Civil servants vote for strike ballot over cuts

[sten_super]

The Unions are striking because they are protecting those costs - effectively they are saying that if you cut the costs, we will not accept a pay cut, so you will have to cut the assets you purchase, or liquidate some you already own. So the choice becomes something along the lines of Prisons or Prison Officers, Soldiers or Guns, Teachers or Schools ?

It is for PRIVATE sector employees to argue their worth with their employer. It is the job of the Citizen at large ( even if they are say 15 years old and have never had any kind of employment and never paid any tax ) to determine the worth of a public sector worker. In the case of their Teacher they may well consider that they are worth every penny. And regardless of what they do it is the business of the PUBLIC sector employee to argue their worth with the executive who employs them - if that means they strike then that reflects the entrenched position on either side of the arguement, NOT whether they ' generate wealth for the country '.

Which is all well and good, but getting back on topic, the current public sector pension scheme does not pay for itself, and is incurring ever greater losses (i.e. the gap between contributions and payouts) which have to be paid by the taxpayer. The unions can bleat about it all that they want, but to me this discussion about pensions is not even about wages; it is about having a sustainable pension scheme which is self-funded and not picked up by the taxpayer.

 

[Simster]

I agree with some of what Fighter Command says, but take issue with his definition of wealth. Take a look around you and you will see a vast infrastructure in place - tubes, roads, schools, hospitals, sewers etc. This is actually what makes me laugh with regards to the balance of payments deficit - OK so the debt is large, but not only has it been bigger (relative to GDP) in the past, but it also ignores the vast public assets we have in place.

My position on the issue we are discussing (pensions for civil servants) is this: I am fairly certain there are civil servants on far more secure, out-of-step-with-reality renumeration deals than exist in the private sector at large. However, until we get a grip on the sort of impact this is having on the country, how can anyone possibly make a decision on whether this is a fight worth having? So a few public servants are on obscene contracts? Boo hoo, so are CEOs and chairmen of banks that f***ed up the economy, and indeed a whole raft of other private sector big wigs. If you are going to disrupt the status quo, you better have good reason because all grown ups need to know how and when to pick their battles.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

" Communist USSR had no private sector, yet happily traded with western capitalist nations. "

That's complete rubbish, they wouldn't even allow their citizens private wealth, trading with the West would have meant a visit by the KGB and a trip to Siberia for being contaminated by Western Bourgeois Capitalism.

Please tell me when the USA traded with the USSR, other than at the SALT talks and trading insults across the floor of the UN Security Council.

 

[sten_super]

This is a problem that will only get worse. An online retail outlet needs a lot less staff compared to sales than an actual shop. More and more of industry is being automated. We are already coming to a point where there are a lot more people than there are jobs to be done. Eventually, capitalism is going to have to be completely rethought.

That's a very negative way of looking at it, IMHO. It's part of a process that has been taking place for millennia. To start with we each produced just enough food to feed our family. Then when we realised that there were efficiencies to doing this on a large scale, some people grew the plants and some people reared chickens. Then we found more efficient ways of doing this, and people had time to create new innovations, like wooden tools. etc etc etc. The theory goes that this 'free time' (i.e. unemployment) that has been created by these productivity increases will lead to a further innovation that will require manpower and technology will advance forward again.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My Mum works for the civil service, and she told me that the current government have (illegally) been trying to change the contracts of current workers, and I get the impression the unions/workers are pretty pissed off about that. No private business would ever be able to do that.

Because you cannot arbitrarily change the terms of someones contract. If you do, they can either accept it or leave and take you to court for constructive dismissal.

It's not illegal though - being contractual it is a civil matter. Even then you would have to prove that the changes were unreasonable.

 

[fork me]

As I said above, the private sector is not yet picking up any of the slack created by public sector redundancies. However, not sure I understand your comment about the public sector employee getting a private sector job and therefore someone else missing out! If you make 100,000 public sector posts redundant and the private sector creates and additional 100,000 jobs which are taken up by those redundant, the overall employment figures and unemployment figures will remain unaltered except the public purse will be saving100,000 salaries. The problem is these new jobs are not being created.

It's quite simple. You are correct that if the government sacks 100,000 people and private industry creates 100,000 jobs there is no net gain in unemployment. However, that is only relevent if the 100,000 jobs are created as a result of the 100,000 people being sacked. If they are not created that way, then the government is still paying 100,000 more people to be on the dole than they would be otherwise.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

It's not illegal though - being contractual it is a civil matter. Even then you would have to prove that the changes were unreasonable.

And the issue he refers to isn't even contractrual. The Civil Service compenstation scheme is being changed, which is contained within legislation which the Government has now changed.

