Public Sector Pensions

[JohnMcL7]

Safe to say I think that the grass is always greener on the other side which is what a lot of this thread boils down to.

John

[moley]

To my mind the people being vastly overpaid are in the private sector - look at the top people in banks and the London traders. Why should they get multi-billion pound bonuses for 'managing' other peoples money - generated by true hard graft?

We can all be envious of people earning vast sums of money, sport stars, pop stars etc. I agree that a lot of bankers and traders are overpaid and you have to bear in mind it was this industry that created most of the economic mess that the world is in today. However the topic of the post is why should public sector workers retire earlier than the private sector workers. If you are earning vast sums of money you can afford a better pension and retire earlier, but a lot of people in the private sector have seen their pension pot dwindle in the last few years and have no option to continue working because they cannot afford to live on their pension. These people can't go on strike, so it's not only the public sector that are suffering the pension / retirement age problem.

[robmawer]

To my mind the people being vastly overpaid are in the private sector - look at the top people in banks and the London traders. Why should they get multi-billion pound bonuses for 'managing' other peoples money - generated by true hard graft?

Because managing that money can generate huge amounts of profit, and they're paid in relation to this. And the financial sector is always going to be well paid, because it is all about money - if you have any interest in making money, you don't become a teacher or nurse...if you have any interest in helping people, you don't become a banker.

[Clunkclick]

Notice of the proposed changes I've read effecting the Civil Service Pension states the following:-

1). Retirement age raised to 66 - fair enough for office types.

2). Pension payout inflation index to be aligned with the CPI rather than the RPI - questionable, especially if you're trying to avoid dependency culture amongst "Baby boom" pensioners and you've got a service based economy - where's the sense in progressively impoverishing pensioners.

3). Final salary schemes to become average salary schemes - a bit more equality for the understairs workers !

4). Reckonable service for pension calculations to be based on a max pension of 50/100 as opposed to 40/80 - surely the revised figure should be 46/92 ?

Nick

Edited 21 June, 2011 by Clunkclick

[Aspman]

To be in the public sector is to be stuck in the middle of a big magic circle getting a kicking from everyone else.

The government likes to act big to those in the private sector so it puts the boot in by acting tough on spending and demanding that savings are made and slipping stories to the Daily Mail about waste so that the public at large will run around arms flailing not noticing that the government has slipped another £20 billion to the EU.

The unions are running around kicking everyone because they've not done it for a while and their heads are worried about losing THEIR gold plated pensions and free houses.

At the same time the gov is asking the public sector to do a thousand things differently so that the politicians look like they are doing something, anything to justify their existence and expenses scams. Normally these changes will involve hiring diversity coordinators, diversity auditors, environmental awareness champions etc etc the details of which the government can leak to the daily mail for a rant when it needs to slip another £20 billion to India to support it's poor people in space program. Also the Government can then sack all these coordinators looking big again but leaving the Councils to pick up the tab for various redundancy claims.

Meanwhile everyone who is competent in the public sector gets so hacked off with the constant digs and interference that they leave and go to the private sector or somewhere less corrupt like Bulgaria leaving the hangers on, the political creepers and those they were forced to employ to keep the unemployment figures down to satisfy the governments figures.

Leaving vulnerable people being cared for by various illegal immigrants who would probably head home if they could afford the environmental taxes put on flights.

The reality is that many people in the public sector do truly horrific jobs for not a lot of money. Social workers dealing with junky's kids they can't touch because of PC legislation, unfit parents of all hues. Police dealing with sh1tty teenagers who are briefed on all their rights but none of their responsibilities and violent drunks every weekend.

We'd have a lot less of this sort of argument if we didn't have a government wasting money on pet projects, moral wars, environmental nonsense and quango wages. The role of government should be to **** off unless needed.

That would free up enough money to keep everyone happy.

[Llanigraham]

If you are earning vast sums of money you can afford a better pension and retire earlier,

Agreed, but look at the pay figures I posted earlier. The MAJORITY Of Civil Servants are not highly paid!!

[jrw]

Agreed, but look at the pay figures I posted earlier. The MAJORITY Of Civil Servants are not highly paid!!

+1 - the average national salary is £27k or something along those lines. I know very few people on anything near that....I certainly am not for one!

Averages in things like this are always biased as the fat cats at the top always tip the balance ie 10 people on £10k and one on £100k a year makes the average £20k a year.....reality is far from it.

Judging by some of the comments i must be hated as i am a public sector worker and swmbo works in a bank and gets a bonus!

As you say the grass is always greener......Council - I don't know if i have a job from one month to the next.....Bank - She doesn't know when the next takeover is going to be, if the office is moving to London, or if they will just pull out of the UK altogether......Every single option only leaves one result - Redundancy.

