Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: jerry on 18 June 2011, 10:04:48
-
Seems to be a lot in the press lately about mr prentis and Unison. The coalition are on about raising the retirement age from 60 to 66 and moving their final salary pension schemes to a CARE one. Well, my take is "welcome to the real world" Im afraid-and Im a union rep!Of course any downgrading of an employees benefits package should be vigorously challenged (not least to see if its fair and warranted) but for so long public sector employees have had it comparitevly easy with their employers (ultimately us as taxpayers) footing a fair amount of their pension contributions and other good benefits. But the economy HAS changed. I know more than one company where they are asking staff either not to have a payrise or else to take a paycut because the current 4% inflation isnt just hitting individuals but companies as well. Now, provided that such cuts are fair and are taken pro rata by all levels of management as well as staff, and that they are warranted (eg take paycuts or else see some redundencies because the company genuinely cannot swallow increase in costs) then maybe there actually arent any alternatives. I was on one of the few remaining final salary schemes. it changed to a CARE scheme and no, I wasnt happy because my actual projection went down but I do realize that the company wanted its projections to be realistic for peoples pensions and I was very aware of how many other companies offered far less beneficial schemes in comparison. As for the retirement age, how many can afford to retire at 60 anymore? I know several people who work in the public sector and its such a vast spectrum that you cannot really lump them all together in terms of how you might view their salary bandings and benefits but surely the public sector cannot expect to be exempt from the economic pressures that everyone else is currenly suffering under? Unions are there to ensure their members are treated fairly and legally,and of course they should fight to constantly improve terms and conditions, but they must also be realistic surely?
-
Well said Jerry. welcome to the real world indeed. :y
-
5 years no payrise, but trying to build up the company funds so we can have one eventually.
HOWEVER gas has doubled, food 50% so getting tricky
-
The main issue is that the current government have always been against the public sector seeking privatisation, this is borne out if you read the CS review October last year. The other issue is that the current economic crisis has been as a result of the private sector, e.g., the banks, not the public sector :y
Nevertheless and as usual whatever the government want to press ahead with will happen, whether there are strikes or not.
-
I am now in receipt of a final salary pension that I paid ito for 30 years. 11 percent of the top line of my salary every month. Employer (local council, effectively) paid in not one brass razoo. I am getting my own money back.
Not.......
The pension monies I receive on the 15th of the month are the monies taken from the wages of those still serving as police officers. No pot of monies getting swollen by investments over the years, just straight through the accounts of the council.
So no, not all public sector employees are in receipt of public sector cash......
-
Public sector unions are the last bastion of union militancy and imo that needs to be broken - whatever it takes.Batten down the hatches and dont give in. They have had unrealistic working practises and conditions (especially pensions) for far too long.
Imo its not actually much to do with the current climate. That just makes it the problem appear more acute.
The real problem is that the last govt. increased the public sector payroll by approx 750,000 employees, and Brown absolutely plundered private sector (MY) pensions to pay for public sector pensions. The sums simply dont add up. The country simply cant afford it. Brown knew this off course, but he also knew it would only become an enormous problem after he had his time at the controls. It was cynical theft, and someone (hopefully) is going to have the backbone to put things right.
If the battle can be won, and the public sector unions forced to become moderate and realistic organisations rather than holding the rest of us to ransom no matter what the consequences, it will be of enormous long term benefit to the country.
Imo public sector employees (apart from polioce and armed services) should have exactly the same arrangements as us in the private sector - retire at around 66 (if your lucky) and pension is a money purchase scheme,paid from the pot which has had contributions from employee and employer, and the payments from the pot on retirement depend on how the investments in the markets have swollen (or not) the amount of money in the pot. That is the real world.
-
P.S. These strikes are more about bringing down the coalition and getting Labour back into power (the engine drivers of the gravy train) than they are about genuinely looking after the long term interests of the membership.
-
and theres tory mp's calling for people to work for less than the minimum wage :y
obviously Eton doesnt teach you what "minimum" means ;D
-
And that has relevance to this thread because.......? ::)
-
Meanwhile...........comrade Bob Crow was spotted having a champagne lunch in Scotts of Mayfair this week. The bill for him and his four union colleagues came to £650. Not sure if that was paid from his six figure salary or from his generous expenses account. Maybe his members should be asking for a reduction in their union subscriptions. ;) ::)
-
Necessary for furthering his career?????
I love Bob Crow!! :y :P
-
Seems to be a lot in the press lately about mr prentis and Unison. The coalition are on about raising the retirement age from 60 to 66 and moving their final salary pension schemes to a CARE one. Well, my take is "welcome to the real world" Im afraid-and Im a union rep!Of course any downgrading of an employees benefits package should be vigorously challenged (not least to see if its fair and warranted) but for so long public sector employees have had it comparitevly easy with their employers (ultimately us as taxpayers) footing a fair amount of their pension contributions and other good benefits. But the economy HAS changed. I know more than one company where they are asking staff either not to have a payrise or else to take a paycut because the current 4% inflation isnt just hitting individuals but companies as well. Now, provided that such cuts are fair and are taken pro rata by all levels of management as well as staff, and that they are warranted (eg take paycuts or else see some redundencies because the company genuinely cannot swallow increase in costs) then maybe there actually arent any alternatives. I was on one of the few remaining final salary schemes. it changed to a CARE scheme and no, I wasnt happy because my actual projection went down but I do realize that the company wanted its projections to be realistic for peoples pensions and I was very aware of how many other companies offered far less beneficial schemes in comparison. As for the retirement age, how many can afford to retire at 60 anymore? I know several people who work in the public sector and its such a vast spectrum that you cannot really lump them all together in terms of how you might view their salary bandings and benefits but surely the public sector cannot expect to be exempt from the economic pressures that everyone else is currenly suffering under? Unions are there to ensure their members are treated fairly and legally,and of course they should fight to constantly improve terms and conditions, but they must also be realistic surely?
