Public Sector pensions

[????]

How long are the PS Unions and many, not all, PS Workers going to continue to defy economic reality and when it comes down to it principles of fairness for society as whole on this issue?

[Otta]

I haven't paid in to a ps pension in over 2 years. As and when I go back to a permanent contract with a LA, I will expect my pension not to be as good as it would've been in the past. However, if I'd never left my job, and someone announced they were changing my pension conditions, I'd be pissed off. Whether or not the pensions are "fair" is not really the point. The fact is, you go for a job based on the salary, pension package, leave entitlemen, and so on. If you apply in good faith, based on a set of terms & conditions, why shouldn't you complain if suddenly it's all going to change?

[????]

....all fairly common practice in Private Sector, with generally far, far less job security (apologies for this point in your case Otta)

[david_carnell]

Ahh....here we go again with the "waaah, waaah.....it's not fair *stamps feet*.....why should someone else get what I can't have?" attitude.

Quids, your continued protrayal of public sector workers as malingering idlers who somehow don't deserve their pay and benefits is really getting irksome.

As Otta says, if you sign a contract, and it's then breached you have the right to legal recompense. Employees should have the same protection. Changing the rules half way through is disgraceful. Not only that, but current public sector pension funds, due to earluier changes agreed by unions, are making money - not losing it.

My concern is the state of private sector pensions, but I'd rather look to raise up than dumb down.

Fairness for society? You've got a nerve - you couldn't give a shit about a fair society.....all you want is to see the public sector workforce decimated and for everyone to be in the same shit state. Your constant harping negativity is tiring me out, so god knows how it makes you feel.

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, if I'd

> never left my job, and someone announced they were

> changing my pension conditions, I'd be pissed off.

> Whether or not the pensions are "fair" is not

> really the point. The fact is, you go for a job

> based on the salary, pension package, leave

> entitlemen, and so on. If you apply in good faith,

> based on a set of terms & conditions, why

> shouldn't you complain if suddenly it's all going

> to change?

It happens in the private sector. In our company people were weaned off the final salary scheme and onto the money purchase scheme.

[Chippy Minton]

What is it with people on here judging what other people should be entitled to simply based on whether they get something themselves?

I just don't get the argument that "I don't get this, so therefore you shouldn't get this."

If public sector unions have negotiated employee's terms and conditions, then they have every right, indeed requirement, to defend them.

If you don't think it is "fair," because someone else is getting something you aren't, here's an idea - join a union! Unionised workplaces pay, on average, more than non-unionised workplaces.

[????]

Quids, your continued protrayal of public sector workers as malingering idlers who somehow don't deserve their pay and benefits is really getting irksome.

Where? Seriously where? Always this. Attacking nurses, teachers etc.

Nope. We can'T afford it and debate is stifled by your assumptions or the knee jerk reaction, Try and argue with Left Wingers impossible...slur and insult. Seriousl Fuck off

Fairness for society? You've got a nerve - you couldn't give a shit about a fair society.....all you want is to see the public sector workforce decimated and for everyone to be in the same shit state. Your constant harping negativity is tiring me out, so god knows how it makes you feel. How dare you, seriously. I'm looking for av debate

How the fuck do you know? Is anyone who oppses you wrong and selfish? Fook off with your insults you know nothing about what I think and believe, Fucking insults from a naive middle class lefty. How about a debate? Not interseted are you? I've had enough of your assumptions and insults. Fuck off, seriuolsy do one.

[????]

Drawing Room my ask when moderators bandy around assumptive insults in the Drawing Room. Cunt

[david_carnell]

I'm happy to have a debate. Let's go.

Can't afford it? I just told you - due to changes to pensions under the Labour govt that unions agreed to, public sector pension pots are mostly making money. We are working longer, and putting more money into the pot. Speak to the ATL....in 127 years they have never been on strike. This isn't some Trots in the NUT - these are reasonable people. Teachers.

And yet they now feel they have no choice but to draw a line in the sand and say "no - no more".

These attacks on public sector workers are not pragmatic. This government is embarking on an ideological vendetta to destroy both the unions and the workforce.

