On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:21pm bastian wrote:
Just think of all the money ESCC will save not having to pay all those naughty people who are planning to strike next week.
Of course pay freezes and a lower than expected pension will mean that public employees will not be able to contribute to the economy in any way now or in the future as their top up pensions will no longer be enough to cover the bills let alone extras.
oh well,musn't grumble
at least we they have a job.That mantra will do to keep them quiet for now.
wait for it...
On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:35pm not from around here wrote:
Very few people are supportive of the day of action apart from those involved.
Striking about pensions which (even after reform) are still way better than virtually anybody else gets? Plainly selfish and unrealistic.
The unions couldn't even get much support for their members for strike action with one union involved reportedly only having 25% of their members voting for strike action.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:45pm bastian wrote:
I'm not sure where you get your facts from but that is untrue, support has been overwhelming and with people involved who have never struck before.
Understand one thing, when the public sector lose an established, written into their contract provision, the rest of society loses another foothold in their private jobs..no one wishes that.
Yes the free childcare service will be withdrawn for a day...mr cameron says you can take them to work with you...he's really thought about it hasn't he,all those screaming brats in the office being bored.
Everyone deserves a SAFE pension fund,something that won't just evaporate because someone stupid floats it unwisely.My heart goes out to all those who have lost pensions over the years because of their companies negligence, or because the pension pot was considered part of a dying companies assets.
I have put the money into my pension and I pay tax..I do not resent paying for someone elses needs.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 4:47pm bastian wrote:
My pension will be £3981 per annum in 2030...I wonder if Bob Diamond thinks that's alot of money?
On 24 Nov 2011 at 5:07pm Not from around here wrote:
I pay tax as you do and part of that tax goes to support pensions. What I don't like is the fact that there is a section of society (public service union represented) that thinks it is a special case and deserves more than anybody else.
In an ideal world (which we clearly don't have) we would ALL have good pensions but the reality is different. If one accepts that it is unfair to expect tax payers to subsidise a specific section of the workforce (i.e Teachers etc) then what justification can there be for striking to receive a better pension than anybody else?
Incidentally (apart from basic state pension) I will receive £0 in additional pension when I retire. I have made my own provision in other ways. Perhaps I should have not bothered and gone on strike instead?
Maybe the public sector workers should show solidarity with the rest of us who are NOT striking for higher pensions than anybody else.
In terms of the figures voting for strike action: Most unions had fairly low turnouts in the ballot for strike action. Some unions as low as 25% turnout in fact. It does not take a great brain to work out that even 80% of the turnout voting for a strike still means a tiny proportion of the actual workforce/union membership. i.e 80% of 25% is.. well you work it out.
The point being that most workers did NOT vote for a strike.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 6:09pm bastian wrote:
they did vote to strike in majority..no one is striking for a higher pension..they are striking to keep their pension that they have paid into for years to remain at the level that they were promised in their contract.
If you have made provision for old age in another manner then you must be one of the fortunate few that were paid enough in their life time to do so.
It is not just taechers whoa re on strike,manyual workers are still paid very little and they are losing their pension agreements toCan we try and find a way that isn't just a race to the bottom..a reasonable agreement for everyone.
Light blue touch paper and retire....
On 24 Nov 2011 at 7:40pm cyclist wrote:
Of course the tax payer needs to subsidise public service pensions, they are part of the renumeration package received by the workforce. If the tax payer did not pay these wages, all services would have to be paid for on an individual basis with those who cannot afford them going without, or relying on charity. Many of the public sector pension schemes are in surplus, the extra taken by the government to spend in other areas. Public servants are being asked to pay more for these schemes so this is in effect a pay cut. Perhaps if it was reported like that you may understand why many public servants are so angry.
The results of the ballots have been overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. Of the people who did not vote why assume that they were not in favour? They did not vote we don't know why they did not but you cannot assume they were against action they could have said so and voted no. If you chose not to invest in a pension scheme so don't have a pension then that is your choice. Perhaps the people who say they will not receive a decent pension should join a union, pay the union fees, and get their unions to fight for their rights rather than constantly berrating the public sector and the unions. NB Why not look at the size of pensions received by government ministers, and newspaper editors, jounalists etc who constantly peddle the 'golden pensions' for public servants myth
On 24 Nov 2011 at 7:49pm Clifford wrote:
Not from around here wrote: 'I will receive £0 in additional pension when I retire. I have made my own provision in other ways. Perhaps I should have not bothered and gone on strike instead?'
