Strike - right or wrong?

[IndieHibby]

Straightforward enough - what are your views?

As a teacher, I should declare a vested interest here. Much of the media manipulation by Maude, Cameron and chums frankly drives me to distraction. When Cameron said today that workers should take their kids to work, I laughed so hard I nearly drove off the road! Anyway, some points in our defence, albeit limited to the information I have available:

1. TPS is fully funded and is due to decrease as a share of GDP after peaking in the near-to-medium term
2. The pension is part of our terms and conditions and as such changes should be negotiated - which doesn't appear to be happening
3. The TPS was changed already in 2007 to make it affordable - this was agreed then so why should it be re-negotiated now?
3. We do not change our productivity when the economy is doing badly - indeed, due to budgets cuts, our productivity is actually going up (class sizes, streamlining of bureaucracy, less planning and prep time, increased cover etc). So why should we accept that our remuneration should go down during a cyclical recession?
4. These will not be temporary changes (we've had a pay freeze and are paying more through inflation, just like everybody else) so when the economy improves, which it will, our pensions will not be improved, unlike some sections of the private sector.
5. We don't get paid for the huge numbers of hours of 'overtime', unlike other workers.

That should kick things off! :devil:

[Hibbyradge]

100% correct.

[Jack]

If there was any doubt that Cameron is an accomplished liar they were certainly dispelled in the news clips today.

[Hibrandenburg]

Go for it! Lets just see how fat the fat cats can get without the normal working man. **** them.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As a nurse it has been a dilemma for me. At the end of the day you can't send the patients home if there's no staff.

I'm in Unison and most of my colleagues are RCN, so that has helped. I'll be striking, but I don't think it's going to work, public support might be hard to find.

[lucky]

100% correct.

And your 100% correct too.

[frazeHFC]

I am pretty pissed off with it tbh, it is punishing folk like me. My college is still open but i can't go because there is not buses or trains running, so i am going to fall behind. I also can't get to my work at night because again there is no travel for me to get there, so i am missing out on some much needed cash.

Pretty pissed off but i can understand why people would want to strike.

[Pete]

As a nurse it has been a dilemma for me. At the end of the day you can't send the patients home if there's no staff.

I'm in Unison and most of my colleagues are RCN, so that has helped. I'll be striking, but I don't think it's going to work, public support might be hard to find.


It's hard to argue with the OP and his points and I fully support people withdrawing their labour if they feel hard done by.

However, the bit in bold is an understatement to say the least.

I'm self-employed and have to pay into a personal pension scheme...when I can afford it. The amount of money I would have to put into it to get a final salary scheme like some public sector workers do is just unbelievable.

I understand that changes to terms and conditions without negotiation warrant action but you have to realise that most of the population in this country would give their right arm for a pension worth even less than the revised ones the government are trying to force on you. The old story about public sector pay being that bad that the pension is simply "making up for it" is a lot of nonsense.

A big argument is that people have budgeted in advance for receiving a final or average salary pension scheme. Spare me the violins and re-budget.
If you want to strike then go ahead and good luck in your fight but if you want my sympathy you can whistle.

[Jack]

Here's a post I put up on the Bounce about the same subject. It pretty much fits in here other than the swearing being filtered. :-D
.
Yeah it would be really easy just to roll over and accept being shafted by your employer.
.
The public sector unions have being trying to get a properly negotiated settlement to this for months. They have categorically been told there will be no negotiation, they have been left with no option by the government.
.
As I said before a deal was done to negotiate a sustainable pension scheme only a few years ago and despite the financial **** up it still is.
.
During my working lifetime the public sector unions have been constantly bickering among themselves. Never before has there been a solidarity between the very highest, in terms of grade and reward, the madarins, and those at the opposite end. I think that might give an idea as to the widespread bitterness of those involved.
.
This will affect the most poorly paid career public sector workers to the tune of more than £200,000 over their lifetime in the extra they pay and the reduced amount they are likely to be paid in retirement. Those above the minimum wage will lose more.
.
Its a shame some folk, not otherwise affected, will be inconvenienced for a day, but 2,000,000 plus people who have worked, or work in providing our public services, stand to lose a lot more.

[bighairyfaeleith]

100% support this strike, cameron needs to realise he can't just stamp all over people.

I think there will be more public support than the some folks think, a lot of people are becoming annoyed at this governments policies.

[Betty Boop]

Support the strike 100%. March and Rally at 11-30 am on the 30th, at Johnston Terrace to Scottish Parliament. :flag:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Work in the private sector but fully support this strike. Both my parents work in the public sector and haven't had a pay rise in years while I've had rises for the past 8 years. 'Gold Plated' pensions are a myth for normal workers in the public sector. The only public sector workers receiving these pensions are top civil servants and the government.

[Jay]

As a nurse it has been a dilemma for me. At the end of the day you can't send the patients home if there's no staff.

I'm in Unison and most of my colleagues are RCN, so that has helped. I'll be striking, but I don't think it's going to work, public support might be hard to find.

There will be emergency cover on the wards I think - in my day the emergency cover demanded by the management was more than they left on the wards on a daily basis. We were regularly left with 2 staff all day, rarely more than 3 of us on duty at a time but strike cover was 4 :rolleyes:

[MSK]

There will be emergency cover on the wards I think - in my day the emergency cover demanded by the management was more than they left on the wards on a daily basis. We were regularly left with 2 staff all day, rarely more than 3 of us on duty at a time but strike cover was 4 :rolleyes:We have plenty cover ..im working too ..

[Green Mikey]

Work in the private sector but fully support this strike. Both my parents work in the public sector and haven't had a pay rise in years while I've had rises for the past 8 years. 'Gold Plated' pensions are a myth for normal workers in the public sector. The only public sector workers receiving these pensions are top civil servants and the government.

A good proportion of public sectors workers receive incremental pay rises. I believe that Teachers, Nurses, Police and Fireman all can expect annual pay rises in the first 5/6 years of their employment. Once the incremental rises cease then the employee is at the top end of the pay scale andf only promotion or a new pay deal will sort this out.

What are 'Gold Plated' pensions? Public sector workers on Final Salary pensions will generally get a pension in excess of a private sector employee in a DC scheme even if they have the contributed the same amount. That is a pretty good deal.

Public sector pensions have to be reformed. Firstly, there isn't enough money to pay for these pensions. Secondly, I think there has to be more equality across pensions in the UK. Public sectors can take more from a pension than they paid in but private sector employees can't.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's hard to argue with the OP and his points and I fully support people withdrawing their labour if they feel hard done by.

However, the bit in bold is an understatement to say the least.

I'm self-employed and have to pay into a personal pension scheme...when I can afford it. The amount of money I would have to put into it to get a final salary scheme like some public sector workers do is just unbelievable.

I understand that changes to terms and conditions without negotiation warrant action but you have to realise that most of the population in this country would give their right arm for a pension worth even less than the revised ones the government are trying to force on you. The old story about public sector pay being that bad that the pension is simply "making up for it" is a lot of nonsense.

A big argument is that people have budgeted in advance for receiving a final or average salary pension scheme. Spare me the violins and re-budget.
If you want to strike then go ahead and good luck in your fight but if you want my sympathy you can whistle.

As you know Peter, I used to do the same job as you. I took the decision to switch career, one of the things that decision was made on was the fact I'd get a final salary pension in the NHS.

I do realise though, how other people will be viewing this.


Support the strike 100%. March and Rally at 11-30 am on the 30th, at Johnston Terrace to Scottish Parliament. :flag:

I'll be there, never been on a march in my life.


There will be emergency cover on the wards I think - in my day the emergency cover demanded by the management was more than they left on the wards on a daily basis. We were regularly left with 2 staff all day, rarely more than 3 of us on duty at a time but strike cover was 4 :rolleyes:

Once I knew that the RCN wiouldn't be coming out, it was easy as I knew the ward would be staffed - funnily enough the off duty for the 30th of November has more people working than any day I can remember.


A good proportion of public sectors workers receive incremental pay rises. I believe that Teachers, Nurses, Police and Fireman all can expect annual pay rises in the first 5/6 years of their employment. Once the incremental rises cease then the employee is at the top end of the pay scale andf only promotion or a new pay deal will sort this out.

What are 'Gold Plated' pensions? Public sector workers on Final Salary pensions will generally get a pension in excess of a private sector employee in a DC scheme even if they have the contributed the same amount. That is a pretty good deal.

Public sector pensions have to be reformed. Firstly, there isn't enough money to pay for these pensions. Secondly, I think there has to be more equality across pensions in the UK. Public sectors can take more from a pension than they paid in but private sector employees can't.

A pension is a part of you salary that you set aside for your retirement. Most people would be outraqed if their employer was to start dipping into their wages, people are striking to protect the contract they made with the Government when they trained for their posts and when they accepted employment.

If this goes ahead (and I think it will) it means my pension contribution doubles. That has a direct hit on my take home pay. The irony is that every time people talk about footballers or executives having obscene salaries they always cite the example of the poor nurse or teacher that does such good work and doesn't get their just rewards.

Yet come the time when a decision is to be made about who to give the money to, it's the fat cats that are getting the nod.

What people working for the likes of RBS or Standard Life should be asking is why they don't get a final salary pension when their employers are so obscenely wealthy. This is a classic divide and rule tactic being used to distract people from the real injustice that is happening, the obscene way that the capitalist system - via bank bail outs - has been allowed to continue despite the fact it is failing.

[IndieHibby]

A good proportion of public sectors workers receive incremental pay rises. I believe that Teachers, Nurses, Police and Fireman all can expect annual pay rises in the first 5/6 years of their employment. Once the incremental rises cease then the employee is at the top end of the pay scale andf only promotion or a new pay deal will sort this out.

Incremental pay rises are just a way of saving money. If you work for 40 years and your pay in Year 1 = 19k ------- Year 6 = 30K and then remains at 30k for the remaining 34 years then your average pay over your entire career is ~£29,000. That's a reduction of 9.6% compared the the top of the main scale. So when people say that we receive "pay rises" at the same time as saying the pay is £30K, then we are really talking about a pay cut of 10%. Now we know why teachers/nurses/police don't start on 30K!


What are 'Gold Plated' pensions? Public sector workers on Final Salary pensions will generally get a pension in excess of a private sector employee in a DC scheme even if they have the contributed the same amount. That is a pretty good deal.

Comparing Public vs. Private isn't actually helpful as the two are not comparible - A checkout assistant and a Doctor/Teacher/Policeman cannot be compared. It's interesting that the Media always use this dichotomy - it sells papers even though it is entirley pointless to compare the two. Each job should be taken on it's own merits.
Equally, saying that a private sector pension are X and public sector are X is beside the point as it doesn't give anything like the detail required to pass even the most trite judgement.


Public sector pensions have to be reformed. Firstly, there isn't enough money to pay for these pensions. Secondly, I think there has to be more equality across pensions in the UK. Public sectors can take more from a pension than they paid in but private sector employees can't

Firslty, as I stated the in OP, as far as the TPS is concerned, not only did the Hutton report state that there is enough money, it also stated that as a result of the reforms which were recommended and implemented, it will decline as a share of GDP in the near-to-mid term into the indefinite future.
Secondly, if pay should vary according to the job, then surely pensions should also vary? I don't need to know what your job is to be able to say that you would find it not only unfair, but destructive economically, to have your pension/pay reduced because someone else receives less. Surley you should receive in remuneration at a level which reflects the job you do?

There are plenty people I hear say that teachers are lucky, have an easy life, pensions should be "fair" (by which they mean reduced for those who earn more than them but not for them). Perhaps someone prevented them from becoming a teacher/doctor/nurse? Otherwise they would be doing that job, surely?

That's not a question that is often easily answered....

[Green Mikey]

A pension is a part of you salary that you set aside for your retirement. Most people would be outraqed if their employer was to start dipping into their wages, people are striking to protect the contract they made with the Government when they trained for their posts and when they accepted employment.

If this goes ahead (and I think it will) it means my pension contribution doubles. That has a direct hit on my take home pay. The irony is that every time people talk about footballers or executives having obscene salaries they always cite the example of the poor nurse or teacher that does such good work and doesn't get their just rewards.

Yet come the time when a decision is to be made about who to give the money to, it's the fat cats that are getting the nod.

What people working for the likes of RBS or Standard Life should be asking is why they don't get a final salary pension when their employers are so obscenely wealthy. This is a classic divide and rule tactic being used to distract people from the real injustice that is happening, the obscene way that the capitalist system - via bank bail outs - has been allowed to continue despite the fact it is failing.

Final salary pensions are not available in the Private Sector because they are unaffordable for the employees and the employer. Ultimately, it's not really a question of how wealthy your employer is because, since as you stated, your pension is money from your own salary that is set aside for retirement.

Regardless of the bank bail outs, fast cats, RBS etc do you think it is fair that the government should, if neccessary, use government money to plug funding gaps in Public Sector pensions?



Incremental pay rises are just a way of saving money. If you work for 40 years and your pay in Year 1 = 19k ------- Year 6 = 30K and then remains at 30k for the remaining 34 years then your average pay over your entire career is ~£29,000. That's a reduction of 9.6% compared the the top of the main scale. So when people say that we receive "pay rises" at the same time as saying the pay is £30K, then we are really talking about a pay cut of 10%. Now we know why teachers/nurses/police don't start on 30K!

Nobody starts at the top of the pay scale in any career.


Comparing Public vs. Private isn't actually helpful as the two are not comparible - A checkout assistant and a Doctor/Teacher/Policeman cannot be compared. It's interesting that the Media always use this dichotomy - it sells papers even though it is entirley pointless to compare the two. Each job should be taken on it's own merits.
Equally, saying that a private sector pension are X and public sector are X is beside the point as it doesn't give anything like the detail required to pass even the most trite judgement.

I'm comparing the pension provisions of each sector not the work carried out by both sectors. When discussing a strike based on public sector pension reforms I think it is important to look at the private sector pensions also. Public sector workers are going to strike on pension reforms that if implemented would still provide a pension in excess of what many workers in the country will receive.




Firslty, as I stated the in OP, as far as the TPS is concerned, not only did the Hutton report state that there is enough money, it also stated that as a result of the reforms which were recommended and implemented, it will decline as a share of GDP in the near-to-mid term into the indefinite future.

The TPS may be fully funded but what about the other pensions schemes such as LGPS and Royal Mail that are not.


Secondly, if pay should vary according to the job, then surely pensions should also vary? I don't need to know what your job is to be able to say that you would find it not only unfair, but destructive economically, to have your pension/pay reduced because someone else receives less. Surley you should receive in remuneration at a level which reflects the job you do?

There are plenty people I hear say that teachers are lucky, have an easy life, pensions should be "fair" (by which they mean reduced for those who earn more than them but not for them). Perhaps someone prevented them from becoming a teacher/doctor/nurse? Otherwise they would be doing that job, surely?

That's not a question that is often easily answered....

I don't understand what you mean about lowering pensions because other people receive less. The issue on pension fund reforms is about government affordability not about reducing people's pensions because other people have lower pensions.

[Beefster]

A pension is a part of you salary that you set aside for your retirement. Most people would be outraqed if their employer was to start dipping into their wages, people are striking to protect the contract they made with the Government when they trained for their posts and when they accepted employment.

If this goes ahead (and I think it will) it means my pension contribution doubles. That has a direct hit on my take home pay. The irony is that every time people talk about footballers or executives having obscene salaries they always cite the example of the poor nurse or teacher that does such good work and doesn't get their just rewards.

Yet come the time when a decision is to be made about who to give the money to, it's the fat cats that are getting the nod.

What people working for the likes of RBS or Standard Life should be asking is why they don't get a final salary pension when their employers are so obscenely wealthy. This is a classic divide and rule tactic being used to distract people from the real injustice that is happening, the obscene way that the capitalist system - via bank bail outs - has been allowed to continue despite the fact it is failing.

Pension contributions increases are not uncommon in the private sector too amongst those of us lucky enough to still have a DB pension scheme. As is happening in the public sector though, all entitlement to date is protected. No-one is going to lose out on money that they have already earned AFAIK.

[frazeHFC]

I am pretty pissed off with it tbh, it is punishing folk like me. My college is still open but i can't go because there is not buses or trains running, so i am going to fall behind. I also can't get to my work at night because again there is no travel for me to get there, so i am missing out on some much needed cash.

Pretty pissed off but i can understand why people would want to strike.

Mind you. :hmmm: If i am off i can catch up on the FM12 i have missed this last 2 weeks with an all-day FM sesh. :hyper:

Sadly i am not joking........

[steakbake]

It's a difficult situation. People are feeling the cuts from the government yet feel aggrieved that the banks the taxpayers' money has propped up continue to pay out crazy bonuses.

I hear all the debate between the cut the deficit and the spend to grow argument.

The fact of the matter is that the last government wrecked the economy - no more boom and bust we were told. More like an unbelievable boom followed by the worst bust in history. I think now that it wasn't entirely their fault because there were global conditions however, the way they spent money was literally like there was no tomorrow. What happened to all the money when times were good? Have we no reserves? We used to have gold reserves but that was sold at rock bottom prices by Mr Prudent himself.

I watched Nick Robinson's programme the other night and when you see the figures of how much was spent and the kind of waste that has gone on, you cannot help but think that sitting on our hands, bumping our gums that the deficit is someone else's problem is reckless and irresponsible. That said, Cameron and Co seem to be picking the things to cut somewhat on the basis of ideological decisions. On the other side of the floor, I find anything that Ed Balls has to say very hard to believe given that he was there when Brown was messing things up.

I don't know what the answer is. Deep gouging cuts doesn't seem to be the answer. Spending money like there isn't a problem isn't one either.

I suspect how this will play out is that there will be another global economic event (collapse of Euro or downgrading of US credit or a major country failing to sell its bonds) and there will be economic carnage the likes of which we can only imagine.

All this return to the 80s stuff, strikes over having to work slightly longer and put more aside for your old age is just a pantomime sideshow. I'd start stocking up on canned food, get some ammunition and wait for the end of civilisation. It's going to be every man for himself in a few years time.

[HKhibby]

welcome to the real world, Mr Brown was the one that raided the pension pot, when chancellor, and good old Mr Blair let him, blame most of it on these two!, years of mis-management! stop blaming everyone but yourselves! Scotland....UK....Europe!, its not someone elses fault! there is no such person as They!!!, as everyone says! ie: they should do this and that! who are they??? try taking some responsibility in life, money, pensions, employment, etc..etc.. and maybe just maybe then you might see the bigger picture of the world! not the insular Europe and in particular insular world of the civil service etc...

[RyeSloan]

Incremental pay rises are just a way of saving money. If you work for 40 years and your pay in Year 1 = 19k ------- Year 6 = 30K and then remains at 30k for the remaining 34 years then your average pay over your entire career is ~£29,000. That's a reduction of 9.6% compared the the top of the main scale. So when people say that we receive "pay rises" at the same time as saying the pay is £30K, then we are really talking about a pay cut of 10%. Now we know why teachers/nurses/police don't start on 30K!

This is nonsense…who ever starts at the top of a pay scale? I would say it is the absolute norm for people entering a job to be given a salary smaller than one of someone who has been in the job for 5 years, even if they are on the same grade.

To try and paint that as a lifelong paycut of 10% is just poor spin.



Comparing Public vs. Private isn't actually helpful as the two are not comparible - A checkout assistant and a Doctor/Teacher/Policeman cannot be compared. It's interesting that the Media always use this dichotomy - it sells papers even though it is entirley pointless to compare the two. Each job should be taken on it's own merits.
Equally, saying that a private sector pension are X and public sector are X is beside the point as it doesn't give anything like the detail required to pass even the most trite judgement.

So we should only look at the public sector in isolation and everyone who needs.has a pension doesn’t count in this discussion. How strange.

Strange that you use a checkout assistant as the comparator to a Doctor/Teacher/Policeman…how about an Accountant or Engineer or any other 100’s of private sector jobs that need a degree and a high level of expertise are these in any way comparable to a policeman or a teacher, if not what makes these public sector workers so unique that there pension provision cannot be compared to others? Would it be simply down to their employer?




Firslty, as I stated the in OP, as far as the TPS is concerned, not only did the Hutton report state that there is enough money, it also stated that as a result of the reforms which were recommended and implemented, it will decline as a share of GDP in the near-to-mid term into the indefinite future.
Secondly, if pay should vary according to the job, then surely pensions should also vary? I don't need to know what your job is to be able to say that you would find it not only unfair, but destructive economically, to have your pension/pay reduced because someone else receives less. Surley you should receive in remuneration at a level which reflects the job you do?

The TPS may be fully funded but public sector pensions as a whole are not…even if they were the Government are saying they cannot afford to maintain their contributions to keep it that way.
The message seems quite clear to me, your employer can no longer afford the contributions to maintain your current benefits therefore employee contributions need to rise.

In no way am I saying this is a good thing but it seems like that’s the way it is…or are you suggesting that the government is lying and that there is no forecast shortfall in funding and the government has plenty of cash to keep up their contributions?

I also don’t quite get your point on pay should vary per job…is the public sector not the last bastion of collective bargaining where pay is standardised per role as compared to the individual?



