So is anyone here on strike?

[Grapes of Wrath]

Yes I am on strike today. 36 years ago I signed a contract with the then Inland Revenue which allows me to retire at 60, on a certain percentage of my final salary. If this goes through there is every chance that I will have to work until 65 or 66, before I can retire and collect a lesser pension.

Tough tit some of you may say, but whatever your views may be on public sector pensions, to me personally and most of my long serving colleagues this is a massive kick in the nuts. At the end of the day a contract is a contract, the public sector is an easy hit for the abject failure of successive governments to keep spending under control. Far more is wasted on wars that we arguably should not get involved with, or funding pretty much anyone who decides to come to these shores and take advantage of our benefit system.

I dont deny that in line with much of the private sector a review is required, but to suddenly tell someone who thinks that they are approaching retirement age in accordance with their contract that they may have to work another 5 or 6 years before they can retire stinks. Not the best analogy, but imagine just finishing a marathon only to be told, "jog on mate you have another 5 miles to do"!

 

[seagull_special]

BRING back the warm glow of 80s Union militancy by shouting "scab" at kids who are going to school today. (two twips - twitter)

 

[xenophon]

Exactly... so it is simply a political diversion to avoid the real issue.

Nice paraphrasing of my post. I'm sure if you were to ask strikers on picket lines today they would mention the dodgers and spivs who aren't about to be hit in the pocket anytime soon. You can't separate the two issues. In simplest terms : recession caused by greedy bankers, new gov promises cuts as "we're all in this together", cuts hit the worse off while the big boys - including some of the greedy bastards - get off scot-free, strike by the workers shafted up the arse. Cause and effect.

Then again, you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la...."

 

[beorhthelm]

To even bandy about a term like that means you accept summat's not right, i.e. there's haves and have-nots.

It's time to pick sides

and these are left wing sound bites, . lets just accept the fact that some do have more than others, some do work harder than others, some are given more than others. if we can move beyond this please to rational debate about how best to deal with the future, than drag over the past, we migh move forward. "picking sides" is not remotely helpful, its the language of those that want to turn everything into a conflict.

Good post. I too fear that. I'm nearly 40 and half my friends dont have a pension as they don't think they won't exist in 25 years time. I have one and I'm open to an average income rather than final pay, but making these 'cuts', aiming it at the public sector rather than the banks and the rich who cause the top heaving economy in the first place is disgusting.

Again, why are "the cuts", banks and all those related recent economic event dragged into it? its demographics and maths, when the retirement age was set, the average life expectancy was 70. 50 years later, its moved on 10 years, so its fair to say it will move another 10 years in the next 50. meanwhile the working population is shrinking. its not a new issue, pension reform has been the elephant in the room of public finances for too long. Teachers (who i must say are getting forced into a poorer deal than most) and a few others aside, state pensions are unfunded. the money going in now is paid out straight away, rather than saved for the employees actual retirement, so the next generation has to pick up the increasingly larger bills. many in public sector pensions put in 1 or 2% contributions, and even get lower NI. local autorities, cabinet office and such are making 15%+ employers contributions, NHS is higher, Police higher still, all paid from taxes. but as much as that is, its not enough as we get older and stay in pensions for longer. average age is knocking on 80, and focusing on "average" many will sail past that. if we are to receive a usful pension, it means contributing more and having a later start point.

 

[Prettyboyshaw]

I can understand why the teachers are on strike. Tag it onto tomorrows and Mondays inset day makes a nice long weekend just before the 6 week summer holiday. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Titanic]

Nice paraphrasing of my post. I'm sure if you were to ask strikers on picket lines today they would mention the dodgers and spivs who aren't about to be hit in the pocket anytime soon. You can't separate the two issues. In simplest terms : recession caused by greedy bankers, new gov promises cuts as "we're all in this together", cuts hit the worse off while the big boys - including some of the greedy bastards - get off scot-free, strike by the workers shafted up the arse. Cause and effect.

Then again, you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la...."

Because the affordability issues were clear for to all see, private sector pension changes happened well before any recession, whoever or whatever caused it, or for that matter, before the New Labour govt decided to spend $160bn a year that we haven't got. La, la, la...

 

[bluenitsuj]

I am sure there are lots of people out there who would simply like to have a job, not be on strike !!

Exactly!! They should be grateful to have a job. There are many people out there, losing there jobs, getting basic state pensions yet they get on with thier lives. They do not disrupt the lives of thousands of childrens education, thousands of parents who have to take the day off to look after their children ( many unpaid ).