What would you do if the organisation you're making the pension arrangements with told you they were reneging on them, that you'd have to pay more towards it and would have to work longer before you got it? Roll over? We're constantly told that we're all shareholders now because most of the investors are pension funds. Funny how we're told at the same time that private pensions have been closing down for years and most private sector workers won't be getting pensions. What's happened to all our money? And you think the best way of resolving that is to make sure public sector workers suffer as well.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 7:58pm Zebedee wrote:
Nice post John, yours too Clifford. Unusual to see so much sense here. Very different from the usual uninformed rubbish.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 8:27pm supporter wrote:
it's about time they changed the laws on striking requiring over 50% of the membership to actually vote,in that way you would get a true mandate.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 8:46pm Paul Newman wrote:
Cyclist, every year the Exchequer pays a balancing amount into the Public Sec tor Pension funds.It could hardly be otherwise as they are index linked,defined benefit and guaranteed. Try buying that at any price .
Obviously you want to keep your sweet deal ,equally obviously taxpayers do not see why they should pay for it when the Public Sector has also had far higher pay rises and in the competitive environment such perks have long since disappeared .If you do not feel the remuneration package you receive is sufficient to retain your services thats up to you.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 9:19pm Zebedee wrote:
It's very simple. The govt are breaking the contract.
Mr Newman, you simply don't deserve the state education and health systems. Stick your three kids in private school and pay BUPA for your families health care. Obviously you can afford this (otherwise you look very hollow).
On 24 Nov 2011 at 10:29pm Anne Arkey wrote:
I terminated my public sector pension some years ago after I received notification that if I continued to pay into it for year on end, I could look forward to a pension of £600pa!
Needless to say, I decided to pay an additional ¬£100 to my mortgage each month (as that was what I was paying towards the private pension.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 11:12pm Tax-payer wrote:
Many contracts are re-negotiated in all walks of life, when circumstances change. So the public sector really needs to get with it.
There are, as I understand it, no changes proposed to already-accrued pension rights, so people should stop fookin bleating on as if changes are being back-dated to take away 'earned' benefits (and I use that word with a caveat for some parts of the public sector).
On 25 Nov 2011 at 1:59am Peasant wrote:
You choose a job, and the pension (including sometimes no pension) is part of the package. Public and private sector remuneration is, over the years, pretty even. Some people take the cash now and spend it; others manage with less, but look ahead and put more into the future. Telling them, late in the day, that you are taking their future away is the government behaving like Robert Maxwell. It is not going to go down well, and rightly so. When headteachers vote to strike, something is wrong.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:16am expat two wrote:
Agreed Peasant, except 'Public and private sector remuneration is, over the years, pretty even.' This is only recently the case. Public sector pay is rarely, if ever, increased beyond inflation rates whilst private sector pay is relative to market forces. During the recent decades of 'economic growth' the private sector decided not to reflect that growth in wage increases, and the public sector, with their inflation rises have almost caught up. This is, as said above, about the private sector workers being short changed and now being encouraged to see the public sector as greedy for expecting what was promised.
But hey, there's plenty of people out there who would be prepared to do the jobs for less, and we don't really want good teachers, or coppers or firefighters, just cheap ones. Isn't that the theory?
On 25 Nov 2011 at 7:08am Paul Newman wrote:
Expat your theory takes us back to the 70s when wages as a cost of capital were high. The country was an international joke and the industries where that was true went out of business, thats why the Unions are all public sector now.
Its not just the salary increases .Take teachers as compared to the hard working parents they will meet at the school gate .
