national strike

[Castello]

I'm pretty sure, unless I've made a dramatic error, public sector workers also pay tax? And also, another potential misunderstanding on my part, but I believe we live in a democracy where the right to withdraw labour is a legitimate form of protest? Call me a whingeing limp-wristed soft liberal leftie if you like, but power to them. I'd be pissed off if I was in their position. They're lucky enough to have a union to join. :S

you're a whingeing limp-wristed soft liberal leftie. Still better one of those than a uncaring self centered ignorant ranting tory .

For those who want more accurate and informed Information about what is being proposed and what the governments real agenda is please see my posts on a previous discussion.

Two firms................... - Page 4

 

[Castello]

this seems to be the Occupy ___________ group, they want Communism-esque-ness so that hard working people have to share their spoils with the occupy group. It's just a glorified way of what benefit cheats do...f*** you, i can sit on my arse, and you will pay for me.

I do hope you repeat this view of public sector workers, next time you need treatment in a hospital. Preferably before you get treatment.

 

[catfish]

Some of these strikers are looking at pensions as low as 6 grand a year yet are beng told they have to work longer and contribute more by a bunch of old Etonian millionaires. That doesn't strike me as being fair.

 

[JJB]

If you've saved wisely, £6k/pa should easily be enough to survive on. Afterall that's what we're here for. It's not your god given right to have luxuries, most people sure as hell didn't have them 50 years ago.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

As I see it everybody has the right to withdrawn their labour under the rules and regs, and if somebody is dramatically changing my circumstances then I would do it. That said, I think the unions need to be VERY careful so as not to create a them and us situation. Most in the private sector do not have unions due to companies not recognising them and therefore do not have collective bargaining. They also see pay cuts, redundancies (sorry wage freezes and downsizing) going on (which is also happening in the public sector), but also see public sector workers able to strike. It is also the rhetoric that is used by the unions to see it to their members, inflames others on the outside in many cases.

Self determination and collective bargaining are a right, but unfortunately very rarely possible outside of the public sector. If you have worked in the public sector for a long time, you may not be aware of how different the 'union situation' outside.

So when you have the option to strike, and feel its right then great, do it, but also understand why others don't quite see it that way.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

I do hope you repeat this view of public sector workers, next time you need treatment in a hospital. Preferably before you get treatment.

i'm a private sector worker and

i do as much overtime as i can to get by.

i'm not going to take a day off to protest a pension which is completely fair for me.

in the same league, i respect everything a WORKING person stands for. I just can't stand freeloaders who think everything should be shared with them while they do f*** all. This wasn't aimed at public sector workers. AT ALL. I'll be damned if someone who can't be arsed tries to tell me what I do with my money makes me so bad and horrible.

I don't earn much at all but I'm happy with it, as i said, it gets me through, i can contribute to whoever I damn well please.

If they changed my pension? Who cares? I'm 19, and at the rate the boss is matching what i contribute pension wise, I won't be well off, but i'll be comfy.

 

[beorhthelm]

Some of these strikers are looking at pensions as low as 6 grand a year

are you going to place some context around that, or just use an outlier to show a point that wouldnt stand up to closer examination? ie how much does the person getting 6k pension earn now, what are their contributions etc.

for one more typical example, someone on a final salary of 35k will get a pension of 22k. that would require a pension pot of about 600k if brought as an annuality, which you'd have to save 15k* a year for 40 years to bulid up. get the picture? we have to re-arrange public sector pensions and rise the retirment age to fix this, it is unsustainable as it is.

*actully thats a tad dishonest, it'll be about half that once some empolyer contribuion, say 5% and 40years asset growth is accounted for. but then theres a thing, the pensions will only be around if you have that asset growth, driven by those nasty bankers. quite a quadry for those anti-bankers without a nice public final salary pension.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

and this

sums what i think up to a t

 

[jackanada]

Michael Gove flipped his home, maxed out on expenses for three years running and earned £200,000 per year from news International when he should have been working as an MP.
And none of our MPs has suggested reducing their incredibly good pensions yet.

