Strikes take 2

[MK Shrimper]

The left doesn't need or want to know anything. It's a characteristic of the breed.

There's so many holes in that sentence it isn't worth bothering with.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

There's so many holes in that sentence it isn't worth bothering with.

There are so many holes. It wasn't really worth the bother, but that's just me.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yeesssssssss. :dim:

 

[Rudi Luftwaffe]

And for me that sums up a knee jerk reaction before understanding what the job actually entails.

Agreed.It's not like any Winter Pressure managers are posting first hand accounts of ****ing millions of pounds up against the wall.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Agreed.It's not like any Winter Pressure managers are posting first hand accounts of ****ing millions of pounds up against the wall.

I have no idea what you mean. :whistling:

 

[BrettieAngell]

I love these left v right "debates".

 

[Neil_F]

Back to pensions, perhaps someone currently enrolled in a public sector scheme can explain some things to me:

1. The general pension trend in the private sector has been away from defined benefit (usually final salary) because the funding burden became unaffordable for employers (we won't consider the reasons why). If that is the general pension trend in the UK why should the public sector be protected?

2. My understanding is that all rights accrued to date will be protected (it wouldn't be legal to change accrued benefits). So your pension isn't actually being cut, it just won't be as generous in the future.

3. The rationale advanced by the unions is often that there is a pay premium in the private sector and that the pension arrangements have historically compensated for this. However, numerous studies suggest that pay premium no longer exists. The Pensions Policy Institute puts the median public sector salary at £25,600 and the median private sector salary at £25,300. In April 2010 the ONS found that public sector workers were paid 7.8% more than private sector workers on average. If the pay gap has been reversed, how can the generous pensions continue to be justified?

4. The benefit provision for public sector pensions is funded out of general taxation (member contributions are not invested or allocated against future liabilities as far as I am aware). The unions claim that the average public sector pension payment is £7k (I don't know if this is reduced under commutation, I suspect it is). The average starting graduate salary is £24k and they will pay £3.3k in tax each. So it takes the tax of more than two new graduates to fund a public sector pension. Given that those graduates will also have £30k of debt each, is that fair?

5. Given the demographics of this country, the burden on the taxpayer of funding the public sector pension liabilities will grow. The liability is estimated at about £1 trillion, but it doesn't appear on the balance sheet as it would for a company. How can the cost to future taxpayers be justified?

 

[GrumpyBlue]

Closing more of the tax evasion law's . Collecting that tax that Lord Football told us about last year that's still waiting (min of around £46 Billion i believe ) thast a start . Sorting out the loans for small and medium size business

Crikey I agree with Osy :blush:

 

[Rudi Luftwaffe]

Closing more of the tax evasion law's . Collecting that tax that Lord Football told us about last year that's still waiting (min of around £46 Billion i believe ) thast a start . Sorting out the loans for small and medium size business

Aren't many of the strikers those responsible for collecting all this uncollected tax?

 

[GrumpyBlue]

Aren't many of the strikers those responsible for collecting all this uncollected tax?

Nice one:smile:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The idea that the cuts are somehow 'essential' is pretty hard to swallow when financial providers and banks continue to make huge profits and pay out unbelievable bonuses. My guess is that those who are striking aren't just doing so because of the cuts (I think most would admit they've had it pretty good, and the welfare state in this country has turned into a bloated messy), but because of the feeling that the public sector workers are suffering where as the main culprits continue to live of the fat of the land. Some might call it jealousy, but there is a real feeling that we're not in it all together. I took a walk down Barnsley high street the other day on the way to a meeting, it was literally deserted, towns are dying and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel.

Right, so the issue is that the private sector didn't squeal loud enough?

 

[Reg Martin]

I am in a public sector pension scheme though I'm no longer in a union
I think unions can be a good thing in principle but I left mine because I increasingly felt that the leadership saw its members as there for the benefit of the union rather than the other way round.
I do think that some reform of public sector pensions is needed as the balance between what the taxpayer puts in and what the employees puts in has became unbalanced. However,some schemes are more unbalanced than others. For example, civil servants contribute to their scheme a far lower % of their salary than those in local govt or NHS schemes. The Local Govt scheme is the one nearest to a private sector scheme in that both employees and employers pay into a fund which is then invested on the stock market There is a dilemma there for the government in that if they put up contributions for local govt employees to the point where many decide to opt out of the scheme then it could have a big impact on the stock market if the local govt pension fund implodes.
We shouldn't have reached the point we have but Governments of all shades have played politics and avoided diffiicult decisions in this area for many years now.

