Public Sector Pensions

[cheezemonkhai]

Country can't afford it, so it can't carry on like this.

The average salary rather than final is quite reasonable IMHO.

On the wage front, whenever a councillor/public servant is found to be paid a bucket load, the excuse comes out that they must be paid going rate.

Based on that I think they should get no better benefits than anyone else.

I think they need to cut some councillor's/advisor's wages from over £100k to a much more reasonable amount (£60k say).

Fix a few of those in every council and you wouldn't need to affect those working on the front line nearly as much.

[sharkrider]

The vast majority of people in the private sector get nowhere near the average wage - so why should EVERY Civil Servant have that expectation? Where on earth do you think the money for your wages comes from - out of thin air? Under Labour, Civil Servants became too numerous and OVERPAID, and you still have very privileged terms and benefits. There is little public support for strikes (Ed Balls realises this which is why he is trying to discourage them albeit with other reasons). By striking you are just showing how arrogant and selfish you are. In the private sector people get their conditions of employment changed all the time by fair means or foul. If the finances of a company could no longer sustain a salesman's rate of commission, he'd either have to accept a change, or get made redundant. Your example only serves to show how hopelessly unrealistic you are.

seeing as you have made a peronal attack on me I shall respond in kind.

1)your first sentance.: since when did I say EVERY civil servant should be paid the average wage? (I agree civil servents are too numerous and overpaid) I said I get paid much less than the average wage. Why shouldn't I expect to be paid decently for the job i do? what make me personally and my job worth less than you? why shouldn't I work hard to get the best for me and my family? I am NOT sorry for being expected to receive a decent wage for a very difficult job that is providing an essensioal public service.

2: where do my wages come from? WOW! thanks for opening my eyes to that, I never knew the money came from taxes! :no: I pay exactly the same ammount of tax as everybody else, I also pay for these services every bit as much as you do.

3)since when did I say i support the strikes? I DID NOT. "by striking YOU are just showing how arrogant and selfish you are.." **** OFF I am neither arrogant or selfish, I simply couldn't work for the ambulance service if I was, I am in fact very selfless.

3: "If the finances of a company could no longer sustain a salesman's rate of commission, he'd either have to accept a change, or get made redundant. Your example only serves to show how hopelessly unrealistic you are." get stuffed. seriousley. it happens in the public sector all the time, just as it does in the private sector. Priviliged?! in one ambulance service they are sacking 20 paramedics and asking them to reapply for 10 jobs. lets hope to GOD that isn't the ambulance service that looks after the areas where YOUR family lives eh? because people are going to die.

idiot.

[oilburninnut]

Actually Dave if you take away the daily mail type sensationalism of the post you quoted he actually makes some very good points as do you, the problem with the cuts to nhs/schools/police/fire brigade is they are being made at the wrong end in my opinion, the sharp end needs a budget increase and the bloated useless blunt end needs cutting drastically!!!

[slider]

I made no mention of renumeration in my post if you read it carefully :p

Brimma, if you had read carefully you would notice that the quote wasn't taken from your post!

The comment on Public Sector renumeration was not directed at any post in particular but at the general comments taht are regularly made on this board bu specific members.

[slider]

Bearing in mind the word 'envy' has been mentioned, a quick question to all of the Public Sector baiters so far......

What would YOUR view be if YOU were the ones employed in the Public Sector?

http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

My terms of employment have been changed, like many others, and it was a case of like it or the job will not be there before long. 12% pay cut was hard to take but I agreed to it as it was a better option than redundancy. I can no longer affoard to pay into my pension scheme so face the prospect of working beyond pensionable age to make ends meet.......But I still have a job........

[lol-lol]

My terms of employment have been changed, like many others, and it was a case of like it or the job will not be there before long. 12% pay cut was hard to take but I agreed to it as it was a better option than redundancy. I can no longer affoard to pay into my pension scheme so face the prospect of working beyond pensionable age to make ends meet.......But I still have a job........

Redundancy is not always the worse option. There are many accounts of where companies transfer to another owner and then go bust or shed staff and you would be better off having taken the redundancy. This happened to me about 9 years but I had the redundancy payment, and the notice period and started a job within days. Redundancy all tax free and actually had several weeks in effect being double paid.