No travel costs.If kids arrive job held open. No need to worry about paying for child care through the endless holidays the typical two income household has to navigate; priceless. Final Salary linked, index linked, guaranteed defined benefit pension‚?¶priceless, although a pot of £750,000 might do it for a teacher on £30,000. Cannot be fired ( 18 dumped since the war )
.Cannot go out of business. No need to hit any target and sure enough the OECD say that allowing for grade inflation absolutely no progress made
The Union protected side got an additional 15% during the Blair/ Brown period. 40% of graduates going into the dependent sector ( thats about 20% of the work force) but 50% of top grads as more and more supposed higher level jobs are divided up .If you include employers Pension contributions ( and this is from the ONS) the media Public Sector employee gets a full 30% more and if you put in the true cost *(including future treasury balances to the fund) the Premium is more like 50% overall.
The people on striking are now some of the most privileged in the country and if this continues there are likely to be some tense moments . Working mothers who are in effect being told they are worthless b y those they pay for are especially poor at disguising their rage I notice.
Sheer shame probably motivated some teachers to oppose this strike.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 8:58am bastian wrote:
most people in the public sector have been on a pay freeze for years now.
The public sector who are currently employed, say, those in their 50s who have been working for 20 years, are being told to pay more,work until they are 66-68 and get less pension in ild age.
Now this does several things:
if the public sector work for longer it means that the young are kept out of jobs
If we pay more now it limits our spending now
If we get less pension it limits our spending in the future
and if Bob Diamond can F**K up a bank, retain his job and get a bonus that was an agreed part of his contract then what kind of world are we living in ?
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:54am Clifford wrote:
Paul Newman wrote: 'Expat your theory takes us back to the 70s when wages as a cost of capital were high.'
A strange way f putting it. Paul, how do you think we should determine what proportion of wealth produced should go to capital and what proportion to labour?
On 25 Nov 2011 at 1:58pm not from around here wrote:
The strike is an action in self interest rather than national interest. It's also politically motivated on the Unions part. Look at many left leaning publications websites and you will see phrases such as " this is our chance to smash the tories" rather than "this is our chance to protect our members".
Well I'm sorry, but people didn't vote at the last election for any of the unions to run the country, they voted for one of the major political parties instead.
Some people have been comparing the pension reforms to a pay cut - well welcome to the world public service workers! People in the private sector often have their contracts re-negotiated and their pension options changed. In the private sector if a company runs out of money it has just a few options:
1. Close down - then everybody loses.
2. Make people redundant to save money
3. Save money by offering the workforce a pay cut instead of redundancies.
Except.. that in the public sector the government (read taxpayer) has to pick up the tab.
I want everybody who is going to strike and supporting the strike to be absolutely clear on one point - you are not striking against 'them' (government) you are striking against 'us' - the taxpayers who pay the bill.
BAA have just warned of major disruption if the immigration officers also go on strike. They are warning the likes of BA and other major airlines to try to make sure that planes leaving from Heathrow & Gatwick next Wednesday are only half full as there is no way of coping with the usual numbers.
Bastion, at the moment the polls show more people against the strikes than for them but expect this position to harden against once the effects of this selfish action are felt next Wednesday.
Nobody would be happy to have their pension reduced but since those contracts have been agreed the entire economic landscape has changed. Contracts must be re-negotiated as they have been in the private sector.
Paul Newman was right when he said that if they are unhappy with their terms of employment they are free to seek a better deal elsewhere. Oh, hang on a minute there ARE no deals better anywhere else!
I have a friend who is a teacher who I've known for about 10-11 years. I can say for certain that he does not work what I would call 'hard' (even though he is head-of-year). However he doesn't like being a teacher and in all the time I've known him he has wanted to leave for something else but he can't find anything else comparable in terms of pay and hours. Is that telling you something teachers and others? He doesn't stay in the post because he is committed to the job, far from it. He is there because of the comfy deal he has.
In reply to Bastian again, no I don't earn higher than average wage (certainly not anywhere near a teachers wage) but I have managed to make at least some provision for my retirement by investing some of my income in property.