I am sure many teachers will try and prove to themselves that they are doing the right thing, but the reality is, that they are just striking because they have been bullied into it, or too scared to go through the picket line.

There, got that off my hairy chest

 

[Albumen]

Hunt and his rich cabinet buds won't need a pension after this . . .
News Corp's BSkyB bid: Jeremy Hunt gives green light for takeover | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

[Don Quixote]

Being a teacher is not a easy job

 

[BLOCK F]

I'd be interested to know if your private sector pension arrangements were dramatically altered overnight, or whether they have been gradually made less attractive over a number of years.

For me, this is the crux of the issue. I don't think we can afford to make generous (unsustainable) pensions a carrot for working in the public sector anymore, but imposing 3 enormous changes on public sector pensions at once is simply unfair.

I take your point re 3 changes at once Simster and that is why I made the point that past Governments should have tackled this looming problem years ago,but ducked the issue.However,we are where we are and the problem has to be sorted.Personally,I would not be against those in the public sector nearer retirement,being granted some kind of phased or taper agreement to make the transition more palatable.
As far as my own arrangements are concerned,my pension arrangements are always changing overnight as they are linked to the stockmarket and look how that has performed for the last ten years.Additionally,yes there has also been a steady worsening of its attractiveness over the years due to falling annuity rates.It's a bummer and so it is pretty difficult for many like me to feel much sympathy for those on strike.

 

[phoenix]

More than willing to cross the pickets - nobody will stop me doing what I want to do but I have things planned today as I'm off on holiday in a couple of days time so took today and tomorrow off as there's lots to do. I usually do

That sounds very reasonable to me, quite understandable!

 

[Albion Dan]

The public sector pension pot will be short of several billion in a few years.

I have just one question. Where do the strikers expect the shortfall to come from?

Maybe the odd billion that will get wasted on bombs in places like Libya, or the bank bonuses might be a good start?

 

[Gordon the Gopher]

From the Guardian today!

The prime minister alleges that public sector pensions are unaffordable and unsustainable; yet reports by the National Audit Office and public accounts committee suggest otherwise. Even the Hutton report shows public sector pension costs are falling, but the government refuses to negotiate on pension age, contributions or value.

The evidence does not stack up for Cameron, but he has assembled a coalition he can spin his way through: the compliant Labour ex-minister whose conclusions contradict his report; rightwing newspaper battalions too willing to demonise strikes; and a timid opposition with no idea what it stands for.

Cameron is also trying to enlist private sector workers in his campaign against public sector pensions, but the real pensions scandal is private sector pensions – both the lack of them and the tax reliefs that benefit the super-rich.

The collapse of private sector pensions is one of the greatest outrages of our time. Just over a decade ago half of all private sector workers were in a workplace pension scheme; today it's less than a third. The cost of that decline will be borne by the taxpayer through increased eligibility for means-tested benefits such as pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit; greater health and social care costs; and an increase in our already shocking levels of pensioner poverty.

However, while pensions have been ripped away from ordinary workers, the directors of large companies continue to net very generous pensions. Research by the TUC shows that the average director's pension in a FTSE 100 company is worth £3.4m, while the chief executive averages £5.6m. These generous fat cat schemes at the top lapped up the bulk of the £37.6bn in tax relief that private sector pensions get every year.

UK pensioner poverty is among the worst in Europe – only Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia abandon their pensioners to a greater degree. France spends over twice as much on pensions as the UK, Germany two-thirds more. How is further damaging pension provision in this country going to tackle that crisis?

Don't tell low- and medium-paid workers on strike today in defence of their modest pensions that they are being unfair on the "hard-working taxpayer" – as if public sector workers are not in that category too. We have 30,000 members not on strike today who work in the private sector. They do not begrudge their fellow members a penny of pension, because it is not public sector workers who exploit them but their private sector employers.

People see through these divide-and-rule tactics because they see injustice around them every day when they are told there is no money for libraries, but there is for bombing Libya; they have to swallow a VAT hike while corporation tax is slashed; and new school buildings are out of the question while a new Trident missile system is a necessity.

 

[m20gull]

Maybe the odd billion that will get wasted on bombs in places like Libya, or the bank bonuses might be a good start?

So you would rather Libyan civilians died so that public sector workers can retire early?

 

[m20gull]

I would not be against those in the public sector nearer retirement,being granted some kind of phased or taper agreement to make the transition more palatable.

Which is exactly what is being proposed. All changes are only for future service (or contributions).