[lol-lol]

Notice of the proposed changes I've read effecting the Civil Service Pension states the following:-

1). Retirement age raised to 66 - fair enough for office types.

2). Pension payout inflation index to be aligned with the CPI rather than the RPI - questionable, especially if you're trying to avoid dependency culture amongst "Baby boom" pensioners and you've got a service based economy - where's the sense in progressively impoverishing pensioners.

3). Final salary schemes to become average salary schemes - a bit more equality for the understairs workers !

4). Reckonable service for pension calculations to be based on a max pension of 50/100 as opposed to 40/80 - surely the revised figure should be 46/92 ?

Nick

Government want people not to get degrees (unless you went to private university) start work at 16 and work until 66 perhaps.

Lots of Lord Hutton's ideas are really good I think as you mention above.

The allowing of up to 100% of pay to go to pension with this and the last Government allow is a great tax avoidance strategy but is it available to Civil Servants to via AVCs. Hopefully.

People might do this sort of thing to avoid paying taxes or losing benefits and that is counter productive to the ConDems supposed aims!

If brains were dynamite.

[jrw]

Government want people not to get degrees (unless you went to private university) start work at 16 and work until 66 perhaps.

Lots of Lord Hutton's ideas are really good I think as you mention above.

The allowing of up to 100% of pay to go to pension with this and the last Government allow is a great tax avoidance strategy but is it available to Civil Servants to via AVCs. Hopefully.

People might do this sort of thing to avoid paying taxes or losing benefits and that is counter productive to the ConDems supposed aims!

If brains were dynamite.

The labour fanboy forum is this way >>>> http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?board=41.0

:zzz:

[Paul007]

Most work for private firms as subcontractors. There must be very few, if any, that are employed directly in the public service.

Ours are as it's cheaper. We've contracted out which didn't work and then TUPE'd them back as the private outfit did a cr*p job. No pun intended.

[Paul007]

To be in the public sector is to be stuck in the middle of a big magic circle getting a kicking from everyone else.

[gadgetman]

To my mind the people being vastly overpaid are in the private sector - look at the top people in banks and the London traders. Why should they get multi-billion pound bonuses for 'managing' other peoples money - generated by true hard graft?

I have no issue with people being paid by results or their qualifications. This is the way the private sector and capitalism works. Everyone has the opportunity to reach these goals, it's all about choices and education (as in sticking with it).

+1 - the average national salary is £27k or something along those lines. I know very few people on anything near that....I certainly am not for one!Averages in things like this are always biased as the fat cats at the top always tip the balance ie 10 people on £10k and one on £100k a year makes the average £20k a year.....reality is far from it.Judging by some of the comments i must be hated as i am a public sector worker and swmbo works in a bank and gets a bonus!As you say the grass is always greener......Council - I don't know if i have a job from one month to the next.....Bank - She doesn't know when the next takeover is going to be, if the office is moving to London, or if they will just pull out of the UK altogether......Every single option only leaves one result - Redundancy.

I dont hate you or any other of our public workers. I get the whole anger at pensions being cut, but everyone is in the same boat. You havent been able to get a pension anywhere near the terms of public works for at least 6 years privately.

I, and a lot of others in the UK, are going to get very annoyed at the strikes by workers who lets face it have been largely protected from the effects of the crash in 2007/8 and are only now feeling the pinch on wages and conditions. Many of us have had this for nearly 4 years now taking cuts to hours and wages, and have had to forgo putting into a pension whereas most public sector pensions are non-contributory.

The bubble that's been protecting public workers has reached breaking point, and with private sector workers squeezed themselves, I think rolling strikes will only turn ugly and further fuel anger towards unions and their workers. I have no doubts this WILL lead to violence and riots from people who think the union members are taking the P.

As Ed Balls has said, this really is what the Tories want to happen to be able to bring in anti-strike laws and destroy the unions and public sector.

I do wonder how many being shafted voted Tory in the last General and local election. Supporting their measures & policies, but then fighting back. Irony at its best

[lol-lol]

The labour fanboy forum is this way >>>> http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?board=41.0

:zzz:

Or look at my old union's website which show how Condems are trying to rob desent working people to pay for their gambling mates mistakes:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/

And the Unison site which http://www.unison.org.uk/ ......

Last Updated: 21 June 2011 'We will strike to defend our pensions'

Dave Prentis speaking at conference Dave Prentis issues rallying call at UNISON NDC

(21/06/11) "Today is our union's call to arms," declared general secretary Dave Prentis, "we will strike to defend our pensions."