When you get the "La Mort" card in Tarot it is more about change which is very often for the better. This Government wants Britain to be a competetive place to do business and that means having a large work force on or just above the minimum wage with poor/cheap, they call flexible, working conditions. The gap between rich and poor is starting to widen again as can be seen by the sales in these sectors, only 4 more years to go unless we can get LibDems to defect.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by lol

[Llanigraham]

I left the Civil Service many years ago, but still have friends who work in various Depts. A lot of what is being spouted here over their pay is very Daily Mailish and without much truth.

A little research has found this:

There are about 600,000 Civil Servants employed in the UK, and their AVERAGE pay is £22,000.

Senior Civil Service (The First Division, as they are known) are about 4,200 in number and their pay is from £57k to £140k, with an average of £100k.

Each Dept sets there own pay scales, subject to central guidance. Two examples of the pay for the majority grades in two Depts:

Crown Prosecution Service; Admin Assistant (the lowest grade) max £16k. Admin Officer (next grade up), max £18.7k

Revenue & Customs; Admin Assistant max £15.7k, Admin Officer max £19.4k.

These two grades are where the majority of workers are, and compared to many other jobs they are not well paid. I know many who have to receive Family Credit to make ends meet. Often they are only on rolling one or two year contracts.

The problem is people only look at the average figures and forget that to get that there have to be people earning well below it!

Interestingly the current proposals on the changes don't affect the Senior Civil Service, so the 4k plus biggest earners aren't going to be affected. I wonder why not??

[paramaniac]

I'm in the public sector & I believe in getting what you pay for.

So, given that many of you want to see my salary cut, pension smashed etc, & you still expect me to resuscitate your nearest & dearest even when I'm 66, carrying them down several flights of stairs etc, I think it's only right to warn you that you stand to be very dissapointed!

[cheezemonkhai]

Actually Dave if you take away the daily mail type sensationalism of the post you quoted he actually makes some very good points as do you, the problem with the cuts to nhs/schools/police/fire brigade is they are being made at the wrong end in my opinion, the sharp end needs a budget increase and the bloated useless blunt end needs cutting drastically!!!

Top Heavy Structures... maybe the public sector have been following the private sector a bit too much

[lol-lol]

I'm in the public sector & I believe in getting what you pay for.

So, given that many of you want to see my salary cut, pension smashed etc, & you still expect me to resuscitate your nearest & dearest even when I'm 66, carrying them down several flights of stairs etc, I think it's only right to warn you that you stand to be very dissapointed!

Not all of us are that stupid. NHS workers particularly do a fantastic job under incredible stress, one of Labour's great achievements. 60 is the latest employees should work in that line of work. 50 or 55 is more like it even if you are fit as a flee. Police retire between 49 and 60 for lower ranks if they have done 30 years as it should be for all tough jobs, especially when we have 1.1 million unemployed between 16-24.

Only half of monies transferred between companies and individuals is taxed and there is billions that should be collected that is not, largely due to civil service not paying the best wages as it is better paid to be a poacher (but legal one) than a game keeper.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by lol

[Paul007]

what percentage do physical jobs most public sector workers are office based.

I think our bins service would disagree with you there. Up at 5am in all weathers, handling tons and tons of you know what and you expect it because that's the only thing you pay your council tax for isn't it? These staff aren't highly paid and deserve their pension.

[lol-lol]

View Postslider, on 19 June 2011 - 08:13, said:

what percentage do physical jobs most public sector workers are office based.

I think our bins service would disagree with you there. Up at 5am in all weathers, handling tons and tons of you know what and you expect it because that's the only thing you pay your council tax for isn't it? These staff aren't highly paid and deserve their pension.

Also, Rummaging cars for drugs to protect society where the smack head has injection needles of their AIDS infected blood left in their so you can get a stick injury. Bording yachts at sea where they would as soon as shot you as look at you. (Thanks for the RN and SBS backup). Really easy job.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by lol

[jlwah]

Nobody (I think) says that public sector workers don't deserve a pension, it is just that the pension they are currently entitled to is unaffordable.

For most public sector workers in unfunded schemes (which is probably the majority) to obtain a pension pot that would provide them with the same benefits they get would require an annual contribution of 40% of their salary. Even with the new rules it would be around 30% of salary. Now even with the generous employer contributions that take place, they are still some 10 to 15% of salary short.