 

[brakespear]

The Tory propaganda and the party line faithfully adopted by the Tory press is that because private sector workers are treated like sh*t by their employers, public sector workers must also be treated like sh*t in the name of fairness - and yet the Tories accuse the Left of promoting 'the politics of envy' and wanting to 'level down' in the name of equality.
Their philisophy is 'if private sector workers can't have decent pensions, then neither should public sector workers' - great, we should all live in poverty in old age! This is classic Tory divide-and-rule; turn one section of society against another, while those at the top, in the banks and the company boardroom continue paying themselves millions!! We are told that the private sector can't afford to pay its staff decent pensions well just look at the generous pensions of those at the top in the private sector; there seems to be plenty for them! Lets improve private sector pension provision, not have a race to the bottom.
Yes, there are fat cats in the public sector - and workers in the public sector despise these parasites, believe me - NHS Trust chiefs, chief exectives of local authorities, university vice chancellors, but please stop assuming that their obscene salaries and pensions are also paid to care home assisitants, nurses, lollipop ladies, road sweepers, etc.! Again, you're just falling for the old Tory trick of turning workers against each other, while the rich just get even richer. Making public sector workers poorer won't make private sector workers any richer.
As a fat, bloated, lazy, useless, good-for-nothing public sector parasite (© any Tory), if I have to pay an extra £150-200 per month towards my pension, fine; I don't object - but that will be £150-200 less I spend on private sector goods and services, so local shops, restaurants and pubs will receive less revenue from people like me, and go out of business.
Oh incidentally, public sector workers are also taxpayers. I also - quite happily - pay 15% of my salary towards my pension.
The Tories and their friends in the press really are pouring out a load of lies about the public sector, yet sadly, a lot of people are dumb enough to believe them - or choose to believe this crap because it suits their own ideological agendas.

all of this, great post.

 

[Titanic]

From the Guardian today!

blah blah blah

From The Telegraph today:

"Thousands of schools are to close today as a result of industrial action over proposals to make public sector staff work longer and contribute more for their pensions.

Unions representing the 750,000 employees involved in the strike say their members are being unfairly treated. But Treasury figures released today expose how public sector retirement funds dwarf their private sector counterparts.

The calculations show that a mid-ranking teacher on £32,000 a year will receive a final salary pension that is the equivalent of having built up a £500,000 pension pot.

This is 20 times higher than the average private sector scheme, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. Private sector workers would have to save more than 20 per cent of their salaries for 40 years – more than £500 a month for a similarly paid person — to amass the same amount in a defined contribution pension.

A well-paid London headmaster will retire with a pension scheme worth £1.5  million, the Treasury figures show. A chief constable retiring at the standard age of 55 would have a scheme worth more than £3 million.

Every British family faces a total bill of £13,500 to pay pensions for teachers – up to 300,000 of whom are expected to join the strike."

So what?

 

[Albion Dan]

So you would rather Libyan civilians died so that public sector workers can retire early?

If its on an unwinnable exercise looking like being Afghanistan 2 then yep. We didnt give a crap in Rwanda, nor Zimbabwe, nor Sri Lanka, nor.......add any of the 100's of conflicts over the last 50 years

 

[Uncle C]

Public sector employees earning £32,000 a year are retiring with pension pots worth £500,000.

Tom McPhail, pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “You would need about £500,000 to buy an index-linked pension of £24,000 in the private sector.

“Assuming the typical teacher starts work at age 23, having obtained a post graduate certificate of education, and then retires at age 60, as all members who joined the teachers’ pension scheme before January, 2007, are entitled to do, that gives a career of 37 years.

“In order to save £500,000 over that length of time, assuming investment returns of 6pc per annum net of charges, you would need to start by setting aside £600 per month from outset, even if – to be realistic – you assume contributions rise with earnings during their career.

“If the person begins their career being paid £25,000 per annum, that level of saving would be equivalent to 29pc of earnings. By contrast, the current teachers’ pension scheme requires members to contribute just 6.4pc of earnings while the Government contributes 14.1pc.”

Even those figures do not accurately reflect the cost of these benefits because this is an unfunded scheme. There is no pot of money.

 

[beorhthelm]

why does the left, like the Guardian above, keep on using the term "divide-and-rule tactics", when do exactly the same thing just from a different perspective? harping on about grossly over paid executives doesnt actually change anything. lets make them have the same as the workers, the £5m saved might add £100 to each employee's pot, and then we can move back to the real, wider problems.