Good luck to state workers picketing today

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

The public sector had no problem with job losses or pension raiding before 2008.

Can you tell me what you expect public sector unions to be able to do about job losses in the private sector, private sector pension changes or any of the other issues you mention?

Under conservative legislation introduced by Thatcher, exactly what do you propose - that the unions should have all gone on strike, which was illegal?

It's a nonsense argument.

The only thing the unions can do about pensions is strike when their members pensions are threatened. That is it. They don't have the power to do anything about private agreements between non-union members and their employers.

ruggedtoast

michaels wrote: »

Rugged would you disagree that the current system was designed when life expectancy was much lower and wasn't expected to increase so quickly?

So given that life expectancy and thus pension costs have mushroomed far beyond what was anticipated when the schemes were set up, how would you suggest they are paid for?

The bigger the share of national output received by pensionners, the smaller the share available for those who are working - do you disagree with this?

Given that demographics are going to increase the proportion of retired workers to employees can you see any way the current level of pensions can be maintained without sharply increasing taxes on the employed in the future?

Does it not sound unfair to you that workers will benefit from low taxes now because currently there are relatively fewer pensioners and then benefit from the higher taxes paid by future generations to support their retirement? This basically means that over their lifetimes they will get more out of the country than they put in as workers whilst future workers will by definition have the reverse, they will receive less back than they produce. Already we complain about the boomers retiring now who have beneffited from free university education, the transfer of wealth resulting from home ownership and restricted housing supply and low taxes during their working lives as a result of a more favourable demographic profile (less retirees per worker when they work working and being taxed) and govt borrowing shifting current expenditure to future liabilities.

I am not saying the proposed system is fair just that everyone will have to pay more now if they want to receive more pension in future, it is not a political sentiment it is just maths.

But thats just it. Everyone isn't paying more now, in most cases the people who can afford to pay the most are proportionally paying the least, or paying nothing whatsoever due to tax evasion.

We aren't broke because teachers, physiotherapists and lollipop ladies bankrupted the banks then demanded enormous bail outs.

grizzly1911

julieq wrote: »

I don't personally subscribe to the idea that public service is mostly non jobs, it's the actual jobs that need to be made more efficient.

It is not mostly non jobs correct, there are some. Many sectors particularly the NHS do work efficiently at the ground level. They have been re-organised many times and are currently going through more churn started before this governement. There are many needless layers of non clinical based managers that make the whole look inefficient.

I'd be pretty sure that in most cases the private sector would be able to do [STRIKE]more, better[/STRIKE] something for less.

Certainly to win the initial contract.

And we'd have a formal service level agreement. subject to expensive change management and "extra" tariffs. And another layer or supplier managers making sure those SLAs are being achieved.

Of course when they realise they are actually not making enough profit they will be back asking for an increase in tariff or they fold leaving you with service interruption and cost to resupply.

Unless we accept that a service is removed completely swapping it to the private sector is unlikely to save much if anything to the Tax payer.

Either way the tax we pay won't go down.

But that's not the issue. The point is, why do you expect your pension to be subsidised by someone else instead of funding it yourself?

The staff do contribute towards their own pensions.

Do you not see how that creates resentment, especially when other people are struggling to fund their own retirement with far worse deals?

That isn't the fault of the public sector workers that is fault of the employers and ultimately the Government.

We can't really on some other group in the economy to top our pensions up, we have to cope with ours and yours.

I could argue the same when I buy any service or product form the private sector. Why should I pay extra to get my car serviced when I can get the parts for half the price.

Graham_Devon

We have tried the private sector in the NHS many times.

It's often stated that the private sector would do things better. I don't disagree entirely.

But one word. PFI.

grizzly1911

Really2 wrote: »

My wife works in LG and she gets them, and so do most other LG officers across the UK. Some get free gym, lucky begars (that is at the county head office, wife is not covered for that one as she works in a different location).
is it paul1986 who gets discounted travel in his public sector accountancy job?
She as just taken out personal swimming membership at a corporate rate (vastly reduced) at a LG pool just becasue she works for the autority, for me to join the same pool it is nearly twice the price.
Police here have a subsidised bar in the police station.

Myth.................Busted.

Don't dispute that there are limited perks available. Makes the employer feel happier at work therefore more productive.

The services are being delivered at little additional cost, the pool/gym would still be open and it still needs to be heated.

There is probably an ulterior motive in that they probably expect healthy staff to take less sick days and early retirement due to ill health.

In the NHS they have to pay for car parking permits too, not sure if Consultants do.

Not sure about the bar one? Is it possible this is funded by some form of "voluntary" contribution to a social fund?

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

It is great to see them exert their right to protest though the Government hates it and wishes to suppress it because these poor sods are being made poorer and poorer whilst the corporates and rich rake it in. Good luck and stand up to the Bullingdon Barstards.:money:

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We have tried the private sector in the NHS many times.

It's often stated that the private sector would do things better. I don't disagree entirely.

But one word. PFI.

That wasn't really "private sector" though, rather an ill-thought out hodge-podge of the two sectors together.

Some public healthcare systems are insurance backed in which actual provision is carried out by private hospitals but the funding is through a government run or government backed scheme.

wymondham

My 2p....

Everyone knows the pension level is unsustainable and everyone has to pay more and get back less, but for some reason public workers take it personally and think they are a special case ...... sorry, but this is one we are all in. Get back to work and grow up!

Closing schools and cancelling operations is so 1970's....... and does not help one jot.

paulmapp8306

sorry - I dont support the strike. Heres why.

ITS NOT COMPULSARY !!! If you dont like the terms offered by a public sector pension - opt out and find your own private one.

Im a public sector worker, but thats how I feel. As usual everyone wants everything - high pensions, great services etc, but arnt prepare to pay for it.

I wold have support for people who have already paid into a pension scheme - only to have the terms and conditions changed. I susspect this may happen BUT if it does its really a case for the courts to decide. What I mean is, if you elect to stay in a public sector pension scheme based on a % input from you, and a set return, linked to a certain interest rate, then how can that be retrospectivly changed? you may not have taken the pension option if the terms had been different. I cant see how that is actually legal.

However, I have no problem with the terms/conditions being changed from the present onwards. So someone who has paid in for 20 years gets 20 years worth of payouts linked to the relevant interest rate - BUT any future pension is paid at the new rates and costs the new amount.

For those saying the public sector pension isnt great, at £4000 their wrong. The average is nearer £14k (still not brilliand granted) BUT its better than a private pension would pay out given the costs to the resipiant.

grizzly1911

julieq wrote: »

And as soon as anyone makes difficult points there's some diversionary diatribe about bankers and fat cats versus angelic nurses. Well banks make a MASSIVE net contribution to the economy - 11.2% of the total tax take, over £50B a year. "Fat Cats" as a rule is a code for the pension funds who invest in companies and pay the returns to private sector pensioners.

So really, enough of the class war rhetoric and bring it back to why someone else should pay for your comfortable retirement when they're struggling to fund their own.

So the Banks pay a proportion of their vast revenues and profit in tax. What is wrong with that?

They wouldn't be here if it didn't suit them so they are happy that they pay cheaper tax and costs here than elsewhere.

Those Fat Cats are happily lapping up a good proportion of you pension funds too. Not just in the annual fees but through transaction movements too. They certainly haven't done my pot any favours even before the fall started.

I would also suggest that the tax they do pay is the minimum they can possibly get away with, nothing wrong with that by the way if the HMRC and Governement are happy to be lax. That again is a political decision just as the pension and pay cap now.