Glad you're not my union rep.
-
And that has relevance to this thread because.......? ::)
Because, pretty soon, the lib dems will realise that they are being taken for idiots and ruining any chance they will ever have in the future. I'll show my arse if this coalition lasts five years and, much as I wanted shut of labour, they'll be getting my vote next time.
I just hope it happens before Mr Punch (Gove) ruins the education system and the chinless one ruins the NHS.
As for the pensions increase, my missus already pays £370 a month and this rise will take it closer to £500. Add that to the £1350 a month income tax and £350 NI and it's adds up to five or six claimants she is keeping in fags and beer.
She has 22 years in under the old final salary scheme, she will bank that and leave the pension scheme. If enough high earners do this, the scheme will collapse anyway.
Have a nice day. ;D
-
Meanwhile...........comrade Bob Crow was spotted having a champagne lunch in Scotts of Mayfair this week. The bill for him and his four union colleagues came to £650. Not sure if that was paid from his six figure salary or from his generous expenses account. Maybe his members should be asking for a reduction in their union subscriptions. ;) ::)
Or maybe they should continue laughing like fook at LU and the train companies who bow to their every whim. Jealousy is an ugly emotion Albs.
It used to be the haves and the have-nots. Now it's the haves, the have-nots and the bitter onlookers.
-
Im not jealous of anyone Steve. Just have a strong sense of whats right and wrong. The public sector can only continue as it is if we either - borrow lots more money,and continue to do so forevermore - which would put us in the same position greece is in now pretty quickly.
Or - I pay even more tax (including my pension fund taxation) so that people who earn far more than me (and most other people) can carry on regardless, even though economic circumstances have changed dramatically. To me, thats wrong.
The public sector used to retire early and have better pensions than the private sector, but earned considerably less than the private sector. Public sector earnings are now higher than the private sector. Something has to give. The private sector is shrinking, the public sector is growing like an out of control monster. It has to stop. ;)
-
Im not jealous of anyone Steve. Just have a strong sense of whats right and wrong. The public sector can only continue as it is if we either - borrow lots more money,and continue to do so forevermore - which would put us in the same position greece is in now pretty quickly.
Or - I pay even more tax (including my pension fund taxation) so that people who earn far more than me (and most other people) can carry on regardless, even though economic circumstances have changed dramatically. To me, thats wrong.
The public sector used to retire early and have better pensions than the private sector, but earned considerably less than the private sector. Public sector earnings are now higher than the private sector. Something has to give. The private sector is shrinking, the public sector is growing like an out of control monster. It has to stop. ;)
Tell that to binmen, dinner ladies and classroom assistants. Each of them holds down a responsible position and gets paid the minimum wage. Their only compensation is a meagre public pension on top of there meagre state pension.
If you listen to the hype, as most people do, you would think that public servants earn a fortune and get a massive pension....totally unaffordable.
No one listens to the people on the box who tell you that the average public sector pay packet is about £16000 and, when the stock market picks up, the pension fund will be in credit.
It is pure ideology and to portray it as anything else is a lie.
Listen to this for pure, unadulterated shite:
On the telly this morning 'One in nine women now alive will live to be a hundred years old'
So?...... Two in nine will probably not live see the pension they paid into all their life. But that doesn't fit, so....keep it dark. ::)
-
The average wage in the public sector is now higher than the average wage in the private sector - unless everything I have heard and read in the last few years is completely wrong.
Binmen dont earn minimum wage - they earn around £27,000 around these parts. ;)
I will always maintain that the public sector is grossly overstaffed and employs far more people than it needs to.
It has increased by approx. 750,000 in the last 15 years. How did the country manage to survive before that ? ;)
Even when the markets were having the biggest boom in history, Brown had to introduce a 20% tax on the investment profits of private sector pensions in order to stop the public sector pension funds going bankrupt.Thus destroying what had been the finest private sector pensions in the world.They aint worth jack shit now.
-
Bottom line is - if you promise people a certain amount of money in the future, regardless of how the markets perform in the interim period, then you only have one way of fulfilling your promise if the investments dont produce enough revenue - take it out of other peoples wages or savings - thats wrong.
Private pensions are dependant on how well (or otherwise) the markets produce a return on the money invested. So should public sector pensions.
-
Oh dear, where to start.
Politics of envy. When everything was running along fine and WE all got paid well and felt good, NO ONE was moaning about the benefits package that the folk in the public sector received.
As I have said before people go to work for their package. It might be monthly bonuses, no pension, company Mondeo and a TGIF outing on the company each week. Others go for a fixed annual salary and a generous pension scheme. Perhaps they are showing foresight and foregoing their fast cars and partying for the promise of a decent retirement. IF that cannot be provided by the employer - in this case the government then they should have fessed up years ago under the Thatcher, Blair governments.
Having champagne and a few nights at a posh hotel? I have worked with top private compnies that do that too. How? They just milk more out of the paying customer. It happens in all industries. Think how much higher your rates would be if the local authorites were paying dividends to their shareholders. Yes there is waste but that applies in all businesses.
People living longer. Yes they are currently. However future governments will reap a rich reward from taxpayers that fail generally to live as long as people are currently managing. Why? No exercise, diet of McDonalds , longer working life (66, 70, 75 who knows)
On Breakfast TV this a.m. Danny Alexander was on saying the goverments position is quite clear on this "You are all going to have to work longer, earn less and have smaller pensions, paid for by more contributions" They asked a viewer question. Will MPs pensions be attacked in the same way. Will their increases be CPI or RPI.? His answer? MPs pensions aren't decided by us but by an independent blah blah blah. In other words It doesn't apply to us elitists only you DRONES.
Finally. The criminals that caused all of this have still not been brought to justice. I fear they never will.
BANKERS who gambled away our inheritance
POLITICIANS (in every civilised country) who mortgaged our futures by spending more than we could ever possibly repay.
What were they thinking. How do they sleep at night ;D ;D
-
My beliefs have absolutely nothing to with envy. Im not the envious type. Never have been never will be.
