me me me me me meeeeeeeeeeee
Two firms...................
- Thread starter Seagull on the wing
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
me me me me me meeeeeeeeeeee
Mileoakman
Well-known member
Thats a wind-up isn't it! You mean lacking the talent and ambition of those bankers and private sector Chief Executives who got us in this mess, or possibly those nurses, doctors, and other health workers who obviously should only be paid a pittance.
I,m lead to believe that the average teacher pension is about 2/3rds final salary at £25k (Saw that in the Times) so that means the average salary is about £36-37k
For a non public service worker that equates to a pension fund of about £600k.As a taxpayer who does not earn the average salary and does not have a pension pot of £600k let me be the first to say that if the public service workers want to strike ok, but I'm mighty pissed that my work day is affected by having to miss work to look after my children.
If the government had any balls they would sack all who strike and re-employ any who wanted their jobs back on new terms and conditions at lower pay scales and the average private sector pension rate.
For a non public service worker that equates to a pension fund of about £600k.As a taxpayer who does not earn the average salary and does not have a pension pot of £600k let me be the first to say that if the public service workers want to strike ok, but I'm mighty pissed that my work day is affected by having to miss work to look after my children.
If the government had any balls they would sack all who strike and re-employ any who wanted their jobs back on new terms and conditions at lower pay scales and the average private sector pension rate.
The cost of a £25k index linked pension for a 65 year old with a 2/3 spouse pension is closer to £850,000.
Have a career or have kids - you cant moan when one gets in the way of the other.
Seagull on the wing
New member
- Thread starter
- #66
Whatever way you look at it,this strike will cost the country money....yes,the bosses will always get their money unless they are stupid enough to put people out of a job till the firm can no longer compete. All I know is that if I had saved up for a holiday for a long time (I have'nt had a holiday four 6 years BTW) and I got to the Airport and found I could'nt fly out due to a strike I would not be happy,all this strike will do is to upset and cost the working man time and money as many of us will find out....come the revolution....who will be the first against the wall...
Weststander
Well-known member
Not only that. Teachers looked to retire at 55 or 60, compared to 67 for us, because of custom and "their job is harder than everyone elses".
To fund that 2/3 final salary pension for a career ages 25 to 55, for a retirement of say 55 to 80, simply doesn't add up.
The rest cannot to pay them.
So are teachers in private schools going on strike it seems to me the problem (real or perceived) is that teacher strikes affect the "common man" not the people that cause the problem. If the children of the rich were affected and not the state school children it would be more beneficial to all and the teachers would get more sympathy as it is welcome to my world.
Other parts of the public sector do not get the same grief as teachers as general we agree with the argument until it directly affects us and it does not hit the people it should.
Other parts of the public sector do not get the same grief as teachers as general we agree with the argument until it directly affects us and it does not hit the people it should.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
So, when I worked in the public sector, what were all those extra deductions from my salary all about?
What I do know is that my employers never bothered to make their contribution to the pensions of people who were working for them. They preferred to keep local voters happy by dipping into the pension pot that should have been built up - to keep spending lower than it should have been.
It was basically the same trick that Maxwell pulled at the Mirror. But everyone now recognises he was a crook for dipping his fingers into the pot that he had access to.
I'm just an individual public servant. I'm UKBA staff. My job is not safe. It is suspected that about another 3,500 of us will probably be shed after the Olympics.
Personally, I'm not going to strike. Reasons as follows, in no particular order:
1) It simply will not make a difference. The coalition will not back down.
2) There is very little public support.
3) Public sector pensions will remain better than those on offer to most people in the private sector.
4) I have friends in the private sector taking much harder financial hits now in the form of pay cuts and job losses.
5) I need to keep my nose very clean to protect my job.
I defend absolutely the right of my colleagues to strike should they wish to do so. To be asked to pay more, work longer and take home less pension is a very big ask indeed and I understand entirely why many people are very angry about this. Personally, I take the view that I am, first and foremost, a public servant. As such, I shall be having the night shift from hell on the 30th.
