strike

[ontheedge]

Anyone striking on the 30th?

[Annette Curtain]

Oh yeah

We self employed are up for a strike, just you watch us

NETTE

[Loz]

I'm pretty striking every day. I intend to positively glow on the 30th.

[ontheedge]

Ha ha!

[????]

Nope. I'll be working to help pay off our country's debts, pay for our generally good public services and of course the wages and pensions of many strikers

[Annette Curtain]

Exactly ????'s

I will of course be "self-employing" myself.

I could make the 32nd though, if that helps

NETTE:-S

[ViviPRPM22]

Annette Curtain Wrote:

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

> Exactly ????'s

>

> I will of course be "self-employing" myself.

>

> I could make the 32nd though, if that helps

>

> NETTE:-S

Sorry for interrupting this thread.

Hi! Annette

I have send you a PM.

Cheers!

Vivi

[Huguenot]

It's a measure of the public sector labour force that they are so short-sighted that they think whooping it up about a strike on a forum read by private sector workers who pay their wages would be a bright idea.

Private sector workers are worried about their job security and their future, and their pension isn't even on the horizon. Most of them think they're going to work until they die.

And public sector workers are striking over the size of their perks?

[KidKruger]

I never understood this perception of someone having the 'right' to a pension.

Bizarre fantasy stuff.

The rest of the world's in financial ruin but God forbid public sector 'rights' being affected.

Must be cosy to believe all will be taken care of for you.

[Horsebox]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I never understood this perception of someone

> having the 'right' to a pension.

> Bizarre fantasy stuff.

Kidkruger, as I understand it people are striking over changes to a pension they were contractually promised when they started work. So in this case it is a 'right'.

Happy to be corrected.

[Huguenot]

Private sector pensions and public sector pensions are quite different.

For a private sector pension you need to save all your life for enough money to support you when you stop working. If you don't save enough or you live longer you need to keep working until you can afford to stop.

A public sector pension is an agreement that private sector workers will continue to pay them for 30 or 40 years after they stop working.

The strike is because public sector workers think they have a right to bigger salaries, bigger pensions, more perks and stop working earlier than the desperate private sector workers who pay them.

The unions are pretending this is against the government so that they can cash in on public frustration, but in reality this is public sector workers turning both barrels on private sector workers for more cash, when private sector workers are worried if they'll be able to pay the rent and have to work forever.

So don't be surprised, ontheedge, if you don't get the support you think you deserve.

[Huguenot]

Currently public sector workers can retire on full pension at 60, whilst the private sector have to wait until they're 66 - presumably so they can pay for the public sector workers already playing golf for 6 years.

The government also wants to target an intrinsic fraud in the system that allows public sector workers to get a dramatic increase in their job title and salary just before retiring so that their 'final salary pension' gets a bump. The government would like to make the pension proportionate to their whole career, not the bump.

Labour doesn't support the strike either, because they, like private sector workers, can see that the public sector is getting a bit grabby whilst everyone else is suffering.

[ratty]

In my experience comparisons between private and public sector are useless. I earned half as much again when in the private sector as when I moved to the public, so all these private sector bods can surely afford to save for their pensions?.

[Huguenot]

Unfortunately your experience, whilst great for you, doesn't reflect reality.

Lord Hutton's independent report in March demonstrated that the argument that public sector workers receive less is a myth.

It's a persistent myth that reflects public sector workers sense of entitlement.

[Jeremy]

I'm in two minds about these strikes. The large perks enjoyed by some public sector workers are illogical and unsustainable. But if a contract of employment specifies certain terms, it's unfair of an employer to break them.

[KidKruger]

Fair point Jeremy but they are unsustainable as you say, so at the very least a compromise is required on the part of the employee.

It's not reasonable for public sector employees to recognise the financial crisis and that times have changed for the worse, but at the same time insist on privileges that cannot be realistically generated.

This is not a decision made by the employer out of malice, the world has changed and it's illogical as you say to pretend you can be insulated from it.

It's unreasonable and takes the p!ss out of those of us busting our balls to survive !

[david_carnell]

I will be striking. My union, Prospect, have balloted members for the first time in something like 30 years. They are renowned for their reasonable approach to negotiations in the past. To say that they have been pushed into this action by a government entirely unwilling to negotiate is an understatement of the highest order.

The idea that public sector pensions are unsustainable is, I'm afraid, a myth.

Independent projections from the Hutton Commission and the Office for Budget Responsibility allow us to evaluate the sustainability of these schemes.

Lord Hutton's interim report stated that the amount of benefits paid from the schemes, expressed in terms of our ability to pay for them (ie in terms of UK national income or Gross Domestic Product) is a fair measure of assessing this

Projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility in July 2011 show that the gross cost (ie not taking into account the contributions received from members) of the benefits paid from the main unfunded schemes (ie including the NHS, teachers' and civil service schemes) is estimated to be 1.9% of GDP in 2015-16, falling to 1.4% of GDP in 2060-61.

So, under the arrangements as they currently stand, the cost of the main unfunded schemes is already projected to fall greatly. The Government refuses to say what percentage of GDP it considers to be sustainable in the long run.

This government should also be ashamed. Ashamed that it says nothing about the state of private sector pension provision. It is a disgrace that many struggle to fund their retirement and that private schemes offer such poor deals. Yet this government says nothing. Instead it looks to create a race to the bottom.

