Anyone else fearful that the 5% pay cut given to Cabinet ministers will be passed down to all public sector workers?

I'm one of these useless TAs that have made no difference to anyone. Yesterday I acted as a live speaker for a hearing impaired student in her Spanish exam. If I hadn't noticed that she was entitled to a live speaker she would have been forced to listen to a CD she can't fully hear. I helped arrange her special exam conditions.

I also taught another student Spanish to GCSE. I arranged for her to have her exams at home as she was too ill to get to school.

Those stats which claim TAs have made no difference are misleading. They don't take into account the fact that many students would not have had an opportunity to study in mainstream if there were no TAs. Many of those same students are unable to attain high grades. Students like my French extraction group, made up of Downs Syndrome and other moderate learning difficulties, the fact that they get ANY grades is a testment to the hard work of my colleagues.

I pay about £40 a month out of a £700 income on a 30hour week. My last pension statement said I'd get about £500p/a when I retire. Wow! I'm obviously so well off!

Before working as an overpaid public sector worker I never had a pension. I was on course to be one of those who have to live off state pensions entirely. Now at least I have contributed something. If you want to, take my pension. It won't make much difference really. I just won't pay into a pension.

plans for cuts out next week and budget due 22 june

jollydiane- in the police force I'm in we do 12 hour shifts so overtime is coming in on a day off- would you go in for nothing on your day off? Also would the officers still be insured etc carrying a firearm when they are not officially on duty as they are not being paid

I think the actuaries have calculated the average age at which a retired Service person dies, and that it will balance out.

Dh didn't move scheme as we need the lump sum to pay off the mortgage and to fund uni for ds. It also depended on if you were an officer or not and how long you had served. For us, it made no sense to move, as dh's service prior to age 21 didn't count as he is an officer. As he wouldn't get the extra uplift for that, and as half his pension, plus a salary as I would I have to go back to work is more than liveable on; it didn't matter.

Won't there have been a lot of anti-selection with that choice, with people who know that they have health issues opting to take the higher widows (remaining spouse/partner now surely, widows would be illegal) so the net result is that more is paid out, as people will have selected the scheme that they think will give them/their dependents the most cash?

So in the long term there may be gains but in the short-medium term the likelihood is that costs to the pension scheme will be even higher?

Hey look on the bright side if they make cuts to the NHS we won't live as long

Re: pensions - the problem for many public sector pension schemes, including dh's, is that there is no money put away for it; it is funded out of taxation. The new scheme set up for dh's sector, is still final salary (or years served plus rank), but is paid now in increments, and is more generous to widows. However, it was interesting that many who had the option to move to the new scheme (including those who deal with figures on a daily basis) stayed on the old scheme. It means if dh dies, I can't remarry without losing his pension.

They need a radical rethink to assure that everyone in teh country who works gets a decent pension to retire on.

Unfortunately as people are living longer and longer final salary schemes have become unaffordable (which is why most of the have gone in the private sector and they;re on their way out in the public).

How we as a country can afford to provide decent pensions for all - it would need to be a combination of things - but you're looking at increasing retirement ages, increasing contributions, that sort of thing. I don't know what the answer is but it's clear that as people live longer and longer, having one large section of society with final salary schemes just becomes more and more out of kilter.

There must be a way of being more equitable about it.

We can start with the MPs - their pensions were hardly mentioned in the salary/perks/expenses row, and they really are obscene.

Of course, one of the ironies is that one of the first things to be cut will be paying for consultancy, which will affect the private sector.

No firepile was saying that the myth will whip up fear leading to a system whereby everyone has less employment rights and entitlements.

firepile who is arguing that we should give everything over to market forces and go for the least for everyone?

Some people are saying that there seems to be a disparity some equivalent jobs in the public/private sector.

Why do you automatically assume this means that people want things taken away from the pubic sector?

maybe people would be happiest if things were given to the private sector.

With both the private and public sectors, some jobs are well paid, and have good perks, others are poorly paid and do not have good perks. There is also the effect that a lot of the lower paid public sector jobs (hospital cleaners etc) have been farmed out to private companies to lower costs, obviously this has not worked out well for the actual people at the sharp end.

Saying "well I work in X and this, and I know someone who works in Y and that" isn't really a basis for an argument. Although if it was, then from where I am sitting the public sector looks much better than the private in terms of hours, salary, perks, you name it. That is obviously just teh people/jobs I know though.

"I can't completely shake the feeling that playing off the workers against the workers (public vs. private) is at least partially a conscious strategy to distract from such issues. " Agree v much with Meita. And LadyBiscuit - your friend in HE is taking the piss if that's what she does re lunch, etc. It's certainly not the norm - most of my colleagues used to eat lunch at their desks while working, there was no such thing as overtime or time of in lieu - they charmingly called our extra hours "giftwork".