When I speak of the public sector and its pensions I include MP,s in in that.
I repeat - you cannot promise someone X amount of money at some point in the future when you dont have a crystal ball to predict investment returns. Therefore you have to assume you will take the money from other people to make up the shortfall - thats wrong. NOTHING to do with envy.
-
My beliefs have absolutely nothing to with envy. Im not the envious type. Never have been never will be.
When I speak of the public sector and its pensions I include MP,s in in that.
I repeat - you cannot promise someone X amount of money at some point in the future when you dont have a crystal ball to predict investment returns. Therefore you have to assume you will take the money from other people to make up the shortfall - thats wrong. NOTHING to do with envy.
You are making the assumption that the money to pay these final salary pensions comes from stock markets. That may be the case in some instances. As an aside the Greeks get their pensions from government Bonds and not the stock market.
Albs - assuming that it is right and ethical to change peoples contracts and thus their pension value, at what age would you implement this?
Change everyones now, regardless of age?
Only people under 40 years of age?
All new employees?
Protect the fianl salary value "earned" already and put everyone onto money purchase for the rest of their time?
-
Everyone, now. :y
-
Strike it is then ;D ;D ;D
-
Strike it is then ;D ;D ;D
Oh,yes ;D There's nowt on the telly since the football finished. This should take us through to the new season perfectly. :y
After the summer of discontent we can look forward to the autumn of unhappines and the winter of angriness. ;D
-
Imo, it should be illegal for public servants to strike. ;)
-
Imo, it should be illegal for public servants to strike. ;)
And imo all Irish people should break off home, thus solving the over-population of England and raising the IQ in one fell swoop. ;D
-
With regards to Public v Private pay, this is the best arguement I could find:
Ben Goldacre
The Guardian, Saturday 9 January 2010
Article history
'Public sector pay races ahead in a recession" shouted the front page of this week's Sunday Times. "Public sector workers earn 7% more on average than their peers in the private sector – a pay gulf that has more than doubled since the recession began." The Telegraph followed up with a copycat story a few hours later.
In reality, this is one of those interesting areas where anybody who makes a firm statement is wrong, because there is not sufficient evidence to make a confident assertion in either direction.
The Sunday Times has identified a difference in the median pay of all public sector employees in the country, when compared with all the private sector employees in the country, and over-extrapolated from there to claim that – job for job – public sector employees are paid more than their peers in the private sector. We will discuss whether that figure is worse than useless in a moment.
But first, some interesting details. For its analysis, the Sunday Times uses "annual salary" instead of "hourly pay", although the latter is clearly more meaningful, especially as the Sunday Times quote the annual salary figures for part-time and full-time employees, all mixed together. But 31% of public sector jobs are part-time, against 23% of private sector jobs.
In fact, quoting "hourly salary" would have made the difference between the public and private sector median wages look even bigger. So why did the Sunday Times and the Telegraph use annual pay? Perhaps because this figure makes the difference in medians look like a new phenomenon under the present government. Using the hourly figures, you can see that public sector median pay has been higher than private sector median pay for years.
If you go to the "annual survey of hours and earnings" data on the ONS website which the Sunday Times used, you can see for yourself. It was £7.98 v £6.72 in 1997 under the previous government, a difference of almost 20%, and £8.56 v £7.32 in 1999. Meanwhile the "annual salary" difference which the Times chose to use was negligible in 1999 (the first year ONS gave this figure), at £15,002 v £14,963, a difference of 0.3%, allowing them to create this illusion of a brand new phenomenon.
More than that, using the "annual salary" figure allows the Sunday Times to claim dramatically that the difference has doubled in two years: the difference in medians for annual pay has gone from 3.8% to 6.8% since 2007, while the difference in hourly pay has gone from 25.1% to 28.7%, which is much less eye-catching. The Sunday Times continues: "Last year the average public sector worker laboured for 35 hours a week … two hours less than the typical private sector worker." Is this really down to laziness, and better working conditions? No. Again, this is simply due to the greater number of part time jobs in the public sector – 31% v 23% – which is a long-standing phenomenon.
But there is a deeper problem with the analysis in the Sunday Times and the Telegraph. The long-standing difference in median wage for all jobs in each sector is hardly informative on the question of whether someone is paid more or less than their peer in the other sector. It's hard to decide what the comparison job is for a policeman, a firefighter, a teacher, and so on, and to make that comparison between medians meaningful you'd need data showing the breakdown of what kinds of jobs are done in each sector. Because it's possible, after all, that the state employs more people in more senior or middling roles, and fewer people in the kinds of jobs you find at the absolute bottom of the employment ladder.
For an illustration, we can poke around the ONS ASHE data again. The national median hourly wage is £11.03. If you take table 14_5a of the 2009 data, re-order it by wage, and look at the bottom three categories with over 1 million people in them, as a rough illustration, we have: 1,126,000 sales and retail assistants on a median hourly wage of £6.36; 1,355,000 cashiers at £6.40; 1,430,000 in sales at £6.45.
None of these are jobs you find in the public sector, although there are also cleaners at the low wage end of this table. If someone here was quoting data comparing public-private wages for the same kind of cleaning jobs, say, then that would be interesting. There's no such data on offer. The Sunday Times says: "Our reports today show, the public sector has become so big and such a generous employer that it is sucking workers out of private companies."
I don't see how they can justify this, other than with their laughable case studies, and if it's true, it should be an long-standing trend, not a new one.
I could go on. It's not surprising if public sector pay increased from what it used to be, under this government: improving recruitment for teachers and the like was a manifesto promise. But as for a comparison, I don't know if the public sector pays more than the private sector for the same work, or less: nobody does, from a difference in median wages. This was one of the most statistically misleading front page stories I have seen in a long time.