There are plenty people I hear say that teachers are lucky, have an easy life, pensions should be "fair" (by which they mean reduced for those who earn more than them but not for them). Perhaps someone prevented them from becoming a teacher/doctor/nurse? Otherwise they would be doing that job, surely?

That's not a question that is often easily answered....

Sorry, probably me but I don’t understand this point at all.

In summary I sympathise with everyone being asked to pay more into their pension as it will directly reduce their take home pay and with the BoE and the Government happily accepting 5% inflation to inflate away the nations debts this is a tough tome for anyone to lose take home pay. BUT in the end of the day it is still THEIR pension, this is money that they are saving directly for themselves. It’s not an extra tax to be redistributed but an ask to contribute more towards paying for a pension for the individual that has terms that are impossible for many people not employed by the state to get.

As for strikes… Interesting that by taking a 5 day week for 52 weeks you get 260 paid days, to strike for a day will therefore cost 0.4% of an annual salary. The extra ask is for 3% of contributions I think so striking for one day is going to cost almost 1/6th of the extra ask.

[--------]

Straightforward enough - what are your views?

As a teacher, I should declare a vested interest here. Much of the media manipulation by Maude, Cameron and chums frankly drives me to distraction. When Cameron said today that workers should take their kids to work, I laughed so hard I nearly drove off the road! Anyway, some points in our defence, albeit limited to the information I have available:

1. TPS is fully funded and is due to decrease as a share of GDP after peaking in the near-to-medium term
2. The pension is part of our terms and conditions and as such changes should be negotiated - which doesn't appear to be happening
3. The TPS was changed already in 2007 to make it affordable - this was agreed then so why should it be re-negotiated now?
3. We do not change our productivity when the economy is doing badly - indeed, due to budgets cuts, our productivity is actually going up (class sizes, streamlining of bureaucracy, less planning and prep time, increased cover etc). So why should we accept that our remuneration should go down during a cyclical recession?
4. These will not be temporary changes (we've had a pay freeze and are paying more through inflation, just like everybody else) so when the economy improves, which it will, our pensions will not be improved, unlike some sections of the private sector.
5. We don't get paid for the huge numbers of hours of 'overtime', unlike other workers.

That should kick things off! :devil:


100% of the opinion that unless workers show they're prepared to withdraw their labour - albeit in a responsible manner, as you guys certainly seem to be doing - the employers will simply (pardon my French) crap on them.

I don't know about the tactical side of things - whether a strike will actually work for you, though I hope it does if it comes to it - but as far as the principle's concerned, I see no reason not to strike is that's what your membership agree.

[Hibrandenburg]

The fat cat's salaries have increased by over 40000% since the war and in contrast the normal working man's by a measly 40%. If the fat cat's do succeed in making the savings needed by bleeding the workforce, then you can be sure it won't be long before they're giving themselves a nice payrise as reward. I say no ****ing way!

[lapsedhibee]

strikes over having to work slightly longer and put more aside for your old age is just a pantomime sideshow
:agree:


I'd start stocking up on canned food, get some ammunition and wait for the end of civilisation. It's going to be every man for himself in a few years time.
Wee bit pessimistic, but easy to see Tynecastle becoming a Dust Bowl.

[RyeSloan]

Straightforward enough - what are your views?

As a teacher, I should declare a vested interest here. Much of the media manipulation by Maude, Cameron and chums frankly drives me to distraction. When Cameron said today that workers should take their kids to work, I laughed so hard I nearly drove off the road! Anyway, some points in our defence, albeit limited to the information I have available:

1. TPS is fully funded and is due to decrease as a share of GDP after peaking in the near-to-medium term
2. The pension is part of our terms and conditions and as such changes should be negotiated - which doesn't appear to be happening
3. The TPS was changed already in 2007 to make it affordable - this was agreed then so why should it be re-negotiated now?
3. We do not change our productivity when the economy is doing badly - indeed, due to budgets cuts, our productivity is actually going up (class sizes, streamlining of bureaucracy, less planning and prep time, increased cover etc). So why should we accept that our remuneration should go down during a cyclical recession?
4. These will not be temporary changes (we've had a pay freeze and are paying more through inflation, just like everybody else) so when the economy improves, which it will, our pensions will not be improved, unlike some sections of the private sector.
5. We don't get paid for the huge numbers of hours of 'overtime', unlike other workers.

That should kick things off! :devil:

Stuck at work so I took some tome time to read the Hutton Report (yup I am pretty bored :greengrin!) and it would appear to be quite clear on the fact that the status quo places too much of a burden on the tax payer..i.e public sector pensions if let alone will be a fiscal drag and subsidised by the tax payer...it is quite clear that this would not be 'fair'. It is also quite clear in stating that longer life expectancy rather than banker or fat cats is the main culprit here.

From what I can see the Government has taken most of what Hutton has suggested and is now trying to implement it. It would also appear that full time low to medium paid workers actually gain from these proposals and the main losers are the 'high flyers' in public service.

The following is lifted directly from the Hutton report:

"The Commission felt that there was a rationale for short-term cost savings in recognition of the substantial unanticipated increases in longevity. In practice these savings could only be realised by increasing member contributions. The Commission recommended that any
increase should be managed so as to protect the low paid, and if possible staged."

From that perspective I'm now even less convinced of the rationale behind this strike...but I am interested in it's explicit aims, there seems to be so much mud slinging going on it's actually quite difficult to work out what the aims of the strike are. Are they to protest against the changes completely and if so what is the proposed alternative or is it specifically aimed at the increased contribution part...if so since Hutton saw this as a central plank to the reform what is the alternatives being proposed?

[Jonnyboy]

I just wish that Call me Dave and his cronies would stop making out that retiring public service workers are going to get some whopping golden handshake. Invariably they offer up a retiring Chief Exec as an example. There are a limited number of Chief Exec but there are tens of thousands of lower paid workers who will get anything but a whopping golden handshake. Also, public sector workers pay into their pension fund - a fact often ignored by Dave and his mates.

Still at least Dave has delivered part of his election promise. He said public sector spending would be capped but that anyone losing their job shouldn't worry as there would be more than enough new private sector jobs in compensation. First part is happening right now so he's delivered in part.

And finally, it suits Dave to hear of non public service workers being savaged by those in the private sector. For my money the savagers (if that is indeed a word) have simply fallen for the line spun to them by the coalition government.

[Betty Boop]

I just wish that Call me Dave and his cronies would stop making out that retiring public service workers are going to get some whopping golden handshake. Invariably they offer up a retiring Chief Exec as an example. There are a limited number of Chief Exec but there are tens of thousands of lower paid workers who will get anything but a whopping golden handshake. Also, public sector workers pay into their pension fund - a fact often ignored by Dave and his mates.

Still at least Dave has delivered part of his election promise. He said public sector spending would be capped but that anyone losing their job shouldn't worry as there would be more than enough new private sector jobs in compensation. First part is happening right now so he's delivered in part.

And finally, it suits Dave to hear of non public service workers being savaged by those in the private sector. For my money the savagers (if that is indeed a word) have simply fallen for the line spun to them by the coalition government.


:top marksBeware workers rights are under attack from the free market fundementalists.

[LancashireHibby]

Love the irony of the subject of strike action with Thatcher reportedly on her deathbed.

The champagne is on ice, the jelly is about to set and the strippers are on their way.

[lucky]

I am pretty pissed off with it tbh, it is punishing folk like me. My college is still open but i can't go because there is not buses or trains running, so i am going to fall behind. I also can't get to my work at night because again there is no travel for me to get there, so i am missing out on some much needed cash.

Pretty pissed off but i can understand why people would want to strike.
Trains are running defo. Only Glasgow underground not. Nearly all bus routes are privatised as such they are running too. More surprised your college is open. People only go strike as a last resort. Workers are defending their deferred wages. When you have worked for 25 years and you find you are going to have to work longer and pay more in your pension you too will want to defend your entitlement. Blame the government both in London and Edinburgh for failing to negotiate with the unions

[Eyrie]

The whole point of a union is to protect the interests of its members, so I understand why they've called strikes to protect the current pension scheme arrangements.

However I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for them because I don't even get an employer contribution to my money purchase scheme, let alone a taxpayer subsidised final salary scheme.

[lucky]

The whole point of a union is to protect the interests of its members, so I understand why they've called strikes to protect the current pension scheme arrangements.

However I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for them because I don't even get an employer contribution to my money purchase scheme, let alone a taxpayer subsidised final salary scheme.

So because your employer is poor you think its wrong for others to fight theirs to maintain their existing conditions. It's not a tax payer subsidised pension its a term that OUR public sector workers get as part of their terms and conditions. Envy is not a good starting point for anything

[--------]

I just wish that Call me Dave and his cronies would stop making out that retiring public service workers are going to get some whopping golden handshake. Invariably they offer up a retiring Chief Exec as an example. There are a limited number of Chief Exec but there are tens of thousands of lower paid workers who will get anything but a whopping golden handshake. Also, public sector workers pay into their pension fund - a fact often ignored by Dave and his mates.

Still at least Dave has delivered part of his election promise. He said public sector spending would be capped but that anyone losing their job shouldn't worry as there would be more than enough new private sector jobs in compensation. First part is happening right now so he's delivered in part.

And finally, it suits Dave to hear of non public service workers being savaged by those in the private sector. For my money the savagers (if that is indeed a word) have simply fallen for the line spun to them by the coalition government.


:top marks


But don't teachers only work till 3.30 in the afternoon, have ten weeks holiday a year plus lots of long weekends, and earn so much that most of them retire early to a villa on the Algarve, John?

Oh no - I'm thinking of Directors of Education here. Sorry!

[--------]

Love the irony of the subject of strike action with Thatcher reportedly on her deathbed.

The champagne is on ice, the jelly is about to set and the strippers are on their way.

Where did you read that, LH?

[Betty Boop]

Where did you read that, LH?

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/thatcher-healthy/

[--------]

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/thatcher-healthy/


Ah. Right.

Ho-hum.


Proverbs 13:12 comes to mind.

[IndieHibby]

This is nonsense…who ever starts at the top of a pay scale? I would say it is the absolute norm for people entering a job to be given a salary smaller than one of someone who has been in the job for 5 years, even if they are on the same grade.

To try and paint that as a lifelong paycut of 10% is just poor spin.


Perhaps if you had read the thread, you wouldn't be so critical. I shouldn't have to defend this as I didn't make that point. The point I made about increments was in repsonse to Green Mikey, who, in reply to this post:


Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=3003965#post3003965) Work in the private sector but fully support this strike. Both my parents work in the public sector and haven't had a pay rise in years while I've had rises for the past 8 years. 'Gold Plated' pensions are a myth for normal workers in the public sector. The only public sector workers receiving these pensions are top civil servants and the government.


made the point that public sector workers receive incremental pay rises. While this is true, is doesn't address the point that once at the top of the pay scale (or quoted average salary for the teacher) there will be no more pay rises. Unlike, for example, GlesgaeHibby, who have received pay rises for 8 years in a row (and good on him too!). Yet again, making base comparisons between Public Sector and Private Sector remuneration is pointless unless you compare similar jobs.


So we should only look at the public sector in isolation and everyone who needs.has a pension doesn’t count in this discussion. How strange.


Straw-man! I never said that - I started a discussion about the rights/wrongs of the current strike - which is a public sector one - the private sector aren't striking, are they?


Strange that you use a checkout assistant as the comparator to a Doctor/Teacher/Policeman…how about an Accountant or Engineer or any other 100’s of private sector jobs that need a degree and a high level of expertise are these in any way comparable to a policeman or a teacher, if not what makes these public sector workers so unique that there pension provision cannot be compared to others? Would it be simply down to their employer?


Why is that strange? If someone discusses the value of a Teachers pension by comparing it with a "Private Sector" one and doesn't clarify the job in the private sector they are comparing it to, then of course, included in the "Private Sector" side of the argument are low-skilled, low-responsibility jobs. Would you not agree that making the PS/PS dichotomy the basis of the discussion is unfair? If not, then how do you justify comparing a job (and by association the pay/pension package) of a teacher/doctor/nurse policeman with that of a shelf-stacker or administrator?

Of course there are jobs in the private sector which require the same qualification as those you stated above - do you really think I am that obtuse not to realise this? Or are you responding to something you think I have said without reading what has actually been written?


The message seems quite clear to me, your employer can no longer afford the contributions to maintain your current benefits therefore employee contributions need to rise.


Correct. But they are not not just proposing to increase the contributions. The rate of increase in value, retirement age, and method of calcualtion are all changing. And they are not negotiating these - they are making changes to our terms and conditions without negotiation. Perhaps you would be happy for your employer to do this, I am not.


In no way am I saying this is a good thing but it seems like that’s the way it is…or are you suggesting that the government is lying and that there is no forecast shortfall in funding and the government has plenty of cash to keep up their contributions?


I can only speak about the TPS as it's the only one I am striking about. But, yes, I am saying that, should the government choose to do it, they could keep up their contributions. In fact, this is my understanding of the changes that were made and agreed in 2007. Why are they changing now? How often are we going to be re-negotiating our pension?


I also don’t quite get your point on pay should vary per job…is the public sector not the last bastion of collective bargaining where pay is standardised per role as compared to the individual?


See my previous point about comparing Public vs Private remunaration without taking into account the role. It would seem you support the idea that two people doing the same job should receive different pay (depending on their ability to negotiate, perform well, blackmail, sleep with the boss :devil: presumably?). Which is fair enough; there are plenty teachers who don't perform as well as we might expect. Many of my colleagues feel that it is unfair that some teachers do s.f.a while others work hard. But in our job, we address that (or not) by managing those individuals and putting in place procedures which either improve the performance of the teacher of remove them from their role. Which I feel is a better way than attacking the pay of all teachers - even those who work damn hard for your kids.


Sorry, probably me but I don’t understand this point at all.


It was a response to the arguments of envy i.e; "I don't get £X so you shouldn't get £X". A pretty banal argument, wouldn't you agree?


In summary I sympathise with everyone being asked to pay more into their pension as it will directly reduce their take home pay and with the BoE and the Government happily accepting 5% inflation to inflate away the nations debts this is a tough tome for anyone to lose take home pay. BUT in the end of the day it is still THEIR pension, this is money that they are saving directly for themselves. It’s not an extra tax to be redistributed but an ask to contribute more towards paying for a pension for the individual that has terms that are impossible for many people not employed by the state to get.


If we should pay more for it (which might be fair enough) then
1.why should we also receive LESS pension? (approx £10,000 pa at the moment). How much less should it be?
2.why should it also take X more years to earn?
3.why should the rate at which it increass in value also be reduced?

when in 2007 Hutton adressed all these issues directly and both employer and employees made an agreement which Hutton then stated solved these problems?


As for strikes… Interesting that by taking a 5 day week for 52 weeks you get 260 paid days, to strike for a day will therefore cost 0.4% of an annual salary. The extra ask is for 3% of contributions I think so striking for one day is going to cost almost 1/6th of the extra ask.

A five day week? I can't remember the last time I worked only a five day week. Perhaps in the Private Sector....:wink:

[Eyrie]

So because your employer is poor you think its wrong for others to fight theirs to maintain their existing conditions. It's not a tax payer subsidised pension its a term that OUR public sector workers get as part of their terms and conditions. Envy is not a good starting point for anything

I didn't say it was wrong, just that I don't have any sympathy for them. Even the revised deal that they are being offered is still a generous final salary scheme that most of us can only dream of. But the question then is how this should be paid for. With longer life expectancies and the retirement age increasing there is nothing unfair about asking those who benefit from such arrangements to pay a bit more and work a bit longer.

If they don't, then we as taxpayers have to fund the difference which eats into the money that we have left to provide for our own pensions. And our pensions are very unlikely to be final salary - instead they are mainly money purchase and thus have no guarantees attached as to how much we will eventually get. So fairness is the issue, not "envy".

In an ideal world we'd all get a high enough state pension that a private or employer pension is unnecessary.

[Leicester Fan]

These strikers have it pretty good right now and they want to keep it that way and I don't blame them for that. The problem is those of us who haven't got it so good are expected to pay for it.

When Gordon Brown took 20% a year out of private pension funds the teachers never went on strike for me, The Unite union never uttered a word of complaint. Do I want the strikers to succeed? Not on your life.

[IndieHibby]

From that perspective I'm now even less convinced of the rationale behind this strike...but I am interested in it's explicit aims, there seems to be so much mud slinging going on it's actually quite difficult to work out what the aims of the strike are. Are they to protest against the changes completely and if so what is the proposed alternative or is it specifically aimed at the increased contribution part...if so since Hutton saw this as a central plank to the reform what is the alternatives being proposed?

Slight correction to previous points I made: The changes made in 2007 were not attributable to Hutton, but did result in significant changes to our pensions, including an increase in employee contributions.

I agree that the mud-slinging 'muddys-the-waters' (sorry, couldn't help the use of the pun) - so much so that often the only people who do know what is going on are the Government and Trade's Unions; even then I am not so sure.

What does appear to be clear, however, is that the government are not negotiating.
Neither Headteachers, nor ATL have ever (in 125 years) striked - something must have made them change their feelings on this...

I think that if this was only about increases in contributions, then perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation. But it is not only about this (as I have stated above).

I'm not going to say who I voted for, although my political leanings are centre-right :wink:, but it is clear as day to me now that this Government are attacking the public sector not because there is no money, but as a means to expand an ideology. I never thought I would say this, but I do not find this acceptable. Our core public services are something to be protected, something foreigners envy us for. They benefit everyone and our society is better for it. They are not perfect, but then neither is the private sector.

Why should I lose out on my rightful remunaration because Dave, George, Lansley and Gove have their heads up thier *****?

[hibsdaft]

When Gordon Brown took 20% a year out of private pension funds the teachers never went on strike for me, The Unite union never uttered a word of complaint.

Thatchers made solidarity strike action illegal.

Most Unite members work in the private sector, unions are only as strong as the action their members are prepared to take, and the demands they make.

[hibsdaft]

Work in the private sector but fully support this strike. Both my parents work in the public sector and haven't had a pay rise in years while I've had rises for the past 8 years. 'Gold Plated' pensions are a myth for normal workers in the public sector.

Yup, national average private sector pay rises are at 2%, public sector 0%. There's a Local Government 0% deal in Scotland for next 3 years while inflation is at 5%. There's jobs cuts across the board, the most experienced staff retiring without being replaced, and public expectations constantly rising. Whilst all to blame for state of the economy too apparently!


The only public sector workers receiving these pensions are top civil servants and the government.

Correct, and i understand that they pay into different pension schemes and aren't covered by much of this.

There is an incredible line in the Hutton report, page 23, where it says in black and white, none of this will cover MPs. They have no shame.

Meanwhile it was free market economics that got us into the debt we have, but apparently we need more of it not less.

[Posh Swanny]

The problem is those of us who haven't got it so good are expected to pay for it.

This is the sticking point for me. It is rather galling that the strikes are in protest at reducing the burden on the taxpayer when most taxpayers could only dream of the pension being offered. The strikes are effectively saying "the government wants you to pay less towards our retirement, we think you should continue to pay more, even though either pension will still see us considerably better off than most of you".

I'm all for the right to strike though. I happen to disagree on this particular issue but won't be crying or celebrating on either outcome. There will be perceived injustices whatever happens.

[Leicester Fan]

Thatchers made solidarity strike action illegal.

:greengrin




Most Unite members work in the private sector, unions are only as strong as the action their members are prepared to take, and the demands they make.

Didn't only around 30% of their members bother to vote?

[Bishop Hibee]

:greengrin



Didn't only around 30% of their members bother to vote?

Not a dissimilar amount of those on the electoral role who will vote in the local elections next May. If the government changed the law to allow secret ballots in the workplace then the figure voting would be much higher.

I've got 2 jobs at the moment as my public sector salary is no longer enough to pay the bills etc. I'll be out on strike, picketing and marching.

[Lucius Apuleius]

The fat cat's salaries have increased by over 40000% since the war and in contrast the normal working man's by a measly 40%. If the fat cat's do succeed in making the savings needed by bleeding the workforce, then you can be sure it won't be long before they're giving themselves a nice payrise as reward. I say no ****ing way!

Are you sure? Lets say a miner on a fiver a week in 1945 has only seen his salary increase by 40%. Seems a strange one.

FWIW, and this is from an old left wing union activist, strikes seem to hurt the strikers most. However, sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in and if you all feel strong enough about this, then go for it.

I am obviously in the private sector. I already get a final salary pension. I have another final salary pension to get and I have three annuity pensions to come so I should be OK (none of them very big, but all add up obviously). However, I have paid into these various pensions over the last nearly 40 years. I work in an industry that has more incidents and deaths than for example the fire brigade, yet they can retire comfortably after 30 years. We cannot. Something seems fundamentally wrong when certain sectors are only expected to work a short time in life whereas others have to work up to an past retiral age.

[IndieHibby]

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Why do public sector workers get obscene pensions, when everybody else doesn't?" but:

"Why don't private sector workers get decent pensions?"

