On 30 Jun 2011 at 8:54am Clifford wrote:
Best wishes and good luck to all strikers today. Anyone listening to Francis Maude lying his way through a radio interview this morning will know the strikers are right. Don't make the workers pay for the bankers incompetence.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 9:58am Private Sector Worker wrote:
Yeah good luck lads, I'll just carry on so I can pay for your pension, leave, sick leave, etc.
Clifford, are you wearing your 'coal not dole' badge today? 
On 30 Jun 2011 at 10:21am Back to work! wrote:
Interesting news item from the unbiassed BBC on Tuesday. Apparemntlt public sector pensions are about 4 x higher on average than private sector pensions. Strike? For what? Shame on them.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 10:52am Private Sector Worker 2 wrote:
I am a contractor working alongside public sector staff. I get to work in London at 07:00hrs, my public sector colleagues arrive at 09:00hrs. They take their 1hr for lunch, I work at my desk. They go home on the dot at 16:45, I leave sometime after 17:30hrs. They get 30 days leave per year plus bank holidays, I get 28 days including bank holidays. I used to be in a final salary scheme, this has been changed and is now based on average earnings. It is my choice I know, but I am not complaining. The public sector should have nothing to complain about either - this is the reality of life. (By the way, I am on holiday this week)
On 30 Jun 2011 at 11:05am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Clifford you are right, the workers shouldn't have to pay for the bankers incompetence (I'd have added greed to that as well). However they should receive a pension relevant to their pension contributions.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 11:55am annoyed wrote:
Private sector pensions have reduced in value in the last ten years or so, due to the general devaluing of the stock market & insurance industries etc.. Public sector pensions have been propped up by the Government during this period. Private sector workers are paying the same into a pension that will pay them less than they expected when they started paying in. Private and public sector workers are paying their taxes to enable the government to prop up public sector pensions, so as it stands public sector workers can, at this moment in time (before any changes that are proposed are introduced) expect to get the "full" value of their pension, as it has been propped up by government.
Why should private sector workers subsidize public sector pensions in this way?
The government cannot afford to continue to prop up public sector pensions, without raising taxes for everyone, so why should the private sector subsidize the public sector further?
The public sector have to wake up and see reality, and get in the same boat as those in the private sector, and accept that the pot of gold they were expecting at retirement, will be smaller than they had hoped, same as everyone in the private sector.
Striking will not do any good, it only leads to further resentment of their self pitying stance on this.
How many public sector workers would like the private sector to go on strike and close down? No supermarkets, petrol stations, pubs, shops, cinemas, taxis, builders, gardeners........the list goes on.
I would imagine that most people would be up in arms just at the thought of the supermarkets closing due to strike action, and your average supermarket employee earns a lot less and has lesser pension expectations than the average public sector employee!
If you don't like the public sector pension plans, get out and make room for someone without a job, who would be glad of what you are moaning about!
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:15pm Realist wrote:
You've said it all all annoyed. Many think it (even the public sector leeches), but will not accept it in their greed.
Public sector potted analysis:
'Never in the history of this land have so many taken so much from so few for so long.'
It's got to stop now and make them join the real world. Many of them wouldn't get to the interview stage in the Private sector.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:25pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Today's starting salary is a minimum of £21,500 for a teacher. If they remain on the same pay scale with 3% rises every year they would end up on £68k after 40 years teaching. If they paid 11% into their pension they would have a contributed £178k. As there is no pension fund as such that is their contribution. If they finished on a half final salary non index linked salary pension it would take less than 9 years to deplete. There has just been a teacher on the radio saying teachers deserve a huge pension because of the hard work they put into teaching and the extra hours they do. What they deserve is a proper wage for what they do, paid for all the work they do. Then they could pay into their pension pot at a rate that would give them the pension they want. Same as everyone else.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:25pm MC wrote:
The government made contract with public service workers when they hired them. Many workers have accepted lower pay due to good pension. For the state to break the contract whilst letting the banks (who are largely responsible for our debt) go scot free is scandalous.
The government have cynically manipulated this strike. The have made the talks stretch out this long to encourage the Unions to call a strike. When they know they are committed to striking they start to talk, whilst giving nothing... purely so they can say that the Unions are calling a strike before negotiations have finished. Their tactics are sly, underhand and cynical... only truly worthy of a Tory. I can guarantee that soon Cameron will start to "do a Thatcher" and curb the power of the Unions even further than it has been already. All workers will pay for this, even private workers (like the people who have written to this thread against the public sector pensions).
The government won't even tell the Unions what the value of the pension pot is! This stops the Unions being able to negotiate with full knowledge and again is deeply cynical... not to mention extremely suspicious.