-
So - one big long string of typical crap from the grauniad actually tells us that public sector pay has been higher than private sector pay for longer than we thought. :y ;D ;D ;D
What were you saying about IQ Steve ? ::) :P ;D
-
Im not jealous of anyone Steve. Just have a strong sense of whats right and wrong. The public sector can only continue as it is if we either - borrow lots more money,and continue to do so forevermore - which would put us in the same position greece is in now pretty quickly.
Or - I pay even more tax (including my pension fund taxation) so that people who earn far more than me (and most other people) can carry on regardless, even though economic circumstances have changed dramatically. To me, thats wrong.
The public sector used to retire early and have better pensions than the private sector, but earned considerably less than the private sector. Public sector earnings are now higher than the private sector. Something has to give. The private sector is shrinking, the public sector is growing like an out of control monster. It has to stop. ;)
Tell that to binmen, dinner ladies and classroom assistants. Each of them holds down a responsible position and gets paid the minimum wage. Their only compensation is a meagre public pension on top of there meagre state pension.
If you listen to the hype, as most people do, you would think that public servants earn a fortune and get a massive pension....totally unaffordable.
No one listens to the people on the box who tell you that the average public sector pay packet is about £16000 and, when the stock market picks up, the pension fund will be in credit.
It is pure ideology and to portray it as anything else is a lie.
Listen to this for pure, unadulterated shite:
On the telly this morning 'One in nine women now alive will live to be a hundred years old'
So?...... Two in nine will probably not live see the pension they paid into all their life. But that doesn't fit, so....keep it dark. ::)
£25,600 in 2009 according to the pensions policy institute. ;) ::)
£28,808 in 2010 according to www.statistics.gov.uk
Max Hastings explains the problems quite well. :y
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1159511/MAX-HASTINGS-How-Jobzilla-ate-future-Public-sector-pay-perks--paid-YOU--cripple-country-years-come.html
-
bad science goldacre vs hitler hastings ;D ;D ;D
Albs....come on - now you're just not even trying :o ;)
-
Max Hastings is a highly respected/talented/ intelligent/thoughtful/reasonable journalist and historian. It does annoy me to see him referred to as "Hitler" by someone without two brain cells to rub together.
How much of his work have you actually read, before deciding to give him the "Hitler" nickname ?
-
had to work sohave been missing this debate ;D. I made the post because I guess I was getting a bit annoyed with it all-and,like Albs, this is not about "envy", its about a sense of "fairness". As I said, I personally know many people who work in various areas within the vast spectrum we call the "public sector" and I can conclude the following :1)there are a lot of poorly paid workers 2)still too many "middle management" strata 3)there are some who are really hard workers who care about what they do with a passion 4)there are far too many whove been there so long they play the system to reep the most benefits from the least input and 5)there are some very overpaid people too. Now, I hear you all say, this is exactly the same as in any private organization-particularly the bigger ones. Well, as someone already hinted at, when times were good this is undoubtedly true but in todays climate most companies have had to tighten their belts and cut the slack and are far more challenging and demanding of their staff and managers. Now no one likes this but actually you step back and you realize that, whilst it is certainly tougher, you CAN actually reach a point where you can cut staffing levels and increase productivity to achieve the same levels as before. Problem is finding the right "balance" so that the goals are achievable and realistic and your staff/managers not constantly overstretched. My concerns with much of (not all! ) of the public sector is that this is not happening enough-too many staff/managers remain unchallenged with (due to the structure) too few being made personally accountable and too much waste and wasteful practices allowed to continue. Public services are just that-a "service"-but some "private" business practices are still, in my view, essentialto their running.
-
Its nice to see someone with an honest, objective viewpoint Jerry. As you hinted in your post.The private sector has already had to take the pain(a lot of pain) and its unavoidable that the public sector has to take some pain as well now. It seems to me that the problem is going to be overcoming that deeply entrenched sense of entitlement which seems to have seeped into certain sections of the public sector over time. Just how prevelant this is will become clear I suppose in the coming months.
Doesnt matter which sector your in - theres no such thing as a free lunch, and nor should there be. :y
-
Max Hastings is a highly respected/talented/ intelligent/thoughtful/reasonable journalist and historian. It does annoy me to see him referred to as "Hitler" by someone without two brain cells to rub together.
How much of his work have you actually read, before deciding to give him the "Hitler" nickname ?
Max "Hitler" Hastings is referred to as Hitler because of his knowledge of WWII history, affectionate Private Eye joke :y
-
Its nice to see someone with an honest, objective viewpoint Jerry. As you hinted in your post.The private sector has already had to take the pain(a lot of pain) and its unavoidable that the public sector has to take some pain as well now. It seems to me that the problem is going to be overcoming that deeply entrenched sense of entitlement which seems to have seeped into certain sections of the public sector over time. Just how prevelant this is will become clear I suppose in the coming months.
Doesnt matter which sector your in - theres no such thing as a free lunch, and nor should there be. :y
I quite agree, Albs, Jerry makes good points in his post. :y
As I am rather tired of pointing out, as the earning sector within the economy, the private sector essentially pays for the public sector.
In an ideal world, the salaries within the two sectors should roughly equate, and that is more the case now than was so a couple of decades ago. However, the two sectors should, for that equality in pay, share similar working practices and benefits. Accordingly, when the country is as impoverished as it is, the public sector has no right to feel any less pain as the private sector. If it is necessary to extend the working age, then we should all, both public and private sectors, accept that. :y
-
In the general strike of 1926 the workers were absolutely justified in their actions imo. Those were the days when the Labour movement was a force for great good, and was lead by men (and women) of real conviction and principle who were fighting against real poverty and exploitation on behalf of workers who had no voice outside of the movement and little control over their own lives.
Many annual incomes were not much more than £100 - around £4,500 in todays world. A train driver earned around £156 pa - approx. £7000 at todays prices. London underground drivers apparently earn over £40,000pa these days.
Working hours were much longer,holidays were rare,pensions were almost unheard of, life expectancy was was under 60 years old and retirement (for those who lived that long) was at 70. Genuine health and safety practices and law were at best, in their infancy.