To see someone as clever as you buy into this makes my blood boil. Insults? Your being equally so. I'm seeing colleagues all around me being made redundant, families shattered and those who are left behind being metaphorically flogged. And your insults are there.....you just veil them behind a veneer of reasonableness.

[Otta]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It happens in the private sector. In our company

> people were weaned off the final salary scheme and

> onto the money purchase scheme.

This is the point really. The fact it happened to you is rubbish. That doesn't mean however that everyone else should roll over and let it happen to them. If people have a voice, and an opportunity to stand up for something, then why shouldn't they?

As Quids says, "we can't afford it". This may be true, and continuing to give out these pensions may not be sustainable (I don't know enough about the figures to be honest, but I'm interested in David's point that the pension funds actually make money). As I said before though, I can understand rewriting T&Cs for new recruits, who will go in to something knowing the score. I can't however agree that a persons T&Cs should just be changed, to me that is totally wrong, whether they work in Private or Public Sector.

[david_carnell]

And then we get this sort of shit too (from the Press Assoc):

Controversial plans to water down National Minimum Wage legislation have come under fire in the Commons.

Tory former minister Christopher Chope tabled proposals which would allow adult employees to receive wages below the ?5.93 hourly rate.

He said current laws prevented British workers selling their labour "at a price of their own choosing".

And you want to tell me about fairness and equality from this govt?!

[Otta]

It is a shame to see 2 forumites clash like this... I suspect others have looked at my posts and thought the same.

David, I am with you on this subject (Go team Otta_Carnell) but it's your tone man, it leaves jaws well and truly dropped at times. And Quids, sometimes you come across as a caricature of yourself.

Anyway, I'm right on this ojne, just agree with me, and we'll all go for a pint.

[????]

Quids, your continued protrayal of public sector workers as malingering idlers who somehow don't deserve their pay and benefits is really getting irksome.

I am not debating anything until you publically withdraw this smeer you sh1t

[david_carnell]

I'll withdraw it if you say that you don't believe it.

Tell me you think public sector workers work as hard as anyone else and deserve their pay and benefits....

[StraferJack]

I don't think quids is getting enough credit for not using the phrase "money tree" so far in the debate

[????]

Yeah nice contribution SJ - non debatable subject as per

[StraferJack]

More seriously, I tend to support Otta and that some deep breaths need to be taken

On a fundamental level (ie before rancour set in) , I applaud ?????s determination to roll up sleeves and tackle the deficit. I don?t agree with him on the root causes but we are where we are, so there is little to be gained going over old ground

I am in a broadly similar private-sector role as ????, and yet I don?t share his (and I apologise in advance if I use the wrong words) distaste for public-sector perks. I?m glad that there remains some barrier to a return to the days of mill-owners telling workers what to do on a whim

I think DC overstates some of ?????s opinions on the public-sector ? I?ve NEVER read him saying workers in public sector are ?malingering idlers? for example , but it?s hard not to read almost any post from ???? about the public sector without seeing some kind of ticking off ? I paraphrase but ?we In the private sector are almost destitute while you in the public sector have it cushy thanks to the money you get from us? is a regular theme. It?s constant and niggling enough for me to understand why people might inflate the claim ? put it that way. Nor am I saying ???? is factually incorrect. But I often disagree with the conclusions from the same facts

Eg - on the teacher thread in the family room we have

?Coming on top of the contributions taxpayers already make to Public Sector pensions an ongoing continous, rising and unsustainable commitnment, and given that most workers aren't public sector workers, and have thus far faced the bulk of redundancies, their companies going bust, reduced overtime/paid hours and and most of them have little to look forward to but working to 67 and then whatever the paltry state pension is after that (Final Salary pensions being realised as unrealistic by most private Sector employers about 15 years ago).... then some of us are less enamoured by PS Union cries of "Why us? We didn't cause it" . I think it's completley unproffesional and will let my kids teachers know.?