Oooji - people will be screwed whatever they do. Some people buy second properties instead of paying into a pension but with the increased CGT this is going to be less viable. I think firepile has a point.

Ladylush - I think they did, paid in for almost ten years I think. There was am employee consultation committee formed who asked pointed questions, but I don't think the outcome was in any doubt. They then did the same on the private healthcare - this time instead of rolling over the whole committee resigned, and in so doing won some concessions. Whoppe-fucking-doo. Oh, and no bonus last year. The one that we are always told we should consider part of out basic renumeration when comparing our salaries. This all went through when the bust was going on, so I don't think there was much appetite to fight back.

There is also the issue in public sector (and private but not really possible to influence that) of single status. It still hasnt been implemented here and this leads to there going to be massive bills for the council paying back pay. The common one wheeled out here is that road workers and Teaching assistants should be equally paid. Road workers get bonuses which dramatically increase their pay. The council has been dithering over this for years and schools (since I'm in that example) will be forced to make people redundant as they pay out the nack pay (despite the fact their budget is given at the old rate of pay for TAs they have been told they should have 'saved' for this eventuality)

All of this "average wage in the public sector is higher than the private sector" nonesense is a myth, because the make up of the owrkforce like-for like cannot be compared - see Ben Goldacre taking it apart here

The myth is however helpful to persuade everyone that we are on an inexorable drive to the bottom, in which all employment rights should be removed from everyone across all sectors.

The market free for all advocated by so many on here will result in a system like the USA where people get less than 3 weeks off in total each year (a typical private sector employee gets 9 days paid holiday a year with six public holidays), have no job security and non-existant maternity leave.

I fear for the future.

oooji - that is really bad Did they tell you what your projected pension will be based on what you paid so far? How long were you paying in to it? I've been paying into mine for 8 years but maternity leave and part-time working for some of that period will affect my overall payout.

ImSoNotTellign - I think you both do
Scary said "I think it is unfair to suggest stopping final salary pension schemes if people have been paying into one. There should be a point at which a new pension scheme is introduced, and the old one is closed except to existing members who have the option to move if they want. The old scheme will eventually wind down as those claiming the pension and their spouses die, so eventually no further liability."

I interpreted that as b. Actually reading it again it might be c. Hey ho.

b has happened to me

Ahem

scaryteacher said she thought that b was unfair and that only c should be allowed

I hastened to point out that in the private sector, many many people have had b happen already

I know how pension schemes work

ImSoNotTelling - My fear is that we will get equality between pension in the private and public sectors. And that the equality we will end up with is no substantial pensions.

ImSoNotTelling/ScaryTeacher - I think there you are slightly at cross purposes about what 'shutting' a pension scheme means:-

a) All the money in a final salary scheme is taken out and put in a money purchase scheme
b) The final salary scheme is frozen, current members receive the accrued benefits on retirement, ongoing pension payments now go into a money purchase scheme
c) Existing members continue paying into and accruing benefits in the final salary scheme, new employees pay into a seperate money purchase scheme.

A is illegal, b is what has happened to me and is more and more common, c has been happening for a long time.

ScaryTeacher said A is not happening B is happening, ImSoNotTelling then said no, B is happening.

OOo- far too idealised That would be the director at the V top and we regularly have to pretty high up to get managers to acknowledge issues (I would hate to be my Manager- no power to change the stuff for us and she is soooo caring about what we do)

If you look at perks for the 'at the bottom' workers as in comparing care assistants in private /public sector majority of times working for the LA will be much better. If you look higher up in management level private sector probably comes off best as they are more likely to have company cars/health care etc.

Dh said he used to compare his job with his XGF. He was a Head Teacher and she was in IT , not very high up yet earned more than him with company car/health care. IMO the Head teacher is surely more important to society and has a lot more responsibility

Nymphadora - That overarching target is for senior management - they then need to set targets down through the organisation that support that goal. You and Fostering both fall into Social Services don't you? So there should be someone who is respononsible for both areas, whose problem it is to sort out issues of your bonuses being affected by their actions (This is obviously somewhat idealised).

Ooo- My team is so dependant on other people doing their jobs like if Fostering don't have any long term carers we cant provide one and therefore achieve our team aim of placement stability. There is not a lot fostering can do about lack of placements if people dont want to foster.

Our area has been talking about changing the pension scheme as scaryteacher says and as I only started paying in a couple of years ago I'm already 'worse off' than those who started the scheme earlier.