Great progress was achieved by the Labour movement in those times, but somewhere along the way (in the 70,s?) the movement was hijacked by power hungry characters who wanted to run the country, and live the high life off the backs of their members.
To me todays union leaders (Bob Crowbar being the most obvious example) arent fit to wipe the sweat from the brow of the people who lead he movement in days gone by.
Mark Serwotka (PCS UNION) promised his membership when elected that his salary would be the average of their salaries. His salary is currently £90,000 pa plus benefits.
To try to link the action planned for the near future with the actions of those people in 1926 is beyond disgraceful.
These leaders are not just living the high life off the backs of their own members but off the memory and legacy of the genuinely principled and compassionate people who took very different action, for very different reasons all those years ago. >:(
-
You can debate until you wet yourself, this little spat will be decided by government and unions and, as usual, public opinion won't matter a jot. ;D
-
My fear is that this govt wont have the backbone for the battle. ::)
-
theres seems to me to be this great sense of schadenfraude when it comes to belittling public sector workers, the fact is the vast majority are underpaid and undervalued, but this theres this feeling of "my job sucks, so everyone elses should too" i dont buy it, and which public sector workers are we wishing to attack here? nurses? nope, police? nope, the armed forces? nope, paramedics? nope, so lets not group everyone together in a large amorphous blob, when you say "Public Sector" are you talking about the guy on little over £12k a year doling out benefit to a claimant making twice that? surely not, or the guy cleaning up the broken glass, kebabs and vomit off the pavement afer a typical friday night? you do it then if its so cushy...oh, not them...so please dont use "Public Sector" when what you really mean is this idea of some middle manager working 9 to 5 in a nice air conditioned office on £50k a year, theres maybe a few of them, but its a very small number and yes people need to be realistic, all people, so maybe MPs could vote for a pay freeze once in a while and reduce their over-inflated pension pot perhaps? or maybe, just maybe the banks took a little look in the mirror and said to themselves "maybe we'll go easy on the bonuses this year as really its taxpayers money" or maybe Tesco, Vodafone, etc should pay a reasonable and fair amount of tax and not the minimum they can legally get away with, after all, its you, me, and every consumer up and down the land that makes them their massive profits each year, so giving a bit back to the community that so richly rewards you isnt asking too much.....every little helps, right?
so yes, there are some cushy jobs in the public sector, but most arent, most of them are jobs most people wouldnt do for the wages, mostly the half decent pension (actually, in most cases it'll be less than £10k a year...hardly a kings ransom) is really the only perk (unless you're a teacher of course, in which case add half the year off :y) and ask yourself is this government really tackling the villains? or taking on easy targets that the mostly obedient press lap up?
you know what, I dont actually think their should be a general strike, but it'd be easier to accept these cuts if people genuinely thought "we're in this together" instead of this constant pillorying of the "the public sector" maybe it is too large but ask any business in the high street if they care, because i can assure you, all small businesses want (me included) is people in work and spending - thats how you reduce the deficit - a growing, healthy economy - not targeting the lowest paid :(
and all this rhetoric from mps who've had their snouts in the trough so long that cant even see the irony. I hope the resulting backlash strengthens all unions, now that would be ironic ;D
-
An interesting post with some valid points, but it has little to do with the basic facts behind this thread.The money isnt there (and in all likelyhood never will be) to fulfill the current commitments on public sector pensions.
This happened to private sector pensions earlier (because Brown robbed them) and the result was that private sector pensions now depend on the results of how the investment of them turns out. This is perfectly logical and now needs to happen to public sector pensions - except the govt. dont have the balls to actually do it.
The only alternatives to paying pensions from the money in the persons pension pot is to either take it from someone elses pot, or borrow it and leave future generations with even less in their pot. It really is that simple.
-
theres seems to me to be this great sense of schadenfraude when it comes to belittling public sector workers, the fact is the vast majority are underpaid and undervalued, but this theres this feeling of "my job sucks, so everyone elses should too" i dont buy it, and which public sector workers are we wishing to attack here? nurses? nope, police? nope, the armed forces? nope, paramedics? nope, so lets not group everyone together in a large amorphous blob, when you say "Public Sector" are you talking about the guy on little over £12k a year doling out benefit to a claimant making twice that? surely not, or the guy cleaning up the broken glass, kebabs and vomit off the pavement afer a typical friday night? you do it then if its so cushy...oh, not them...so please dont use "Public Sector" when what you really mean is this idea of some middle manager working 9 to 5 in a nice air conditioned office on £50k a year, theres maybe a few of them, but its a very small number and yes people need to be realistic, all people, so maybe MPs could vote for a pay freeze once in a while and reduce their over-inflated pension pot perhaps? or maybe, just maybe the banks took a little look in the mirror and said to themselves "maybe we'll go easy on the bonuses this year as really its taxpayers money" or maybe Tesco, Vodafone, etc should pay a reasonable and fair amount of tax and not the minimum they can legally get away with, after all, its you, me, and every consumer up and down the land that makes them their massive profits each year, so giving a bit back to the community that so richly rewards you isnt asking too much.....every little helps, right?
so yes, there are some cushy jobs in the public sector, but most arent, most of them are jobs most people wouldnt do for the wages, mostly the half decent pension (actually, in most cases it'll be less than £10k a year...hardly a kings ransom) is really the only perk (unless you're a teacher of course, in which case add half the year off :y) and ask yourself is this government really tackling the villains? or taking on easy targets that the mostly obedient press lap up?
you know what, I dont actually think their should be a general strike, but it'd be easier to accept these cuts if people genuinely thought "we're in this together" instead of this constant pillorying of the "the public sector" maybe it is too large but ask any business in the high street if they care, because i can assure you, all small businesses want (me included) is people in work and spending - thats how you reduce the deficit - a growing, healthy economy - not targeting the lowest paid :(
and all this rhetoric from mps who've had their snouts in the trough so long that cant even see the irony. I hope the resulting backlash strengthens all unions, now that would be ironic ;D
Nicely put, stop slagging everyone off, I know a lot of people who work very hard and put up with a lot of abuse, and can not do their Job without working extra hours in the office or working in the evenings at home, for no overtime.......... :-X :-X :-X
-
If you read my post answering that one Mike - its nothing to do with slagging anyone off - apart from the politicians who cynically overmanned the public sector - its to do with economic reality, and fairness to everyone.