Apologies to those of you I have offended on either side. There is right on both. I simply choose to do the best that I can to walk that tightrope.
Personally, I'm not going to strike. Reasons as follows, in no particular order:
1) It simply will not make a difference. The coalition will not back down.
2) There is very little public support.
3) Public sector pensions will remain better than those on offer to most people in the private sector.
4) I have friends in the private sector taking much harder financial hits now in the form of pay cuts and job losses.
5) I need to keep my nose very clean to protect my job.
I defend absolutely the right of my colleagues to strike should they wish to do so. To be asked to pay more, work longer and take home less pension is a very big ask indeed and I understand entirely why many people are very angry about this. Personally, I take the view that I am, first and foremost, a public servant. As such, I shall be having the night shift from hell on the 30th.
Apologies to those of you I have offended on either side. There is right on both. I simply choose to do the best that I can to walk that tightrope.
Before I start my reply I should declare an interest. Since last August I have been employed as a Interim (temporary) Regional Officer for Unite in London covering the health service. Clearly I am partisan. However the information I give is accurate and not based upon ill informed opinion gained from the media and politicians.
Firstly public service service pensions are not gold plated. the average pension for a health worker is £7,000 per annum. That is £140 pw to live on after working to provide a service saving peoples lives. The average pension for Local Government is £4600 (£92 pw). for a woman it is £2600 (£52).
Public sector pensions are not gifts or perks. pensions in the health service, local government and in the civil service are paid for by staff making a contribution from their wages. There is also often a matching contribution by the employer, although this has been negotiated by unions over the years as an alternative to wage increases. In effect pensions are deferred wages, that workers have put aside with a view to drawing on it when they retire to ensure after years of serving the public, they can live with some sort of moderate (see the first point) comfort.
Public Sector pensions are not in crisis. In 2009 The NHS pension fund made a surplus of £2 billion pounds. That means contributions exceeded payments by £2 billion. Last year the surplus was a similar amount. The NHS pension fund is solely funded by contributions with a guarantee by government that payments will be met. There is no investment in stocks and shares like in the Local Government and other pension funds. As a result of the guarantee the surplus can be taken by the government and spent elsewhere. If the money is not there it is because this government and the previous government has frittered it away in any of number of ways. Be they good or bad it is not the fault of NHS workers who have given their deferred wages and expect to get them back.
Although not in crisis the local government fund isn't quite as secure mostly because of pension holidays taken by the employer where they haven't made their contributions in order to keep the council tax down. The employer has also used the Local Government Superannuation fund to pay for early retirement often as an alternative to paying redundancy payments when shedding workers. This again has saved council tax payers money. Despite this the Local Government fund can finance its commitments for the foreseeable future. Incidentally the government has acknowledged this fact.
In 2008 public sector unions negotiated a new deal over pensions to deal with the fact that some people were living longer. This meant reduced entitlements for our members ...despite this the tories want to renege on an agreement only 3 years old. I say some as the life expectancy for someone living in Kensington is 9 years longer than for someone in Glasgow. Who do you think is more likely to need a pension to live on.
The proposals the government have put on the table mean that public sector workers will have to contribute up to 3% of their wages more to their pensions. This is an equivalent of a 3% increase in income tax only for public sector workers. In return for this extra contribution, the amount of pension they will get will be reduced significantly as pensions go from being calculated on the best salary in the last 3 years to a career average. this means up to a 50% cut in pensions. I defy anyone to say they would accept this kind of attack without resisting.
Retirement age for work pensions will be brought in line with the state pension. For some workers this will mean a choice between retirement at 68 or an old age in poverty. To some this may seem fair, but do you want to see nurses looking after patients at 68 or health visitors trudging the streets to visit patients in their home at 68. What kind of society thinks this is acceptable?
At present Health workers can retire at 60 this change in pension could mean for some in their mid 50's working an extra 6 years with 6 years loss of pension rights. at an average pension of £7k that's £42,000 that's been taken from them.
