The Auctioneer
New member
- Jun 24, 2011
- 205
They don't expect to get a pension! Bonus point please! Please!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
national strike
- Thread starter dexter
- Start date
Given front line staff have a real chance of dying in service ( unlike teachers, police, dustmen etc ) and that the lowest ranks are amoungest the most poorly paid in the country ( despite their claims teachers, police and firemen get a reasonable wage ) I have no problem with it. Maybe non-front staff should make a contribution though.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
i have no problem with that at all considering their basic pay and conditions. few do the full 20 years or what ever it is though. how about another example, an office worker at a central government department might pay 3% pension contibution and have no NI. an MoD office worker probably gets a better pension than an infantryman in the end.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
Unlike the private sector most public sector pensions are largely 'unfunded' i.e. the employee's contributions are not ring fenced or invested in the hope this would grow over the course of their employment, but are used by the employer on day to day expenditure, hence why there have been huge deficits building up.
It is not the public sector employees who should be vilified but their employers. At various times in the past there have been opportunities for local govt employers to make pension schemes 'funded' but they bottled it. Many public sector pension schemes are compulsory, contractual and based on gross income, including my own which has been around 11-12% contributions for 30+ years. I recall that as a modestly paid twenty something this was quite a crushing amount to find on top of paying a mortgage when interest rates were around 10-15% (makes me break into a cold sweat just thinking about what the repayments were) plus at that stage of my life a pension did not seem a priority. No wonder public sector employees feel so strongly about having made these sorts of contributions but find their employer has already spent this running itself.
Inspite of the current problems and frenzied debate I would still urge anyone to try to sort out a pension or at least create a potential 'hedge' in case of harder times in the future. Not easy particularly in such times but the older you get the more important this becomes and so the sooner you start the better. I do recognise that for many with inflation and pay freezes this will be even less of a possibility or priority due to the challenge of living from day to day. It concerns me that increasing numbers will be put off and just live for today, with no thought for their future.
This all makes the credit fuelled 'feel good' days of New Labour feel like eons away and highly reckless. It was very much a case of spend spend spend now, pay when you like later.....the banks rode the rollercoaster and happily took us for the ride.
It is not the public sector employees who should be vilified but their employers. At various times in the past there have been opportunities for local govt employers to make pension schemes 'funded' but they bottled it. Many public sector pension schemes are compulsory, contractual and based on gross income, including my own which has been around 11-12% contributions for 30+ years. I recall that as a modestly paid twenty something this was quite a crushing amount to find on top of paying a mortgage when interest rates were around 10-15% (makes me break into a cold sweat just thinking about what the repayments were) plus at that stage of my life a pension did not seem a priority. No wonder public sector employees feel so strongly about having made these sorts of contributions but find their employer has already spent this running itself.
Inspite of the current problems and frenzied debate I would still urge anyone to try to sort out a pension or at least create a potential 'hedge' in case of harder times in the future. Not easy particularly in such times but the older you get the more important this becomes and so the sooner you start the better. I do recognise that for many with inflation and pay freezes this will be even less of a possibility or priority due to the challenge of living from day to day. It concerns me that increasing numbers will be put off and just live for today, with no thought for their future.
This all makes the credit fuelled 'feel good' days of New Labour feel like eons away and highly reckless. It was very much a case of spend spend spend now, pay when you like later.....the banks rode the rollercoaster and happily took us for the ride.
At 19 you have a lot to learn! Firstly, you were the one that referred to 'your boss'. I fully appreciate we are talking about the company and not one particular individual. At 19 there are a lot of things that will change before you reach or are even approaching retirement. I doubt you will be with the same company for example, possibly through your choice or maybe that of the company itself. The company may be taken over and new terms imposed or any number of different scenarios. When I started work, there were plenty of people that expected to retire with a final salary pension scheme. In less than 20 years that has changed for many people and their pensions are now reliant on the state of the stock market.
BHAFC_Pandapops
Citation Needed
- Feb 16, 2011
- 2,844
well thanks for that light. Im certainly not staying on checkout department till retirement anyway, even if i do stay the whole.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Yes you've guessed it, state funded pensions............. funded by the tax payer. Although the state pension won't buy you much of a retirement.
But you were all supposed to follow Mrs. T's advice, get out of SERPS, and start your own Private Pensions weren't you, until things like Equitable Life came along to prove that the private sector is no better at organising pension schemes than the public one.
I agree but the point I am obtusely making is that we accept their pensions are part of their pay and conditions. The point about public sector wages is that they are generally lower and have reasonable pensions. The reasonable pensions are an alternative to paying more now and as an alternative to issuing bonds or PFI initiatives could be seen as very efficient.
In the case of the military its a cunning way of downplaying our military expenditure as its all lumped into the 'pensions deficit' rather than being part of the MOD budget. (FYI - I'm happy for our frontline troops to get better pay and conditions)
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I don't we're quite that morally bankrupt as yet.
I am a civil servant who will be striking tomorrow. I have been employed for over 30 years and am considered to be management grade but I earn less than the average wage, will pay increased pension contributions and have not had a pay rise for 2 years whereas the unemployed who I deal with are due for a 5.2% rise in April as it is based on the RPI. They have had rises of 15% over 6 years whereas I have had 7% in the same period. For me it is not just about the pension, which will be 12K a year when I retire at 60 but I also believe that if the strike is not supported the government will try to impose another pay freeze in April if there is no support for this strike. As I am in my 50s I have no hope of getting another job and therefore the only good thing about the job is now the pension. All the other supposed perks that civil servants have are only enjoyed by senior civil servants and the generous leave allowance is only good if it can be used as I want. I could not even get a half day off to go to Millwall even with 4 months notice. As has already been mentioned I stayed in a job with worsening terms and conditions over recent years with just the prospect of a decent pension to look forward to and now that is being taken away.
Uncle C
Well-known member
So who do you suggest is going to pay for this decent pension when you retire 5 years early?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
seems to me that your union has let you down, not resolving a long list of problems with your working conditions. yet they call you out over this issue, which wont solve any of them.
APACHE
LONGTIME DIEHARD
700,000 public section workers are going to lose their jobs, many already have, but yet not a word how this effects the deficit in public sector pensions. At the end of the day they have to be paid, those in the private sector will still have to pay for them through their taxes.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,321
Mate, much as I respect the rest of your post, that is patently bollocks.
- Thread starter
- #95
add to that the national old age pension (my mother gets a shade over £4000 per annum ) and i would say a minimum of 10 grand a year is not to bad bearing in mind this is the lowest!!
My Name Is Gully
Active member
Last edited:
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
He's an executive officer. Only really considered a management grade in very clerical environments. In Whitehall executive officers are pretty much the bottom of the rung.
Sent from my U8220/Pulse using Tapatalk
hitony
Administrator
Uncle C
Well-known member
This may have been the case years ago, but today is patently bollocks. Please feel free to find the facts to support your statement.
Somewhat obvious really but there is no like for like comparison, which makes your saying its patently bollocks at least as bollocks as my saying it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre
So yes do feel free to disregard, though it doesnt change the point that a pension is part of your pay, and given pay freezes public sector pay is already being cut.