pay my union dues .... but my union doesnt help me with my pension

CLAPTON

julieq wrote: »

This offer is NOT a race to the bottom. Have you actually read it? Accrued benefits are retained, and it is a massively better offer than generally available anywhere in the private sector. If there's any misinformation it's from the union side. These are the Hutton recommendations in any case, so quoting him in your support and then rejecting his conclusions when offered to you is pretty dumb.

And incidentally the cost of pension subsidies annually to the public sector is about £32B (and the offer maintains that more or less). As a point of comparison, the ENTIRE trident program costs £97B. The total accrued cost of the bank bailout is something of the order of £37B (and that may reduce). It is a MASSIVE commitment to the public sector. In 5 years you cost the taxpayer more than a trident program plus a bank bailout round - that's something to consider when you witter on about banks. Oh, and the tax contribution of the banks annually is about £58B, which equates to about 11% of total tax take. Without the banks you wouldn't have a prayer of getting your pension.

Deficits come from government spending, not banks, anyway. Having declared an end to boom and bust, this caught the Labour party by surprise because they had overcommitted massively in expanding the public sector. That WAS your employer's fault. You're now being offered a wonderful pension deal that happens to be not quite as good as it was, and you're still asking for more money. That's fine, but it's not unreasonable for you to contribute a great deal more if you want that.

public sector pensions aren't 'subsidised'; it's part of their employment compensation


I think you will find the bank bailout was about 850 billion and NOT 97 billion

what's a '0' or so amoungst friends


I would certainly expect the cost of trident to be a lot less than 20 pension payments for many millions of people; what planet are you living on?

elantan

if its employment compensation then public workers are getting much more than £2 an hour more than me ... the employers portion of it though ... is that employment compensation?

SingleSue

To me, the result of the strike is not one I like. Three children all off school, three children not learning the official curriculum, 3 children all missing out.

And that is just my family.

When it impacts on my loved ones (and bearing in mind teachers always tell you that even one day of missed lessons will impact upon it when a parent requests to take their child out during term time), I get peed off.

Not at the government but at those who are supposed to be dedicated to teaching my children, I was supportive of them until today...now I am not, especially after having been subjected to a load of tub thumping militants (and yes that is how I see strikers), parading past me today, making far too much noise and generally annoying everyone.....and it seems I was not the only one, very few of the public forced to the side of the pavement were supportive, leaflets handed out were scrunched up and thrown in the bin or just plain refused.

Take action by all means but not action which will impact on the innocent ones around you...today didn't harm the government, it harmed the general public, some of whom will never have the chance to have the same income or pension rights and who are now facing a tighter Christmas due to having to take unpaid leave or over the top childcare (if they were lucky enough to find some as the notice was way too short...it needs to be 2 months at least as confirmed closures, not the paltry 3 or 4 days parents received)

Middle son came up with a brilliant idea.....strike at weekends or after school rather than begger up his future career or better still, don't strike at all, it is irresponsible and loses the support of those who may have helped your cause.

Emy1501

julieq wrote: »

Well with that argument you could never reform public sector pensions, because you could argue the slightest change to the public sector would trigger a change in the private sector provision. In fact, as the private sector is pretty much all defined contributions now, there's not much further down to go anyway.

Honestly this race to the bottom stuff is a union smokescreen and nothing more. The existing scheme has been amended slightly so that slightly higher employee contributions are required, and final salary replaced with average salary which tends to favour the long term lower paid employees over the high flyers (which was why Hutton chose it). It's still an excellent deal. You would think from the rhetoric from the union side that pensions were being removed altogther.

I would say my pension changing from a retirement age of 60 to 65 is a slight ammendment. Asking someone to work 8 more years pay 3-4% more a year into their pension and move to a career average is a bit more than a slight ammendment especially at a time when these people are going to get an average of a 2% pay rise over 4 years campared to a 8-10% rise in the private sector.

Asking people to pay in maybe 1-2% more and work to their 65 is probably reasonable with a career average.

julieq

CLAPTON wrote: »

public sector pensions aren't 'subsidised'; it's part of their employment compensation


I think you will find the bank bailout was about 850 billion and NOT 97 billion

what's a '0' or so amoungst friends


I would certainly expect the cost of trident to be a lot less than 20 pension payments for many millions of people; what planet are you living on?

No, the accrued costs of the bailout are what I said. You have to bear in mind that much of the bailout was about liquidity loans and guarantees, and the costs are essentially the loss in value of the nationalised banks, i.e. about £21B, and an outstanding loan to NR.

I brought trident up because it's one of the things we're told can be cut to fund pensions. Well that doesn't work for very long. Fortunately the banks pay enough tax to cover your tab, despite the vitriol many in the public sector have spat at them today.

And the cost of the pension subsidy is from Hutton. Contributions from members and employers don't come close to meeting the costs. The taxpayer picks up the tab. That means the private sector. So to be brutally frank you'd be better of saying thanks rather than going out on the attack, because that money is still on the table. Personally given the selfish and intransigent attitudes we've been seeing today, I'd just bang you all on defined contributions sharpish, but luckily for you the government wants to implement Hutton fairly.

elantan

Emy1501 wrote: »

I would say my pension changing from a retirement age of 60 to 65 is a slight ammendment. Asking someone to work 8 more years pay 3-4% more a year into their pension and move to a career average is a bit more than a slight ammendment especially at a time when these people are going to get an average of a 2% pay rise over 4 years campared to a 8-10% rise in the private sector.

Asking people to pay in maybe 1-2% more and work to their 65 is probably reasonable with a career average.

i have not had a pay rise in over 5 years now .. so i am effectively earing less now that i was ... i have been told not to expect one for the foreseeable fututre ...i earn £2 ( poss more) an hour less than my unqualified counterpart in the public sector ( i'm fully qualified) i have lost all but ssp sick pay benefits ... i have lost two days annual leave ...

where is this magic 8-10% you talk about ? cause it sure aint happening in my work place ... and many others that i know

and i would like to just add ... atleast you get a pension ... i get nadda zilch zip all ... nothing and when i first started working i was due to retire at 60 currently i am 67 but i have no doubt it will go up again ... i tell ya what ... i'll swap jobs with a public sector worker for a year and we can see who gets the better deal ... are you offering ?

darich

julieq wrote: »

Deficits come from government spending, not banks, anyway. Having declared an end to boom and bust, this caught the Labour party by surprise because they had overcommitted massively in expanding the public sector. That WAS your employer's fault. You're now being offered a wonderful pension deal that happens to be not quite as good as it was, and you're still asking for more money. That's fine, but it's not unreasonable for you to contribute a great deal more if you want that.

So almost every government in europe and across the world was overspending simultaneously?
Try some research
http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk/blog/debt/credit-crunch-explained/

olly300

SingleSue wrote: »

To me, the result of the strike is not one I like. Three children all off school, three children not learning the official curriculum, 3 children all missing out.

And that is just my family.

There are teachers and TAs who quietly realise that they have a good deal. They only didn't go into work because their school was officially closed to the children.

BTW if public sector workers want to fight this they are going to have to fight this every 5 years as that's when elections are. Though if they do get dirty we will end up with a politician in charge like Thatcher.

darich

olly300 wrote: »

Though if they do get dirty we will end up with a politician in charge like Thatcher.

we already do!!