That means that all taxpayers (public and privately employed) are contributing to the pension entitlements of public workers by a significant amount. And that's why there's little sympathy for public sector workers over their pensions. Most private sector workers would like to see that imbalance (what their pension entitlement is worth compared to a public sector workers) brought more into line. Now the Unions think that all pensions should be brought up to the level of public sector ones, but that would effectivily bankrupt many companies as they could never afford the contributions.

In some ways I don't blame public sector workers for moaning about this issue, but the unavoidable fact is that it is simply unaffordable and it has to change. And no amount of strikes will alter the fact that we're living longer in retirement and want a higher standard of living.

So really the question is how many public sector workers would like an additional 10 to 15% of their salary taken now (in effect a paycut) to pay for their pensions in the future? My guess is not many.

[slider]

Redundancy is not always the worse option. There are many accounts of where companies transfer to another owner and then go bust or shed staff and you would be better off having taken the redundancy.

WEhen you have only been with the company for 3.5 years and theer is no "take over" redundacy wasn't an option that had much to offer!

[paramaniac]

Nobody (I think) says that public sector workers don't deserve a pension, it is just that the pension they are currently entitled to is unaffordable.

For most public sector workers in unfunded schemes (which is probably the majority) to obtain a pension pot that would provide them with the same benefits they get would require an annual contribution of 40% of their salary. Even with the new rules it would be around 30% of salary. Now even with the generous employer contributions that take place, they are still some 10 to 15% of salary short.

That means that all taxpayers (public and privately employed) are contributing to the pension entitlements of public workers by a significant amount. And that's why there's little sympathy for public sector workers over their pensions. Most private sector workers would like to see that imbalance (what their pension entitlement is worth compared to a public sector workers) brought more into line. Now the Unions think that all pensions should be brought up to the level of public sector ones, but that would effectivily bankrupt many companies as they could never afford the contributions.

In some ways I don't blame public sector workers for moaning about this issue, but the unavoidable fact is that it is simply unaffordable and it has to change. And no amount of strikes will alter the fact that we're living longer in retirement and want a higher standard of living.

So really the question is how many public sector workers would like an additional 10 to 15% of their salary taken now (in effect a paycut) to pay for their pensions in the future? My guess is not many.

Oh dear,

Sorry mate, but you are talking rubbish!

Do some research.......here's a start

http://www.managementinpractice.com/article/22468/Health_service_pension_scheme_creates_surplus_%96_BMA?category.id=337

The NHS pension is funded by employers & staff, not the taxpayer & has created a surplus of cash this year.

[slider]

Nobody (I think) says that public sector workers don't deserve a pension, it is just that the pension they are currently entitled to is unaffordable.

For most public sector workers in unfunded schemes (which is probably the majority) to obtain a pension pot that would provide them with the same benefits they get would require an annual contribution of 40% of their salary. Even with the new rules it would be around 30% of salary. Now even with the generous employer contributions that take place, they are still some 10 to 15% of salary short.

That means that all taxpayers (public and privately employed) are contributing to the pension entitlements of public workers by a significant amount. And that's why there's little sympathy for public sector workers over their pensions. Most private sector workers would like to see that imbalance (what their pension entitlement is worth compared to a public sector workers) brought more into line. Now the Unions think that all pensions should be brought up to the level of public sector ones, but that would effectivily bankrupt many companies as they could never afford the contributions.

In some ways I don't blame public sector workers for moaning about this issue, but the unavoidable fact is that it is simply unaffordable and it has to change. And no amount of strikes will alter the fact that we're living longer in retirement and want a higher standard of living.

So really the question is how many public sector workers would like an additional 10 to 15% of their salary taken now (in effect a paycut) to pay for their pensions in the future? My guess is not many.

+1

As I said in the OP, I am not looking to start a war and fully appreciate that many public sector workers work in crappy conditions, could not be done without and don't think they are well paid. Truth is taht many private sector workers also work in crappy conditions, could not be done without and don't think they are well paid. They often work in small businesses without the backing of the prowerful unions and have virtually non existant pension provision.