In my life I have been employed, made redundant, unemployed and now self-employed. My motivation for becoming self employed was to be independent and fund myself without relying on the state or others so you can see where I'm coming from.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:22pm bastian wrote:
I am not a teacher..it's quite hard to invest in property if you earn amanual wage round here
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:25pm bastian wrote:
every time you hear a siren that's a public sector worker running to the aid of the tax payer, however rich or poor.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:28pm not from around here wrote:
Rubbish - I can assure you it's not. It's certainly harder than it was but I managed to get two buy-to-let mortgages on my modest income. The mortgages are effectively 'self-financing'. The flats are rented-out which covers the mortgage and leaves a bit left over to pay for maintenance etc.
See, it's not hard.. if you try.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:30pm not from around here wrote:
"every time you hear a siren that's a public sector worker running to the aid of the tax payer, however rich or poor."
One would hope so if that's their job - but not on 30-Nov presumably..
On 25 Nov 2011 at 2:49pm bastian wrote:
the NHS will be there..and I would love to find a mortgage broker who will lend to me on 16k pa
On 25 Nov 2011 at 3:36pm Angry wrote:
Regarding the comments about teachers - At the start of the new school year in September I (as a parent) was reminded of the need to ensure that our children attend school at all times. Missing a lesson/s results in a letter home. Obviously the teachers play by a different set of rules and values.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 4:53pm Rods Tiger wrote:
Nut From Round Here writes " In the private sector if a company runs out of money it has just a few options:
1. Close down - then everybody loses.
2. Make people redundant to save money
3. Save money by offering the workforce a pay cut instead of redundancies.
Except.. that in the public sector the government (read taxpayer) has to pick up the tab."
Errmm, are you not aware of events in the last couple of years where the taxpayer has picked up the tab ? I think that if you are going to make such lengthy and definitive statements you should at least try to keep up with what's going on.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 5:19pm Clifford wrote:
Angry - I'd be pleased that teachers are showing my children that when your employer reneges on a contract you don't just roll over like a good little serf and take it but you stand up for your rights. This country would be a lot better off if workers stood firm against greedy employers a lot more often.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 5:39pm Union Jackass wrote:
Heard a good one today, apparently staff and teachers at Ringmer Primary School who intend to strike have been told to turn up to the empty school on Wednesday (folly day).
Although the school is expected to be closed to children eager to learn and who are our/their future pension contributers, they have been advised that just by turning up they will be paid!
They really should get an education before being let loose on our children............the only one's to be paid during this strike are those that work and of course the tax funded Union 'leaders.'
The financial sector helped to bring this country down and now they have been joined by the Public (funded) sector 'workers.'
They should get a life and if they don't like their jobs, leave and try to find another gravy train.
They could look until way past the soft retiring age that they expect now and still not find anything to compare with even the new terms being offered.
Speak to some of your elders and learn what hardship is and then, only then, will you qualify to be grown up.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 5:49pm cyclist wrote:
Yeah thats right - take out a morgage on a buy to let. This is one of the major reasons buying a house has become unaffordable for many first time buyers. House prices fall, lots of defaults on mortgages, banks have to be bailed out by the taxpayer, massive recession, much unemployment lots of government debt. Public service and other pensions being cut. Yep think I might add to that little scenario thanks 'Not from around here'. Paul put the boot on the other foot. If it is so easy and cushy to work in the public sector, why don't you do it?
On 25 Nov 2011 at 7:48pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
@Clifford. You speak of employers reneging on contracts. Are you suggesting that, if an employer hires someone at (say) age 20, on certain terms and conditions, they should be obliged to continue to pay that person on the same terms until they die / retire?
Since most public sector workers on defined benefit pension schemes were hired, two things have happened. (1) Life expectancy has increased significantly. (2) Asset returns have been dismal. That is why public sector employers are trying to renegotiate the terms on which future pension entitlements are accrued. Nothing is being done to change what has already been earnt.
As Paul Newman says above: "If you do not feel the remuneration package you receive is sufficient to retain your services thats up to you".
Jobs are not for life these days. I work in a small company. If we were required to employ anyone we hired on the same terms and conditions indefinitely, we would never hire anyone.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 7:56pm bastian wrote:
because theydon't believe in it, they are crying out to pay for their childrens schoolfees and they actually want to pay more than their NI contributions for private health care because they believe it is better.
how the world has changed.Basically everything is fine as long as we all shut up and take our medicine,or until there is no minimum wage,sick pay or state pension.