 

[steveo]

I love these left v right "debates".

There is a third factor in these "debates" that you have missed/ignored.

 

[Reg Martin]

Neil , I will have a go at giving my own opinions to your valid questions. First of all, public sector employees don't necessarily hold all the views that you will hear from some of the union leaders

1. The general pension trend in the private sector has been away from defined benefit (usually final salary) because the funding burden became unaffordable for employers (we won't consider the reasons why). If that is the general pension trend in the UK why should the public sector be protected?

I agree that this does need changing and as far as I can work out the proposal is to move to a pension based on average career earnings not final salary

2. My understanding is that all rights accrued to date will be protected (it wouldn't be legal to change accrued benefits). So your pension isn't actually being cut, it just won't be as generous in the future.

Again, I think you are right, pension rights accrued to date will be protected.

3. The rationale advanced by the unions is often that there is a pay premium in the private sector and that the pension arrangements have historically compensated for this. However, numerous studies suggest that pay premium no longer exists. The Pensions Policy Institute puts the median public sector salary at £25,600 and the median private sector salary at £25,300. In April 2010 the ONS found that public sector workers were paid 7.8% more than private sector workers on average. If the pay gap has been reversed, how can the generous pensions continue to be justified?

I am wary of stats quoted by both sides on comparisons of pay in private and public sector. Some parts of the public sector also pay differing salaries for the same job. Everyone picks the stat that suits the point they wish to make


4. The benefit provision for public sector pensions is funded out of general taxation (member contributions are not invested or allocated against future liabilities as far as I am aware). The unions claim that the average public sector pension payment is £7k (I don't know if this is reduced under commutation, I suspect it is). The average starting graduate salary is £24k and they will pay £3.3k in tax each. So it takes the tax of more than two new graduates to fund a public sector pension. Given that those graduates will also have £30k of debt each, is that fair?

As you will have seen from my earlier post there are several different public sector pensions and some require much lower contributions from the employee than others. All are subsidiised by the taxpayer to varying extents though the local govt pension is alone in having a fund that invests on the stock market

5. Given the demographics of this country, the burden on the taxpayer of funding the public sector pension liabilities will

grow. The liability is estimated at about £1 trillion, but it doesn't appear on the balance sheet as it would for a company. How can the cost to future taxpayers be justified?

Given demographic trends then I agree reforms are needed

 

[osymandus]

Actually no as i recall lord football pointed out they were made redundant 2 years go many then went on strike in protest.

 

[Perth Bambi]

The physiotherapists might withdraw their labour? The horror!

The stroke patients who want to walk again or the people drowning in their own sputum and phlegm who need it suctioned off may miss us. However I will not be striking whatever the vote and will be happily holding the fault.

 

[pickledseal]

Had an interesting chat about this at break today in the staff room.

As I've stated before, I think some reform is necessary, but I've seen figures from both sides about the financial feasibility of the pensions and both sides widely disagree about the cost. An open investigation like the one for teachers in 2006 (which claimed they were sustainable) needs to happen - why is anyone reluctant to do this? Surely if the governments figures are correct, this would work in their favour and weaken the unions position?

The second thing, and this is perhaps the key thing, is that teachers and schools have been under constant attack since Gove took over. It's already perhaps the only profession where *everyone* is an expert... How many people go to their GP, lawyer etc and tell them how to do their job?

Then you get 'helpful' OFSTED comments like this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...eachers-a-holiday-says-inspector-6255852.html

Can you spot the comedy of what he is saying?!

I'm not saying schools, or the education system, or certainly all teachers are perfect... but when you're told you're doing a crap job and then you're effectively having a pay cut, that people will be happy?

I think teachers are being influenced by everything that is going on in education and the pensions is just the final straw and perhaps the Unions are just capitalising on this.

Personally I'm quite lucky as in I am in the pre-2007 scheme.

 

[pickledseal]

This is interesting from PCS. Obviously slightly biased but if what they say is true, there are still a lot of unanswered questions:

Government claim:
“The lowest paid and people 10 years from retirement will be protected, and public service pensions will still be among the very best available.”

Reality:
The lowest paid will not be protected – they will still be forced to work longer (up to 68) and suffer the indexation changes which will devalue their pension. The government has said that workers earning less than £15,000 (FTE) will not pay any extra contributions – this protection only covers 4% of PCS members.