The real pension crisis and real scandal over pensions is in the private sector. 2/3rds of private sector pensions do not have a pension provided by their employer. This is a national scandal. when workers in the private sector retire they can be forced to rely on state benefits paid for by all workers, including public sector workers. This scandal is not the fault of the public sector.
The NHS pension is not the best public sector pension scheme. That honour belongs to MP's. Mps "work" on average for 23 years and get a pension of 2/3rds of their final salary. This is paid whether they retire, lose an election or get imprisoned for defrauding their expenses. However MP's pensions are not under threat. They just try and cut ours.
I could make cheap points about Freddie Goodwin getting a massive pension of £700k after driving RBS to the point of bankruptcy. A blot on the good name of another Freddie Goodwin.
The truth of the matter the attack by the government on public sector pensions is nothing to do with their affordability. This is a lie perpetuated by the coalition and colluded in by the silence of the Labour party. The real reason is about the fact that final salary pension schemes act as a deterrent to private companies coming in to take over NHS and other private sector contracts. This isnt about an aging population, its about privatising services.
Public sector workers are the cement that holds society together. Without the essential services that public sector workers provide there would be no society. just a group of individuals competing to get the most for themselves with the strongest winning. I understand some of you find this idea acceptable. I, the members I represent don't. to those that do you are entitled to that view. just be honest and admit your motives rather than hide behind the lies of politicians and big business.
Regardless however next Wednesday I and millions of other union members will take part in the biggest strike since the 1920's. It takes a rare level of arrogance to unite electricians and psychologists, cleaners and social workers, hospital porters and senior managers in the borders agency. This government has managed it.
Firstly public service service pensions are not gold plated. the average pension for a health worker is £7,000 per annum. That is £140 pw to live on after working to provide a service saving peoples lives. The average pension for Local Government is £4600 (£92 pw). for a woman it is £2600 (£52).
Public sector pensions are not gifts or perks. pensions in the health service, local government and in the civil service are paid for by staff making a contribution from their wages. There is also often a matching contribution by the employer, although this has been negotiated by unions over the years as an alternative to wage increases. In effect pensions are deferred wages, that workers have put aside with a view to drawing on it when they retire to ensure after years of serving the public, they can live with some sort of moderate (see the first point) comfort.
Public Sector pensions are not in crisis. In 2009 The NHS pension fund made a surplus of £2 billion pounds. That means contributions exceeded payments by £2 billion. Last year the surplus was a similar amount. The NHS pension fund is solely funded by contributions with a guarantee by government that payments will be met. There is no investment in stocks and shares like in the Local Government and other pension funds. As a result of the guarantee the surplus can be taken by the government and spent elsewhere. If the money is not there it is because this government and the previous government has frittered it away in any of number of ways. Be they good or bad it is not the fault of NHS workers who have given their deferred wages and expect to get them back.
Although not in crisis the local government fund isn't quite as secure mostly because of pension holidays taken by the employer where they haven't made their contributions in order to keep the council tax down. The employer has also used the Local Government Superannuation fund to pay for early retirement often as an alternative to paying redundancy payments when shedding workers. This again has saved council tax payers money. Despite this the Local Government fund can finance its commitments for the foreseeable future. Incidentally the government has acknowledged this fact.
In 2008 public sector unions negotiated a new deal over pensions to deal with the fact that some people were living longer. This meant reduced entitlements for our members ...despite this the tories want to renege on an agreement only 3 years old. I say some as the life expectancy for someone living in Kensington is 9 years longer than for someone in Glasgow. Who do you think is more likely to need a pension to live on.
The proposals the government have put on the table mean that public sector workers will have to contribute up to 3% of their wages more to their pensions. This is an equivalent of a 3% increase in income tax only for public sector workers. In return for this extra contribution, the amount of pension they will get will be reduced significantly as pensions go from being calculated on the best salary in the last 3 years to a career average. this means up to a 50% cut in pensions. I defy anyone to say they would accept this kind of attack without resisting.