"To those who say 'name the day', I say - 'a day won't be enough. This coalition won't move with just one day of action.' To those who say 'negotiate' I say 'any time, anywhere, for as long as it takes'. "Strike action will need to be sustained. We'll listen to none of the emotional blackmail from our politicians and the media. How dare they say we should not be taking action after losing so many jobs, after the pay freeze - to defend our pensions? "If this coalition is so worried about the people who use our services they shouldn't be closing them down. If they're so worried about disruption they shouldn't be privatising them." He spoke out against "the bankers who crashed our world. The venture capitalists who sucked the life blood out of Southern Cross. It is this coalition who set our nation on a reckless course. They are the enemy - this coalition, with no democratic mandate, taking a chainsaw to our public services."

[moley]

Last Updated: 21 June 2011 'We will strike to defend our pensions'

Dave Prentis speaking at conference Dave Prentis issues rallying call at UNISON NDC

(21/06/11) "Today is our union's call to arms," declared general secretary Dave Prentis, "we will strike to defend our pensions."

It's OK for union leaders to urge the rank & file to call strike action, they don't suffer like their members do. Dave prentice is on a salary of £92,187 plus benefits of £35,249, so does that make him a 'fat cat'? I bet he's on a good pension.

[jrw]

They are also 'Labour'

[sharkrider]

gadgetman: "whereas most public sector pensions are non-contributory."

I'm not wanting to argue, (because I don't have the knowledge) but can you explain where this happens? I have worked for HM revenue and customs, and now work for the ambulance service, and I have never even heard of a "non-contributory" pension.. let alone met anyone who has one... I used to work in a building with 400+ plus staff at HM revenue and customs, (now much less, they have closed a wing since I was there as they have had to make 33.3% staff cuts over 3 years) and there are many people in NWAS of which all of them contribute a fair chunk of their wases to their pension, no-one I know has a non-contributary pension.

[oilburninnut]

All this guff about the menial workers should not have to work till 66 is rubbish as well, I currently do a very heavy job that will probably be impossible for me to do at 50 let alone any older, should I expect to be paid off at 50 with full pension rights? No I will have to find another job, as should anyone who becomes unable to do their job because of age, I hate to come across as an ass but I really couldn't care less if folk have to work till 66 to get a pension, all I want is a level playing field!!!

[gadgetman]

gadgetman: "whereas most public sector pensions are non-contributory."

I'm not wanting to argue, (because I don't have the knowledge) but can you explain where this happens? I have worked for HM revenue and customs, and now work for the ambulance service, and I have never even heard of a "non-contributory" pension.. let alone met anyone who has one... I used to work in a building with 400+ plus staff at HM revenue and customs, (now much less, they have closed a wing since I was there as they have had to make 33.3% staff cuts over 3 years) and there are many people in NWAS of which all of them contribute a fair chunk of their wases to their pension, no-one I know has a non-contributory pension.

I'll see if I can find the article I was reading the other day online which covered this. It showed which dept's had non contributary pensions, and when this practice ended. Was surprised some still existed.

[slider]

All this guff about the menial workers should not have to work till 66 is rubbish as well, I currently do a very heavy job that will probably be impossible for me to do at 50 let alone any older, should I expect to be paid off at 50 with full pension rights? No I will have to find another job, as should anyone who becomes unable to do their job because of age, I hate to come across as an ass but I really couldn't care less if folk have to work till 66 to get a pension, all I want is a level playing field!!!

I have made this point at least twice in this thead and that was the whole point of the opening post - so far none has been able to give an answer.

I did a physical job for the 1st 30 years of my working life and had to change career as my back is knackered - now do a desk job through nessecity as no-one was going top pension me off!

Edited 21 June, 2011 by slider

[sharkrider]

All this guff about the menial workers should not have to work till 66 is rubbish as well, I currently do a very heavy job that will probably be impossible for me to do at 50 let alone any older, should I expect to be paid off at 50 with full pension rights? No I will have to find another job, as should anyone who becomes unable to do their job because of age, I hate to come across as an ass but I really couldn't care less if folk have to work till 66 to get a pension, all I want is a level playing field!!!

I have made this point at least twice in this thead and that was the whole point of the opening post - so far none has been able to give an answer.

I did a physical job for the 1st 30 years of my working life and had to change career as my back is knackered - now do a desk job through nessecity as no-one was going top pension me off!

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I work for the ambulance service, paid for by the goverment. nearly all (and statistically this is true) ambulance service staff have to stop working due to the physical destruction caused by lifting/moving/handling ect. we DO NOT get "pensioned off" , we DO NOT get to retire at 50... we pay into our pensions like everyone else, we pay our taxes like everyone else, if we have to leave due to physical injury, we get no more than would anyone else in the county would.. most people in most jobs (certainly private sector) have massive health and safety type equipment to help, we have to litterally pick people up and carry them , every day... some extractions are massively difficult, mostly with a "time critical" situation where ... "er I just call the supervisor" wont cut it, we just have to pick up and go in the effort to save someones life. and that is really difficult, when you have 2 (average ) people and a big person having a heart attack. The family want nothing more than for us to "do our jobs" and its hard. and we GET NO SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!!!!! I will have to work to 66 and pay for my pension like everyone else will!!!!!! How am I different as a "public servant"?!?!?!? how am I treated better?!?!? PLEASE tell me.

as slider, and Gary just said, if MY back goes, I will have to leave and try to find something else with no pay off at all. please tell me how I am privaliged!!!!!!! I will not be "pensioned off" HOW AM I DIFFERENT TO YOU?????

jesus, how many people have got this wrong... if I'm missing something about what my special priviliges are for working in the "public sector" please please tell me, because I just don't understand.