Never trust a Tory, especially when they think they have a mandate to devastate the state. If you are not well-off you will pay. The bankers will not.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:26pm Taff wrote:
Divide and conquer all over again!
Not a lot has changed in30 - 40 years has it Mr. Cameron?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:37pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Even without this financial crisis, there would still come a time when we would realise we cannot afford these pensions. Pensions only work if there is a fund making interest that pays the pensions out, when it comes straight out of our taxes it makes them unsustainable. A private pension will pay out an annuity of about 6% of the pot p.a. (that is non index linked or your spouse taking a reduced pension when you die) With the rough figures worked out in my last post that would make a pension of about £10.5k.
I'm not picking on the teachers, I'm just using their salary as an example.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:38pm Back to work! wrote:
MC - you sound just like the religious zealots who post on this site i.e. a blinkered view of reality. Even the Labour opposition have reservations about this action because they know that it is flawed. The rail unions are always keen to hold the country to ransome and they have little or no support when they do. I see from the threads above that the current dispute has the same lack of support. The strike is not based on reality and is clearly politically motivated. If Cameron reacts against it (and I doubt he will) then the unions only have themselves to blame.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:40pm Private Sector Worker 2 wrote:
Starting salary for a teacher of £21,500. I know plenty of private sector workers earning far less than that even after 10 years service!
I also know a number of retired Civil Servants whose annual pension is greater than my salary.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:46pm Private sector worker 3 wrote:
PSW2 -you didn't confess to the disparity in wages though, did you?
I was a contractor working in the public sector and earned hugely more than the public sector workers working alongside me. Kind of made up for any downsides.
MC is correct - the government is breaking a contract. The pension was part of the deal - and used to get people to take on often very dispiriting work.
You are all suckers - still, another royal wedding will probably come along soon.
At least the bankers aren't suffering, eh? Teachers are a much easier target.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 12:48pm Private sector worker 3 wrote:
PSW2 - Just seen your last post and frankly don't believe you.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:09pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
PSW3 are we ALL suckers, private and public sector workers?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:15pm PSW3 wrote:
If you think that the tories have your best interests at heart, and you're not one of their eton-educated bullingdon club mates, you're a sucker.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:21pm Feline wrote:
I work for the public sector now but worked for the private sector in the past. The difference in salary I can earn in the private sector is jaw dropping but I LOATHE the attitude. My job in the private sector is infinitely more rewarding and as I'm not greedy still gives me an comfortable lifestyle.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:21pm PSW4 wrote:
Idle layabouts....
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:23pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
You're not making sense really. I don't believe the Tories have my personal interests at heart but also I'm not one of their mates as described. Where does that put me?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:26pm Back to Work! wrote:
Doe anybody truly think that ANY government has ANYBODY's best interests at heart apart from their own? Being in power is all about staying in power. The Tories are reacting to the financial mess we got ourselves into. Labour would be doing exactly the same - and I suspect (no, I know) that the unions would be striking against their draconian measures. It beggars belief that some people just do not get this.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:39pm PSW3 wrote:
ebm - read my post again - it's a sentence with only 3 clauses. Shouldn't be too difficult.
It beggars belief that people don't realise that the banks are responisble for this mess. Do a bit of research for gawd's sake.
And no - I don't think that labour would do a better job.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:43pm Private Sector Worker 2 wrote:
PSW3, whether you believe me is your perogative, however just look at Agricultural Workers as one group of private sector workers on low wages. As for the Civil servant and his pension, well lets say it is over £50,000 per year.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:57pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
It's the use of 'and' after a comma that throws the sentence. You appear to put the two clauses together to need to be a sucker. As I only come under one of the categories I wondered if I still qualified as a sucker.
Seems a shame you need to insult other posters to try and get your point across.
I don't think anyone denies it's the bankers fault mainly.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 1:59pm Pensioned Off wrote:
Historically public sector salaries were frequently lower than the equivalent in the private sector and this was balanced by more generous pension arrangements in order to attract good applicants. When deciding to take on a public sector job a person will have taken account of this and decided that the trade off was worth it. At the point of taking the job a contract of employment was created in which a particular remuneration package (which included the pension arrangements) was agreed. It seems entirely wrong that at some point in the future the terms of that contract can be changeed unilaterally by either side. The employer (i.e. Government) might have a case for saying that the pension arrangemenst are being changed for all new appointments since the applicant for a job can make a decsion as to whether the remuneration package is acceptable when they decide whether to take the job or not, but they should not be able alter the arrangements for people who are alraedy in post.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:02pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
I agree with that. Only problem is, where is the money going to come from?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:03pm Realist wrote:
Privatise everything and see what attitudes and aspirations this produces in people. Being grateful for a job might be one of them! 