Retirement age for work pensions will be brought in line with the state pension. For some workers this will mean a choice between retirement at 68 or an old age in poverty. To some this may seem fair, but do you want to see nurses looking after patients at 68 or health visitors trudging the streets to visit patients in their home at 68. What kind of society thinks this is acceptable?
At present Health workers can retire at 60 this change in pension could mean for some in their mid 50's working an extra 6 years with 6 years loss of pension rights. at an average pension of £7k that's £42,000 that's been taken from them.
The real pension crisis and real scandal over pensions is in the private sector. 2/3rds of private sector pensions do not have a pension provided by their employer. This is a national scandal. when workers in the private sector retire they can be forced to rely on state benefits paid for by all workers, including public sector workers. This scandal is not the fault of the public sector.
The NHS pension is not the best public sector pension scheme. That honour belongs to MP's. Mps "work" on average for 23 years and get a pension of 2/3rds of their final salary. This is paid whether they retire, lose an election or get imprisoned for defrauding their expenses. However MP's pensions are not under threat. They just try and cut ours.
I could make cheap points about Freddie Goodwin getting a massive pension of £700k after driving RBS to the point of bankruptcy. A blot on the good name of another Freddie Goodwin.
The truth of the matter the attack by the government on public sector pensions is nothing to do with their affordability. This is a lie perpetuated by the coalition and colluded in by the silence of the Labour party. The real reason is about the fact that final salary pension schemes act as a deterrent to private companies coming in to take over NHS and other private sector contracts. This isnt about an aging population, its about privatising services.
Public sector workers are the cement that holds society together. Without the essential services that public sector workers provide there would be no society. just a group of individuals competing to get the most for themselves with the strongest winning. I understand some of you find this idea acceptable. I, the members I represent don't. to those that do you are entitled to that view. just be honest and admit your motives rather than hide behind the lies of politicians and big business.
Regardless however next Wednesday I and millions of other union members will take part in the biggest strike since the 1920's. It takes a rare level of arrogance to unite electricians and psychologists, cleaners and social workers, hospital porters and senior managers in the borders agency. This government has managed it.
The NHS scheme had a deficit in contributions of over £2b not a surplus so where are you getting your figures from? (If you don't believe me look at the official accounts in the link in my earlier post) I can also not see any way how a career average rather than final salary scheme can reduce benefits by 50% as that would require salary increases far in excess of inflation which is unlikely. I think I am also right in saying these changes are for future accrual only and all existing benefits are ring fenced and protected? To say therefore pensions are being slashed is just rubbish.
If these are the type of figures being put to the staff by the unions who plainly either do not understand or do not want to understand then it's not surprising the staff are concerned but they are exaggerating and scaremongering for their own purposes.
You know it really is hard to take someone who doesn't know the difference between a teacher and health worker seriously. Its even harder to take someone seriously who cant even read the front page of the document he's quoting and see it says Teachers pension scheme. And then to compound his ignorance he flaunts it in public by berating someone who has got the facts together and can quote accurate sources. Still i guess hes just following the example set by this government.
NHS Pensions About the NHS Pension Scheme NHS Business Services Authority
Above is a link for The NHS pension scheme accounts. If you take the trouble to read it this time you will see in fact the NHS pension was indeed in surplus of £2 billion in 2009 - 2010. Last year the surplus was even greater.
As for your point about how pension being cut by (up to) 50%. I accept I left out that included in this calculation is the change in how they are index linked going from RPI to CPI. CPI has consistently run at a lower rate of .1% a month. this is 1.2% a year and combined with the change from final salary to career average would result in a cut of up to 50% over the life time of a pension.
I know this is all very technical for someone who thinks teachers work in hospitals but try and keep up
Oh and as for my point about MPs salary I thought this link acted to illustrate my point pretty well.
Pension-slashing minister Francis Maude could pick up 731k retirement pot - mirror.co.uk
It really is hard to take a lesson on how hard working staff on ordinary salaries should take a cut in pensions from someone on a pension of £731k.