Lots of my friends in the private sector choose not to pay into a pension. The Government recently backed down from implementing the "auto-enrolment" scheme for SME's. Why? Because companies said it was a cost they couldn't bear. Fair enough, as long as it happens when the economy recovers (which inevitably it will).

The basic state pension (i.e. close to the poverty line) is £7,800. The average public sector pension is £10,000. Hardly "Gold Plated"!

Does anyone know what the average pension is for someone who needs a postrgraduate degree (min 2:2) in their job?

[Leicester Fan]

The basic state pension (i.e. close to the poverty line) is £7,800. The average public sector pension is £10,000. Hardly "Gold Plated"!



You do realise that that public sector pension is actually on top of the basic state pension?

£10,000 is roughly £200 pw (index linked) that a lot of public sector workers will start to collect in their 50s. We could be paying that amount for 40 years, it's a lot of money.

If public sector workers think they are being cheated they should opt out of their pension schemes and put the money into the type of pensions the rest of us get and see if they're better off.

[Hibrandenburg]

Are you sure? Lets say a miner on a fiver a week in 1945 has only seen his salary increase by 40%. Seems a strange one.

FWIW, and this is from an old left wing union activist, strikes seem to hurt the strikers most. However, sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in and if you all feel strong enough about this, then go for it.

I am obviously in the private sector. I already get a final salary pension. I have another final salary pension to get and I have three annuity pensions to come so I should be OK (none of them very big, but all add up obviously). However, I have paid into these various pensions over the last nearly 40 years. I work in an industry that has more incidents and deaths than for example the fire brigade, yet they can retire comfortably after 30 years. We cannot. Something seems fundamentally wrong when certain sectors are only expected to work a short time in life whereas others have to work up to an past retiral age.

Unfortunately I can't find the article. But I think the gist of it was that top managements pay has a value today in excess of 40000% against it's pre war value whereas the working mans increased only 40% in the same period of time.

The article also claimed that the wage gap is now bigger than it was during Victorian times.

[IndieHibby]

You do realise that that public sector pension is actually on top of the basic state pension?

£10,000 is roughly £200 pw (index linked) that a lot of public sector workers will start to collect in their 50s. We could be paying that amount for 40 years, it's a lot of money.

If public sector workers think they are being cheated they should opt out of their pension schemes and put the money into the type of pensions the rest of us get and see if they're better off.

Of course I realise this :wink:

The same is true for private sector workers, is it not? I won't be collecting mine until I am 68 and whether it is a lot of money or not, is £10,000 per year an excessive pension? That is the question that counts, surely?

And given that, traditionally, public sector teachers pay was lower in return for the better pension, surely the pay should be amended, should we choose to opt out and buy a private sector one?

[Leicester Fan]

Of course I realise this :wink:

The same is true for private sector workers, is it not? I won't be collecting mine until I am 68 and whether it is a lot of money or not, is £10,000 per year an excessive pension? That is the question that counts, surely?

And given that, traditionally, public sector teachers pay was lower in return for the better pension, surely the pay should be amended, should we choose to opt out and buy a private sector one?

Teachers are not on a bad salary.

[Jonnyboy]

From the content of a number of posts on this thread it looks like the coalition is winning the battle to set private sector workers against those in the public sector. Suits them to have people at each others throats.

To the point made by Leicester Fan that 'teachers are not on a bad salary' I would argue that lots of them are. They provide an essential public service under often extremely difficult circumstances but the vast majority do not get that big a salary and of course they have to contribute part of that salary to ensure a pension on retirement.

I have to say it sickens me that the coalition is actively encouraging non public sector workers to attack those people that teach our kids, mend our roads, collect our rubbish etc etc by spinning tales of so called golden handshakes

[Jack]

You do realise that that public sector pension is actually on top of the basic state pension?£10,000 is roughly £200 pw (index linked) that a lot of public sector workers will start to collect in their 50s. We could be paying that amount for 40 years, it's a lot of money.If public sector workers think they are being cheated they should opt out of their pension schemes and put the money into the type of pensions the rest of us get and see if they're better off. I know it wasn't you that first mentioned it but I understand the average public sector pension is in the region of £7000 pa. Also any pensions taken before the normal retirement age are actuarially reduced. And any taken before 55 are not index linked.Of course with many public sector workers being paid off some are using their redundancy payments to buy the balance of their pensions. Again the amount paid is calculated by actuaries so is the going rate.This is how it relates to the main public sector scheme which all the others are based on.

[Leicester Fan]

Police, firemen and prison officers can all retire in their 50s on full pensions. A lot more than £10k pa as well I'm sure. As I've said before I don't blame people for wanting to hang onto that, we have to ask the question though, is it fair on those of us who aren't on such good pensions to pay for it?

I'm sure someone will say something about banker's bonuses but that is totally irrelevant, I'm not a banker and I'll still have to contribute towards these pensions.

[IndieHibby]

Teachers are not on a bad salary.

I am happy with may T&C, so would be inclined to agree, but then they haven't touched the pension, yet...

Getting high quality graduates in front of your kids at school should be a priority for everyone. The effect of crap teachers is pretty bad, I assure you. Hence why we feel we should be remunerated in reflection of that duty.

Pay peanuts, get mokeys after all....

[IndieHibby]

I have to say it sickens me that the coalition is actively encouraging non public sector workers to attack those people that teach our kids, mend our roads, collect our rubbish etc etc by spinning tales of so called golden handshakes

Having the benefit of not having to take their spin as the only side of the argument, they are teaching me a few things about managing the 'media narrative'.

If I only had Sky News, BBC, MSM etc to go on, I wouldn't support us either!

[Jack]

Police, firemen and prison officers can all retire in their 50s on full pensions. A lot more than £10k pa as well I'm sure. As I've said before I don't blame people for wanting to hang onto that, we have to ask the question though, is it fair on those of us who aren't on such good pensions to pay for it?I'm sure someone will say something about banker's bonuses but that is totally irrelevant, I'm not a banker and I'll still have to contribute towards these pensions. These are quite specialist jobs Leicester Fan. On the other hand there are loads of people in other jobs who get paid a lot less.All public sector benefits are paid for by taxpayers. Public sector workers have signed up for the work considering these benefits as a whole. These have been a lower wage with the promise of a good pension - it's all part of the package that makes up the contract.

[Green Mikey]

Having the benefit of not having to take their spin as the only side of the argument, they are teaching me a few things about managing the 'media narrative'.

If I only had Sky News, BBC, MSM etc to go on, I wouldn't support us either!

I think you're being unfair by dismissing views that don't support the resistance to pensions reforms as being influenced primarily by the media.

I worked have worked with DB pensions schemes since before the coalition government and the issue of funding was always being discussed. The need to the review the affordability of DB public sector pensions pre-dates the coalition and to my knowledge is not driven by a 'media narrative' but by genuine concerns from within the pension industry.

[Phil D. Rolls]

These strikers have it pretty good right now and they want to keep it that way and I don't blame them for that. The problem is those of us who haven't got it so good are expected to pay for it.

When Gordon Brown took 20% a year out of private pension funds the teachers never went on strike for me, The Unite union never uttered a word of complaint. Do I want the strikers to succeed? Not on your life.

What did your union do for you?

[Phil D. Rolls]

From the content of a number of posts on this thread it looks like the coalition is winning the battle to set private sector workers against those in the public sector. Suits them to have people at each others throats.

To the point made by Leicester Fan that 'teachers are not on a bad salary' I would argue that lots of them are. They provide an essential public service under often extremely difficult circumstances but the vast majority do not get that big a salary and of course they have to contribute part of that salary to ensure a pension on retirement.

I have to say it sickens me that the coalition is actively encouraging non public sector workers to attack those people that teach our kids, mend our roads, collect our rubbish etc etc by spinning tales of so called golden handshakes

That's the bottom line and why the strike will fail. In fact, it is playing right into the governments hands. When they win this they will have a mandate to make bigger changes to the way public services are supplied.

As someone else said though, there's a time when you have to stand up for principles.


I am happy with may T&C, so would be inclined to agree, but then they haven't touched the pension, yet...

Getting high quality graduates in front of your kids at school should be a priority for everyone. The effect of crap teachers is pretty bad, I assure you. Hence why we feel we should be remunerated in reflection of that duty.

Pay peanuts, get mokeys after all....

People want good public services, but aren't prepared to pay for them.

[bawheid]

From the content of a number of posts on this thread it looks like the coalition is winning the battle to set private sector workers against those in the public sector. Suits them to have people at each others throats.


Not sure about that JC. A BBC Poll today shows a majority are in support of public sector workers taking industrial action.

The fact we have virtually the whole of the public sector out on strike - including unions who have never taken such action before - should surely be ringing alarm bells in the heads of those who blindly swallow the Tory government's Private Sector = Good / Public Sector = Bad propoganda.

[RyeSloan]

Perhaps if you had read the thread, you wouldn't be so critical. I shouldn't have to defend this as I didn't make that point. The point I made about increments was in repsonse to Green Mikey.:


Indy...you have said incrementals are only there to save money: "Incremental pay rises are just a way of saving money"

I disagree completely.




Straw-man! I never said that - I started a discussion about the rights/wrongs of the current strike - which is a public sector one - the private sector aren't striking, are they?


Yes you did "Comparing Public vs. Private isn't actually helpful as the two are not comparible". What I was saying is that there is plenty of private sector jobs that are comparable in terms of qualifiction requirements and essential services so to state you can't compare pension provision in the public sector to the private sector is wrong. I really don't understand what makes the majority of public sector jobs so different that the T&C's can't be compared to a similar job in the private sector...I would really like to understand your point here as you seem to be saying the public sector can only be considered in isolation and I'm not grasping what makes this the case.

Yes you are talking about public sector strikes but the fact there is not private sector strikes over the same issues would suggest that there is merit in examing why this is the case rather than dismissing it as not relevant.



Why is that strange? If someone discusses the value of a Teachers pension by comparing it with a "Private Sector" one and doesn't clarify the job in the private sector they are comparing it to, then of course, included in the "Private Sector" side of the argument are low-skilled, low-responsibility jobs. Would you not agree that making the PS/PS dichotomy the basis of the discussion is unfair? If not, then how do you justify comparing a job (and by association the pay/pension package) of a teacher/doctor/nurse policeman with that of a shelf-stacker or administrator?

No one is saying you should compare a shelf stacker to a teacher but your argument makes no sense...you can't exclude the private sector en masse because it is not comparable then lump all public sectors workers togther as one...how does a bin man or road sweeper compare to a border guard or head teacher.


Of course there are jobs in the private sector which require the same qualification as those you stated above - do you really think I am that obtuse not to realise this? Or are you responding to something you think I have said without reading what has actually been written?

So how then can the T&C's and specifically the pension provision of those jobs not be comparable?





Correct. But they are not not just proposing to increase the contributions. The rate of increase in value, retirement age, and method of calcualtion are all changing. And they are not negotiating these - they are making changes to our terms and conditions without negotiation. Perhaps you would be happy for your employer to do this, I am not.

No negotiation? THIS LINK (http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/PayPensionsandConditions/PensionsLatest/index.htm) would indicate there has already been plenty of discussion...not saying either side has been perfect in their approach but to say there has been no negotiation would seem to be a half truth at best.




I can only speak about the TPS as it's the only one I am striking about. But, yes, I am saying that, should the government choose to do it, they could keep up their contributions. In fact, this is my understanding of the changes that were made and agreed in 2007. Why are they changing now? How often are we going to be re-negotiating our pension?

See my previous post on the Hutton report.




See my previous point about comparing Public vs Private remunaration without taking into account the role. It would seem you support the idea that two people doing the same job should receive different pay (depending on their ability to negotiate, perform well, blackmail, sleep with the boss :devil: presumably?). Which is fair enough; there are plenty teachers who don't perform as well as we might expect. Many of my colleagues feel that it is unfair that some teachers do s.f.a while others work hard. But in our job, we address that (or not) by managing those individuals and putting in place procedures which either improve the performance of the teacher of remove them from their role. Which I feel is a better way than attacking the pay of all teachers - even those who work damn hard for your kids.

I'm a bit lost here....you support the concept of pay for performance but don't support the reality of it...is that what you are saying?






It was a response to the arguments of envy i.e; "I don't get £X so you shouldn't get £X". A pretty banal argument, wouldn't you agree?

Banal to the exteme but the problem here is public sector workers are paid from taxation....that therefore gives everyone some sort of stakeholding in the discussion. Therefore I fully understand a private sector worker who has lower pension rights than a public sector one invoking this argument quite happily.




If we should pay more for it (which might be fair enough) then
1.why should we also receive LESS pension? (approx £10,000 pa at the moment). How much less should it be?
2.why should it also take X more years to earn?
3.why should the rate at which it increass in value also be reduced?

Because that's all that can be afforded? Almost all of the above is suggested by Hutton as tools to make public sector pensions as a whole affordable to the nation.....i.e the status quo cannot remain. If you don't extend the time taken to accrue benefit or delay when that benefit can be taken then the contributions would have to rise even more dramatically to account for that.



A five day week? I can't remember the last time I worked only a five day week. Perhaps in the Private Sector....:wink:

Me neither...but like millions of others I don't get paid for any extra hours...I am paid for my contracted hours. That was my point, a one day strike will cost the striker 1/6th of the extra contribution being asked for. I'll leave it up to others to decide if they think the strike is therefore a good or a bad idea or will acheive it's aims (whatever they actually are).

[RyeSloan]

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Why do public sector workers get obscene pensions, when everybody else doesn't?" but:

"Why don't private sector workers get decent pensions?"

Lots of my friends in the private sector choose not to pay into a pension. The Government recently backed down from implementing the "auto-enrolment" scheme for SME's. Why? Because companies said it was a cost they couldn't bear. Fair enough, as long as it happens when the economy recovers (which inevitably it will).

The basic state pension (i.e. close to the poverty line) is £7,800. The average public sector pension is £10,000. Hardly "Gold Plated"!

Does anyone know what the average pension is for someone who needs a postrgraduate degree (min 2:2) in their job?

Yet a quick google search states the average public sector pension is £7,000 compared with the average personal pension of £5,000....so while hardly gold plated it seems there is still a disctinct advantage although I'm not sure averages are much use in this discussion.

It's also interesting to note that (accordingly to one source quoted in a national newspaper) that before 2000 68pc of all retirements in the firefighters' scheme were due to ill health, as were the retirements of 40pc of police officers, 23pc of NHS workers and members of the armed forces, 39pc of local authority workers and 25pc of teachers this compared with 20pc in private industry....seems to me that there has been wide spread abuse of the public sector pension in the past and that this has surely contributed to the cost and where we are today and maybe accounts for a lot of the public's general mistrust of the unions points. The tax payer has been picking up the tab for this abuse for years.

[IndieHibby]

I think you're being unfair by dismissing views that don't support the resistance to pensions reforms as being influenced primarily by the media.

I worked have worked with DB pensions schemes since before the coalition government and the issue of funding was always being discussed. The need to the review the affordability of DB public sector pensions pre-dates the coalition and to my knowledge is not driven by a 'media narrative' but by genuine concerns from within the pension industry.

The pension industry which is working so well for pensioners at the moment? The one that gives poor returns for excessive fees? Which is so complicated and:



"
The low level of the state pension partly reflects a concerted move by successive governments, worried over Britain's rapidly ageing population, to encourage more people to save for their own retirement.
However, that plan received a setback in the early 1990s when it emerged that many consumers were mis-sold new pensions which left them worse off at retirement than they would have been if they had stuck with their original scheme. Some say the episode has made consumers more reluctant to put their money into pensions."


Perhaps I came across wrongly, but I wasnt being dismissive of anyone's view. I was merely pointing out that the Coalition's media strategy (which has being going on for a lot longer than the stories relating to this strike or even June's) is fairly consistent and evasive of key points which, as someone who is on the receiving end, allows me to see their media strategy for what it is.

That has nothing to do with your or anyone else's view on the validity of the strike and everything to do with my feeling that:

if you had nothing else to go on, you wouldn't support us either

Anyway, I accept public sector pensions need to change, including our own. But when your monthly pay packet is being eroded by:

1. Inflation - to cut the deficit
2. Pay freeze - to cut the deficit
3. Budget cuts, directly affecting my work/life balance, which is in effect a pay cut as we are working more for no more pay - to cut the deficit.
4. Pensions linked to CPI - a drop of 25% over the term of many

[In addition to the outrage that is the government's intervention into the normal workings of the housing market, meaning that if I want to buy a house now, I will have to pay 6x average salary (when every other generation up to 10years ago paid 3x), or wait 10 years for it to correct, just so that baby boomers don't lose all that money that they pissed away buy using their houses as piggy banks or those first time buyers stupid enough to pay 6x don't lose their homes.]

Then the least I would expect is that the changes to the pension reflect the actual reasons that the pensions are a problem, i.e:

1. We are living longer - so raise pension age to 68 (although I don't know quite where I am going to get the energy from to control a class of 30 kids at that age!)
2. They cost too much (although I would debate that £10,000 per year for a career of 60-70 hour weeks is too much) - so move to a career average.

All fair enough so far.

But what the government really want is for us to increase our contributions. So that they can cut the deficit. Which I am already helping to do in three ways (see above).

So perhaps you might understand why I feel that we have to push the government into a more realistic negotiating position.

Or perhaps not, and you would be happy for your employer to behave in a similar fashion;
berating you in public at every event,
micro-managing your responsibilities,
blindly publishing perverse statistics so that people can judge whether or not you are a "good" school, even thought these statistics are largely meaningless,
failing consistently to tackle the main reason 'schools fail their students' - providing a better evironment and facilities in a run-down community where unemployment is high for the sole reason that this ward/county is not voting for you,
failing to challenge indiscipline by ignoring the elephant in the room (poor parenting) in order not to offend potential voters.

All the while you are trying your best to provide a high quality education (better than the education you or I received - by a long shot).

Or perhaps I am just being selfish...

[RyeSloan]

The pension industry which is working so well for pensioners at the moment? The one that gives poor returns for excessive fees? Which is so complicated and:



"

Perhaps I came across wrongly, but I wasnt being dismissive of anyone's view. I was merely pointing out that the Coalition's media strategy (which has being going on for a lot longer than the stories relating to this strike or even June's) is fairly consistent and evasive of key points which, as someone who is on the receiving end, allows me to see their media strategy for what it is.

That has nothing to do with your or anyone else's view on the validity of the strike and everything to do with my feeling that:

if you had nothing else to go on, you wouldn't support us either

Anyway, I accept public sector pensions need to change, including our own. But when your monthly pay packet is being eroded by:

1. Inflation - to cut the deficit
2. Pay freeze - to cut the deficit
3. Budget cuts, directly affecting my work/life balance, which is in effect a pay cut as we are working more for no more pay - to cut the deficit.
4. Pensions linked to CPI - a drop of 25% over the term of many

[In addition to the outrage that is the government's intervention into the normal workings of the housing market, meaning that if I want to buy a house now, I will have to pay 6x average salary (when every other generation up to 10years ago paid 3x), or wait 10 years for it to correct, just so that baby boomers don't lose all that money that they pissed away buy using their houses as piggy banks or those first time buyers stupid enough to pay 6x don't lose their homes.]

Then the least I would expect is that the changes to the pension reflect the actual reasons that the pensions are a problem, i.e:

1. We are living longer - so raise pension age to 68 (although I don't know quite where I am going to get the energy from to control a class of 30 kids at that age!)
2. They cost too much (although I would debate that £10,000 per year for a career of 60-70 hour weeks is too much) - so move to a career average.

All fair enough so far.

But what the government really want is for us to increase our contributions. So that they can cut the deficit. Which I am already helping to do in three ways (see above).

So perhaps you might understand why I feel that we have to push the government into a more realistic negotiating position.

Or perhaps not, and you would be happy for your employer to behave in a similar fashion;
berating you in public at every event,
micro-managing your responsibilities,
blindly publishing perverse statistics so that people can judge whether or not you are a "good" school, even thought these statistics are largely meaningless,
failing consistently to tackle the main reason 'schools fail their students' - providing a better evironment and facilities in a run-down community where unemployment is high for the sole reason that this ward/county is not voting for you,
failing to challenge indiscipline by ignoring the elephant in the room (poor parenting) in order not to offend potential voters.

All the while you are trying your best to provide a high quality education (better than the education you or I received - by a long shot).

Or perhaps I am just being selfish...

The Hutton Report is quite clear on the requirement to raise contributions from employees so I fail to see why you paint this as just a cunning ruse from David and George.

Most other people are facing the same or a mix of the pressure you state....why do these preclude revising unaffordable public sector pensions.

Also, as I am sure you know, schools in Scotland are under local government control and are a devolved power so have no idea who you actually having a go at in the second part of your post. Also I don't see much sympathy in the last 3 or 4 years for bankers yet huge amount of financial services workers who are nothing like 'fat cats', are a million miles away from the 4000% figure now being used so readily and have already suffered zero wage increases, removal of final salary pension provision and extended unpaid overtime etc while seeing their companies and work sector continually blamed for everything....hows that for public berating and perverse statistics?