-
If you read my post answering that one Mike - its nothing to do with slagging anyone off - apart from the politicians who cynically overmanned the public sector - its to do with economic reality, and fairness to everyone.
its a lot of things, but fairness to everyone it certainly isnt....no, as usual the vulnerable and the lowest paid get hit - i believe theres better and more logical ways of dealing with the deficit instead of the usual race to the bottom for pay and conditions
-
They have stated that the position of the lower paid workers will be unchanged/ protected. ;)
Personally, I bleive this needs to be done regardless of the deficit. The deficit just makes it more urgent.
-
Im not jealous of anyone Steve. Just have a strong sense of whats right and wrong. The public sector can only continue as it is if we either - borrow lots more money,and continue to do so forevermore - which would put us in the same position greece is in now pretty quickly.
Or - I pay even more tax (including my pension fund taxation) so that people who earn far more than me (and most other people) can carry on regardless, even though economic circumstances have changed dramatically. To me, thats wrong.
The public sector used to retire early and have better pensions than the private sector, but earned considerably less than the private sector. Public sector earnings are now higher than the private sector. Something has to give. The private sector is shrinking, the public sector is growing like an out of control monster. It has to stop. ;)
Tell that to binmen, dinner ladies and classroom assistants. Each of them holds down a responsible position and gets paid the minimum wage. Their only compensation is a meagre public pension on top of there meagre state pension.
If you listen to the hype, as most people do, you would think that public servants earn a fortune and get a massive pension....totally unaffordable.
No one listens to the people on the box who tell you that the average public sector pay packet is about £16000 and, when the stock market picks up, the pension fund will be in credit.
It is pure ideology and to portray it as anything else is a lie.
Listen to this for pure, unadulterated shite:
On the telly this morning 'One in nine women now alive will live to be a hundred years old'
So?...... Two in nine will probably not live see the pension they paid into all their life. But that doesn't fit, so....keep it dark. ::)
Dont know where you get that from Steve
The jobs you list are paid at greater than minimum wage and get above average pensions (the wife is in one of those occupations).
The reality is w ALL need to work longer as we are ALL living longer. If you want to retire early then you must work harder and save harder.
Teachers etc are VERY well paid with good job security, a very generous pension scheme (which woudl hit you in the pocket for well over 20% if you wanted the same in a private scheme) and ahev receevied very generous pay increases year on year.
I hear them on the TV moaning and saying they have not had a rise this year and I just think, welcome to the real world!
Reality is they will have to take it on the chin as in these times of hardship, nobody outside of the profesion is going to back them!
-
I hear what both BJ and Vamps are saying, and agree with the points made, but ,as Albs says, Im not simply slagging off the "public "sector at all. There are an awful lot of overworked/underpaid and dedicated people within that sector. All I am saying is that there also continues to be a lot of waste and wasteful practices with too many people expecting themselves to remain exempt from the economic pressures around them. Re my thoughts on unions, well, like a lot of us on here I am old enough to remember the 70s ;D but unions like anything else must evolve. For far too long through the 50s/60s/70s Labour governments ignored true economic realities and let the big unions dictate to them, allowing them power that ultimately benefited no-one . Thatcher, for all her many faults, probably did (in my opinion)us all a favour in curtailing their power. Anyone on here like the idea of "closed shops"? Or maybe remember the "jollies" that some reps enjoyed? ANY form of "power" can corrupt. We too easily forget that its not just the capitalists who are susceptible and dedicated to their own self interests. BUT, whilst not buying into the political links with Labour, I firmly believe in the need for trade unions. So,so much of what we now take forgranted within employment law is down to the hard work of the unions and it cannot be allowed to be eroded. And these apects of employment law are all about fairness and equal opportunities. Not over the top political correctness, just basic rights that we should all be entitled to. Much of the present economic crisis can be laid at New Labour's door but I still believe that the Tories are still a party of too many "Im alright Jacks", already trying to overturn things like the minimum wage and Sunday trading laws. I totally believe in what I do as a rep. in trying my best to enure my members are treated fairly and legally. But gone are the days if you think a rep will protect your underperformance just because you are a union member.
-
oh, almost forgot, "Power to the people!" :y ;D
-
As for the pensions increase, my missus already pays £370 a month and this rise will take it closer to £500. Add that to the £1350 a month income tax and £350 NI and it's adds up to five or six claimants she is keeping in fags and beer.
That £370 a month is what gets her the final salary pension? (Soon to be £500)
That's not a bad deal if so - judging by the tax amounts she earns about the same as I do and pays in about the same to a pension pot; mine will be worth about a quarter of my salary by the time I come to retire.. assuming the ass doesn't drop further out of the stock market, of course.
Not that I expect to ever retire, personally.. I fully expect to work till I drop - but that's my choice since I didn't save more and spend less :)
-
As for the pensions increase, my missus already pays £370 a month and this rise will take it closer to £500. Add that to the £1350 a month income tax and £350 NI and it's adds up to five or six claimants she is keeping in fags and beer.
That £370 a month is what gets her the final salary pension? (Soon to be £500)
That's not a bad deal if so - judging by the tax amounts she earns about the same as I do and pays in about the same to a pension pot; mine will be worth about a quarter of my salary by the time I come to retire.. assuming the ass doesn't drop further out of the stock market, of course.