The sad fact is that the country is in a finacial sh@t hole and the brutal truth is that there will be pain both fiancailly and other wise - people will suffer and there will be avoidable deaths but that is part of societies price.

Doesn't matter what you cut - Police, a murderer may get away and strike again, NHS, - an ambulance might not be available at the right time, road rairs - a pothole could cause a fatal accident.

I sincerly hope it is not you or yours but that is the brutal truth.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by slider

[jlwah]

Oh dear,

Sorry mate, but you are talking rubbish!

Do some research.......here's a start

http://www.managementinpractice.com/article/22468/Health_service_pension_scheme_creates_surplus_%96_BMA?category.id=337

The NHS pension is funded by employers & staff, not the taxpayer & has created a surplus of cash this year.

Indeed, it's always worth doing a bit of research before accusing someone of talking rubbish.

Try here Parliment Briefing Papers (select the first item) and here BBC guide to public sector pensions

Then you'll realise that the NHS pension is unfunded and underwritten by the treasury, e.g. the tax payer. Granted, it has been operating on a surplus for the last few years but thats down to increases in contributions due to increase in members and wage rises. As those that are currently contributing retire, it's likely that it will then move into deficit unless contributions are increased again.

Only the university lecturers and the local government pension schemes are funded, e.g. money is actually paid into an underlying investment that is the asset of the fund.

[gadgetman]

I think our bins service would disagree with you there. Up at 5am in all weathers, handling tons and tons of you know what and you expect it because that's the only thing you pay your council tax for isn't it? These staff aren't highly paid and deserve their pension.

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

WEhen you have only been with the company for 3.5 years and theer is no "take over" redundacy wasn't an option that had much to offer!

Indeed. The majority of private sector only get one week for each years service upto a maximum of 12 weeks IIRC. Statutory min. Even those who did have good redundancy packages have changed the terms by now by buying employees out. Didnt M&S look at this a year or so back?

[lol-lol]

+1

As I said in the OP, I am not looking to start a war and fully appreciate that many public sector workers work in crappy conditions, could not be done without and don't think they are well paid. Truth is taht many private sector workers also work in crappy conditions, could not be done without and don't think they are well paid. They often work in small businesses without the backing of the prowerful unions and have virtually non existant pension provision. The sad fact is that the country is in a finacial sh@t hole and the brutal truth is that there will be pain both fiancailly and other wise - people will suffer and there will be avoidable deaths but that is part of societies price. Doesn't matter what you cut - Police, a murderer may get away and strike again, NHS, - an ambulance might not be available at the right time, road rairs - a pothole could cause a fatal accident. I sincerly hope it is not you or yours but that is the brutal truth.

Times are back to boom time for the wealthy, just look at the sales of high end goods, Astons, Burberry, etc. Only two thirds of the population are bearing the load of the recession which was caused by those in the top third who can opt out of paying for it. I for one will not subsidise this Government's wealth redistribution schemes!

Edited 20 June, 2011 by lol

[gadgetman]

Times are back to boom time for the wealthy, just look at the sales of high end goods, Astons, Burberry, etc. Only two thirds of the population are bearing the load of the recession which was caused by those in the top third who can opt out of paying for it. I for one will not subsidise this Government's wealth redistribution schemes!

+1

It's why I voted for Lib Dems as they promised to rebalance the tax system more fairly.

[paramaniac]

Indeed, it's always worth doing a bit of research before accusing someone of talking rubbish.

Try here Parliment Briefing Papers (select the first item) and here BBC guide to public sector pensions

Then you'll realise that the NHS pension is unfunded and underwritten by the treasury, e.g. the tax payer. Granted, it has been operating on a surplus for the last few years but thats down to increases in contributions due to increase in members and wage rises. As those that are currently contributing retire, it's likely that it will then move into deficit unless contributions are increased again.

Only the university lecturers and the local government pension schemes are funded, e.g. money is actually paid into an underlying investment that is the asset of the fund.

The surplus is in large part due to the 2008 NHS pension review, resulting in increased contributions from members for no additional pension benefit! This review was to ensure a cost effective, sustainable scheme. To review again 3 years later is totally unacceptable.

There are strikes coming, & it will include frontline services, I believe the government & many members of the public have woefully underestimated the strength of feeling over the pensions in the NHS.