That's a point NFAH, will you willingly take up your state pension, that the youth of tomorrow will be paying for...seems wrong doesn't it?
You are either part of society, or you distance yourself from society...but you must have earnings of a colossal amount to live outside...it is your choice.
Clifford, I salute you, our young must learn what is being lost for their future.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 8:14pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
@Bastian. You say: "Basically everything is fine as long as we all shut up and take our medicine,or until there is no minimum wage,sick pay or state pension."
But that's not really the point of your original post is it? I am not arguing against the minimum wage, or sick pay, or state pension. All I am suggesting is that someone who is hired at age 20, 30 or whenever, cannot expect to be employed on the same terms and conditions indefinitely. Times change, and you cannot expect the employer to bear all the risk.
No-one is trying to take away from public sector workers what they have already earnt. Accrued pension rights are safe.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 8:53pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
@Bastian: "Every time you hear a siren that's a public sector worker running to the aid of the tax payer, however rich or poor."
Errr ... good. That is what they are paid to do. The emergency services in this country are tax-payer funded, as they should be. Still not sure what this has to do with next week's planned strikes.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 9:14pm not from around here wrote:
I don't believe I mentioned the bankers at all did I? Although I guess some might argue that allowing the financial system to collapse completely would be disastrous regardless of who is to blame.
What seems to be coming-out here (as usual) is a deep-seated bitterness and feeling of inferiority that a lot of contributors to this forum have.
I will claim my state pension if it still exists when I'm old enough but in the meantime it may well be reduced or the retirement age increased and I will certainly not be striking for a pension I was 'promised' (the equivalent of my contract with the government).
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:12pm The Super K wrote:
I hope all you strikers get the tin tac... You'll still have better pensions than 90% of the private sector and during the last government the gap in pay closed up too. You're all take take take.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:35pm Dingo wrote:
My oh my, what a nasty, selfish, mean spirited and subservient bunch of goons you Tory supporters are .I hope you are all inconvenienced to the max next week you thoroughly deserve it.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:40pm Dingo wrote:
And no I don`t work in the public sector ,but they have my full support because without our public sector workers and our trade unionists the country would descend into total dog eat dog slavery.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 10:55pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
@Dingo: "without our public sector workers and our trade unionists the country would descend into total dog eat dog slavery."
FFS Dingo. I don't think anyone is advocating the scrapping of the entire public sector. I am less convinced that trade union leaders are a net benefit to society, but I don't feel strongly either way on that one.
The original poster was asking about the day of action. As I understand it, this is about a bunch of people complaning that someone is trying to change their terms and conditions of employment. So what? This happens all the time, as it should.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 11:18pm Paul Newman wrote:
The trade Union movement certainly was a benefit to society,it has a glorious history. Its interesting how it has changed.Members are now, on average, better paid, better educated ,more likely to be home owners, and more often women, than the average worker. They are about 20% of the work force and overwhelmingly employed by the tax payer.
To sum it up,once they stood up for working people, now they stand on their necks
On 26 Nov 2011 at 9:14am bastian wrote:
Paul, everything you have just written in the first paragraph is true,well done,that is because the unions try hard to set a standard of living that does not push proplrinto the mold of pure robots to the richand it is exactly this high standard that we are fighting to retain, not just for the public sector but for all employees. Hence why I stated earlier that if the standard is lowered for us then it crumbles for evereyone, and that includes the potential loss of employment rights which do not benefit the employer but the employee.These rights were fought for by our ancestors, they went to prison so you could have a weekend, so that you could have a holiday and be ill without losing the roof over your head. Lest we Forget.
On 26 Nov 2011 at 9:15am bastian wrote:
On 26 Nov 2011 at 10:20am Paul Newman wrote:
Bastian are you really so blinkered you are incapable of seeing the difference between the Match girls and molly coddled State apparatchiks who think they have a right to hundreds of thousands in a pension pot ?
High standards of living were not delivered by the Unions of the pre Thatcher period .We had the IMF in, 25% Inflation and terrible unemployment during the inevitable vicious adjustment.