If current T&Cs are no longer sustainable, then I don?t think the case is sufficiently well made. If banks can threaten to leave the country and everyonein the mire if they have to suffer a bit of pain in their trading T&C then I don?t really have a problem with workers threatening to withdraw labour for a couple of days and parents having to arrange childcare. And that isn?t me having a pop at banks ? just comparing the relative level of threat from differing parties

The actuaries in the private sector who for years, despite advances in medicine and living standards, continued to sanction old pensions levels up until relatively recently in the private sector need to be scrutinised. How did they maintain that it was doable for so long? And how did it it go almost overnight from ?yep? to ?no way jose?

If I was a teacher, I would find it easier to accept the changes in conditions if similar tough talking was aimed elsewhere. Yes we need banks and the finance sector to be here and firing on all cylinders but they could do that regardless of wether some of the propsed levies/taxes were implemented. They just threaten to leave because they can. By all means fear the result of them leaving ? but understand they are doing far more harm than a proposed strke by teachers in so doing

[StraferJack]

ach quids I was just trying to take the sting out of some of the anger (whilst I composed a longer reply)

It was meant to be cheeky - that's not something you are unfamiliar with yourself I think?

[david_carnell]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Quids says, "we can't afford it". This may be

> true, and continuing to give out these pensions

> may not be sustainable (I don't know enough about

> the figures to be honest, but I'm interested in

> David's point that the pension funds actually make

> money). As I said before though, I can understand

> rewriting T&Cs for new recruits, who will go in to

> something knowing the score. I can't however agree

> that a persons T&Cs should just be changed, to me

> that is totally wrong, whether they work in

> Private or Public Sector.

Don't take my word for it Otta. Read the report by the cross-party Public Accounts Select Committee who this year, in conclusion, found the following:

In 2007-08, new pension schemes were introduced for civil servants, NHS staff and teachers. The changes were in response to Treasury requirements for savings in taxpayer costs to make public service pensions affordable.

Three main changes were made. First, the age at which a scheme member could draw a full pension was increased from 60 to 65 years for new members. Second, employee contributions were increased by 0.4% of pay for teachers and by up to 2.5% of pay for NHS staff. Third, a new cost sharing and capping mechanism was introduced to transfer, from employers to employees, extra costs that arise if pensioners live longer than previously expected. The Coalition Government announced additional changes in 2010, including indexing pensions to the Consumer Prices Index rather than the Retail Prices Index, which are expected to reduce costs further.

Government projections suggest that the 2007-08 changes are likely to reduce costs to taxpayers of the pension schemes by ?67 billion over 50 years, with costs stabilising at around 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or 2% of public expenditure. This would be a significant achievement.

A saving on ?67 billion clearly isn't significant enough. To turn the old adage on its head.....squeeze 'em till the pips burst.

How the National Audit Office? What do they have to say on the matter:

The National Audit Office estimates that the cost of public sector pensions will reduce from 1.9% of GDP to between 1.2% and 1.5% over the next 50 years.

So we are seeing a large reduction (in financial terms a drop of 0.5% of GDP is huge) in the cost of public sector pensions already. Yet this government wants to go further. I repeat that it is not driven by financial necessity but ideological vindictiveness.

When it comes to teachers I would presume you would want to recruit the highest calibre of graduates. Whilst pay is currently (and has been for two years) frozen, a decent pension has long been an atrractive proposition. No longer.

[????]

Of course I believe the vast majority of public sector workers, like the vast majority of Private Sector workers work hard. How dare you suggest I continually suggest say they are all 'malingering idlers', seriously take that smeer back NOW. Shall I go and tell my wife she's a malingering idler or my mum.

I don't believe all of PS benefits are sustainable in the long term, no. That's my belief, I'm not alone. Doesn't mean I want to smash the welfare state and don't believe in fairness. I actually believe that the underwriting of PS pensions by general taxation is unfair on the vast majority of private sector employees (the majority of employees) who are on average wages, have massive job insecurity and inadequate private pension provision,

Drawing room full of insults and lacking debate shocker...might as well make it the lounge. I think I can count the number of times I've acctually personally insulted people on the EDF on one hand despite my abrasive style, don't think I've ever slandered/slurred anyone else. and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to say I know what they think about fairness or 30% of the workforce based on my personal assumptions on their politics which I perceive as different to mine. I'm out. I'd like that apology.