Everyone's still arguing with the wrong people.

 

[Castello]

If you've saved wisely, £6k/pa should easily be enough to survive on. Afterall that's what we're here for. It's not your god given right to have luxuries, most people sure as hell didn't have them 50 years ago.

£6k may be just about enough to survive on, although after years of saving wisely by paying into a pension scheme that I was promised would pay me £6k only to find the payout reduced at the ideological whim of a cabinet full of millionaires, I might be pissed off. and indeed public sector workers are pissed off. Also £120 a week isn't buying many luxuries.

 

[blue'n'white]

I don't see what they hope to achieve. I was a Civil Servant for six years and joined the PCS as it seemed a good idea to be in the union. Our Home Office leadership were fairly decent, but my beef is with Serwotka, who in my view is not acting in workers' interest, but out of his agenda as a hardline socialist; there were just as many strikes under Labour. I remember in 2008-9 they tried to bring us out over the pay offer (may have only been a Home Office dispute, I can't remember). I didn't have the cheek to join in, having been offered a 4.5% pay increase that year. The turnout for the strike in the Home Office was 11%. Many then who wouldn't strike over pay though said that pensions would be the one thing that would bring them out. I think it is fair enough to expect new entrants to pay more for their pension - you join on the terms you are offered, and if you don't like them you don't join, whereas to make people who joined a scheme in good faith pay more than what they signed up for it is rather dodgy. Saying that, it happens in the private sector all the time.

Serwotka is a complete twat - he isn't paid by the government but by the PCS so he's probably got some performance pay for getting the strike going
I am one of those who you mention that would not go out normally - I just don't agree with the hard line leftie shite but pensions is the one thing that will get me out so I shall be striking on Wednesday. I certainly won't be manning picket lines though

 

[Castello]

As I see it everybody has the right to withdrawn their labour under the rules and regs, and if somebody is dramatically changing my circumstances then I would do it. That said, I think the unions need to be VERY careful so as not to create a them and us situation. Most in the private sector do not have unions due to companies not recognising them and therefore do not have collective bargaining. They also see pay cuts, redundancies (sorry wage freezes and downsizing) going on (which is also happening in the public sector), but also see public sector workers able to strike. It is also the rhetoric that is used by the unions to see it to their members, inflames others on the outside in many cases.

Self determination and collective bargaining are a right, but unfortunately very rarely possible outside of the public sector. If you have worked in the public sector for a long time, you may not be aware of how different the 'union situation' outside.

So when you have the option to strike, and feel its right then great, do it, but also understand why others don't quite see it that way.

In fairness we do see why the private sector is upset. To be honest the real scandal in all of this are private sector pensions. Some heads of big companies get multi million pensions whilst those at the bottom get zilch. Most of the public sector workers would happily back private sector workers in a battle for better pension rights. We all also rightly pay through taxes to pay for benefits when private sector workers retire without a pension. The issue here is the greed of those on multi million pound earnings, not the public sector pensions.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

If you've saved wisely, £6k/pa should easily be enough to survive on. Afterall that's what we're here for. It's not your god given right to have luxuries, most people sure as hell didn't have them 50 years ago.

If you can live off 6K you are a very frugal man.

 

[Castello]

i'm a private sector worker and

i do as much overtime as i can to get by.

i'm not going to take a day off to protest a pension which is completely fair for me.

in the same league, i respect everything a WORKING person stands for. I just can't stand freeloaders who think everything should be shared with them while they do f*** all. This wasn't aimed at public sector workers. AT ALL. I'll be damned if someone who can't be arsed tries to tell me what I do with my money makes me so bad and horrible.

I don't earn much at all but I'm happy with it, as i said, it gets me through, i can contribute to whoever I damn well please.

If they changed my pension? Who cares? I'm 19, and at the rate the boss is matching what i contribute pension wise, I won't be well off, but i'll be comfy.