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:20pm queequeg wrote:
If anybody remembers that in the early 90's Britain had the best provided private and public sector pensions in the World, until Gordon Brown decided that taxing dividends to pension funds would be a pain free way to raise money to profligately throw away on pet projects.
Now, with approaching £200 billion stripped away from private pensions, final salary schemes closed, such poor returns from pension funds that you need to have a fund that would be sufficient to buy a good house (even in Lewes) just to make ends meet.
MC asks why the government will not say what the pension funds are worth, but there isn't a pension fund! They take money in and pay it straight out to pensioners with a huge top up from general tax funds! Current contributions are paid straight out to current pensioners.
Whatever the contract of employment might have been when employment began, if it is currently unaffordable then clearly it cannot be allowed to stand for everyone's sake, there is no point in having a pension entitlement so generous that the pension you receive has to be taxed at 80% in order to fund it. We need to realise that very shortly each pensioner will be supported by only approx. 2.5 working age people, this is so obviously a game changing scenario that it frightens me that so many can't, don't, won't get it.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:32pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
The private sector workers are expected to support public sector workers in their efforts to keep their pensions, where were the public sector when the private sector pensions were being decimated.
Bit like when the miners were marching on Government in protest of their 30,000 jobs going, expecting everyone's support, although there was no noise from them about the 600,000 building jobs that were lost at the same time.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:46pm Fairly Sain wrote:
My public sector pension is too high.
Where can I get advice on how to dispose of the excess.........burning it is not an option as I belong to the Green Party and it is a worry as it's too much to spend.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 2:59pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Send it to Mrs Twine, she'll crochet it into something huge for you.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 3:23pm giveitarest wrote:
It is somewhat ironic that teachers appear to have little comprehension of the history of industrial relations in this country. Striking can only defeat a Tory government when there is massive public support for the strikers. See, for example, Ted Heath vs the miners in 1973 or Ken Clarke vs the ambulance workers in 1989. The teachers now have limited public support and they have played their only trump card way to early. What they are doing by striking now is to shoot themselves in both feet. The strike will achieve nothing, the government will then progress their proposals safe in the knowledge that the country didn't grind to a halt and the teachers will have no further basis for negotiation.
The fact is that there are huge numbers of private sector workers on salaries which are not high and with pension provision which is markedly worse than teachers would have AFTER the proposed changes. And yet the teachers expect public support. When you point out to the public sector that they cannot reasonably expect people to fund their pensions when they are worse off themselves, their only riposte is, "Blame the bankers".
It won't wash.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 4:11pm Taff wrote:
We will never have the money all the time we commit £600M plus to overseas aid.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 4:52pm PSW3 wrote:
ebm - you have a history of vile behaviour on this forum.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 5:31pm MC wrote:
no he doesn't
On 30 Jun 2011 at 5:36pm PSW3 wrote:
I've seen him hound and bully people off this site. I've been lurking here for a while now. Shame that you didn't feel the need to stand up for any of his victims.
You obviously find his behaviour acceptable. I don't.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 5:44pm PSW3 wrote:
By the way MC - who do you think you are?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 6:18pm MC wrote:
Even if's if rhetorical its a misplaced and frankly strange question. What do you mean?
On 30 Jun 2011 at 6:35pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
PSW3, if you could show me examples of vile behaviour, hounding and bullying then I would be prepared to apologise for any such behaviour. I tend to make observations and argue a point. Sometimes the only argument some posters have left is an insult. Your 16:52 post being a fine example. In fact none of your posts on this thread have been constructive.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 6:37pm supporter wrote:
free speech reigns here.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 6:43pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Couldn't agree more. I've never said people shouldn't post an insult, I only point them out for what they are.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 7:23pm bastian wrote:
Is 200 pound a month alot? because that is the average and that is now to age 66.
On 30 Jun 2011 at 7:29pm bastian wrote:
If you can afford that much on top of kids at uni and old people in private residential care because you must work to pay for your own pension so that you can afford your own care in old age,then you must be living off baked beans.(remembering that one cannot use the money from the sale of the house to pay for elderly care)We could come out of the work place to look after our own elderly..but then we would be a burden on the state..oh no..that doesn't work either..I know let's just kill our elderly because they are a burden on us then we'll top ourselves at say,65 so we aren't a burden on our kids..who we swated over getting them through uni the selfish little bu.......
you know what this is futile..the fact is that if you pay nothing you are damned,if you pay alot it isn't enough and only if you are a banker can you retire...push that shopping trolly grandma