Not that I expect to ever retire, personally.. I fully expect to work till I drop - but that's my choice since I didn't save more and spend less :)
These are hardly average incomes that are being discussed here :-X
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
-
I am now in receipt of a final salary pension that I paid ito for 30 years. 11 percent of the top line of my salary every month. Employer (local council, effectively) paid in not one brass razoo. I am getting my own money back.
Not.......
The pension monies I receive on the 15th of the month are the monies taken from the wages of those still serving as police officers. No pot of monies getting swollen by investments over the years, just straight through the accounts of the council.
So no, not all public sector employees are in receipt of public sector cash......
That in no way represents the total cost. About 10 years ago I did some work with a number of Police Authority Finance Directors. At the time their average payment to pensioners was 24% of the total Police budget and increasing year by year. Yes, there is a partial contribution to this by the serving officers 11%, but the vast majority still comes from their combined income stream - i.e local authority and any central government contribution.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong - just making a statement of fact.
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
It's a "money purchase" scheme - my mate works for the same company. Basically the (tax free) money goes into an investment pot and at your chosen retirement age (currently minimum 55), the total is used to purchase an annuity - i.e. a pension.
So, lets project forward, add in some promotional payrises and inflation and wind the clock forward about 35 years or so.
If annuity rates stay as they are (i.e. about 5%) then, if you want to have a pension of say £50k p.a then your "pot" will have to be worth a staggering £1,000,000 by that time. Yes a million pounds. :-?
I kid you not.
So, young man. Work hard and SAVE for the next 30 or so years.
-
When final salary type pension schemes were introduced there were 9 people in work to provide for each pensioner. That figure has reduced to 3 and is heading towards 2.
Therein lies the unavoidable problem, and its a problem which the dinosaurs who are at the head of the public sector unions refuse to recognise the existence of. ;)
-
These are hardly average incomes that are being discussed here :-X
Oh I know - I was surprised, actually.
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
If it's anything like mine then, as Robert says, surprisingly little! I pay in 5% and the company pays 5% - at 65, that will be worth a staggering £12,000 a year.
Go me.
-
what is truly frightening is the number of young people without a pension. God knows I started too late with mine but its hard trying to get across to people the importance of taking advantage of company schemes. Even the poor ones are better than nothing not least because the employer contributes as well. I did an open learning pack in conjunction with my Union on the various types of pensions and it certainly highlighted the issues for me.Guess its hard at their age to envisage being ours ;D
-
I didn't start my pension until I was .. 26 or 27 I think - as you say, far too late.
Still, you live and learn, as they say. Some of us learn slowly, admittedly. Like me. ;D
-
Im not jealous of anyone Steve. Just have a strong sense of whats right and wrong. The public sector can only continue as it is if we either - borrow lots more money,and continue to do so forevermore - which would put us in the same position greece is in now pretty quickly.
Or - I pay even more tax (including my pension fund taxation) so that people who earn far more than me (and most other people) can carry on regardless, even though economic circumstances have changed dramatically. To me, thats wrong.
The public sector used to retire early and have better pensions than the private sector, but earned considerably less than the private sector. Public sector earnings are now higher than the private sector. Something has to give. The private sector is shrinking, the public sector is growing like an out of control monster. It has to stop. ;)
Tell that to binmen, dinner ladies and classroom assistants. Each of them holds down a responsible position and gets paid the minimum wage. Their only compensation is a meagre public pension on top of there meagre state pension.
If you listen to the hype, as most people do, you would think that public servants earn a fortune and get a massive pension....totally unaffordable.
No one listens to the people on the box who tell you that the average public sector pay packet is about £16000 and, when the stock market picks up, the pension fund will be in credit.
It is pure ideology and to portray it as anything else is a lie.
Listen to this for pure, unadulterated shite:
On the telly this morning 'One in nine women now alive will live to be a hundred years old'
So?...... Two in nine will probably not live see the pension they paid into all their life. But that doesn't fit, so....keep it dark. ::)
Dont know where you get that from Steve
The jobs you list are paid at greater than minimum wage and get above average pensions (the wife is in one of those occupations).
The reality is w ALL need to work longer as we are ALL living longer. If you want to retire early then you must work harder and save harder.
Teachers etc are VERY well paid with good job security, a very generous pension scheme (which woudl hit you in the pocket for well over 20% if you wanted the same in a private scheme) and ahev receevied very generous pay increases year on year.
I hear them on the TV moaning and saying they have not had a rise this year and I just think, welcome to the real world!
Reality is they will have to take it on the chin as in these times of hardship, nobody outside of the profesion is going to back them!
I get that from the' Let's wind Albs O'Flaherty up' book of quotes Mark. ;D As I said, before that lad was run over, I was getting ready to give him a hard time, but events over took me.
-
And with regards to teachers not getting a pay rise, a lot of then get round that by moving up the pay scale.
-
These are hardly average incomes that are being discussed here :-X
Oh I know - I was surprised, actually.
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
If it's anything like mine then, as Robert says, surprisingly little! I pay in 5% and the company pays 5% - at 65, that will be worth a staggering £12,000 a year.
Go me.
It sounds a lot but it isn't. Firstly you will get taxed on every penny of it as your state pension will have taken up most/all of your tax allowances.
Secondly that figure no doubt is based on no future indexing - in other words same figure per year till you die. If it is index linked then you might get £10,000 per annum. Then the indexing will be at a crappy rate not the one that our MPs get (do as we say not as we do)
Thirdly when you retire and a loaf of bread is £10, a litre of fuel £10 and standing charges on your energy bills £5,000 per annum it isn't going to go anywhere.
My advice(and I ain't an FA) is either to save everything you can afford each month and more for retirement OR blow it each month and "let the state look after you". Depends when you think you are going to die. :y
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
It's a "money purchase" scheme - my mate works for the same company. Basically the (tax free) money goes into an investment pot and at your chosen retirement age (currently minimum 55), the total is used to purchase an annuity - i.e. a pension.
So, lets project forward, add in some promotional payrises and inflation and wind the clock forward about 35 years or so.