Those within 10 years of retirement still face paying higher contributions equivalent to nearly a day’s pay every month (an extra £63.36 a month for the average member), and will lose over £16,000 in retirement as their pension will be uprated by the lower CPI measure of inflation rather than RPI.

Government claim:
“I have listened to the argument that those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. That is the approach that has been taken over the years in relation to increases to the state pension age, and I think it is fair to apply that here too.”

Reality:
This is the government’s main selling point of the new offer – and it is not true. Those within 10 years of retirement (i.e. 50-plus in Classic or Premium or 55-plus in nuvos) will still face extra pensions contributions of 3.2% (£63.36 a month for the average member) between now and retirement.

In addition, their pension will still be downgraded in value due to the indexation change from RPI to CPI. This alone would cost the average PCS member £16,400 over a 20 year retirement.

While this is only a partial concession for older workers, it is of no benefit at all to the majority of civil servants who are under 50 (or 55 in nuvos). PCS continues to seek a negotiated settlement in the interests of our whole membership, and future generations.

Government claim:
“Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable and fair for taxpayers and public service workers, and that can be sustained for decades to come.”

Reality:
Public sector pensions already are affordable, due to the reforms we agreed in 2007. The Hutton report shows the costs of public sector pensions falling. The National Audit Office assessed our pensions schemes in December 2010 and found the 2007 deal “reduces costs to taxpayers by 14 per cent”.

The Public Accounts Committee found in May 2011, “the Treasury has not set out clearly what level of spending it considers sustainable in the long term. Instead, officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception” – which is why they are keen to present a false impression to the public about our pensions.

Again the government is trying to create a false divide between public sector workers and taxpayers. Public sector workers are taxpayers too. If pensions are slashed then the cost will still be borne by taxpayers, through increased claims for means-tested benefits in retirement.

Government claim:
“Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change, they will keep, and those things will be paid out in the terms expected ... No public sector worker needs to have anything to fear for the entitlements that they have already built up.”

Reality:
This is not true; by imposing the change in indexation from RPI to CPI, the average PCS member would lose £16,400 over a 20 year retirement.

Alongside other unions and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, we have taken the government to the High Court to argue that this change was not only unfair but illegal. We are determined to protect your pension by legal means as well as industrial and through negotiation.

Government claim:
“the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the risks associated with further increases in life expectancy, by linking the scheme normal pension age to state pension age.”

Reality:
We agreed a deal with the last Labour government that took precisely these changes into account. It meant a new pension age of 65 for new starters across the public sector. Based on the changes in the 2007 deal the projected cost of public sector pensions is falling, despite growing life expectancy.

Funding better pensions is a political choice. The UK state pension is worse than in every comparable EU country. France currently spends 12% of its GDP on pensions and Germany over 10%, but the UK only spends 6%.

Government claim:
“Pensions would remain considerably better than those available in the private sector.”

Reality:
This is classic divide and rule – and is a complete diversion from the issue at hand. We do not want an equality of misery whereby public sector pensions are driven down to the patchy and poor level in the private sector.
One-quarter of all tax relief on pensions, amounting to more than £10bn annually, goes to the richest 1% in the country. We hear about gold-plated public sector pensions, yet the real gilded pensions are to be found in the boardrooms of private companies that have abandoned provision for their workforces.

Government claim:
“reform is essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the last few decades”

Reality:
This is very misleading. It is true that public sector pensions cost, as Alexander said “just under 1% of GDP in 1970, they account for around 2% of GDP today”.

However, due to the changes agreed in 2007, the Hutton report shows that public sector pension costs will fall from 1.9% today down to 1.4%. The Public Accounts Committee has said that the changes will mean: “costs stabilising at around 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)”.

The government’s latest document, published on 2 November 2011, shows that pension costs will reduce under the 2007 deal to the level they were in the mid-1980s.

These proposed new reforms are a tax on public sector workers to pay for the banking crisis and this government’s failure to generate economic growth.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_e...ex.cfm/id/FDF09446-E5F5-4B44-89B43B1AE55FC168

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

I dont do politics or grammer but can i ask a question of those that will be involved in striking,DO YOU THINK STRIKING WILL CHANGE ANYTHING?
Is it the only tool that you feel you have in your arsenal

 

[Hotman]

but when you're told you're doing a crap job and then you're effectively having a pay cut, that people will be happy?

Cause and effect mate... Do a good job and you won't get a pay cut x