[Nigel R Slack]

totally agree with you on that one Brimma!

I don't see why civil servants think they should be different to everyone else in the land. I run my own business and have my own private pension, I also have a pension scheme for a previous employer. What they will be worth when I get to retirement age I have no idea. I have followed the governments and pension advisors advice since I was 18 and at one point in the '90s I was told I couldn't put in AVC's because I would have too much in the 'pot' when I came to retire. I was lucky there because the AVC's would have been with Equitable Life.

Many of the council tax increases over the last few years have been made to make up the shortfall in the pension funds. I won't be able to afford to retire at 60 (putting 3 kids through university doesn't come cheap these days) and I will fall into the retire at 66 brigade, so it is only fair that civil servants have the same conditions as the rest of us mere mortals.

Apart from the pensions, civil servants generally (apart from Doctors & Nurses) seem to work less hours, get more holidays, have more time off sick and get better redundancy packages than the rest of the UK workforce.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong in these assumptions

The teachers and lecturers I know work very long hours. My wife stays up to 4/5am at least 4 nights per week working, and always takes loads of work with her on holiday. Her colleagues are similar in their hours - one stops in the department all night once a week to get through his workload. Even the PhD students are normally leaving about 8/9pm whilst I'm waiting for my wife. Every teacher I know comes down with some form of illness or other at term end - my sister-in-law is 'expected' to go into school for about 2/3rds of her weekends (with no extra pay) to cover additional activities.

[sharkrider]

The teachers and lecturers I know work very long hours. My wife stays up to 4/5am at least 4 nights per week working, and always takes loads of work with her on holiday. Her colleagues are similar in their hours - one stops in the department all night once a week to get through his workload. Even the PhD students are normally leaving about 8/9pm whilst I'm waiting for my wife. Every teacher I know comes down with some form of illness or other at term end - my sister-in-law is 'expected' to go into school for about 2/3rds of her weekends (with no extra pay) to cover additional activities.

indeed not everyone gets it "easy" there isn't an "easy life" for many of us (teachers included, I know many teachers who are qualified, but have given up the profession because of work pressures getting worse and worse), (fat cat civil service managers arn't the majority of us) me and ,paramaniac, work for the ambulance service, he was just talking about his pension (retiring at 66) but do people have any idea how many of us will even make it that far? the physical work we do (2 of us) generally carrying patients down stairs (and often worse 'extractions') in carry chairs, every day of our lives,(and people are getting bigger, I'm NOT getting stronger) means most of us wont make it that far. Most ambulance staff (statistically) have to give up work because of a destroyed back (someone called me selfish earlier in this thread) we are basically giving up our health to help your family and loved ones, most of us will be unable to work in the same job at 66 because of the damage done in our jobs now... there are always headlines saying "why didn't the ambulance service do "this" or risk "that", would you for £18k a year? not everyone is a fat cat civil servant, MOST of us work our arses off for little reward, we are facing as many cuts as the private sector, only today on our station the PTS staff (Patient transport service, the people who take members of the puplic to and from hospital, often our ever increasing old population, who have no other way) have had their hours cut back to mininum, now how are those people to cope? when our staff have lost one day a week, will i (as an emergancy crew) now take that old person to the hospital for treatment, while a 999 red call for a cardiac arrest (potentially one of your family or loved ones) is being responded to from 40 miles away, by another crew? people who say the public sector has got it way better than the private sector should come and look at my working life.... we struggle, just like everyone else.

[Nigel R Slack]

The teachers and lecturers I know work very long hours. My wife stays up to 4/5am at least 4 nights per week working, and always takes loads of work with her on holiday. Her colleagues are similar in their hours - one stops in the department all night once a week to get through his workload. Even the PhD students are normally leaving about 8/9pm whilst I'm waiting for my wife. Every teacher I know comes down with some form of illness or other at term end - my sister-in-law is 'expected' to go into school for about 2/3rds of her weekends (with no extra pay) to cover additional activities.

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?

[jrw]

Indeed. The majority of private sector only get one week for each years service upto a maximum of 12 weeks IIRC. Statutory min. Even those who did have good redundancy packages have changed the terms by now by buying employees out. Didnt M&S look at this a year or so back?

Councils only get one week for every year too.....