If annuity rates stay as they are (i.e. about 5%) then, if you want to have a pension of say £50k p.a then your "pot" will have to be worth a staggering £1,000,000 by that time. Yes a million pounds. :-?
I kid you not.
So, young man. Work hard and SAVE for the next 30 or so years.
Thats for the clarification, I do indeed need to save hard! But what I have done is buy my own property first, I did not want to reach pension age and not have my own house, a friend, refuses to buy his own place, he will always rent. Something I remind him, that his pension will also have to pay for rent!
I didn't want to be on a pension and be in that situation, so hopefully* come retirement, my pension will just need to pay living cost bills.
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
Sadly, not as much as you would think, it would be a long way short of that which the teachers etc get.
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
Sadly, not as much as you would think, it would be a long way short of that which the teachers etc get.
I just been doing a quick search, came across this:
http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/scripts/pencalc2.asp
I put in a final salary of 30k, with 35 year service. The pension itself comes out at 13k which is about average, but where on earth does that 40k Lump sum in addition come from? :o
-
These are hardly average incomes that are being discussed here :-X
Oh I know - I was surprised, actually.
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
If it's anything like mine then, as Robert says, surprisingly little! I pay in 5% and the company pays 5% - at 65, that will be worth a staggering £12,000 a year.
Go me.
It sounds a lot but it isn't. Firstly you will get taxed on every penny of it as your state pension will have taken up most/all of your tax allowances.
Oh I know - my point was exactly that it isn't a lot.. in fact, it's pretty abysmal - especially given I don't expect there to even be a 'state pension' by the time I retire.
Then again, I don't expect to make 65, so..
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
And nor will anyone else. The contributions will be invested, and the value of your pension on retirement will depend on the return on the investment. Thats how pensions work these days - outside of the public sector.And its the only possible way they can work, unless you have means of taking the money from someone else to pay for your guaranteed monthly income. ;)
-
Think I get about one of the best pensions outside of the public sector, I pay in 4%, company pays in 8%. What that actually equates to, I have no idea :-[ :-[
Still can't complain, I've just had a 4.5% pay rise and 10% bonus :D
Sadly, not as much as you would think, it would be a long way short of that which the teachers etc get.
I just been doing a quick search, came across this:
http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/scripts/pencalc2.asp
I put in a final salary of 30k, with 35 year service. The pension itself comes out at 13k which is about average, but where on earth does that 40k Lump sum in addition come from? :o
[/highlight]
That is an easy one to answer. Savvy folk get a wage and a good pension. Part of that good pension is a lump sum typically 2 times or similar final salary. A large amount of it is tax free too. Like I said earlier. cake now or cake later!
Also meant to say that if you get your pension planning wrong and end up with state pension plus a crappy small pension you will not qualify for a lot of things that folk with nowt get by virtue of being viewed as having means. :D
-
The lump sum is available to all.
When your plan matures you have to buy annuity which is the plan that pays your monthly pension payment.
However, you have an option to take upto a third of the plans sum before purchasing the annuity (clearly your monthly pension payment will be less as a result).
This can actualy be a sensible thing to do (and more so given the increase in pension age) as you then get some guaranteed benefit from your years of paying in and gamble less on how long you are going to live. This lump sum could be spent or invested to top up your monthly pension (but the key thing is that it will continue to exist and not simply die with you like a pension annuity - although your other half may be entitled to receive some of your pension after your death....do beware though, some annuities dont support that!)
-
As an idea of a calculator for a 'non public sector pension'
My old final salary scheme (now frozen) was something like
(Final salary averaged over the last 5 years service x (no of years contributions/55) x 60%) - state pension. (note state pension is about 7900 a year)
Which, given how much I contributed, was not much!
-
Just did a quick calc, on a standard private pension, you would need to save about £600k to be able to retire at 65 with a 28K per year annuity!
Hence why some are questioning why bother even going for a pension when you could invest in 'other things'
-
I just checked mine - the final pot would be somewhere in the region of £500,000 in todays terms (£1,000,000 in 'then' terms) with a pension of £19k in todays terms.
Pretty poor, really. Good job I'm planning to kick it at about 60 ;)
-
Just did a quick calc, on a standard private pension, you would need to save about £600k to be able to retire at 65 with a 28K per year annuity!
Hence why some are questioning why bother even going for a pension when you could invest in 'other things'
Like property? :-/
Guess if took on a second flat, in 25 years time when that mortgage is paid off, the rent from that, minus any running costs would be money in the bank.
£200k investment in a flat, could yield around £12-14k a year once its paid off
-
Teachers pension also carry a life insurance element. Three times annual salary for me to spend if she pegs it during service. ;D
-
Oh, and to put in perspective for Tunnie, teachers pay 6.25% of their wages (tax relieved, of course), and the LA pay in another 13%. So, 19.25% of annual salary into the pot.
-
Oh, and to put in perspective for Tunnie, teachers pay 6.25% of their wages (tax relieved, of course), and the LA pay in another 13%. So, 19.25% of annual salary into the pot.
Humm thats a fat contribution, looks like i need to up mine. I think I could increase mine to give in 8%, i'm not sure if the company doubles what ever I put in, or just put in 8% :-/
-
Oh, and to put in perspective for Tunnie, teachers pay 6.25% of their wages (tax relieved, of course), and the LA pay in another 13%. So, 19.25% of annual salary into the pot.
That is a staggering amount. :o
-
Meanwhile...........comrade Bob Crow was spotted having a champagne lunch in Scotts of Mayfair this week. The bill for him and his four union colleagues came to £650. Not sure if that was paid from his six figure salary or from his generous expenses account. Maybe his members should be asking for a reduction in their union subscriptions. ;) ::)
Or maybe they should continue laughing like fook at LU and the train companies who bow to their every whim. Jealousy is an ugly emotion Albs.
It used to be the haves and the have-nots. Now it's the haves, the have-nots and the bitter onlookers.
Like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13896546