[Llanigraham]

Interesting one is going to be on the railway, as currently the Railways Act stipulates that after 65 I cannot do a "safety critical" job.

Wonder where that leaves me?

And technically we are not "pblic servants".

Sharkrider, I'm on your side and understand fully what your future holds. The same also applies to the Fire Brigade.

[oilburninnut]

I'll put my point another way, should I be able to draw my pension at 60?

And I'm actually on about bin men and the like in response to a post a page or 2 ago saying they should retire at 60, so it wasn't actually aimed at you Dave,

Edited 22 June, 2011 by oilburninnut

[jlwah]

Or look at my old union's website which show how Condems are trying to rob desent working people to pay for their gambling mates mistakes:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/

And the Unison site which http://www.unison.org.uk/ ......

Last Updated: 21 June 2011 'We will strike to defend our pensions'

Dave Prentis speaking at conference Dave Prentis issues rallying call at UNISON NDC

(21/06/11) "Today is our union's call to arms," declared general secretary Dave Prentis, "we will strike to defend our pensions."

"To those who say 'name the day', I say - 'a day won't be enough. This coalition won't move with just one day of action.' To those who say 'negotiate' I say 'any time, anywhere, for as long as it takes'. "Strike action will need to be sustained. We'll listen to none of the emotional blackmail from our politicians and the media. How dare they say we should not be taking action after losing so many jobs, after the pay freeze - to defend our pensions? "If this coalition is so worried about the people who use our services they shouldn't be closing them down. If they're so worried about disruption they shouldn't be privatising them." He spoke out against "the bankers who crashed our world. The venture capitalists who sucked the life blood out of Southern Cross. It is this coalition who set our nation on a reckless course. They are the enemy - this coalition, with no democratic mandate, taking a chainsaw to our public services."

Union leaders are paid to talk tough, but they're fighting the wrong battle here and that's why they'll get little public support. The public isn't particulalrly concerned with pensions that won't affect most of them for many years to come, they're worried about the here and now.

Job security, inflation, increased taxes - these are the issues that the Unions should be attacking as they affect everyone, but defending pension schemes that affect a comparatively small number of people and are widely accepted as being generous and not available in the private sector simply isn't going to stoke up the publics anger in the way they want. In fact it'll probably have the opposite effect.

And don't forget that it was Gordon Brown in 1997 that removed the pensions dividend tax credit that cost the private pensions sector £5B per year and started the trend of ending final salary private pension schemes.

I'm afraid that in many ways (and God knows I hate to say this) Ed Balls might well be right (or partly right) over the issue of Union action over pensions. The NHS and others may well be very angry over this issue and feel the need to strike, but when public opinion turns against them it could end up as a straightforward coalition victory over the Unions!

[lol-lol]

Union leaders are paid to talk tough, but they're fighting the wrong battle here and that's why they'll get little public support. The public isn't particulalrly concerned with pensions that won't affect most of them for many years to come, they're worried about the here and now.

Job security, inflation, increased taxes - these are the issues that the Unions should be attacking as they affect everyone, but defending pension schemes that affect a comparatively small number of people and are widely accepted as being generous and not available in the private sector simply isn't going to stoke up the publics anger in the way they want. In fact it'll probably have the opposite effect.

And don't forget that it was Gordon Brown in 1997 that removed the pensions dividend tax credit that cost the private pensions sector £5B per year and started the trend of ending final salary private pension schemes.

I'm afraid that in many ways (and God knows I hate to say this) Ed Balls might well be right (or partly right) over the issue of Union action over pensions. The NHS and others may well be very angry over this issue and feel the need to strike, but when public opinion turns against them it could end up as a straightforward coalition victory over the Unions!

The NHS workers, public servant are also the public and they have my full support to withdraw their labour. We are talking about millions of UK citizens who feel this way, pillars of society who feel abused and fleeced by a Government who allows investment bankers to walk away and in fact continue to milk the system and demands they pay for it out of their measly salaries.

Edited 22 June, 2011 by lol

[BossFox]

And when the strikes start I wonder how many private businesses that are close to the edge will be forced to close, thinking of those that supply or work with the public sector.

A one day teacher strike costs our business £10k as the kiddies don't need to go to school.