Edit: Apologies Inidie I see you are English based so understand your post now...could be said though that the Coalition are doing more than Labour did in trying to free schools from such control although like all Governments they seem to be finding it hard to stop those centralising habits!

[Jack]

The Hutton Report is quite clear on the requirement to raise contributions from employees so I fail to see why you paint this as just a cunning ruse from David and George.Most other people are facing the same or a mix of the pressure you state....why do these preclude revising unaffordable public sector pensions.Also, as I am sure you know, schools in Scotland are under local government control and are a devolved power so have no idea who you actually having a go at in the second part of your post. Also I don't see much sympathy in the last 3 or 4 years for bankers yet huge amount of financial services workers who are nothing like 'fat cats', are a million miles away from the 4000% figure now being used so readily and have already suffered zero wage increases, removal of final salary pension provision and extended unpaid overtime etc while seeing their companies and work sector continually blamed for everything....hows that for public berating and perverse statistics? The Hutton report also made it quite clear the most generous of public sector pension schemes, the MPs scheme, will not be changed in any way.It means that for each session of parliament a MP will pick up a pension of around £16000 a year and lump sum of around 3 times that, payable on leaving parliament.We're all in this together.

[sKipper]

A substantial chunk of the public sector have already had their pension rights cut. Royal Mail had a new scheme introduced in April of this year with no more final salary. Mates in Ofcom and MOD have had the same.

Can't see the government stopping now.

[sKipper]

The Hutton report also made it quite clear the most generous of public sector pension schemes, the MPs scheme, will not be changed in any way.It means that for each session of parliament a MP will pick up a pension of around £16000 a year and lump sum of around 3 times that, payable on leaving parliament.We're all in this together.

Absolute scandal that. The sc@mbags that have fleeced the country out of excessive expenses for years nicely coccooned from any hit.

[Jonnyboy]

I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but it is my understanding that the proposed increase in contributions by public service workers will NOT go into their pension fund but WILL be used by the Government to help reduce the deficit the country has. IF that is true then it is a scandal and non public service workers who vehemently oppose the strike should consider how they'd feel if the Government suddenly announced that all private sector workers will pay 5p in the £ in tax more than public service workers.

[Leicester Fan]

I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but it is my understanding that the proposed increase in contributions by public service workers will NOT go into their pension fund but WILL be used by the Government to help reduce the deficit the country has. IF that is true then it is a scandal and non public service workers who vehemently oppose the strike should consider how they'd feel if the Government suddenly announced that all private sector workers will pay 5p in the £ in tax more than public service workers.

Well obviously the money saved by the govt will be spent elsewhere, possibly reducing deficit.

When Gordon Brown decided to tax private pension funds he was taxing private sector workers higher.

[Jonnyboy]

Well obviously the money saved by the govt will be spent elsewhere possibly reducing deficit.

When Gordon Brown decided to tax private pension funds he was taxing private sector workers higher.

That wasn't my question LF. If an employee contributes more each month but that extra money goes directly to the treasury that's not 'saving money' it's directly taxing public service workers

[RyeSloan]

That wasn't my question LF. If an employee contributes more each month but that extra money goes directly to the treasury that's not 'saving money' it's directly taxing public service workers

Thing is though that a lot of public sector pensions are unfunded or underfunded with the pension payments being made up of employee contributions and current taxation...a lot of them simply don't work like normal pension funds...hence why any increase in payments caused by more pensioners or increased longevity is met directly by the tax payer.

[RyeSloan]

The Hutton report also made it quite clear the most generous of public sector pension schemes, the MPs scheme, will not be changed in any way.It means that for each session of parliament a MP will pick up a pension of around £16000 a year and lump sum of around 3 times that, payable on leaving parliament.We're all in this together.

True that he excluded MP's from the review but there is clear pressure on the Commons to reform and it would appear that this will happen:

LINK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13962454)

Not quite sure why MP's should be treated any differently to anyone else but maybe their jobs are just not comparable to a teachers or policemans :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

True that he excluded MP's from the review but there is clear pressure on the Commons to reform and it would appear that this will happen:

LINK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13962454)

Not quite sure why MP's should be treated any differently to anyone else but maybe their jobs are just not comparable to a teachers or policemans :wink:

MPs treat themselves differetly because just like the rioters in the summer they can.

[Jack]

I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but it is my understanding that the proposed increase in contributions by public service workers will NOT go into their pension fund but WILL be used by the Government to help reduce the deficit the country has. IF that is true then it is a scandal and non public service workers who vehemently oppose the strike should consider how they'd feel if the Government suddenly announced that all private sector workers will pay 5p in the £ in tax more than public service workers. Spot on.

[Beefster]

That wasn't my question LF. If an employee contributes more each month but that extra money goes directly to the treasury that's not 'saving money' it's directly taxing public service workers

Sounds like you want a Defined Contribution scheme where your money is your money. Be careful what you wish for.

[Betty Boop]

That's the bottom line and why the strike will fail. In fact, it is playing right into the governments hands. When they win this they will have a mandate to make bigger changes to the way public services are supplied.

As someone else said though, there's a time when you have to stand up for principles.



People want good public services, but aren't prepared to pay for them.

See you tomorrow at the barricades ! :greengrin

[steakbake]

People want good public services, but aren't prepared to pay for them.

Exactly.

As a worker in Denmark, I paid 53% tax. It included a contribution to the Danish state pension and to a compulsory secondary pension fund. Because of various tax allowances, I ended up taking home around 73% of my gross pay - just a couple of percent less than you get here on a 22% tax rate.

The public services there were second to none.

Interestingly, it is also a country with far less natural resources of Scotland but there you go... (DK extracted around 240k barrels per day in 2009, "North Sea" extracted 500k barrels per day in 2009)... Anyhow, that's a different argument for a different day.

I'm against the strikes - fine for people to strike if they want to, but the bottom line is that the UK is financially f***ed. We're living longer, we have to work longer. We need more money to live, we have to pay more money to live. Simple formulas which I think, the UK has never really grasped - like if you spend more than you make, you'll flirt with going bankrupt.

We are damned lucky not to be in the same position as Greece etc.

[Jonnyboy]

Sounds like you want a Defined Contribution scheme where your money is your money. Be careful what you wish for.

Not sure what a defined contribution scheme is Beefster? The point I'm trying to make is that the coalition would have you think that public service workers dont want to pay more through pension contributions but still want the so called golden handshake when they retire. The extra contributions they want go straight to the treasury so in my mind that's a tax paid by these workers that others do not pay. Maybe I'm miles off the mark, I don't know but after today's statement to the house it seems to me the coalition are targeting public service workers and making them out to be the reason for the mess the country is in

[Eyrie]

A defined contribution scheme is where you make your payments to a pension fund which then invests the money (and charges a fee for doing so, regardless of their competence). When you come to retire, the fund is used to purchase an annuity. Problem is you have no guarantee as to the value of the fund or how large an annuity it will purchase. You could have started out planning for a £200k fund and 8% annuity rate, giving you £16k pa, then find thirty years later that the fund is only worth £100k and the annuity rate is 5%, so that you only receive £5k pa.

Very risky, which is why a final salary scheme is worth clinging to even at the cost of a day's disruption to public services. If there isn't enough money in the final salary scheme pot then the employer has to make up the shortfall. For public sector workers, that means taxpayers (both private and public sector). So it's likely that the increased contributions will be used to reduce the amount that taxpayers have to currently provide.

[Jonnyboy]

A defined contribution scheme is where you make your payments to a pension fund which then invests the money (and charges a fee for doing so, regardless of their competence). When you come to retire, the fund is used to purchase an annuity. Problem is you have no guarantee as to the value of the fund or how large an annuity it will purchase. You could have started out planning for a £200k fund and 8% annuity rate, giving you £16k pa, then find thirty years later that the fund is only worth £100k and the annuity rate is 5%, so that you only receive £5k pa.

Very risky, which is why a final salary scheme is worth clinging to even at the cost of a day's disruption to public services. If there isn't enough money in the final salary scheme pot then the employer has to make up the shortfall. For public sector workers, that means taxpayers (both private and public sector). So it's likely that the increased contributions will be used to reduce the amount that taxpayers have to currently provide.

That sounds a bit like those bassa's at Standard Life that sold me endowment insurance on my mortgage and paid out less than half the projected sum. Bassa's, bloody bassa's :greengrin

[stoneyburn hibs]

Will get zero support from myself , there is now no money for these very decent public pensions .

Less than 40% of the public sector workers have bothered to vote .

No school for my son tomorrow , so i earn zero for wednesday as nobody pays my wage when im off

[lucky]

Schools are for education not child minding. The teachers are going on. Strike because the pension they were promised is being withdrawn because of the gambles taken by the banks which wrecked the economy and the Tories are not willing to look at alternaives.

[snooky]

Strike - right or wrong?

Or .... Right or Left?

Surely the bottom line is where and when do the punters make a stand?

Today?
In one year when they cut pensions again?
In two years when they cut pensions again?
In three years when .....etc.

You get my drift?

[I'm_cabbaged]

<STRONG>Strike - right or wrong</STRONG>? <BR><BR>Or .... Right or Left?<BR><BR>Surely the bottom line is where and when do the punters make a stand?<BR><BR>Today? <BR>In one year when they cut pensions again? <BR>In two years when they cut pensions again? <BR>In three years when .....etc.<BR><BR>You get my drift?<BR><BR><IMG class=inlineimg title=agree border=0 alt="" src="http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/agree.gif" smilieid="14"><BR><BR>This shouldn't be turning into a public sector v private pensions debate, bottom line is this is just the first step to everyone getting hit. Private pensions will be next with more taxation, all of it to bail out the bankers who are still collecting tax free bonuses.

Could go on and on about it but running late to join the picket line at my place of work, give me a toot if you're driving doon Duddingston Road West!!! <IMG class=inlineimg title=greengrin border=0 alt="" src="http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/greengrin2.gif" smilieid="121">

edit: Don't know what happened there.

[lapsedhibee]

I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but it is my understanding that the proposed increase in contributions by public service workers will NOT go into their pension fund but WILL be used by the Government to help reduce the deficit the country has. IF that is true then it is a scandal.

Nah, not a scandal, or at least not for the reason you claim. Public sector pensions don't come out of a previously accumulated pot - they're dependent on future taxpayers of all sorts. So any increased contributions naturally go in to current government funds - the same funds that taxpayers pay tax in to.

[Barney McGrew]

From the content of a number of posts on this thread it looks like the coalition is winning the battle to set private sector workers against those in the public sector. Suits them to have people at each others throats.

To the point made by Leicester Fan that 'teachers are not on a bad salary' I would argue that lots of them are. They provide an essential public service under often extremely difficult circumstances but the vast majority do not get that big a salary and of course they have to contribute part of that salary to ensure a pension on retirement.

I have to say it sickens me that the coalition is actively encouraging non public sector workers to attack those people that teach our kids, mend our roads, collect our rubbish etc etc by spinning tales of so called golden handshakes

I've no doubt that there will be a good bit of spin going on from both sides John.

And playing devil's advocate here, could the unions not equally be accused of pitting public sector against private sector by taking the action to strike?

I'm not sure which side I fall on TBH, I can see the point of view of the public sector looking to protect their T's and C's but I can also see that it can't continue as is because the country can't afford it. It's a tough one.

[Beefster]

Not sure what a defined contribution scheme is Beefster? The point I'm trying to make is that the coalition would have you think that public service workers dont want to pay more through pension contributions but still want the so called golden handshake when they retire. The extra contributions they want go straight to the treasury so in my mind that's a tax paid by these workers that others do not pay. Maybe I'm miles off the mark, I don't know but after today's statement to the house it seems to me the coalition are targeting public service workers and making them out to be the reason for the mess the country is in

I think that's part of the problem, J. Not aimed at you directly but a lot of folk don't understand the reasoning/details behind much of the changes beyond the black/white statements being released in the tit-for-tat nonsense between the govt and unions. I'm not saying that everything is justified btw.

Not a single penny of anyone's contribution goes directly to funding their Final Salary entitlement, particularly in the public sector. So to argue that the extra contribution isn't even going into the pension scheme is a bit pointless. The extra contributions are going to the Treasury which has to fund the pension schemes.

In the private sector, employees have either lost their FS pension (when I say 'lost', I mean for future entitlement), had it changed to 'career average' or been forced to contribute more to maintain it as the cost of funding these schemes has rocketed (partly due to new accounting reporting, partly due to the scrapping of tax credit by Brown in 1997, partly due to increased life expectancy and a range of other factors).

So, if the cost of funding Final Salary pensions is increasing, life expectancy is increasing and everyone is having to work longer, either the public sector has to follow suit or someone has to pay for it - the taxpayer or the public sector employees.

PS Defined Contribution is what used to be called Money Purchase. Your money is invested like a bank account and buys you a pension at retirment. No guarantees (unless you have some old-skool hybrid) on what you get - everything depends on the interest/investments and financial conditions at the time.

[lucky]

If private sector workers wanted to safeguard their pensions then they should have either been in a union or joined one to save their final salary scheme. People should not be attacking public sector workers for defending their pensions. Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA

[steakbake]

If private sector workers wanted to safeguard their pensions then they should have either been in a union or joined one to save their final salary scheme. People should not be attacking public sector workers for defending their pensions. Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA

I don't disagree generally, but if the length of that retirement is getting longer and longer - in some cases, almost as long if not longer than the working life and period of pension contribution, then surely you have to admit regardless of your political stance, something has to give?

[lucky]

Surely that's the point of negotiations? Unions have said they are willing to talk but the Government and trying to negotiate through the media. At a time time high unemployment why make those in work work longer?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't disagree generally, but if the length of that retirement is getting longer and longer - in some cases, almost as long if not longer than the working life and period of pension contribution, then surely you have to admit regardless of your political stance, something has to give?

Something has to give from how the wealth is distributed, but why does it have to be those who live longer that pay the price?

[1two]

Straightforward enough - what are your views?

As a teacher, I should declare a vested interest here. Much of the media manipulation by Maude, Cameron and chums frankly drives me to distraction. When Cameron said today that workers should take their kids to work, I laughed so hard I nearly drove off the road! Anyway, some points in our defence, albeit limited to the information I have available:

1. TPS is fully funded and is due to decrease as a share of GDP after peaking in the near-to-medium term
2. The pension is part of our terms and conditions and as such changes should be negotiated - which doesn't appear to be happening
3. The TPS was changed already in 2007 to make it affordable - this was agreed then so why should it be re-negotiated now?
3. We do not change our productivity when the economy is doing badly - indeed, due to budgets cuts, our productivity is actually going up (class sizes, streamlining of bureaucracy, less planning and prep time, increased cover etc). So why should we accept that our remuneration should go down during a cyclical recession?
4. These will not be temporary changes (we've had a pay freeze and are paying more through inflation, just like everybody else) so when the economy improves, which it will, our pensions will not be improved, unlike some sections of the private sector.
5. We don't get paid for the huge numbers of hours of 'overtime', unlike other workers.

That should kick things off! :devil:

I've not read the other post in here so please excuse me if this has been covered but.....

I'm all for the strike. As you point out the terms we renegotiated only 4 years ago, why should the workers have to renegotiate yet again?

What I don't agree with is you're point about private sector pensions and over time.
I have what I would class as a good well paid job in the private sector.
Over the last 2 years I've had pay cuts - a non-negotiable 12%, had my over time cut, then told any overtime would only be at a lesser rate, then told I wouldn't be paid overtime despite still being expected (or told) to work (and doing so). The pension scheme offered is so poor its not worth my while.

We're all feeling the pinch at the moment, no doubt about it. As ive said im all for strike, if youre income (direct or indirect) is being threatened one way or another then it's you're right to do so. But to use a comparison with the public sector as an arguement is pointless, because it's not true.

I had the right to strike along with fellow workers when our income was threatened (or taken) but the reality is if we had, the majority of us wouldn't be in a job.

[snooky]

Surely that's the point of negotiations? Unions have said they are willing to talk but the Government and trying to negotiate through the media. At a time time high unemployment why make those in work work longer?

Divide and conquer - the oldest trick in the book.

[ballengeich]

I had the right to strike along with fellow workers when our income was threatened (or taken) but the reality is if we had, the majority of us wouldn't be in a job.

That's an important point. If the public services were run as a private company they would now be in receivership as the finances have been run on the same basis that Vlad applies to Hearts. Annual interest on accrued debt is currently around £2000 for every working person in the country and rising as expenditure is still around a third higher than tax receipts.

I don't like seeing anyone losing benefits, but the current setup isn't sustainable and I don't see anyone putting forward a credible alternative plan to what the coalition's doing. If pensions aren't cut then more money will come out of some other government area - which ones?

[lapsedhibee]

That's an important point. If the public services were run as a private company they would now be in receivership as the finances have been run on the same basis that Vlad applies to Hearts. Annual interest on accrued debt is currently around £2000 for every working person in the country and rising as expenditure is still around a third higher than tax receipts.

I don't like seeing anyone losing benefits, but the current setup isn't sustainable and I don't see anyone putting forward a credible alternative plan to what the coalition's doing. If pensions aren't cut then more money will come out of some other government area - which ones?

Community stadiums, and reports on them. :agree:

[hibeesdude]

If people feel the need to strike then let them, many of my colleagues are. However as I respect their right to strike they should respect my right not too.
Standing in front of the car on the access road to the hospital I work at effectively trying to intimidate me is not going to endear me to their cause

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's an important point. If the public services were run as a private company they would now be in receivership as the finances have been run on the same basis that Vlad applies to Hearts. Annual interest on accrued debt is currently around £2000 for every working person in the country and rising as expenditure is still around a third higher than tax receipts.

I don't like seeing anyone losing benefits, but the current setup isn't sustainable and I don't see anyone putting forward a credible alternative plan to what the coalition's doing. If pensions aren't cut then more money will come out of some other government area - which ones?

Although when the banks ran out of money, they were bailed out and allowed to go on as before.

[Hibbyradge]

Public Service workers are generally paid less than their counter parts in the Private Sector.

They don't receive whopping bonuses, they don't get shares or share options and they can't get heavily discounted employee mortgages.

However, they do have the promise of some dignity in later life because of their pension, which, if they work for 40 years, might be as "much" as half of their salary.

I've often been envious of some of the bonuses paid to people I know, but I know that's what comes with the job. The same applies to Pensions.

I heard someone on the radio drawing a comparison to an endowment which promised X ammount at the end of the term, but which eventually paid out a lot less due to the same economic circumstances which are now threatening the pensions.

That comparison is spurious, however. If you have an endowment policy, then you are told that there is the possibility that it would not pay out the forecast, i.e. it's a gamble.

A contract of employment is not.

Furthermore, if you weren't informed that the policy may not mature to the extent hoped, then you were mis-sold and due compensation.

Well, if the government get away with what the're trying to do, the Public Service workers have been mis-sold for many, many years.

[RyeSloan]

Schools are for education not child minding. The teachers are going on. Strike because the pension they were promised is being withdrawn because of the gambles taken by the banks which wrecked the economy and the Tories are not willing to look at alternaives.


If private sector workers wanted to safeguard their pensions then they should have either been in a union or joined one to save their final salary scheme. People should not be attacking public sector workers for defending their pensions. Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA .


Oh please.

What alternatives do you propose?

And blame it all on the banks if you want (and avoid the fact the government has overspent for year after year) but seriously what does that add to the discussion?

Join a Union, Go on strike...great. Then what? Final Salary schemes were phased out in the private sector becuase they were NOT AFFORDABLE. What part of that do you not understand? How would joining a Union have changed that reality?

"Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA" - Well maybe but I suppose it depends on who is going to pay. Easy to say the state should pay then pay then pay some more but when the state is broke and taxation revenues no longer cover expanding costs just what is the answer? More strikes?

[1two]

Public Service workers are generally paid less than their counter parts in the Private Sector.

They don't receive whopping bonuses, they don't get shares or share options and they can't get heavily discounted employee mortgages.

However, they do have the promise of some dignity in later life because of their pension, which, if they work for 40 years, might be as "much" as half of their salary.

I've often been envious of some of the bonuses paid to people I know, but I know that's what comes with the job. The same applies to Pensions.

I heard someone on the radio drawing a comparison to an endowment which promised X ammount at the end of the term, but which eventually paid out a lot less due to the same economic circumstances which are now threatening the pensions.

That comparison is spurious, however. If you have an endowment policy, then you are told that there is the possibility that it would not pay out the forecast, i.e. it's a gamble.

A contract of employment is not.

Furthermore, if you weren't informed that the policy may not mature to the extent hoped, then you were mis-sold and due compensation.

Well, if the government get away with what the're trying to do, the Public Service workers have been mis-sold for many, many years.

But the whole reason behind the pension cuts are presumably down to govt cuts?
Do you think the bonuses the public sector get have remained the same through the 'financial difficulties'?
I can only speak for myself but by bonus has went from around 10% to zero in the last 2 years. The papers will tell you about the fat cat bankers and what they're pocketing, but what about the worker class who make up the vast majority of the public sector?

You're arguement of private sector bonus v public sector pension doesnt add up in my opinion.