 

[Simster]

" Communist USSR had no private sector, yet happily traded with western capitalist nations. "

That's complete rubbish, they wouldn't even allow their citizens private wealth, trading with the West would have meant a visit by the KGB and a trip to Siberia for being contaminated by Western Bourgeois Capitalism.

Please tell me when the USA traded with the USSR, other than at the SALT talks and trading insults across the floor of the UN Security Council.

No, no it isn't. Back in the 70s (when I was about 5 or 6 years old), my dad's JOB was to sell those things that pull aeroplanes to the Eastern block countries. He went everywhere in the Eastern block, except Albania. He only ever dealt with government officials, and obviously was escorted everywhere. One thing he did say was that you would *never* have any payment issues when trading with the Eastern block, contrasting with Western firms who generally try to take the piss with terms of credit, as they still do.

So you are completely wrong. The West traded with the communists, just not on a personal level.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

No, no it isn't. Back in the 70s (when I was about 5 or 6 years old), my dad's JOB was to sell those things that pull aeroplanes to the Eastern block countries. He went everywhere in the Eastern block, except Albania. He only ever dealt with government officials, and obviously was escorted everywhere. One thing he did say was that you would *never* have any payment issues when trading with the Eastern block, contrasting with Western firms who generally try to take the piss with terms of credit, as they still do.

So you are completely wrong. The West traded with the communists, just not on a personal level.

Fair enough. It is true that they traded with the likes of Fiat to produce their cars under licence, but again you could argue that they were ONLY trading with left wing or communist sympathetic regimes within the west.

In general terms however they were always strapped for foreign currency that they could trade with.

However, one thing is they looked after their pensioners rather than expecting them to work until they dropped dead at their workplace which is what the Private sector here now thinks is acceptable.

 

[bhaexpress]

It's quite simple. You are correct that if the government sacks 100,000 people and private industry creates 100,000 jobs there is no net gain in unemployment. However, that is only relevent if the 100,000 jobs are created as a result of the 100,000 people being sacked. If they are not created that way, then the government is still paying 100,000 more people to be on the dole than they would be otherwise.

100000 people on the dole is cheaper than the same number earning a civil service wage though. When people are no longer needed as there's no job for them they become redundant, makes no difference what sector they work in. If Civil Servants get laid off they have a choice of finding a new job or being unemployed, the same as anybody else in fact.

 

[beorhthelm]

However, one thing is they looked after their pensioners rather than expecting them to work until they dropped dead at their workplace which is what the Private sector here now thinks is acceptable.

The private sector doesnt want people to "work till they drop", in reality lots of private sector business would rather sack or pension off older staff as they tend to get out of touch, outdated skills and methods, lower productivity. of course, other firms relish the experience and cumulative skills older workers bring, its horses for courses. the back drop to the pensions issue is that life expectancy is now 80+, when retirment age was set it was high 60's. someone joining the work force today will more likly than not spend as much, if not more, of thier life on their pension than in work. you dont need to be an economist to see that isnt going to add up.

and i think you need to review the meaning of wealth and its relationship to the nation. there's a good book on it, by Adam Smith.

 

[Mammoth]

100000 people on the dole is cheaper than the same number earning a civil service wage though. When people are no longer needed as there's no job for them they become redundant, makes no difference what sector they work in. If Civil Servants get laid off they have a choice of finding a new job or being unemployed, the same as anybody else in fact.

Are you sure?
£65/ week dole + grants for free shoes, suits, fridges, tv etc
£400/ week housing benefit
£200/ month council tax benefit
free school meals for the kids
subsidised travel (in london anyway)

makes you wonder why anyone bothers working for a living.....

 

[fork me]

100000 people on the dole is cheaper than the same number earning a civil service wage though. When people are no longer needed as there's no job for them they become redundant, makes no difference what sector they work in. If Civil Servants get laid off they have a choice of finding a new job or being unemployed, the same as anybody else in fact.

IF there's no job for them to do, you have a point. However, a lot of the pending cuts are from jobs that ARE needed.

 

[Lokki 7]

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- Britain posted its largest budget
shortfall for any April since at least 1993 as tax income fell
and spending climbed, keeping up pressure on Chancellor of the
Exchequer George Osborne to stick to his deficit-cutting plans.
Net borrowing was 10 billion pounds ($16 billion), compared
with 7.2 billion pounds a year earlier, the Office for National
Statistics said in London today. The median of 12 forecasts in a
Bloomberg News survey was for a shortfall of 6.5 billion pounds.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne may find it hard
to meet his deficit-reduction goals as the economy struggles to
gain momentum, the opposition Labour Party and some economists
say. Growth stagnated in the six months through March and Bank
of England Governor Mervyn King said this month that activity
remains weak.
“Growth has failed to rebound as firmly as expected,
giving rise to concerns about a deficit overshoot,” said Ross
Walker, chief U.K. economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc
in London. “The risks are skewed towards higher borrowing,
though a dramatic overshoot seems unlikely.”