[Otta]

David spot on about the myths surrounding this.

I've said before, Give new starters a new set of T&Cs, but don't move the goalposts on people who entered employment in good faith.

And I say that as someone who works for a private sector company, within the public sector, so if I re-enter the public sector permanently, I accept my T&Cs may well be different to the ones I got in 2002, when I got my first public sector job.

[StraferJack]

haven't a number of negotiations in recent years been succesful as unions have accepted changes to practices and inflation links, but on the promise that pensions would be protected? (paraphrasing, but that's the gist)

I'm private sector, have been all my life but the phrase "race to the bottom" is key here

I especially object to people being called greedy for trying to protect such a relatively small, but important to them, sum of money. But when the very wealthy threaten to leave the country it's all "well, who can blame them"

My whole working life I've known that my taxes are funding public-sector pensions and it has never once bothered me. Good luck to them I say. People complain about banker-bashing as being the politics of envy but here we see envy in it's true form

[Chippy Minton]

SJ - you're correct. A deal was done with the last government which reduces the future cost to the country by 14% - a figure that comes from the National Audit Office.

The changes included higher pension ages for new starters and higher contributions in some schemes. Also, as people are living longer than they were, their increased pensions costs would first be shared by the employer and employees together, with the employer cost capped so higher costs of any further extra increase in lifespan would fall entirely to members in the scheme.

Also, I agree entirely with the 'race to the bottom' thing. It's something that drives me mad - the "I don't have it, so why should you" mentally is just crazy!

I'm not striking on Wednesday as I don't work in the public sector but good luck to DC and the millions of others that will be.

[Huguenot]

A deal with the last government? That'll be before the meltdown and collapse of government revenue then?

The strikes aren't just about a 'little bit of money' - they're also about the fact that public sector workers are retiring at 60 when everyone else has to work to 66. This is a system created for the life expectancy of the 1940s - not the 21st century.

To try and justify the clearly unsustainable expenditure on forecasts for 2061?!??!? I'vew never heard anything so ludicrous. We can't get our forecasts right for the next 3 months, and between now and 2061 you've got Peak Oil and catastrophic climate change to deal with.

I see david_carnell's pushing the old 'blame it on the government' line as predicted. ;-) The government doesn't have any money - it's the taxpayers money.

Selectively quoting the Office of Budget Responsibility is also disingenuous. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has actually suggested that the gap between contributions and pensions in payment would double over the next four years to ?9bn.

That's an extra ?4.5bn we don't have - so it means cutting other public services or increasing taxation. Increasing taxation so that public sector workers can get off work 6 years early.

Saying the government should offer better terms on private sector pensions is typical of these kind of arguments - the money doesn't exist, it's just taking more in tax from the taxpayer adding an administration fee and handing back again.

Suggesting that we solve the expenditure crisis by increasing payments to private sector workers is nonsensical.

The appropriate solution is to stop public sector pensions altogether, and offer public sector the same opportunity as everyone else - stakeholder equivalent pensions that they can top up if they want more.

[DaveR]

The idea of a 'race to the bottom' is a little misleading. An assumption built up during the 60s, 70s and 80s that economic growth would fund generous pensions for all and both public and private sector organisations took on future pension liabilities based on a very rose-tinted view of the future. The reality check on pensions started some time ago, hence big changes to both public and private sector pension terms over recent years. The basic union objection - work longer, pay more, get less - unfortunately applies to everybody and is a result of demographic and economic realities.

The current proposals to change public sector provision are not about essential affordability, but about fairness and value. Public sector pensions are paid out of taxation - that's obvious because public sector employees work for the government (one way or another) and tax provides the majority of government income - and that doesn't in itself mean anything. However it is right to consider whether it is fair for private sector workers to fund more generous pension terms than are generally available to them (particularly where the money could otherwise be used for things that more obviously benefit everybody). It's also right to consider whether public sector employment gets the best value for money - if the current pension terms, together with salary, are way above the market rate for any job, then that's an inefficient use of public money.

I disagree with the strike; despite the best efforts of d_carnell and others to portray it as somehow in the wider public interest, it's not. It's selfish - I want to keep more money at your expense. Hutton is cited above; this was his comment on publication of his final report:

"These proposals aim to strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer. They will ensure that public service workers continue to have access to good pensions, while taxpayers benefit from greater control over their costs.

?Pensions based on career average earnings will be fairer to the majority of members that do not have the high salary growth rewarded in final salary schemes.

?The current model of public service pension provision is clearly not tenable in the long-term. There is a clear need for reform. Getting the decisions right on the most appropriate structures and designs will be crucial to making any changes work in the future. This will only be achievable if there is effective dialogue between public service employers, employees and unions.?

[*Bob*]

Can't say I understand any of the facts/figures/stats - and even if I could it would be impossible to know who to believe. I suspect the same goes for the average chump in the street.

However, I do believe that average chumps in street often have a good sense of right/wrong/fair/unfair/workable/unworkable - and whilst many (including me) are sympathetic, there is a pervading feeling that the public sector ought to face what everyone else has to face and suck it up.

[Otta]

Who are these public sector workers who are retiring at 60 with full pensions?

I've never met them.

[Huguenot]

You've never met a retired teacher?