Also, when you say public sector workers are better paid, how do you come to this conclusion?

As I've said I'm all for strikes for the right reasons and I think this a good enough reason for action, I'd certainly support it. But to say the public sector is any better off is wrong and to use this as a reason to strike would be scandalous (I'm not saying that's the case).

[ginger_rice]

:top marks


But don't teachers only work till 3.30 in the afternoon, have ten weeks holiday a year plus lots of long weekends, and earn so much that most of them retire early to a villa on the Algarve, John?

Oh no - I'm thinking of Directors of Education here. Sorry!

I nearly bit you were going to get a :take that in reply, then I read the bottom bit so have a :faf: instead

[ginger_rice]

Yet a quick google search states the average public sector pension is £7,000 compared with the average personal pension of £5,000....so while hardly gold plated it seems there is still a disctinct advantage although I'm not sure averages are much use in this discussion.

It's also interesting to note that (accordingly to one source quoted in a national newspaper) that before 2000 68pc of all retirements in the firefighters' scheme were due to ill health, as were the retirements of 40pc of police officers, 23pc of NHS workers and members of the armed forces, 39pc of local authority workers and 25pc of teachers this compared with 20pc in private industry....seems to me that there has been wide spread abuse of the public sector pension in the past and that this has surely contributed to the cost and where we are today and maybe accounts for a lot of the public's general mistrust of the unions points. The tax payer has been picking up the tab for this abuse for years.

Perhaps you should look at the mortality rates for teachers after retirement especially those who have worked in excess of 30 years.

And retirement owing to ill health is I can assure you not something that's given easily, often those who do get have to prove that the illness is owing to the job.

And are you really suggesting that wounded/hurt ex-service personnel should be out selling the big-issue?

[ginger_rice]

Join a Union, Go on strike...great. Then what? Final Salary schemes were phased out in the private sector becuase they were NOT AFFORDABLE.

And how many companies used their pension schemes to fund other activities or and more importantly stopped paying in their contribution when times were good and there was a surplus in the scheme, then oops the stock market isnt performing and we can no longer afford your pension.

I was a member of two who did that!

[Hibbyradge]

But the whole reason behind the pension cuts are presumably down to govt cuts?
Do you think the bonuses the public sector get have remained the same through the 'financial difficulties'?
I can only speak for myself but by bonus has went from around 10% to zero in the last 2 years. The papers will tell you about the fat cat bankers and what they're pocketing, but what about the worker class who make up the vast majority of the public sector?

You're arguement of private sector bonus v public sector pension doesnt add up in my opinion.

Also, when you say public sector workers are better paid, how do you come to this conclusion?

As I've said I'm all for strikes for the right reasons and I think this a good enough reason for action, I'd certainly support it. But to say the public sector is any better off is wrong and to use this as a reason to strike would be scandalous (I'm not saying that's the case).

Sorry, I didn't make my point very well.

I'm just pointing out that the public v private argument isn't actually comparing like with like.

To be honest, the whole public v private thing is a diversion, but I keep hearing folk in the private sector saying that because they've got no pension, the public sector workers shouldn't complain that theirs is being attacked.

That doesn't add up.

I've been on PAYE for 33 years. I've had no opportunity to work on the side or find clever ways to avoid paying tax. I've worked every day since i left school and never claimed benefit or help with mortgage or council tax. To now punish me by removing what I was promised if I did all this, is scandalous.

[ginger_rice]

To be honest, the whole public v private thing is a diversion, but I keep hearing folk in the private sector saying that because they've got no pension, the public sector workers shouldn't complain that theirs is being attacked.

That doesn't add up.
.

One thing I don't get is although I've had two stints in the public sector, one in the forces and now as a teacher, I've also worked for a long time in the private sector.

Most of my private sector employers had no pension schemes (see my previous post about the ones who did) so I set up my own private pension, paying in IIRC 5% of my take home. When I moved back into the public sector I transferred those into my STSS pension.

Either having a pension or not having a pension is part of the overall package when you take on a new job. I get a tad fed up with the "private sector no pension so no one else should have it" brigade why do we always want to aspire to the lowest common denominator in this country.

[1two]

Sorry, I didn't make my point very well.

I'm just pointing out that the public v private argument isn't actually comparing like with like.

To be honest, the whole public v private thing is a diversion, but I keep hearing folk in the private sector saying that because they've got no pension, the public sector workers shouldn't complain that theirs is being attacked.

That doesn't add up.

I've been on PAYE for 33 years. I've had no opportunity to work on the side or find clever ways to avoid paying tax. I've worked every day since i left school and never claimed benefit or help with mortgage or council tax. To now punish me by removing what I was promised if I did all this, is scandalous.

I 100% agree (as long as you're not suggesting the public sector are tax dodgers :wink:)

[RyeSloan]

And how many companies used their pension schemes to fund other activities or and more importantly stopped paying in their contribution when times were good and there was a surplus in the scheme, then oops the stock market isnt performing and we can no longer afford your pension.

I was a member of two who did that!

Who knows...sure there is plenty individual examples but that doesn't remove the basic underlying fact that these types of pensions are simply not affordable. Pensioners are now living too long for final salary schemes to be viable without onerous contributions from employers and employees, I don't think there is much debate about that is there, I've certainly not seen anything to suggest otherwise.

There is also the fact that estiamted future returns from the pension fund investments were far too optimistic and when they didn't (and won't!) materialise the funds were underfunded and would remain so...you just need to look to America so see the effects of over optimistic return estimates, lack of action to address the issue and the huge burden that places on the business/state.

[1two]

One thing I don't get is although I've had two stints in the public sector, one in the forces and now as a teacher, I've also worked for a long time in the private sector.

Most of my private sector employers had no pension schemes (see my previous post about the ones who did) so I set up my own private pension, paying in IIRC 5% of my take home. When I moved back into the public sector I transferred those into my STSS pension.

Either having a pension or not having a pension is part of the overall package when you take on a new job. I get a tad fed up with the "private sector no pension so no one else should have it" brigade why do we always want to aspire to the lowest common denominator in this country.

We shouldn't, but it's what the Tories are relying on us doing. If theres no support from the public sector for the strike then it makes the govt plans a lot easier to push through.

Am I right in saying its now law for an employer to offer a pension scheme even if the employer doesnt contribute to it? ie. "Heres the companies pension scheme but you have to fun the whole lot yourself"!

[ginger_rice]

Am I right in saying its now law for an employer to offer a pension scheme even if the employer doesnt contribute to it? ie. "Heres the companies pension scheme but you have to fun the whole lot yourself"!

I believe it's due to start soon, I don't think there's an opt out for employees though, many of those (few) who crossed my picket line this morning stated they had no pension couldn't afford to pay contributions etc etc.

My pension may or may not be sustainable in the long run, however I have contributed quite a lot of money towards it, and yet there are some (mostly young) who say they cannot afford to contribute pro-rata to a pension scheme, whilst expecting the tax payer to pick up the whole tab for their retirement.

I don't actually have a problem with funding part of my retirement, the unions do see there's a need for reform, but let's negotiate properly, lets look at real alternatives not simply moving the goalposts every 5 years as is happening now.

[Leicester Fan]

Something has to give from how the wealth is distributed, but why does it have to be those who live longer that pay the price?

Surely if you're living longer you are collecting more pension in the long run?

[Geo_1875]

Oh please.

What alternatives do you propose?

And blame it all on the banks if you want (and avoid the fact the government has overspent for year after year) but seriously what does that add to the discussion?

Join a Union, Go on strike...great. Then what? Final Salary schemes were phased out in the private sector becuase they were NOT AFFORDABLE. What part of that do you not understand? How would joining a Union have changed that reality?

"Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA" - Well maybe but I suppose it depends on who is going to pay. Easy to say the state should pay then pay then pay some more but when the state is broke and taxation revenues no longer cover expanding costs just what is the answer? More strikes?

How about when taxes don't cover expenditure you raise taxes. If we are all in this together income tax should increase to cover the deficit. Instead this government are intent on creating a new cash cow which can be milked as they see fit when their plans go tits up. The "proposed" 3.2% deduction from salary for civil servants is the thin end of the wedge. This will no doubt increase in future to ensure they are not seen as a party of taxation. Civil servants will be treated like smokers and motorists to subsidise the artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country.

[IWasThere2016]

I am at work. I would never strike. Goes against my grain. Espacially as I once walked through a Derek Hatton led picket line in Liverpool and was repeatedly spat on. Ironically, I was the one called ‘scab’ and ‘sc*m’.

IMHO, on this occasion the unions have it wrong. They are striking when they are the ‘haves’ and not the ‘have nots’.

THE Bottom line is we cannot afford these schemes going forward. There has to be change.

Huge numbers of people with private pension schemes have seen these significantly dwindle in value - where as a Public Sector pension is almost invaluable by comparison.

Public Sector pensions were established when we did not live to the ages we are now - but when life expectancy was retirement +5 years for men, and +9 years for women.

It is logical therefore that, as we age we need to either pay much more or pay more and work longer – as I will have to do.

As someone with Private then Public then Private then Public Sector experience, I would refute that Public Sector staff are paid less than Private Sector staff. That is not my experience previously or now.

[Leicester Fan]

Surely we can all support this?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505)

[lucky]

Surely we can all support this?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505)

No we cant. Surely we should be arguing to improve pensions for all not destroying others. Politics of envy are not the way forward.

[1two]

I am at work. I would never strike. Goes against my grain.

Do you mean you don't support this strike action or do you mean you wouldn't support any strike action full stop?

I can see why you wouldn't support this time but seems a bit OTT to say never.

Im not sure if I entirely agree with today's strike but as has been said everyone has the right to do so, just as you have the right to carry on working. It has to be remembered though that no matter what industry you're in, your current employment terms have descended from people in the past taking direct action against 'the man'. I don't think I could ever say "id never strike!"

[greenlex]

How about when taxes don't cover expenditure you raise taxes. If we are all in this together income tax should increase to cover the deficit. Instead this government are intent on creating a new cash cow which can be milked as they see fit when their plans go tits up. The "proposed" 3.2% deduction from salary for civil servants is the thin end of the wedge. This will no doubt increase in future to ensure they are not seen as a party of taxation. Civil servants will be treated like smokers and motorists to subsidise the artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country.

I'm a private sector worker. I have had one 1.5% wage increase in the last 5 years. Recently had a 20% wage cut. I didn't go on strike I sucked it up and got on with it. My alternative was redundancy. It looks as though another 10% cut is imminent. What should I do?
To quote a month Python sketch.
3.2 % luxury!!!
Public sector really need to get in the real world.

[Sir David Gray]

I understand that people want to protect what they've always had etc, however I have read up over the last couple of days on some of the services that may be affected today and although almost all of them will cause an inconvenience, the one thing that I read that really angered me was that in some areas, the provision of home care services for vulnerable and elderly people could not be guaranteed.

I am personally sickened by this and the people who are responsible for this service being withdrawn in some areas across the country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I have some personal experience of how vital this service is to so many people in the community and even if there has been just one elderly person who has been affected today by this action then it is a national disgrace and absolutely shameful.

Those on here who support the strikes and also say that they are standing up for the most vulnerable people in our society really ought to take a little think to themselves.

I am also annoyed by the news that "non-essential" operations have been postponed. This could delay some people's procedures by months. I hardly think that they'll have them rescheduled for next week.

Whilst I understand that we're not talking about operations of the "life or death variety" here, this action will cause an unnecessary delay in their surgery taking place which will mean that they'll be experiencing pain and discomfort for much longer than they should be.

I read a few days ago that this action could be costing the economy around £500 million. How exactly is this going to help those on strike, when the economy, which is already in a huge mess as it is, is going to be put into an even worse state?

My personal view is that these people should just be thankful that they are currently in employment. There's almost 3 million people at the moment who would probably cut their right arm off to be in their position, because they don't have any job at all.

Finally, I really don't understand why teachers are on strike. It's clearly a demanding job and very challenging but I would love to be on £25-30,000 a year and be on holiday for more than 3 months of the year.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I am on strike today: I am sure there are more intelligent people than me on this board who can give really good arguments for and against the reasons for the strike. So what follows is my personal feelings on the current situation, on which folk can make up their own mind.

I joined the Civil Service in 1978. Not because I though " yippee what a great pension " but because I was not long out of school and wanted a job. To be honest I didnt even know what the pay would be. In fact the biggest benefit I could see was that I wouldn't have to work on Saturday and would get to see Hibs.

Having stated the above the fact remains that when I joined, what I signed up for were the terms and conditions offered to me at that time by my employer, which from their point of view were offered in order to get the quality of staff they needed against competition from amoungst others, the private sector. The biggest incentive for me at that time if I had actually been bright enough to be weighing up my options for the long tearm future would have been the pension package and being able to leave the CC at 60.

Now, 33 years down the line, they are threatening to take away what they promised me, when it is too late for me to change the course I am on. That to my mind is nothing short of a breach of promise, probably not in a legal sense, but certainly in a moral sense.

I dont have too much of a problem being asked to pay a bit more towards my pension ( the way the papers go on you would think it was free ) but what I do object to is paying more in order to wait longer to get less than I was promised and that 3 quarters of the way towards what I was promised I am having it taken away from me.

Finally an observation:


The right wing press in this country have vilified public sector workers over the years for being a " drain on decent tax payers" Interesting to note that the British billionaire owner of one of the biggist culprits The Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday is exempt from paying UK income tax, even though he lives in the UK, due to some sort of deal to do with his late father also being exempt.

The blame for the current mess seems to be moving from politicians and bankers to the public sector ( Hmmmn! a scapegoat for the countries ills to deflect from the real reason ) where have I seen that before.

Now the government wants to pour billions into public works and infrastructure to get the country going again ( Hmmmn! wait a minute, that sounds familiar )

Lets hope the next steps in that historical scenario dont play out.

[ginger_rice]

I'm a private sector worker. I have had one 1.5% wage increase in the last 5 years. Recently had a 20% wage cut. I didn't go on strike I sucked it up and got on with it. My alternative was redundancy. It looks as though another 10% cut is imminent. What should I do?
To quote a month Python sketch.
3.2 % luxury!!!
Public sector really need to get in the real world.

Ah! this old chestnut comes out again and again and again, I've lived in the real world all my life and I certainly wouldn't put up with it. That treatment is exactly how this government wants you to be treated, they are quite happy for your employer to act like a Victorian mill owner.

You obviously don't like having your goalposts shifted and neither do I, however how we deal with it is completely different.

Me? if I was in your place I reckon I'd go for constructive dismissal, as they are making it impossible for you to work for them.

FWIW I'm livid that you treated like that, and if I could strike to help you out I would do just that, however please don't let your misfortune mean that you have to attack another group of workers who are simply fighting to retain hard fought for conditions of service.

[Andy74]

Although when the banks ran out of money, they were bailed out and allowed to go on as before.

That's not the case - in terms of going on as before.

If the banks had not been bailed out everyone from big businesses through to individuals would have been in serious trouble.

Still, we keep hearing about this as if the NHS and other public bodies hadn't been living on even bigger losses.

The 'banks' argument as an excuse or a comparison for everything at the moment is as inaccurate as it is boring.

I'm sure you think it's fine for the staff of one failing institution to enjoy extremely advantageous pension arrangements and to strike if they get changed slightly yet you'd be quite happy to have a go at average bamk workers who get a couple of grand bonus at the end of the year.

When private companies could not fund their pension schemes any more they closed and the terms were altered for others. Yet you'd expect everyone to chuck money in to make sure the public ones don't go the same way?

[ginger_rice]

Surely we can all support this?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24505)

It's tempting...but no that's back to lowest common denominator again.

And believe it or not I do actually think that MPs have a quite stressful job, although many need to realise that the words service and self don't mean the same thing.

[greenlex]

Ah! this old chestnut comes out again and again and again, I've lived in the real world all my life and I certainly wouldn't put up with it. That treatment is exactly how this government wants you to be treated, they are quite happy for your employer to act like a Victorian mill owner.

You obviously don't like having your goalposts shifted and neither do I, however how we deal with it is completely different.

Me? if I was in your place I reckon I'd go for constructive dismissal, as they are making it impossible for you to work for them.

FWIW I'm livid that you treated like that, and if I could strike to help you out I would do just that, however please don't let your misfortune mean that you have to attack another group of workers who are simply fighting to retain hard fought for conditions of service.

I am not attacking anyone. I am a realist. I know the company I work for cannot afford to keep making losses and I also know there are few jobs out there to keep he in what was my previous salary. Constructive dismissal would get me what exactly? A few thousand months if not years down the line.
If you think the public sector can keep their current levels of benefits them you are in cloud cuckoo land.
Do me a favour and look and see if you can get either a private sector job with your level of income and better still a private sector pension with proposed levels of contribution never mind current levels with a projected income on retiring that you currently have. You won't find it. Final salary pension schemes in the private sector were wound up years ago.
I understand your pain I really do but don't expect me to be happy with your industrial action causing me irritation and money when I have enough on my pate as it is. If the government engineered my situation to beat the public sector benifits down then they must be bloody brilliant.
Old chestnut? Don't make me laugh. In case you haven't noticed the real world has changed.

[ginger_rice]

Surely if you're living longer you are collecting more pension in the long run?

If you look at the government figures it looks that way, however what they are not coming clean about is that they are suggesting that under their imposition (as it's not a proposal) a pensioner with say 42 years service would get a bigger pension than a pensioner under the current arrangements with say 38 years. Life expectancy, amongst teachers once retired, is not great, and over the piece they would earn less pension, and by paying more into the pension, earn less over their working life.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I understand that people want to protect what they've always had etc, however I have read up over the last couple of days on some of the services that may be affected today and although almost all of them will cause an inconvenience, the one thing that I read that really angered me was that in some areas, the provision of home care services for vulnerable and elderly people could not be guaranteed.

I am personally sickened by this and the people who are responsible for this service being withdrawn in some areas across the country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I have some personal experience of how vital this service is to so many people in the community and even if there has been just one elderly person who has been affected today by this action then it is a national disgrace and absolutely shameful.

Those on here who support the strikes and also say that they are standing up for the most vulnerable people in our society really ought to take a little think to themselves.

I am also annoyed by the news that "non-essential" operations have been postponed. This could delay some people's procedures by months. I hardly think that they'll have them rescheduled for next week.

Whilst I understand that we're not talking about operations of the "life or death variety" here, this action will cause an unnecessary delay in their surgery taking place which will mean that they'll be experiencing pain and discomfort for much longer than they should be.

I read a few days ago that this action could be costing the economy around £500 million. How exactly is this going to help those on strike, when the economy, which is already in a huge mess as it is, is going to be put into an even worse state?

My personal view is that these people should just be thankful that they are currently in employment. There's almost 3 million people at the moment who would probably cut their right arm off to be in their position, because they don't have any job at all.

Finally, I really don't understand why teachers are on strike. It's clearly a demanding job and very challenging but I would love to be on £25-30,000 a year and be on holiday for more than 3 months of the year.

That's a bit harsh FH. I can't speak for others but I had a long fight with myself before deciding to strike. It meant leaving colleagues to shoulder the burden, and we are up against it at the moment where I work. I am sure many people have similair stories - if nothing else, we're giving up a days pay for something we believe in strongly.

For me it's a fundamental question and although I can sleep at night, I left work with a heavy heart last night. Maybe it won't make a difference, but on a personal level I have stood up for my rights, in a democratic society. I would hate history to judge us as having given in without a fight.

[RyeSloan]

How about when taxes don't cover expenditure you raise taxes. If we are all in this together income tax should increase to cover the deficit. Instead this government are intent on creating a new cash cow which can be milked as they see fit when their plans go tits up. The "proposed" 3.2% deduction from salary for civil servants is the thin end of the wedge. This will no doubt increase in future to ensure they are not seen as a party of taxation. Civil servants will be treated like smokers and motorists to subsidise the artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country.

"artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country" - You are not serious are you. It takes a full 5 months to get to Tax Freedom day..that's right on average every days pay until 30th May goes straight to the exchequer, roughly an average tax rate of 40%.

[Leicester Fan]

Life expectancy, amongst teachers once retired, is not great, and over the piece they would earn less pension, and by paying more into the pension, earn less over their working life.

I'd like to see some stats on that. I know it's not uncommon for teachers to retire in their mid fifties on the grounds of ill health on around 80% pension, only to work three days a week as a supply teacher.

[RyeSloan]

If you look at the government figures it looks that way, however what they are not coming clean about is that they are suggesting that under their imposition (as it's not a proposal) a pensioner with say 42 years service would get a bigger pension than a pensioner under the current arrangements with say 38 years. Life expectancy, amongst teachers once retired, is not great, and over the piece they would earn less pension, and by paying more into the pension, earn less over their working life.

You've stated this a couple of times....is it seriously any worse than a host of other occupations?

[stoneyburn hibs]

That's not the case - in terms of going on as before.

If the banks had not been bailed out everyone from big businesses through to individuals would have been in serious trouble.

Still, we keep hearing about this as if the NHS and other public bodies hadn't been living on even bigger losses.

The 'banks' argument as an excuse or a comparison for everything at the moment is as inaccurate as it is boring.