What if they changed it when you were 50 after 30 years of contributions, to be told that firstly you'll pay more in contributions, secondly you'll get a worse pension, and thirdly you'll have to work 6-8 years longer before you can get that pension. Cos that's what they are doing.

I suspect your tune might change.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

What if they changed it when you were 50 after 30 years of contributions, to be told that Firstly you'll pay more in contributions, secondly youll get a worse pension, and thirdly youll have to work 6-8 years longer before you can get that pension. Cos that's what they are doing.

I suspect your tune might change.

i'd work for as long as i needed to to make sure i was near comfortable at best at retirement

 

[brakespear]

Cue many pages of people arguing thereby distracting from the fact that both public and private sector workers have been shafted plenty over the years and will continue to be shafted. Unless you are a High Net Worth Individual in which case changes to pensions in 2005 took a couple of billion extra out the tax pot and into your pensions. Divide and conquer - oldest trick in the book.

spot on.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

are you going to place some context around that, or just use an outlier to show a point that wouldnt stand up to closer examination? ie how much does the person getting 6k pension earn now, what are their contributions etc.

for one more typical example, someone on a final salary of 35k will get a pension of 22k. that would require a pension pot of about 600k if brought as an annuality, which you'd have to save 15k* a year for 40 years to bulid up. get the picture? we have to re-arrange public sector pensions and rise the retirment age to fix this, it is unsustainable as it is.

*actully thats a tad dishonest, it'll be about half that once some empolyer contribuion, say 5% and 40years asset growth is accounted for. but then theres a thing, the pensions will only be around if you have that asset growth, driven by those nasty bankers. quite a quadry for those anti-bankers without a nice public final salary pension.

How the hell are you working out those figures ? The worst thing is the scaling for early retirement, the government are really forcing teachers to work to 65-67. The stats say this is an early death sentence for teachers. I would actually accept paying a bit more (looking like £100 a month or so), I could probably take a little less at the end but coupled with working to 67, just not acceptable.

 

[beorhthelm]

and thirdly you'll have to work 6-8 years longer before you can get that pension.

and how much of that additional years is due to age equality legislation?

and its nice that you think this can all be solved by cutting boardroom pensions (or indeed union leader pensions, which are none too shabby either). problem is the private sector has alreayd had to close most final salary pensions as they arent affordable, many in massive debt. some large company was sold last week for £2 pounds, sounds like a great deal but it came with pension fund black hole of hundreds of millions. long and short is putting a small fraction <10% into a pension for 30-40 years to take out 50%+ of salary for 20-30 years simply doesnt add up. its been the elephant in the room of all economics for decades, sadly not touched with the proverbial bargepole, so when the change comes its requires a sharper turn to steer us from the rocks.

 

[beorhthelm]

How the hell are you working out those figures ?

original point from memory read in a paper last week, but recognise its a bit over simplfied. go to the Hargreaves pension calculator to get a proper look.

well worth it if you dont have a pension to see how the early years make all the running, as long as you dont get scared by the numbers.

btw, final salary i recall is worked out on a formula along the lines of 1/60th final salary times years of service, though some might differ. for final salary of 35k doing 35 years (allow for uni and a few years early retirement) thats £20.5k.

 

[Castello]

and how much of that additional years is due to age equality legislation?

Actually precisely none. If you knew anything about (age) equality legislation, you would know that it is aimed at allowing people to not be forced to retire, rather than forcing them to work longer. It is also enforced by an individual bringing a legal case to a tribunal claiming that they have been discriminated against. Something they would be unlikely to do if they wanted to retire.

What you may be confused about is that the state retirement age has been raised for women to 65 to match the age for men. This happens years ago before any age equality legislation was created.

This difference is all down to the proposals that the government are making regarding pensions. At present workers in the health service can claim a full occupational (but not state retirement) pension at 60 under the new legislation it has been changed to between 66 - 68 depending on how old you are.