Welcome to our world

sangie595

Muscle750 wrote: »

am i talking complete b@ll@ocks

Yes, you are.
Is there a shortage of punctuation and grammar in the private sector?

xapprenticex

sangie595 wrote: »

Yes, you are.
Is there a shortage of punctuation and grammar in the private sector?

know ill have you no

eamon

This is a vicious topic. I first encountered it in the 1980's when watching Question Time and the Tory panelists and their media accomplices. The constant harping about public sector "gold plated" pensions. Even when audience members pointed out the huge numbers of part time employees, women with broken service years (child care) and the staggering number of low paid jobs within the public sector, the truth just gets ignored. Look at the stats listed by Muscle750. 35 years service, I doubt that there are many of those people left. The last 7 years has seen the public sector decimated by redundancies and outsourcing to the super efficient private sector. I'm with sangie on the one.

FredG

eamon wrote: »

This is a vicious topic. I first encountered it in the 1980's when watching Question Time and the Tory panelists and their media accomplices. The constant harping about public sector "gold plated" pensions. Even when audience members pointed out the huge numbers of part time employees, women with broken service years (child care) and the staggering number of low paid jobs within the public sector, the truth just gets ignored. Look at the stats listed by Muscle750. 35 years service, I doubt that there are many of those people left. The last 7 years has seen the public sector decimated by redundancies and outsourcing to the super efficient private sector. I'm with sangie on the one.

Classic "look at what they get" diversionary tactic that it seems people still fall for hook, line and sinker.

martinsurrey

steampowered wrote: »

Members of the police officers' pension scheme have to make mandatory contributions into their pension of between 12.44% and 13.78% of their salary.

I imagine other public sector workers who get good pensions have to contribute something similar.

Why don't you contribute that sort of amount into your pension? If you did, you would have the kind of large pot you are talking about.

If on the other hand you do not make personal contributions into your personal pot, that is your choice. You are choosing to take extra money now (a choice not available to public sector workers) in exchange for much less money later on.

steampowered wrote: »

Yes. Public sector workers do get better pensions.

But public sector workers are also forced to pay more to get them. For example police officers are forced to contribute at least 12.44% of their salary to their pension scheme.

If you want to get a public-sector style pension, you can do the same. You can tell your employer tomorrow that you want to contribute 12% of your salary to your workplace pension scheme (in addition to the 5% employer contribution).

That will give you a nice pot. Although if you have not been contributing that kind of amount to your pension for a number of years, you will need to make a much larger contribution (perhaps 30% of your salary?) to make up for lost time - after all, if you were in the public sector you'd have been paying 12% of your salary towards your pension for years and years.

I'm not getting into the private vs public side of this argument, but you seem to be woefully underestimating how much a pension costs.

a defined contribution pension scheme will get you a pension of around 4% of the total pot size (at best).

the current police pension scheme is a career average scheme with each year giving you 1/55.3th of your salary (1.81%).

In order to get 1.81% of your salary per year as a pension in a defined contribution scheme you would need to contribute 45.2% of your salary to your pension, so yes, the police contribution of under 14% is very low, in effect the Government is contributing 31%.

I leave the rights or wrongs alone.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

This is all part of the remuneration packet for these jobs. If you think they are so desirable, you can try and get one. Exactly the same way as you can try and get a job that pays £100K a year.

If you can't get one - well, that's why they pay better than your job. They attract better quality people.

Lots of people are paid better than you, in the private and public sectors. I'd go so far as to say that most people are probably paid more than you. There's nothing stopping you getting any of their jobs except your own limitations.

p00hsticks

Muscle750 wrote: »

Your missing the point that its the tax payer who is paying the public sector employer contributions

It's the tax payer who pays public sector salaries as well - shall we just get rid off them all ? (There have already been large decreases in numbers in many areas as a result of recent government cuts).

As other people have pointed out, traditionally public sector salaries are generally lower than those in the private sector, so benefits like the good pension were used to attract and retain staff.

gettingtheresometime

Everyone is missing the point.


The OP has a major issue with public sector workers, the holidays that his retired-at-an-early-age-friends take and so on.


If public sector workers have / have had such a good deal, I can't understand why he never became one.


I can't make up my mind whether the OP is really bitter and twisted as he comes across as or whether he is a wind up merchant.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Everyone is missing the point.


The OP has a major issue with public sector workers, the holidays that his retired-at-an-early-age-friends take and so on.


If public sector workers have / have had such a good deal, I can't understand why he never became one.


I can't make up my mind whether the OP is really bitter and twisted as he comes across as or whether he is a wind up merchant.

For some reason he resents anyone being paid more than him by the public sector, but accepts it from the private sector. He doesn't seem to see that in both cases they are being paid more because they are in better jobs, and worth more. If public sector pensions/salaries were lower, we would have lower quality people doing those jobs. People like him. The country would collapse.

Gavin83

Muscle750 wrote: »

continue paying for them So tell me all those bleating on their 1% pay increase would you like to join us in the private sector ?

I currently work in the public sector and have an interview next week for a private sector company. Therefore in answer to your question yes I would like to join you in the private sector.

Why am I moving? Due to the massive increase in salary I'll be receiving and the huge amount of stress I'm put under.

ACG wrote: »

I was always under the impression public sector staff were paid less but the beneefits were better? I have no idea how true that is as I have never worked in the public sector.

That's pretty accurate. The only exception are low paid jobs, I'd suggest these people are nearly always better off in the public sector but the higher up you climb the more advantage there is to working in the private sector.

It's a seesaw. If you want low pay but great benefits work in the public sector. If you want good pay and ok benefits work in the private sector. If you want amazing pay but no benefits become a contractor.