 

[bhaexpress]

IF there's no job for them to do, you have a point. However, a lot of the pending cuts are from jobs that ARE needed.

Well as these decisions are being taken by Civil Servants you're probably right.

 

[simmo]

...and for every successful entrepreneur there are a dozen failed ones. Ecomonic recovery isn't that simple. Especially, as we're told most people are worse off. When people are worse off they spend less money. That's not good for people trying to start up businesses.

Major chains are still going to the wall, Mothercare, as an example, are closing over 100 shops.



This is a problem that will only get worse. An online retail outlet needs a lot less staff compared to sales than an actual shop. More and more of industry is being automated. We are already coming to a point where there are a lot more people than there are jobs to be done. Eventually, capitalism is going to have to be completely rethought.

No it is not, what you are talking about are changing times. Capitalist systems always change because they have to adapt to what the market wants, if they don't they go to the wall. Things go out of fashion because the market doesn't want or need them any more, for e.g people who built typewriters, they have been replaced by people who build printers.

There is flux and change continually within capitalism (unlike socialism IMO because there is no internal competition to drive the change which leads to overall advancement). That is why some people nowadays say there is no such thing as a job for life, not only do businesses sometimes need to change and very rapidly, but so too do and can individuals. I agree with you high street shopping may be going out of fashion, online shopping may now be the way to do it today, tomorrow who knows? It is not capitalism itself that needs to be re-thought it is high street shopping that needs the re-think, because online shopping is beating it.

 

[Mammoth]

The highways agency values the uk road network at 'in excess of £81 billion'

So privatise it. That's 1/12 of the national debt cleared at a stroke. It will be worth it to use toll roads I think.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Areas of the civil service and other public sector employers eg NHS appear to be very bureaucratic organisations inspite of having mega investments into IT systems that never seem to work as intended and go vastly over budget, so remain with huge staff numbers and IT that does not work properly. Certainly there seem to be disproportionate numbers of back office staff compared to those that actually deliver frontline services. My experience of local government was of substantial growth in back office numbers in recent years and while many of these are vital, there seem to be inefficiencies. Also there was a big culture of using long term temporary agency staff which seems inefficient given the turnover of staff and cost of agency fees involved. Also there are the PFI type initiatives which have led to capital / infastructure improvements but will burden those authorities with huge service costs for years ahead. So I would be targetting these areas for cost cutting.

I cannot comment on the civil service pension scheme but feel there is ignorance in the media which has misled the public about some of the other public sector pension schemes. Mine was mandatory for employees, so had no choice whether to accept the conditions. I paid more than 11% gross of my income for 30+ years to qualify, not easy when trying to pay a mega mortgage when interest rates and taxes were way higher and property was in negative equity.

Towards the end of my working life I was still paying out 51% of my income in tax and pensions contributions before actually going to work each day and this is before you add in VAT and the stealth taxes. I have never been in hospital, received child or other benefits, so feel I have given a reasonable deal to the UK taxpayer.

Several public sector schemes were 'unfunded' for example local government employers (for example County Councils) could - but crucially chose not to invest my and other contributions (30 years @ 11% pa + compound interest would have been significant) to help offset the scheme but instead the Council chose to use this 'income' to pay for the Council's day to day outgoings, obviously to the benefit of all in the community, but again I had no say in this. I suggest that questions about pensions costs should be directed to the Council employers, not the employees.

Finally some of the final salary schemes that still get banner headlines no longer exist having now been closed to new entrants for several years. The replacement schemes are still not fully 'funded' but do require smaller employer and employee contributions over a longer period and will provide a smaller pension. The gap is already being closed. Notwithstanding the above comments I would really commend people to organise a pension or at least have the discipline to save (if they can) as I fear the future will not get any better.

 

[Storer 68]

Communist USSR had no private sector, yet happily traded with western capitalist nations.

Are you SURE??

I seem to recall that when I was responsible for exports to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (a properly hardline Marxist state at the time) the UK sold about the annual equivalent of a tube of tootpaste to it.


and it was the most spectaulaly mis-named state ever.

Not run by the People. Not Demoractic (hardline autoritarian one party Communist regime), and not a Repulic. (So the only accurate bit of the name was Yemen.!)

 

[Storer 68]

Well as these decisions are being taken by Civil Servants you're probably right.

errr not. These decisions will be taken by MINISTERS.

For instance- my job changed simply because my then Secretary of State said something stupid