Nice debate...sacred cow.

[david_carnell]

Fine - then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. And I mean that.

But I'm not sure it takes a great leap of imagination to understand why it may come across otherwise as SJ points out. You have history. As, to be fair, do I.

Yet your second paragraph highlights my fustration. You look at the raw deal some private sector workers get, and in that I am in complete agreement with you, and then say you want everyone else to get that too. It just seems so....negative. Why not look at ways of increasing private sector job security (i.e. tightening rules on temporary workers for eg) or ways to improve those pensions. Instead you seem (and I know you'll feel free to correct me if this is another assumption) to want all the public sector workers to have the same bum deal.

[StraferJack]

Insults aside (and I don't think I have thrown any on this one?) there is actually a lot of debate happening. Saying it's a sacred cow effectively silences anyone who tries to defend the strike. That's stopping the debate more than anything else surely?

[Otta]

Agree with David there. Both Quids and Loz, have said something like "well that's what happened in my company". I ughl efforts should be made to improve that, rather than dragging everyone else in to the same shitty hole. Please dont get me wrong, I dot support ever strike by a long shot, but when people have goalposts moved on them, they have every right to shout about it. Whether or not you think they should've been given their T&Cs in the first place, is really a separate issue altogether.

[????]

Ok. Deep breathe, Calm ;-)

Of cousre, the problem IS private pensions but we can't bootstrap them up to PS levels, I just don't see how?

With changing demographics and improved salaries, final salaries are pretty unworkable without bringing a company down in the long term. Private pension forecasts when they were launched in the 1980s were hugely out (yup thanks again Banks) they grossly over estimated Investment returns, and overstimated the actuary rates that would be available in the future. Currently ?100,000k of pension pot gets you about ?6k per year at 65...if you don't take any lump sum or leave any provisions for partners/kids. Private pensions are crap (unless you're Sir Fred et al) The only vague incentive is tax relief but that favours higher rate payers. Add to that the general populations financial idiocy and 20-30 somethings lack of understanding about what a private pension is and how it works as well as them paying off student debt then thery are not embarking on them and fr too litttle when they do. Add to this that most Private Sector workers flitt jobs a few times, employer contribution schemes are mixed and hardly ever touch the lower paid or self-employed obvioulsy then we are walking slowly into a massive, massive case of 60 somethings haves and have nots that I believe will cause enormous social pressure. I think I saw on the BBC thjat KMPG estimate the average private sector worker would have to put away 37% of their gross eranings to get the average Public Sector pension...now there's smoke and mirrors but I suspect directionally and scale wise this is about right.

Anyway, My best two mates at Primary school.

We were chatting about this at another mates 50th. Both left School at 15. One's been a brickie all his life, mainly self-employed. The other, went in the army at 15 did 20 years and then became a copper. When he hits 55, not far away. He'll get, I think a pension from Police and Army of about ?40K I maybbe wrong, but I think it's about that (I apprecite that these are very well Public Sector pensioned jobs, more than others, for understandable reasons and his army pension is completley non-contributory) my other mate, has 'a few grand in a private penison pot. in 5 tyears time my first mate isgoing to retire - do 'some security' for extra, go and see his family in oz and start drawing a tax payer funded pension until he dies. My brickie mate says he'll just have to carry on working until he's 66 for a miserly state pension plus, I'm guessing a private pension of about ?2k....during all that time, he'll be paying through his taxes for my army/copper mate in a sense.

This, will happen more and more.

Times have changed, demographics have changed, investments are crap, our society has changed....it's not unreasonable to ask Public Sector employees to accept this and make some, on my understanding relatively small sacrifices to and increased contributions to what are all state guranteed penisons, Many in the Labour Party accept this.

[????]

PS I also forgot to add woman taking timeout for childbirth rearing to my list of why private pensions are massively undercontributed as well