NHS Pensions About the NHS Pension Scheme NHS Business Services Authority
Above is a link for The NHS pension scheme accounts. If you take the trouble to read it this time you will see in fact the NHS pension was indeed in surplus of £2 billion in 2009 - 2010. Last year the surplus was even greater.
As for your point about how pension being cut by (up to) 50%. I accept I left out that included in this calculation is the change in how they are index linked going from RPI to CPI. CPI has consistently run at a lower rate of .1% a month. this is 1.2% a year and combined with the change from final salary to career average would result in a cut of up to 50% over the life time of a pension.
I know this is all very technical for someone who thinks teachers work in hospitals but try and keep up
Oh and as for my point about MPs salary I thought this link acted to illustrate my point pretty well.
Pension-slashing minister Francis Maude could pick up 731k retirement pot - mirror.co.uk
It really is hard to take a lesson on how hard working staff on ordinary salaries should take a cut in pensions from someone on a pension of £731k.
Last edited:
You know it really is hard to take someone who doesn't know the difference between a teacher and health worker seriously. Its even harder to take someone seriously who cant even read the front page of the document he's quoting and see it says Teachers pension scheme. And then to compound his ignorance he flaunts it in public by berating someone who has got the facts together and can quote accurate sources. Still i guess hes just following the example set by this government.
NHS Pensions About the NHS Pension Scheme NHS Business Services Authority
Above is a link for The NHS pension scheme accounts. If you take the trouble to read it this time you will see in fact the NHS pension was indeed in surplus of £2 billion in 2009 - 2010. Last year the surplus was even greater.
As for your point about how pension being cut by (up to) 50%. I accept I left out that included in this calculation is the change in how they are index linked going from RPI to CPI. CPI has consistently run at a lower rate of .1% a month. this is 1.2% a year and combined with the change from final salary to career average would result in a cut of up to 50% over the life time of a pension.
I know this is all very technical for someone who thinks teachers work in hospitals but try and keep up
Oh and as for my point about MPs salary I thought this link acted to illustrate my point pretty well.
Pension-slashing minister Francis Maude could pick up 731k retirement pot - mirror.co.uk
It really is hard to take a lesson on how hard working staff on ordinary salaries should take a cut in pensions from someone on a pension of £731k.
Apologies I obviously wasn't paying attention when the thread went from talking about teachers to NHS. At least the NHS surplus can help fund the Teachers deficit!
You must realise however that increased longevity and a reducing workforce means that the current system is simply not sustainable in the long term.
Apology accepted, we all make mistakes. However I don't realise at all that public sector pensions are not sustainable. I've already shown that the NHS pension fund is running at a increasing surplus. There is no underlying problem with public sector pensions. The reason for this is that they were reformed in 2008 and have built in guarantees to cap the state contribution and increase employee contribution if they do become to expensive.
I don't know why you have difficulty understanding or accepting that there is a political dimension to this whole fight. The government want to cut public sector pensions not to save money, but to open up the public sector to privatisation. This is ideology in its most brutal form. public sector bad.... big business good.
This isn't just the present government but also the previous government. You may agree with them, but please don't tell me that this isn't happening. Also don't then tell me that the workers I represent shouldn't stand up and fight to defend what they have. You may not like it but we do have a right to defend our incomes now and when we retire.
Regardless I think this argument is at an end at least until Wednesday.
Seagull on the wing
New member
- Thread starter
- #76
Agree that some nurses,cleaners get paid a pittance....But Doctors...some are earning more than the Prime Minister!
Seagull on the wing
New member
- Thread starter
- #77
And what will a strike achieve other than make it difficult for other workers...the Government will not give in for a strike on Wednesday,think of workers who will have to take time off for their children or fund child minders,people who have waited for months to have operations only to have them cancelled...I bet Bob Crowe and other Union leaders are rubbing their hands with glee...they can afford too,having the worker pay for them to live the good life...it would help if there was a crackdown on tax evasion and Bankers bonuses and stop pumping billions into supporting the doomed Euro.We will all be squeezed in this recession,its not just your workers who will feel the pinch.