I'm sure you think it's fine for the staff of one failing institution to enjoy extremely advantageous pension arrangements and to strike if they get changed slightly yet you'd be quite happy to have a go at average bamk workers who get a couple of grand bonus at the end of the year.

When private companies could not fund their pension schemes any more they closed and the terms were altered for others. Yet you'd expect everyone to chuck money in to make sure the public ones don't go the same way?

:agree: , and its nonsense to say that private sector workers earn more.

I know that some public sector workers earn their wage and at times have a very difficult job but to know that your job is safe (safer than the private sector in most cases) and paid sick-leave coupled with a very decent pension , seems not to bad to me.

And for myself to match the pension of say a teacher , i would need to put away easily a quarter of my wage for at least 20 years before my retirement and i base that on roughly the same salary as them

[ginger_rice]

If you think the public sector can keep their current levels of benefits them you are in cloud cuckoo land.

Maybe not but I'll keep fighting to get the best I can out of a bad hand, and I'll be able to look people in the eye and say "at least I tried".

Do me a favour and look and see if you can get either a private sector job with your level of income and better still a private sector pension with proposed levels of contribution never mind current levels with a projected income on retiring that you currently have. You won't find it. Final salary pension schemes in the private sector were wound up years ago.

Already looking mate, and as I've said I have no problem funding a private pension if that's what's agreed in my contract, problem is we've already agreed (5 years ago with COSLA) a package which made our pensions sustainable, now all of a sudden a gun is held to our employers heads by the Westminster government, and I for one will not take this lying down, if that's me in cloud cuckoo land then pass me the feathers for my nest :wink:.


I understand your pain I really do Thank you but don't expect me to be happy with your industrial action I'm actually not happy in having to take itcausing me irritation and money when I have enough on my pate as it is. If the government engineered my situation to beat the public sector benefits down then they must be bloody brilliant.

That's not what I said, what I said is that how you are being treated by your employers is exactly how all Tory governments want all employers to be able to treat their employees!

In case you haven't noticed the real world has changed.

I agree but unfortunately not always for the best, I am willing at least to try to do something about it, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that one!




A topic like this will always bring out polar opposite views, and TBH mate I am really really sorry that you find yourself in the situation that you are in.

[ginger_rice]

You've stated this a couple of times....is it seriously any worse than a host of other occupations?

Completely agree, I had thought of adding to that, the Forces is one area I can think of, worked in that sector too, there are many other stressful jobs in the public sector which are difficult and stressful....as there are in the private sector.

I'll see if I can find a link to the details about teaching, it is quite concerning.

[ginger_rice]

I'd like to see some stats on that. I know it's not uncommon for teachers to retire in their mid fifties on the grounds of ill health on around 80% pension, only to work three days a week as a supply teacher.

That's in the throws of being stopped, and although it does happen, it's not as common as some would have you believe.

It could be though that some are confusing that with "winding down" which is a scheme to encourage teachers in their last year or two to take part of their pension and to work part time, this is to free up jobs for younger newly qualified teachers.


That last point brings up an interesting side argument, if we are all going to work longer what happens to all the kids who leave school/college/university, what will it cost the country keeping them on the dole?

[ballengeich]

"artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country" - You are not serious are you. It takes a full 5 months to get to Tax Freedom day..that's right on average every days pay until 30th May goes straight to the exchequer, roughly an average tax rate of 40%.

I don't think you're quite right about that. Isn't the 40+ percentage the bit of GDP which is public expenditure? I don't like the Tax Freedom day concept as it carries an implication that tax paid is wasted, but I think it would be nearer 25th April. The 10% gf the year's income which is the gap is the problem.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm a private sector worker. I have had one 1.5% wage increase in the last 5 years. Recently had a 20% wage cut. I didn't go on strike I sucked it up and got on with it. My alternative was redundancy. It looks as though another 10% cut is imminent. What should I do?
To quote a month Python sketch.
3.2 % luxury!!!
Public sector really need to get in the real world.

I can't remember the last time I got a pay rise never mind 3.2%.

[Hibbyradge]

I
My personal view is that these people should just be thankful that they are currently in employment. There's almost 3 million people at the moment who would probably cut their right arm off to be in their position, because they don't have any job at all.



Shocking.

My mother once told me that when she was growing up, she used to see men queuing at factory gates in the hope that they could get some work that day.

The gaffers used to come out and shout "Who'll give me a day's work for a pound?". Hundreds of hands would go up.

Then, "Who'll work for 10 shillings?". Loads of hands.

Then "5 shillings" and so on until some poor man whose family was starving would agree to take a pittance, just because he had nothing at all.

That's what you're advocating. And it's very very wrong.

Don't complain about bad treatment because there's someone else having an even worse time of it. Jeezo.

Oh, and in your ridiculous analogy, the people who would cut their right arm off to be in work, should be grateful they've got one arm left, I suppose, should they?

[IndieHibby]

Ignore the fact that this article is from the Guardian - it is written by Ben Goldacre, whose reputation precedes him:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre?fb=optOut

This one I am less sure of the author, although directly quoting statistics etc is the mark of at least partially-balanced comment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens?fb=optOut

Basically, naked and base comparisons between public and private sector remuneration packages is the preserve of the ignorant, lazy or wilful misleaders.

Graduates get paid 5.7% less in the public sector.

Average hourly pay is higher in the public sector, but then much more of the work in the public sector is part time.

Etc.

[IndieHibby]

Shocking.

My mother once told me that when she was growing up, she used to see men queuing at factory gates in the hope that they could get some work that day.

The gaffers used to come out and shout "Who'll give me a day's work for a pound?". Hundreds of hands would go up.

Then, "Who'll work for 10 shillings?". Loads of hands.

Then "5 shillings" and so on until some poor man whose family was starving would agree to take a pittance, just because he had nothing at all.

That's what you're advocating. And it's very very wrong.

Don't complain about bad treatment because there's someone else having an even worse time of it. Jeezo.

Oh, and in your ridiculous analogy, the people who would cut their right arm off to be in work, should be grateful they've got one arm left, I suppose, should they?

:agree: I've heard many versions of this argument today. So many people seem incapable of having an opinion on an issue which isn't motivated by self-interest.

Quite depressing really.

[I'm_cabbaged]

I understand that people want to protect what they've always had etc, however I have read up over the last couple of days on some of the services that may be affected today and although almost all of them will cause an inconvenience, the one thing that I read that really angered me was that in some areas, the provision of home care services for vulnerable and elderly people could not be guaranteed.

Essential services were not targeted, Health and Social care decided what was essential. (In Edinburgh anyway)

I am personally sickened by this and the people who are responsible for this service being withdrawn in some areas across the country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I have some personal experience of how vital this service is to so many people in the community and even if there has been just one elderly person who has been affected today by this action then it is a national disgrace and absolutely shameful.

Ashamed of themselves? Having personal experience of this vital service yourself FH, you should realise what an exceptional job these people do on near minimum wages and a heavy work load. Apart from fighting personally within themselves whether to strike or not as FR has stated do you think that these "shameful" workers took striking lightly on a financial front knowing they were losing a days wage out of their Christmas pay?

Those on here who support the strikes and also say that they are standing up for the most vulnerable people in our society really ought to take a little think to themselves.

Lost for words to be honest.

I am also annoyed by the news that "non-essential" operations have been postponed. This could delay some people's procedures by months. I hardly think that they'll have them rescheduled for next week.

Whilst I understand that we're not talking about operations of the "life or death variety" here, this action will cause an unnecessary delay in their surgery taking place which will mean that they'll be experiencing pain and discomfort for much longer than they should be.

I read a few days ago that this action could be costing the economy around £500 million. How exactly is this going to help those on strike, when the economy, which is already in a huge mess as it is, is going to be put into an even worse state?

How much does extra public holidays for royal weddings, jubilees cost the economy?

My personal view is that these people should just be thankful that they are currently in employment. There's almost 3 million people at the moment who would probably cut their right arm off to be in their position, because they don't have any job at all.

See HR's response, my lord........



Finally, I really don't understand why teachers are on strike. It's clearly a demanding job and very challenging but I would love to be on £25-30,000 a year and be on holiday for more than 3 months of the year.

Do you really think that the people with the responsibility of our childrens education are over paid?




Words fail me, they really do. :rolleyes:

[ginger_rice]

Ignore the fact that this article is from the Guardian - it is written by Ben Goldacre, whose reputation precedes him:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre?fb=optOut

This one I am less sure of the author, although directly quoting statistics etc is the mark of at least partially-balanced comment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens?fb=optOut

Basically, naked and base comparisons between public and private sector remuneration packages is the preserve of the ignorant, lazy or wilful misleaders.

Graduates get paid 5.7% less in the public sector.

Average hourly pay is higher in the public sector, but then much more of the work in the public sector is part time.

Etc.

:top marks

I certainly know that I could earn more in the private sector, but there agin I'd have less holidays, but there again I could take them when they are cheap! It's all swings and roundabouts guys!!!

[Dashing Bob S]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

[ginger_rice]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.


20 odd years ago I worked in a factory in Stirling which was non-union and positively Victorian in both the employers attitude and the way that it was run. We in the engineering department got together with the AEEU, got organised and after a long fight got the management to recognise the union. During this struggle we never took action which would endanger production, but did things like overtime bans for a 24 hour period.

The end result was that the management had to consult with the workforce, even when the news might be bad we had some input, found consensual ways of working, and the place has been run successfully since then, at least until the current mob took over in Whitehall when the a*se dropped out of the order book.

There's still far too much "if ye dinae like it there's the door" management in the private sector for my liking.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree: I've heard many versions of this argument today. So many people seem incapable of having an opinion on an issue which isn't motivated by self-interest.

Quite depressing really.

Got to say, the one that amazed me most was how many people confuse education with childcare. The point is, anyone inconvenienced by this could at least have the decency to think about why people have been driven to go on strike.

ps A big thank you to the Labour Party - they've made it perfectly clear that they'd do the same thing if they were in power.

[bawheid]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

:top marks

FH's comments, as usual on this forum, utterly moronic.

[ginger_rice]

Got to say, the one that amazed me most was how many people confuse education with childcare. The point is, anyone inconvenienced by this could at least have the decency to think about why people have been driven to go on strike.

ps A big thank you to the Labour Party - they've made it perfectly clear that they'd do the same thing if they were in power.

Aye, you wouldn't imagine the number of times today I've been told "do you know how much you have cost me in child care/lost wages today"

[bighairyfaeleith]

The thing I'm confused about, are the government holding talks with the unions about this issue or not. The government say they have had meetings this week and from what I have read the unions are saying talks haven't happened since early november.

Who is lying?

I have to say as someone with basically no pension to speak of and who works in the private sector I think the workers are absolutely correct to strike and protect there interests, private sectors should fight to improve there lot not expect the public workers to take less just to be the same as them!!

[ginger_rice]

The thing I'm confused about, are the government holding talks with the unions about this issue or not. The government say they have had meetings this week and from what I have read the unions are saying talks haven't happened since early november.

Who is lying?

I have to say as someone with basically no pension to speak of and who works in the private sector I think the workers are absolutely correct to strike and protect there interests, private sectors should fight to improve there lot not expect the public workers to take less just to be the same as them!!

Problem is that there are quite a few different pensions schemes in the public sector. The UK government keep rolling out Ministers who have no input into public services in Scotland.

Here our employers are local authorities whom we negotiate with through COSLA, in the form of the SNCT, we reached an agreement with the employers IIRC 5 years ago, closing the current scheme to new entrants, raising the retiral age to 65 for all new entrants etc.

I would imagine that NHS Scotland and other bodies have similar negotiating mechanisms.

AFAIK the Scottish government were satisfied that public sector pensions in Scotland had been modernised and were affordable. in the mid term at least.

The came Hutton and the Con/Dems, Osbourne has threatened the Scottish government with " if you don't fall in line with the rest of the UK we will dock £8M from your budget" (I think that was per month!).

AFAIK that's the level of negotiation we've had.

[Jonnyboy]

Nah, not a scandal, or at least not for the reason you claim. Public sector pensions don't come out of a previously accumulated pot - they're dependent on future taxpayers of all sorts. So any increased contributions naturally go in to current government funds - the same funds that taxpayers pay tax in to.

I guess my ire is caused by the coalition blatantly using divisive tactics to set worker against worker


I've no doubt that there will be a good bit of spin going on from both sides John.

And playing devil's advocate here, could the unions not equally be accused of pitting public sector against private sector by taking the action to strike?

I'm not sure which side I fall on TBH, I can see the point of view of the public sector looking to protect their T's and C's but I can also see that it can't continue as is because the country can't afford it. It's a tough one.

You're right there are tactics being employed by both sides :agree: FWIW I think the current offer is a decent one but the sticking point appears to be the coalition intending to increase employee contributions by something like 3.2% when for the past two years public sector staff have had a wage freeze and for the next two years their increase is capped at 1% each year. It's not hard to see how the unions can work their members up I guess


I think that's part of the problem, J. Not aimed at you directly but a lot of folk don't understand the reasoning/details behind much of the changes beyond the black/white statements being released in the tit-for-tat nonsense between the govt and unions. I'm not saying that everything is justified btw.

Not a single penny of anyone's contribution goes directly to funding their Final Salary entitlement, particularly in the public sector. So to argue that the extra contribution isn't even going into the pension scheme is a bit pointless. The extra contributions are going to the Treasury which has to fund the pension schemes.

In the private sector, employees have either lost their FS pension (when I say 'lost', I mean for future entitlement), had it changed to 'career average' or been forced to contribute more to maintain it as the cost of funding these schemes has rocketed (partly due to new accounting reporting, partly due to the scrapping of tax credit by Brown in 1997, partly due to increased life expectancy and a range of other factors).

So, if the cost of funding Final Salary pensions is increasing, life expectancy is increasing and everyone is having to work longer, either the public sector has to follow suit or someone has to pay for it - the taxpayer or the public sector employees.

PS Defined Contribution is what used to be called Money Purchase. Your money is invested like a bank account and buys you a pension at retirment. No guarantees (unless you have some old-skool hybrid) on what you get - everything depends on the interest/investments and financial conditions at the time.

Thanks for that Beefster :aok: Gonnae act the daft laddie here and hope someone can either put me right or agree I'm correct :greengrin Workers contributing to the public sector pension scheme pay a percentage of their salary and their employers (essentially the treasury if that's where the money comes from) also pay a percentage. If the coalition want to reduce the outgoing cost why don't they reduce the employer contribution instead of increasing the employee contribution? Surely they could make their savings that way? Of course pensions would be affected but they are going to be anyway regardless of what the workers/unions do. Am I being really cynical in thinking they chose the path they did because they wanted to bring the unions to heel ala Maggie Thatcher?


If private sector workers wanted to safeguard their pensions then they should have either been in a union or joined one to save their final salary scheme. People should not be attacking public sector workers for defending their pensions. Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA

:agree:

[Jonnyboy]

Surely if you're living longer you are collecting more pension in the long run?

You're also paying longer to compensate :wink:

[ballengeich]

Thanks for that Beefster :aok: Gonnae act the daft laddie here and hope someone can either put me right or agree I'm correct :greengrin Workers contributing to the public sector pension scheme pay a percentage of their salary and their employers (essentially the treasury if that's where the money comes from) also pay a percentage. If the coalition want to reduce the outgoing cost why don't they reduce the employer contribution instead of increasing the employee contribution? Surely they could make their savings that way? Of course pensions would be affected but they are going to be anyway regardless of what the workers/unions do. Am I being really cynical in thinking they chose the path they did because they wanted to bring the unions to heel ala Maggie Thatcher?



:agree:

I think the answer (justification) would be that if the employer contribution was reduced instead of the employee contribution being increased, the amount of money available for retirement incomes would be less so pensions would have to be reduced by a greater amount. The effect on defecit savings would be the same, but ultimately you get out what you put in.

I don't know whether the current contributions are sufficient to maintain the current incomes because I haven't seen a realistic actuarial justification for either side's position. If anyone has a link to calculations rather than just to opinions and conclusions I'd be grateful, as I really don't know which side my head, as opposed to my heart, should be on in this dispute.

[IWasThere2016]

Do you mean you don't support this strike action or do you mean you wouldn't support any strike action full stop?

I can see why you wouldn't support this time but seems a bit OTT to say never.

Im not sure if I entirely agree with today's strike but as has been said everyone has the right to do so, just as you have the right to carry on working. It has to be remembered though that no matter what industry you're in, your current employment terms have descended from people in the past taking direct action against 'the man'. I don't think I could ever say "id never strike!"

I am not a member of a union. I have no intention of ever being one. I therefore cannot strike - it would be illegal.

I do not support this strike - even though I stand to gain from any further concessions the Government make. Similarly, I am prepared to more and work longer for my pension.

We're all in this mess together..

[bighairyfaeleith]

I am not a member of a union. I have no intention of ever being one. I therefore cannot strike - it would be illegal.

I do not support this strike - even though I stand to gain from any further concessions the Government make. Similarly, I am prepared to more and work longer for my pension.

We're all in this mess together..

so you won't forego any benefit the unions get you then?

[Betty Boop]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

:top marks

[Geo_1875]

"artificially low income tax levels beloved of government in this country" - You are not serious are you. It takes a full 5 months to get to Tax Freedom day..that's right on average every days pay until 30th May goes straight to the exchequer, roughly an average tax rate of 40%.

Yes 30th May, one of the earliest of the major European nations. Try Germany 8th July or France 16th July. Or if you don't like paying tax try India they're done by 14th March.

British Governments of all persuasions do like to keep income tax low (they lie about NI payments). They then have their own favourites for further punishment, smokers, motorists, drinkers. They then blow about VAT being an even handed tax when it's regularly shown to affect those on lower incomes much harder.

I stand by my statement and predict that if this increase in pension contributions is enforced it will be revisited by any future government in their attempts to balance their books.

[Geo_1875]

I am not a member of a union. I have no intention of ever being one. I therefore cannot strike - it would be illegal.

I do not support this strike - even though I stand to gain from any further concessions the Government make. Similarly, I am prepared to more and work longer for my pension.

We're all in this mess together..

You state that you're prepared to pay more and work longer for your pension.

Are you prepared to pay more and work longer for a a lower pension?

And some of us are more in this mess than others...................

[Bishop Hibee]

I am not a member of a union. I have no intention of ever being one. I therefore cannot strike - it would be illegal.

I do not support this strike - even though I stand to gain from any further concessions the Government make. Similarly, I am prepared to more and work longer for my pension.

We're all in this mess together..

:faf: Aye, the millionaire Cameron, the millionaire Clegg, the millionaire Osbourne and the millionaire Maude are in this mess together! Wake up.

[One Day Soon]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

DBS, I'm a fan I really am. But this post of yours is total cobblers.

[ballengeich]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

It's not that simple. In the private sector a business running at a loss closes down and people lose their jobs, so people sacrifice benefits in order to keep basic salaries. To date, public employees have been relatively insulated from any difference between money in and money paid out.

I share your distaste for people who think that because their own situation has deteriorated everyone else should be brought down too. Not sure what "cajoles" are, but I don't think they'll do anything about economic realities.

[Hibrandenburg]

If private sector workers wanted to safeguard their pensions then they should have either been in a union or joined one to save their final salary scheme. People should not be attacking public sector workers for defending their pensions. Dignity in retirement should be part of our countries DNA
Eggsactly

[1two]

There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

Sorry Robert, but thats pie in the sky.

You could class the private sector as one big employer, the government. Directly or indirectly everyone who went on strike today is an employee of the government. Thats what the public sector is by definition. Holding a mass strike today was an option because of the strength in numbers the public sector work force has against a single employer (I know that's not strictly true but it is in the case of today's strike)

In simple terms, the private sector is a vast collection of private businesses. You can't have a private sector strike in the same way as was seen today.
The private sector is not made up solely by the banks or any other single employer. Striking just wouldn't be possible or would be pointless or even detrimental to the cause.

[1two]

I am not a member of a union. I have no intention of ever being one. I therefore cannot strike - it would be illegal.

I do not support this strike - even though I stand to gain from any further concessions the Government make. Similarly, I am prepared to more and work longer for my pension.

We're all in this mess together..

Why would you never consider joining a union?

Also can I ask which political party you most relate to? Just out of pure interest.

[Beefster]

Thanks for that Beefster :aok: Gonnae act the daft laddie here and hope someone can either put me right or agree I'm correct :greengrin Workers contributing to the public sector pension scheme pay a percentage of their salary and their employers (essentially the treasury if that's where the money comes from) also pay a percentage. If the coalition want to reduce the outgoing cost why don't they reduce the employer contribution instead of increasing the employee contribution? Surely they could make their savings that way? Of course pensions would be affected but they are going to be anyway regardless of what the workers/unions do. Am I being really cynical in thinking they chose the path they did because they wanted to bring the unions to heel ala Maggie Thatcher?

I presume that they are attempting to maintain the level of benefits currently enjoyed, J. There's an element of 'rock' and 'hard place' for them. If they reduce future entitlement (by either changing the accrual rate or changing the scheme from FS to something else), I'd imagine that the current dispute would look like a playground fight compared to what happened then.

