Message for strikers

magenta22

These people have PAID into a pension, it's money that they have EARNT but they are being told that they are not going to get that when they retire. I'd be pretty p'd off too.

jonnyd281

magenta22 wrote: »

These people have PAID into a pension, it's money that they have EARNT but they are being told that they are not going to get that when they retire. I'd be pretty p'd off too.

Thats not actually true, everything I have seen, including the info from my union says that pensions earned before the change will be protected and paid as final salary, everything recieved after the change will be paid in the new way (ie career average).

Jarndyce

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Thats not actually true, everything I have seen, including the info from my union says that pensions earned before the change will be protected and paid as final salary, everything recieved after the change will be paid in the new way (ie career average).

What about the change in indexation from RPI to CPI which has already been introduced and will devalue the pension benefits already accrued?

Bobl

My Armd Forces pension will be devalued by the change from RPI to CPI and I already pay 40% tax on it - perhaps I should have gone on strike as well.

timbo58

This thread has been a bit of an eye opener for me.
I quit a career after 15 years on the railways 2 years ago and have a BR pension of £4800 & £10k lump sum at 60: I thought that was a bit crap till I read some of this!

I have a mortgage till 65 anyway, although I'm on a good salary now so I'll pay that off early I expect.

anyway: back to the thread: as someone else said: don't let this argument and the politics surrounding it let this turn into a race to the bottom: as thats is the only result from working people (private or public) and those who want a job arguing amongst themselves: the reason we have things like good working conditions and a minimum wage are because people have stood up, made valid arguments and when necessary have marched and gone without pay to back up their argument over the years.

sometimes talking to employers and writing to the media aren't enough, strikes are not easy to organise nor are they done at the drop of the hat: they cost money for unions to set up and are fraught with anti strike legislation: these strikes have been a long time coming and the government have had plenty of opportunity to prevent them.

when an argument reaches an impasse then thee are two sides to the argument and both of them are in the wrong: it's a case of forcing them back to talking again and sometimes strikes can be the only way of getting to that point.

SHIPSHAPE

attila_ wrote: »

In 1998 the Labour Government relaxed regulations on banking and other financial activities...Who put them in power? The same who were demanding Cameron to leave today during the strikes....

Thatcher began the deregulation of banks way before '98.

SHIPSHAPE

wantsajob wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson is great!

No he isn't, he's a twit.

SarEl

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Thatcher began the deregulation of banks way before '98.

Correct. She also deregulated the mortgage market, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of people who had previously not been able to obtain mortgages due to low income etc., to be able to buy their own home. Which might have been a good thing if people had not then become slaves to their mortgages as well as to their employers, credit card companies and the motor vehicle manufactorers (since you rapidly needed a mortgage to but a car!). Let's be honest, the real reason why people fear their employers is that fact that we live in a financially over-extended society in which people have been encouraged to put their wants before their ability to pay. It is much easier to fight for employment rights and conditions when you have nothing or little to loose - much harder when everything you own is really a debt around your neck. Thatcher wasn't stupid, and she was playing the long game. She wasn't offering choices - she was offering chains.

Chris842

I just qualified as a teacher. If what the original poster proposed actually happenedl id personally benefit by getting a job.

But I support the strike. The government is claiming the pensions are unaffordable. The hutton report shows that they are affordable. The government actually makes a profit on it as things aree because more money goes in than out.

Only those who have taught understand how much work it is and that a 68 yr old couldn't do it. A lot of people think its a 6 hr a day job with lots of holidays and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Wellery82

Chris842 wrote: »

Only those who have taught understand how much work it is and that a 68 yr old couldn't do it. A lot of people think its a 6 hr a day job with lots of holidays and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Most 68 year olds i know have far more energy and get up and go about them than the average graduate! To say a 68 year old couldn't do a teaching job is a ridiculous statement in my opinion.

On the subject of teaching one of my best friends is a teacher. His synopsis which seems fair enough, and if i am honest comparable to most jobs, is you average around a 55 hour week, you get good holidays, although you have to put some work in during the holiday, and they are inflexible. Also there is always work to do, and if you can't get your head around managing your time and the associated pressures it is very difficult. I think all of that is in place whether you are 25 or 65, and different people respond differently