I think you are being a bit cynical. The proposals AFAIK came from Lord Hutton, a Labour peer and ex-Cabinet minister. If they really wanted to stomp on the unions, they would have ignored Hutton's proposals and done something much more radical.


There seems to be a lot of resentment aired amongst some private sector workers, because they don't appear to have either the brains or bottle to organize themselves in an effective union to defend their rights.

It's tiresome hearing those bleating, piteous bores whinging on selfishly about how hard they're done by. Perhaps developing the cajoles to stand up for yourselves instead of forelock-tugging your masters and blaming those who do have the guts to defend their conditions, might just be a start to improving your lot? But that would mean not only acknowledging the existence of other people, but also standing alongside them - a bridge too far?

And if striking until they maintain my pension without any cost to me in time worked or money means that the only way my employer can afford it is to make my colleague redundant, I should stay out on strike until there isn't a business left to work for?

[Betty Boop]

Unison are taking legal advice regarding Jeremy Clarkson's pathetic comments on the One Show.

http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2544

[hibsbollah]

Id rather Dave Prentis just challenged the **** to a fight.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/outrage-over-reaction-to-clarkson-reaction-reactions-201112014617/

[IndieHibby]

:faf:





EDIT - Perhaps I should add that I am laughing at the daily mash article....

[IWasThere2016]

so you won't forego any benefit the unions get you then?

How would I be able to do that?


You state that you're prepared to pay more and work longer for your pension. Are you prepared to pay more and work longer for a a lower pension? And some of us are more in this mess than others...................

I will get a lower pension if averaging comes in .. or I don't work longer/pay more :confused:


:faf: Aye, the millionaire Cameron, the millionaire Clegg, the millionaire Osbourne and the millionaire Maude are in this mess together! Wake up.

You sound jealous, and you'll tell me next they created the mess?


Why would you never consider joining a union?

Also can I ask which political party you most relate to? Just out of pure interest.

Been too close to too many mad union reps/members. Gobbing on me also influences my perception.

I have voted SNP for some time now. You?


If the banks had not been bailed out everyone from big businesses through to individuals would have been in serious trouble.

When the **** did that happen?

[1two]

Been too close to too many mad union reps/members. Gobbing on me also influences my perception.

I have voted SNP for some time now. You?



Fair enough, you obviously have your reasons

Socialist

[lapsedhibee]

Didn't have any very strong views on the strike, or the whole PS pensions issue, until today when I read and heard Prentis and Jennings talking about Jeremy Clarkson. Geez, those two are seriously fick. They should be frogmarched off to Africa and have tent poles rammed up their jacksies to stimulate their brains a bit, and then come back and negotiate.

[greenlex]

Here is a question for all those trade union members that were on strike yesterday. Are you happy about a trade union contemplating spending money taking legal action against Jeremy Clarkson for hs quite blatant joke on last nights One show? Surely they must be joking aren't they? Surely that's not what they are about. Loonies.:rolleyes:

Edit ~ I posted this before reading the post above.:hilarious

[Dashing Bob S]

Here is a question for all those trade union members that were on strike yesterday. Are you happy about a trade union contemplating spending money taking legal action against Jeremy Clarkson for hs quite blatant joke on last nights One show? Surely they must be joking aren't they? Surely that's not what they are about. Loonies.:rolleyes:

Edit ~ I posted this before reading the post above.:hilarious

Legal action, no. But if they were planning to hire a hit man with a high velocity rifle and dum-dum bullets, to blow that petted, obnoxious buffoon's smug tomato face to smithereens, mine would be the first score in the kitty. I've known two very good reliable people who have worked with him (separately) and joking doesn't come into it. An erse of the highest order.

[Bishop Hibee]

You sound jealous, and you'll tell me next they created the mess?



I'm not jealous of their inherited wealth although I'd tax them more. Just don't pretend they feel the pinch of this recession in the same way that the vast majority of the UK population are. It's not true. Do you think they do and if so, how?

I won't tell you next they personally created this mess but they won't suffer financially because of it either.

[IWasThere2016]

I'm not jealous of their inherited wealth although I'd tax them more. Just don't pretend they feel the pinch of this recession in the same way that the vast majority of the UK population are. It's not true. Do you think they do and if so, how?

I won't tell you next they personally created this mess but they won't suffer financially because of it either.

I'm not pretending anything. I am sure the PM is paying the new 50p PAYE tax on his salary however ..

Why is inherited wealth such an issue for you?

[Eyrie]

I've known two very good reliable people who have worked with him (separately) and joking doesn't come into it. An erse of the highest order.
Interesting. I've wondered for some time if Clarkson is simply playing up his public image to the point that he has become a caricature of himself, but the answer is clearly that he is genuinely a waste of DNA.

[Dashing Bob S]

Interesting. I've wondered for some time if Clarkson is simply playing up his public image to the point that he has become a caricature of himself, but the answer is clearly that he is genuinely a waste of DNA.

Yes. Massively reigning himself in every time he steps in front of the camera.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Here is a question for all those trade union members that were on strike yesterday. Are you happy about a trade union contemplating spending money taking legal action against Jeremy Clarkson for hs quite blatant joke on last nights One show? Surely they must be joking aren't they? Surely that's not what they are about. Loonies.:rolleyes:

Edit ~ I posted this before reading the post above.:hilarious

Quite honestly I'll sleep even better knowing that this buffoon has said we should be shot. Mind you, he presents the most popular show on telly (source: Rolls Institute of Market Research) so maybe he really does speak for Middle England,

[greenlex]

Quite honestly I'll sleep even better knowing that this buffoon has said we should be shot. Mind you, he presents the most popular show on telly (source: Rolls Institute of Market Research) so maybe he really does speak for Middle England,

As posted elsewhere I can't believe folk take what this buffoon says seriously let alone get enraged about it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As posted elsewhere I can't believe folk take what this buffoon says seriously let alone get enraged about it.

He's what the Fifers call a "daft loddie". :agree:

[Jonnyboy]

Unison are taking legal advice regarding Jeremy Clarkson's pathetic comments on the One Show.

http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2544

To be honest BB I'm disappointed that Unison has even reacted to those comments. All they are doing is adding to Clarkson's pathetic attempts at notoriety. They'd be better spending the money on a spin doctor to 'sell' their side of the current argument re pensions. All we hear from the coalition is attacks on the public sector and all we hear from the Unions is a load of bleating about said attacks. Unison and the others need to learn to fight the fight using the same language because the way some of the leaders carry on they are setting themselves up. You only need to listen to/read some of the comments from non public service workers to realise that the coalition are winning the fight to turn workers against workers.

[Dashing Bob S]

Sorry Robert, but thats pie in the sky.

You could class the private sector as one big employer, the government. Directly or indirectly everyone who went on strike today is an employee of the government. Thats what the public sector is by definition. Holding a mass strike today was an option because of the strength in numbers the public sector work force has against a single employer (I know that's not strictly true but it is in the case of today's strike)

In simple terms, the private sector is a vast collection of private businesses. You can't have a private sector strike in the same way as was seen today.
The private sector is not made up solely by the banks or any other single employer. Striking just wouldn't be possible or would be pointless or even detrimental to the cause.

Yes, I'm exaggerating to make a point, just because I'm fed up with people moaning about things getting worse then going on about people who are actually trying to say 'enough is enough'.

Of course, you're spot-on about the private sector, as, by and large, its a global rather than national concern. Strike action/higher wage demands in one region or nation will only result in production and employment being relocated to other places. But the fundamental truth is that because of global labour surplus, practically all wages in private industry jobs, even for professional staff in blue-chip industries, are falling rapidly across the world, and will continue to do so.

Twenty years ago, India had a population of around 800,000,000. 1% of that population, 8 million people, are what we what approximately consider to be 'middle-class professionals' in terms of their occupations at that time. Today there are 1,200,000,000 and 10% of them are in that category, around 120 million. That is twice the populate of the UK. They all work, largely speaking, at lower rates in the same jobs in third world countries, but compete now in western labour markets.

Pundits in western pressure keen to talk about the growth of this 'middle class' in India, China, Brazil and Russia. But they are less ready to talk about what we're now also experiencing- the attendant immiseration of the middle-class in the UK and the west.

[greenlex]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/outrage-over-reaction-to-clarkson-reaction-reactions-201112014617/

:thumbsup:

[Andy74]

To be honest BB I'm disappointed that Unison has even reacted to those comments. All they are doing is adding to Clarkson's pathetic attempts at notoriety. They'd be better spending the money on a spin doctor to 'sell' their side of the current argument re pensions. All we hear from the coalition is attacks on the public sector and all we hear from the Unions is a load of bleating about said attacks. Unison and the others need to learn to fight the fight using the same language because the way some of the leaders carry on they are setting themselves up. You only need to listen to/read some of the comments from non public service workers to realise that the coalition are winning the fight to turn workers against workers.

That worked ages ago when people decided they didn't like bankers and then just about anyone that makes decent money. Due to an overwhelming amount of misinformation and downright lies. So I'm not buying that somehow now it's just the public service being shown in a bad light.

As for Clarkson I'm presuming anyone complaining didn't hear the whole of his comments in context?

[Betty Boop]

To be honest BB I'm disappointed that Unison has even reacted to those comments. All they are doing is adding to Clarkson's pathetic attempts at notoriety. They'd be better spending the money on a spin doctor to 'sell' their side of the current argument re pensions. All we hear from the coalition is attacks on the public sector and all we hear from the Unions is a load of bleating about said attacks. Unison and the others need to learn to fight the fight using the same language because the way some of the leaders carry on they are setting themselves up. You only need to listen to/read some of the comments from non public service workers to realise that the coalition are winning the fight to turn workers against workers.

I don't know if you were at yesterdays rally at the Scottish Parliament, but one of the speakers was ex Unison General Secretary Rodney Bickerstaffe. He gave a great rousing speech. we could do with somebody in his mould to take the fight to the Government.

[Jonnyboy]

I don't know if you were at yesterdays rally at the Scottish Parliament, but one of the speakers was ex Unison General Secretary Rodney Bickerstaffe. He gave a great rousing speech. we could do with somebody in his mould to take the fight to the Government.

They certainly need him or someone like him :agree:

[Lucius Apuleius]

I don't know if you were at yesterdays rally at the Scottish Parliament, but one of the speakers was ex Unison General Secretary Rodney Bickerstaffe. He gave a great rousing speech. we could do with somebody in his mould to take the fight to the Government.


They certainly need him or someone like him :agree:

Ah, see, you have both just said what I was coming on to the thread to say. Modern day Union leaders seem like a bunch of milk sops to me. Not one with charisma that I can think of and certainly none that have the presence to rouse the troops. Like them or loathe them, but where are the Scargills, Knapps, Slaters and Camerons (Kenny that is :greengrin). At least they could get people going. This lot make me want to sleep.

[goosano]

Ah, see, you have both just said what I was coming on to the thread to say. Modern day Union leaders seem like a bunch of milk sops to me. Not one with charisma that I can think of and certainly none that have the presence to rouse the troops. Like them or loathe them, but where are the Scargills, Knapps, Slaters and Camerons (Kenny that is :greengrin). At least they could get people going. This lot make me want to sleep.

Bob Crow has done a pretty good job. How he has managed to get train drivers their ridiculously high salaries is amazing-and the deal that was done for tube drivers

[Lucius Apuleius]

Bob Crow has done a pretty good job. How he has managed to get train drivers their ridiculously high salaries is amazing-and the deal that was done for tube drivers

Ah. Interesting you should say the train driver part of RMT. He has allowed the Merchant Navy side to disappear.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ah, see, you have both just said what I was coming on to the thread to say. Modern day Union leaders seem like a bunch of milk sops to me. Not one with charisma that I can think of and certainly none that have the presence to rouse the troops. Like them or loathe them, but where are the Scargills, Knapps, Slaters and Camerons (Kenny that is :greengrin). At least they could get people going. This lot make me want to sleep.

I think most of them should be shot. :greengrin

[Kato]

Clarkson's "joke" wasn't all that funny, but he was joking. Why there is such a reaction to it is beyond me, although I should take the wafer-thin-skinned sensibilities of the humourless on the left into consideration.

Far funnier was Billy Bragg's attempt to justify the strikes on "This Week" last night. No facts or figures, kept on mentioning Thatcher, no experience of the situation as he's a rich toff with a big house and no opinion other than drawing "class-war" lines in the sand - which was his response to every question.

A complete guffy of a man. They used to call him a one man version of The Clash and they were correct, they were all guffys too.

Of course the strikers are right to stay off work and protest against what is happening. It's their right.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I think most of them should be shot. :greengrin

:grr::brickwall You are a disgrace to the NHS etc etc etc. You should be banned from everything. And lots of other things as well!!!!!!:na na:

[lucky]

Bob Crow has done a pretty good job. How he has managed to get train drivers their ridiculously high salaries is amazing-and the deal that was done for tube drivers

Bob only represents a handful of train drivers less than 30 in Scotland. ASLEF is the train drivers union. Train drivers are under paid. The tube drivers are also reprented by ASLEF not the RMT.

[goosano]

Train drivers are under paid.


Really?

An average of £35000 for a 35 hour week in a responsible but not particularly skilled job. You can't be serious

I take your word about the unions

[lucky]

Really?

An average of £35000 for a 35 hour week in a responsible but not particularly skilled job. You can't be serious

I take your word about the unions

Scotrail drivers are amongst the lowest paid in mainland Britain.£37720 for a 4 day week. Sundays are extra. Inter city drivers on East Coast on £52k for 4 day week including Sundays.
Yrs I'm serious that tram drivers deserve a lot more.

[Pete]

Scotrail drivers are amongst the lowest paid in mainland Britain.£37720 for a 4 day week. Sundays are extra. Inter city drivers on East Coast on £52k for 4 day week including Sundays.
Yrs I'm serious that tram drivers deserve a lot more.

:faint:That's eye-watering!

Definitely in the wrong job.

[Future17]

I don't know if you were at yesterdays rally at the Scottish Parliament, but one of the speakers was ex Unison General Secretary Rodney Bickerstaffe. He gave a great rousing speech. we could do with somebody in his mould to take the fight to the Government.

I love the idea that a Union man is called Bickerstaffe. I hope that's true. :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

Scotrail drivers are amongst the lowest paid in mainland Britain.£37720 for a 4 day week. Sundays are extra. Inter city drivers on East Coast on £52k for 4 day week including Sundays.
Yrs I'm serious that tram drivers deserve a lot more.

!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot be!?

That's an excruiciating amount of money for a tram driver. Or any driver.

[goosano]

Yrs I'm serious that tram drivers deserve a lot more.

Why do you think so? Very curious to know why. If you don't mind me asking are you a train driver?

That pay is better than many experienced nurses, many doctors, firemen, policemen, engineers-all jobs that are more stressful, require more traiining and require more difficult decision making. I think you are very much in a minority in believing that train drivers pay is too low. I feel they are very much overpaid

[lucky]

Why do you think so? Very curious to know why. If you don't mind me asking are you a train driver?

That pay is better than many experienced nurses, many doctors, firemen, policemen, engineers-all jobs that are more stressful, require more traiining and require more difficult decision making. I think you are very much in a minority in believing that train drivers pay is too low. I feel they are very much overpaid
Not a train driver anymore. But being a train driver is different from other forms driving. The jobs you quote are not as unionised. ASLEF has played the rail companies of each other. As such the salaries have improved

[Betty Boop]

I love the idea that a Union man is called Bickerstaffe. I hope that's true. :greengrin

:greengrin Yes that is his name. He is an excellent speaker.

[speedy_gonzales]

Why do you think so? Very curious to know why. If you don't mind me asking are you a train driver?

That pay is better than many experienced nurses, many doctors, firemen, policemen, engineers-all jobs that are more stressful, require more traiining and require more difficult decision making. I think you are very much in a minority in believing that train drivers pay is too low. I feel they are very much overpaid
Do you know how much training is required to be a train driver? Put it this way, if it wasn't difficult and if the first couple of (low paid)years didn't mean I'd have to take a pay cut, I'd be first in the queue for a job. The selection process is quite difficult, the drop out rate is very high and the stress, well there certainly is a moderate to high stress factor in the job. Then, like much of the professions you mentioned, there is constant appraisals, further training, rule book updates and woe betide you if you fail a communications exam or run a red light. Like most safety critical jobs there is a pay premium but little margin for error from the management if you screw up.

[goosano]

Do you know how much training is required to be a train driver? Put it this way, if it wasn't difficult and if the first couple of (low paid)years didn't mean I'd have to take a pay cut, I'd be first in the queue for a job. The selection process is quite difficult, the drop out rate is very high and the stress, well there certainly is a moderate to high stress factor in the job. Then, like much of the professions you mentioned, there is constant appraisals, further training, rule book updates and woe betide you if you fail a communications exam or run a red light. Like most safety critical jobs there is a pay premium but little margin for error from the management if you screw up.

Yes, I am aware of how much training there is for the job. Not that long. That is part of my point. Compare it to a nurse who works over many many years to get to say a senior post in an intensive care ward for less pay-years and yearsof learning.

The first couple of years are hardly low paid-£20K is hardly shabby to start learning. The selection process is difficult because it is very competitive-so many people want to get the job and the high wages. Appraisals and updates are part of any semi skilled job. Woe betide any nurse who ignores obvious danger signals from monitors. And in that kind of job you have to adapt to problems from hour to hour, prioritise and use initiative. Most train driving is mundane.

It is a responsible job that requires a lot of attention-one mistake can be fatal but there are many safeguards built in. But rocket science it ain't

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think it's fair to get into arguments about whose job is worth more money. We are all worth what the market will pay, and unions are there to make sure we get a good deal.

[speedy_gonzales]

Yes, I am aware of how much training there is for the job. Not that long. That is part of my point. Compare it to a nurse who works over many many years to get to say a senior post in an intensive care ward for less pay-years and yearsof learning.

The first couple of years are hardly low paid-£20K is hardly shabby to start learning. The selection process is difficult because it is very competitive-so many people want to get the job and the high wages. Appraisals and updates are part of any semi skilled job. Woe betide any nurse who ignores obvious danger signals from monitors. And in that kind of job you have to adapt to problems from hour to hour, prioritise and use initiative. Most train driving is mundane.

It is a responsible job that requires a lot of attention-one mistake can be fatal but there are many safeguards built in. But rocket science it ain't
Perhaps it is deliberate but comparing the transition from a nurse to a senior post in an intensive care ward is not comparable to someone training to be a train driver, I would suggest a basic train driver for Scotrail is the bottom rung of the ladder compared to a driver that is expert on the intercity routes. Regardless, driver training, like many other professions, is intensive and not just a couple of weeks or months.
The 2nd point I've highlighted, mistakes, I'm pretty sure mistakes are made all the times in all jobs, however, I don't know many jobs where a mistake can be made, where there is no loss of service or endangerment to life, that can lead to you losing you job with very little right to appeal.

Anyways, I look at train drivers as being quasi-civil service anyway, due to the way they are paid, from where they come from, the fact their pension is protected and enshrined in parliamentary law, heck, their bin-men, nurses, teachers playing with toy train sets!

[goosano]

I don't think it's fair to get into arguments about whose job is worth more money. We are all worth what the market will pay, and unions are there to make sure we get a good deal.

A number of professionals can't strike or can only do so on a very limited basis. You can't say that a policemans pay is based on what the market will pay

Train drivers get a high wage because they are highly unionised as has been stated. The skills they have to have to do the job do not in any way merit their pay. I think most of the other professionals I have mentioned should be paid much more but the constraints are not due to the market

[BEEJ]

Reading through this thread has been fascinating. :greengrin One comment and one observation:

1) I completely support the right of public sector workers to strike to defend their Ts and Cs of employment.

2) I reflected the other day on those I know / in my circle of friends who have been able to retire early (i.e. before the age of 60). With the exception of one private-sector millionaire, they are all public sector workers - Finance Manager in local government, middle-ranking government civil servant etc.

I suspect that I'll be working on in the private sector until I'm 66 (if spared).


So because your employer is poor you think its wrong for others to fight theirs to maintain their existing conditions. It's not a tax payer subsidised pension its a term that OUR public sector workers get as part of their terms and conditions. Envy is not a good starting point for anything
Not a question of poor employer ethics. Final salary pension schemes are now unaffordable in the private sector. The amounts to be paid into the schemes to guarantee employee pension based on final salary are eye-watering. Just close the place down. No choice. Full stop.


Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Why do public sector workers get obscene pensions, when everybody else doesn't?" but:

"Why don't private sector workers get decent pensions?"

Lots of my friends in the private sector choose not to pay into a pension. The Government recently backed down from implementing the "auto-enrolment" scheme for SME's. Why? Because companies said it was a cost they couldn't bear. Fair enough, as long as it happens when the economy recovers (which inevitably it will).
No they didn't. They just pushed the timescales out another year for the smallest of companies (50 employees or less).


The basic state pension (i.e. close to the poverty line) is £7,800. The average public sector pension is £10,000. Hardly "Gold Plated"!
You can only say that £10,000 is gold-plated when you know the details such as years worked, hours per week and average salary that went towards earning that pension.

The key comparison is not the average pension earned in the public sector, it's what those same workers would get as a pension in the private sector for the equivalent work. Answer: nothing like the same.


I think that's part of the problem, J. Not aimed at you directly but a lot of folk don't understand the reasoning/details behind much of the changes beyond the black/white statements being released in the tit-for-tat nonsense between the govt and unions. I'm not saying that everything is justified btw.

Not a single penny of anyone's contribution goes directly to funding their Final Salary entitlement, particularly in the public sector. So to argue that the extra contribution isn't even going into the pension scheme is a bit pointless. The extra contributions are going to the Treasury which has to fund the pension schemes.

In the private sector, employees have either lost their FS pension (when I say 'lost', I mean for future entitlement), had it changed to 'career average' or been forced to contribute more to maintain it as the cost of funding these schemes has rocketed (partly due to new accounting reporting, partly due to the scrapping of tax credit by Brown in 1997, partly due to increased life expectancy and a range of other factors).

So, if the cost of funding Final Salary pensions is increasing, life expectancy is increasing and everyone is having to work longer, either the public sector has to follow suit or someone has to pay for it - the taxpayer or the public sector employees.
:top marks I find that many of my friends who work in the public sector cannot fathom just how different a money-purchase pension scheme is. To be fair, they've never had to.


Public Service workers are generally paid less than their counter parts in the Private Sector.

They don't receive whopping bonuses, they don't get shares or share options and they can't get heavily discounted employee mortgages.

However, they do have the promise of some dignity in later life because of their pension, which, if they work for 40 years, might be as "much" as half of their salary.
So you're assuming then that every private sector worker is remunerated in the same way as those in the finance industry? You need to get out more. :greengrin


I've been on PAYE for 33 years. I've had no opportunity to work on the side or find clever ways to avoid paying tax. I've worked every day since i left school and never claimed benefit or help with mortgage or council tax. To now punish me by removing what I was promised if I did all this, is scandalous.
I fit into that description too. But I've worked in the private sector all my working life. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

A number of professionals can't strike or can only do so on a very limited basis. You can't say that a policemans pay is based on what the market will pay

Train drivers get a high wage because they are highly unionised as has been stated. The skills they have to have to do the job do not in any way merit their pay. I think most of the other professionals I have mentioned should be paid much more but the constraints are not due to the market

I certainly think nurses should start on a basic of around £50k, :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

That's a bit harsh FH. I can't speak for others but I had a long fight with myself before deciding to strike. It meant leaving colleagues to shoulder the burden, and we are up against it at the moment where I work. I am sure many people have similair stories - if nothing else, we're giving up a days pay for something we believe in strongly.

For me it's a fundamental question and although I can sleep at night, I left work with a heavy heart last night. Maybe it won't make a difference, but on a personal level I have stood up for my rights, in a democratic society. I would hate history to judge us as having given in without a fight.

To be perfectly honest, my thoughts aren't with the workers in this sector at all. It is solely with the elderly, infirm and vulnerable people that they are paid to help.

The fact that all local authorities couldn't guarantee on Wednesday that these people would receive the normal level of support that they require is absolutely shocking. You are talking about people who have all sorts of serious illnesses, such as dementia, who need help with the most basic tasks in life just to get through the day and require prompting with things such as medication.

Not all of them have a family to rely on for help and support.

My grandmother received help from the council's homecare service. She passed away several weeks ago but if she had still been alive, who knows if she would have had anyone to help her on Wednesday. She was in the fortunate position in that she had lots of family around her to help and support her but not everyone's in that position.


Shocking.

My mother once told me that when she was growing up, she used to see men queuing at factory gates in the hope that they could get some work that day.

The gaffers used to come out and shout "Who'll give me a day's work for a pound?". Hundreds of hands would go up.

Then, "Who'll work for 10 shillings?". Loads of hands.

Then "5 shillings" and so on until some poor man whose family was starving would agree to take a pittance, just because he had nothing at all.

That's what you're advocating. And it's very very wrong.

Don't complain about bad treatment because there's someone else having an even worse time of it. Jeezo.

Oh, and in your ridiculous analogy, the people who would cut their right arm off to be in work, should be grateful they've got one arm left, I suppose, should they?

I don't see what's ridiculous about it at all.

The economic situation facing this country, along with many others in Europe, is absolutely dire. If you listen to any of the so called experts, it's probably going to get a whole lot worse over the next 12-18 months (maybe even longer).

I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be wanting to protect something that they've always had but sometimes you've got to look at the wider picture and place yourself in the grand scheme of things and, at the moment, when unemployment is at an all-time high, I would just be thankful that I had a job to go to every day.


Essential services were not targeted, Health and Social care decided what was essential. (In Edinburgh anyway)

Read my post again. I know this didn't happen in every local authority. I even accept that in most local authorities, vital services like this were protected on Wednesday. I said that "in some areas", the local authority could not guarantee that all home care services would be provided at the normal level.

I find that disgraceful, for the reasons that I have outlined above to Filled Rolls.


Ashamed of themselves? Having personal experience of this vital service yourself FH, you should realise what an exceptional job these people do on near minimum wages and a heavy work load. Apart from fighting personally within themselves whether to strike or not as FR has stated do you think that these "shameful" workers took striking lightly on a financial front knowing they were losing a days wage out of their Christmas pay?

As I have already stated to FR above, my thoughts are not with the workers in this area at all here. My only concern is if the elderly men and women, who rely on these people for completing basic everyday tasks, were looked after properly on Wednesday or not.

If there was even one person who did not receive the required level of care that they need on Wednesday because of this action taking place then, yes, I do find that situation shameful.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't think it's fair to get into arguments about whose job is worth more money. We are all worth what the market will pay, and unions are there to make sure we get a good deal.

100% correct.
I would add that the Union can only do it's job if it's members support it's actions.

[lucky]

Perhaps it is deliberate but comparing the transition from a nurse to a senior post in an intensive care ward is not comparable to someone training to be a train driver, I would suggest a basic train driver for Scotrail is the bottom rung of the ladder compared to a driver that is expert on the intercity routes. Regardless, driver training, like many other professions, is intensive and not just a couple of weeks or months.
The 2nd point I've highlighted, mistakes, I'm pretty sure mistakes are made all the times in all jobs, however, I don't know many jobs where a mistake can be made, where there is no loss of service or endangerment to life, that can lead to you losing you job with very little right to appeal.

Anyways, I look at train drivers as being quasi-civil service anyway, due to the way they are paid, from where they come from, the fact their pension is protected and enshrined in parliamentary law, heck, their bin-men, nurses, teachers playing with toy train sets!

Whilst you are correct on some points others are not true. I'm not aware of driver who gets removed from driving without a hearing and an appeal. Training takes around 18 months. Then you get further development and more training. On the pension point, your not quite right the government/ Scottish government acts as operator of last resorts. This means they will run the franchise which includes the pension costs if no private operator will. Train driving has got people from many different backgrounds as such its disingenuous to describe them as playing with train set. They are highly skilled individuals bring represented by the strongest craft union in ASLEF.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be perfectly honest, my thoughts aren't with the workers in this sector at all. It is solely with the elderly, infirm and vulnerable people that they are paid to help.

The fact that all local authorities couldn't guarantee on Wednesday that these people would receive the normal level of support that they require is absolutely shocking. You are talking about people who have all sorts of serious illnesses, such as dementia, who need help with the most basic tasks in life just to get through the day and require prompting with things such as medication.

Not all of them have a family to rely on for help and support.

My grandmother received help from the council's homecare service. She passed away several weeks ago but if she had still been alive, who knows if she would have had anyone to help her on Wednesday. She was in the fortunate position in that she had lots of family around her to help and support her but not everyone's in that position.


Like I said, I think you're being a bit harsh. Nobody knows more the impact on their clients than the people who look after them.

They probably know a lot more about the impact than the ministers on the other side of this dispute.

[IndieHibby]

The Hutton Report is quite clear on the requirement to raise contributions from employees so I fail to see why you paint this as just a cunning ruse from David and George.

It's not the raising of contributions that is the ruse, it's the use of spiteful invective, lies and threats in the media that I have grown sick of. But, it is a lesson well-learned and shan't be forgotten easily :wink:



Edit: Apologies Inidie I see you are English based so understand your post now...could be said though that the Coalition are doing more than Labour did in trying to free schools from such control although like all Governments they seem to be finding it hard to stop those centralising habits!

Which is actually a good point. Labours Academies were basically used to get schools in Special Measures out - they had the choice of closing down or becoming an Academy. Some choice! The new wave of Acadmies are actually the best solution as they seem to be the school that want to remove themselves from LA control. This is A Good Thing.

Free Schools? They fill me with fear, they really do. The notion that a new school, run by amatuers or teachers who can't do a good job in their current school, are the answer is laughable. They'll end up being run by idealogues, creationists and other vested-interest nutjobs, for the benefit of everyone apart from the kids.

And unless they become selective, they will still have to face the same challenges as other schools do. When schools become independently selective (which is inevitable, imo) then communities will become even more divided than they already are.

[speedy_gonzales]

Whilst you are correct on some points others are not true. I'm not aware of driver who gets removed from driving without a hearing and an appeal. Training takes around 18 months. Then you get further development and more training. On the pension point, your not quite right the government/ Scottish government acts as operator of last resorts. This means they will run the franchise which includes the pension costs if no private operator will. Train driving has got people from many different backgrounds as such its disingenuous to describe them as playing with train set. They are highly skilled individuals bring represented by the strongest craft union in ASLEF.
Having worked in the railway for 19 years I have come across a few drivers removed from the cab for SPAD's.
Regarding the pension, I was referring to the fact that the fund/pension is protected by an act from the start of last century that protects the railwaymen to their indefeasible rights, protected status etc.

[speedy_gonzales]

You may well have met a few but I have represented them for 19 years so I think I slightly more qualified on this than you or anyone else in Scotland.
You are correct on.your pension statement now though.
Stab in the dark, but do you work for East Coast, go to the games with Chris?

[speedy_gonzales]

Aah, just putting a face to a moniker, I'm a rep for RMT, work with S&T based in the Waverley.

[Leicester Fan]

It's not the raising of contributions that is the ruse, it's the use of spiteful invective, lies and threats in the media


You could just as easily say that about the unions as the govt.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Aah, just putting a face to a moniker, I'm a rep for RMT, work with S&T based in the Waverley.

You know much about the Maritime side Speedy? Not asking to make a dig mate, but the combining of the two unions was in my viewpoint the end of a Seaman's Union. I was an NUS rep and then an RMT rep for years. Afraid I became totally disillusioned with the support for seamen and the way the whole British Merchant Navy was allowed to disppear without a whimper from the unions. Sad and doleful times indeed.

[speedy_gonzales]

You know much about the Maritime side Speedy? Not asking to make a dig mate, but the combining of the two unions was in my viewpoint the end of a Seaman's Union. I was an NUS rep and then an RMT rep for years. Afraid I became totally disillusioned with the support for seamen and the way the whole British Merchant Navy was allowed to disppear without a whimper from the unions. Sad and doleful times indeed.
Heard this in the past from others, having joined in '92 the NUR and NUS had already merged. The RMT ranks are still divided by that, even now the RMT chases other issues not relating to previous NUS/NUR causes, such as London taxi drivers and various pockets of coach drivers around the country. Personally I think it can only water the RMT argument down, it would be a very rare day to have EVERY single RMT member out in unity!

[IWasThere2016]

so you won't forego any benefit the unions get you then?

Most unions seem to be on their backs allowing Danny Alexander tae tickle their tummies!

[greenlex]

On top of my 20 odd % wage cut a number of weeks ago it's a there or four day week to look forward to in the new year. It just gets better and better.
Would this happening the Public sector? Didn't think so.

[Phil D. Rolls]

On top of my 20 odd % wage cut a number of weeks ago it's a there or four day week to look forward to in the new year. It just gets better and better.
Would this happening the Public sector? Didn't think so.

I'd be asking my union what is going on.

[greenlex]

I'd be asking my union what is going on.
It's a take it or leave it. Leave it and it's job speakers allowance. Take it and it's what it is.

[Geo_1875]

It's a take it or leave it. Leave it and it's job speakers allowance. Take it and it's what it is.

That's what happens when you work for a "profit making" organisation. They don't make a profit, you don't have a job.

[Leicester Fan]

That's what happens when you work for a "profit making" organisation. They don't make a profit, you don't have a job.

Apart from all those companies that are making a loss,

[Phil D. Rolls]

Apart from all those companies that are making a loss,

Unless your company's name includes the words "Bank of", then it's every one else that loses money, while you continue to use £5 notes to run your central heating.

[Andy74]

Unless your company's name includes the words "Bank of", then it's every one else that loses money, while you continue to use £5 notes to run your central heating.

Or certain public services that have been costing the country far more than the banks ever have over the years due to mismanagemenet or inefficiencies.

[ancienthibby]

Or certain public services that have been costing the country far more than the banks ever have over the years due to mismanagemenet or inefficiencies.

You've just voted for Christmas, Turkey!!

The great mis-management in the he UK public services has been their astonishing waste in the Army, losing £1 billion of equipment that it can no longer find!!

As for the costs the country has to bear because of the unfathomable greed of the banks - is there a number in the universe that covers this??????

[Jack]

Or certain public services that have been costing the country far more than the banks ever have over the years due to mismanagemenet or inefficiencies.

A popular misconception this mismanagemenet and inefficiencies unless you have evidence to the contrary?

[greenlex]

Here is a true story that sums up a section of the public sector.
In the Western Isles council the strike coincided with their StAndrews day holiday. What did they do? They took the Friday off as a holiday because the missed it as they were on strike. You couldn't really make it up.

Another Public sector story. My ex Father in law ( well my ex partners father) worked for highland council for 4 years as a Handyman at the museum in Newtonmre.
His pension? £500 a month!!!!!! He had his contributions back within a few months f retiring. He could live another 20 years. Something's gotta give.

[Geo_1875]

Here is a true story that sums up a section of the public sector.
In the Western Isles council the strike coincided with their StAndrews day holiday. What did they do? They took the Friday off as a holiday because the missed it as they were on strike. You couldn't really make it up.

Another Public sector story. My ex Father in law ( well my ex partners father) worked for highland council for 4 years as a Handyman at the museum in Newtonmre.
His pension? £500 a month!!!!!! He had his contributions back within a few months f retiring. He could live another 20 years. Something's gotta give.

Here's a true story from the Public Sector. Your ex-father in law was either earning £120,000 per year as a council handyman or he transferred in previous service from a qualifying scheme. Only alternative is you're talking pish.

[greenlex]

Here's a true story from the Public Sector. Your ex-father in law was either earning £120,000 per year as a council handyman or he transferred in previous service from a qualifying scheme. Only alternative is you're talking pish.

Passing on the story from his daughter. Maybe she or indeed he is talking Pish?

[Leicester Fan]

Here's a true story from the Public Sector. Your ex-father in law was either earning £120,000 per year as a council handyman or he transferred in previous service from a qualifying scheme. Only alternative is you're talking pish.
£500 a month is £6k a year. Are you saying that someone in the public sector who earns £120k a year only gets £6k p.a. or have you got your sums wrong?

[Jonnyboy]

Here is a true story that sums up a section of the public sector.
In the Western Isles council the strike coincided with their StAndrews day holiday. What did they do? They took the Friday off as a holiday because the missed it as they were on strike. You couldn't really make it up.

Another Public sector story. My ex Father in law ( well my ex partners father) worked for highland council for 4 years as a Handyman at the museum in Newtonmre.
His pension? £500 a month!!!!!! He had his contributions back within a few months f retiring. He could live another 20 years. Something's gotta give.

I worked in the public sector for over 30 years A and I witnessed inefficiency, daft decisions etc but they were few in number compared to my witnessing the good work done by the vast majority of public sector employees. I guess what I'm saying is that the odd story about inefficiency and daft decisions tends to hog the headlines and gives a tainted picture of the whole sector.

As to your ex partners Dad - either your ex partner or your ex partners Dad are telling porkies :wink:

[Geo_1875]

£500 a month is £6k a year. Are you saying that someone in the public sector who earns £120k a year only gets £6k p.a. or have you got your sums wrong?

4 years service on £120k gets you £6k pa in an 80th final salary scheme. That's the sums.

[Jonnyboy]

4 years service on £120k gets you £6k pa in an 80th final salary scheme. That's the sums.

Helluva salary for a Handyman likesae :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

Helluva salary for a Handyman likesae :greengrin

And that's without overtime which doesn't count towards pensionable pay.

[IndieHibby]

I do love the implication that there is no waste or inefficiency in the private sector.

[Jonnyboy]

I do love the implication that there is no waste or inefficiency in the private sector.

:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I do love the implication that there is no waste or inefficiency in the private sector.

No evidence of that in Edinburgh. I can only think of one corporate HQ that was abandoned 10 years after it opened. It's in Tanfield.

[Leicester Fan]

I do love the implication that there is no waste or inefficiency in the private sector.

If there is inefficiency in the private sector then the shareholders lose money. Nobody is forced to to pay for the private sector, if the private sector loses money eventually it will go out of business. None of this applies in the public sector.

Before some smart ar5e starts there are other private sector businesses than banks.

[Geo_1875]

If there is inefficiency in the private sector then the shareholders lose money. Nobody is forced to to pay for the private sector, if the private sector loses money eventually it will go out of business. None of this applies in the public sector.

Before some smart ar5e starts there are other private sector businesses than banks.

So when a firm makes losses and lays off staff their benefits are paid by Santa Claus?

[Jack]

If there is inefficiency in the private sector then the shareholders lose money. Nobody is forced to to pay for the private sector, if the private sector loses money eventually it will go out of business. None of this applies in the public sector.

Before some smart ar5e starts there are other private sector businesses than banks.

Of course everyone is forced to pay for the private sector, through the acquisition of goods and services whether that is a supermarket or a utility company or even a bank. The motive is profit above all else, if it is to the mutual benefit of the customer fine, it’s a balance of how much the company can squeeze the customer.

The public sector is there for the ultimate benefit of the public, their shareholders. So the motive is to provide public services at the lowest possible cost, it’s a balance too.

Neither side has the copyright on efficiency.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If there is inefficiency in the private sector then the shareholders lose money. Nobody is forced to to pay for the private sector, if the private sector loses money eventually it will go out of business. None of this applies in the public sector.

Before some smart ar5e starts there are other private sector businesses than banks.

I admire your gunboat diplomacy. But, like it or not, the banks were bailed out, at the expense of public services. It's not going to go away by calling people smart *****.

Anyway, there are plenty of occasions when banks prop up failing businesses, at the expense of small investors. So inefficient companies do go on.

[Eyrie]

The public sector should be there for the ultimate benefit of the public, their stake holders. However, as with any large organisation (public or private), many of those involved regard being there as just a job and have no sense of responsibility towards the public.

The key difference is that if a business upsets its customers they can vote with their wallets. Short of moving house, how do I get away from Edinburgh Council? Can I find a tax collection organisation that is less incompetent than HMRC?

[Jack]

The public sector should be there for the ultimate benefit of the public, their stake holders. However, as with any large organisation (public or private), many of those involved regard being there as just a job and have no sense of responsibility towards the public.

The key difference is that if a business upsets its customers they can vote with their wallets. Short of moving house, how do I get away from Edinburgh Council? Can I find a tax collection organisation that is less incompetent than HMRC?

That’s the trouble with living in a democracy you only get to vote every few years! :greengrin

[Eyrie]

It doesn't help that I rarely vote for the eventual council/government, and even when I do I'm always disappointed.

[Leicester Fan]

So when a firm makes losses and lays off staff their benefits are paid by Santa Claus?

What's your point?

[Leicester Fan]

Of course everyone is forced to pay for the private sector, through the acquisition of goods and services whether that is a supermarket or a utility company or even a bank.


You can shop at Asda instead of Tesco, you can buy your gas from NPower instead of British gas and you can bank with Lloyds instead of Barclays.

Of course there is inefficiency in the private sector but they bear the expense of that inefficiency, if the inefficiency continues then eventually someone will lose their job either through redundancy or the sack. In the public sector inefficiency is resolved by hiring even more staff.

[Jack]

You can shop at Asda instead of Tesco, you can buy your gas from NPower instead of British gas and you can bank with Lloyds instead of Barclays.

Of course there is inefficiency in the private sector but they bear the expense of that inefficiency, if the inefficiency continues then eventually someone will lose their job either through redundancy or the sack. In the public sector inefficiency is resolved by hiring even more staff.

:faf: You'll know as a fact then rather than the Daily Mail type bollox it actually is then? :spammy:

[Leicester Fan]

:faf: You'll know as a fact then rather than the Daily Mail type bollox it actually is then? :spammy:

I know people who work in the public sector, is that a good enough source?

[Jonnyboy]

I know people who work in the public sector, is that a good enough source?

We probably all do.

Saying inefficiency is resolved by hiring more staff is laughable. Public sector is shedding jobs, not creating them