A bit out there but AIBU in my opinion on Pub sector pensions/striking

[mrskeithlemon]

Ok, so I am of the opinion that we are in the midst of a global recession, and that just because you chose to work in the public sector, it does not make you more important than private sector workers. Therefore I think the pension cuts are justified (armed forces aside) if we are to move on to a brighter future as a whole country. I think everybody has to suck up the fact that we are all affected by the recession and public sector or not, we are all going to take a hit

mollymole: here is a useful link to the BBC's guide to public sector pensions. You can follow the links from the linked page to detail on each of the main schemes, which includes information on employer and employee contribution rates.

X-post and same link!

Ok thanks Edith!

mollymole - different sections of the public sector have different rates.

If the public sector want sympathy for strike from private sector, they will get a LOT more support if they take work to rule type action than strikes. I have so much more respect and support for the single teachers union that decided to go down that route realising what the public (and more importantly press) mood is for this. This is where I start taking real issue with the actions of the unions. Gradually and tactually winning support is crucial to getting the support they need to win rather than holding a gun to someones head. I find it interesting to read about how Unison phrased it to members. It makes a difference and shows how a lot about how it is run as an organisation.

None of the improvements to the standard of living for most people (education, housing, health, pensiions) was ever achieved without a fight. Oddly enou.gh,it turns out employers and govts don't like spendng cash unnecessarily. Who knew?

Mollymole, every profession in the public sector has a different scheme so they're not necessarily comparable. My understanding of the one I'm in is:

I pay in (i think) 7% a month and from the school wage budget the employer's contribution is made.

This goes into the pot with all the other teachers' money in the country who are on the scheme, which is overseen by the government.

The government can then spend this money as long as they pay it back. Which is why it looks like the government pays our pension but they don't really, they just pay back what they've taken out.

If they stopped dicking around with it and scaremongering the scheme is completely solvent for at least another 50 years.

Have you been listening to LBC, or reading Dailymail? You know both of those media outlets are nothing more than Tory government political broadcasts don't you?

I think if you work hard 40+ years you deserve a decent pension, especially as we're living longer. And working in the public sector doesn't exempt you from that.

One thing worth noting is that someone who started in the public sector 30 years ago will probably be paying in far less than someone who joined 5 years ago.

A lot of Local Government pension schemes aren't actually short of money. Because of changes that have already happened, they have enough money to meet future calculated costs. Local government pension pots, unlike some public sector pensions, are actually pots of money set aside - from co0ntributions - and invested. And acturial reports are done every year showing their potential future liabilities versus the projected money they have.

Civil servants do contribute to their pensions, both diecrtly and indirectly.

They have WPS (a pension for their partners) deducted directly from their salaries and their salaries are set at a level that assumes a % reduction for contributions to their pension scheme. do not, at present, have deductions made from the salaries.

In addition:

3 year pay freeze
no promotion opportunities as workforce is reduced
probability that some departments are privatised

It's not all 'gold-plated'.

I have two degrees and most of my private sector friends earn 6 figures. I have sucked it up for 20 years and the only thought was, "I may earn crap wages in comparison to what I could earn, but I will not be poor in my old age". Now I will.

'As far I as know, the armed forces pensions are non-contributory,' You could say that, but please don't forget the 8% restriction of salary for HM Forces which is their pension contribution.

I wish people would get their frigging facts right with HM Forces pensions. Their pay is restricted by 8% each year for their pension, so whilst they don't pay per month, they do pay in that the money never even gets into their pay packets. The poster with the MOD civil servant friend needs to put her right. No wonder MOD is in a mess!

The info above comes from the Head of the Armed Forces Pay review body, who came to talk to us in Brussels about this during the pay round a couple of years ago.

MrsTerryPratchett maybe private sector would have been your best bet then, considering a 6 fig salary could mean a substantial private pension contribution.

This is like my sister who got in to teaching because if the golden handshake, she bitches at me because I didn't do a masters like her (just a nursing diploma and since then built up a portfolio of experience) yet I have a much higher salary than she does. I just don't like the attitude of those pub sector workers who think that they are running the country and that us private sector workers do nothing of any value.

I didn't know that scary. This kind of stuff isn't disimilar to some public sector "bonuses", which in fact are nothing of the sort - they're sums of money taken from the salary pot and redistributed as performance related pay.

I have worked in the public sector since 1999. It is not an easy or even pleasant option most of the time. Many private sector workers would not put up with the sort of working conditions we have to endure - I have worked in an office overrun with mice which resulted in myself and a colleague being covered in flea bites - nice. Our offices are freezing cold but we are no longer allowed electric heaters to supplement the ancient and inadequate plumbing so spend all winter with coats, gloves etc on. There is no real financial incentive to do well such as bonuses etc and bascially the whole thing runs on goodwill.

I would be the first to agree that there are some passengers in the public sector who no longer deserve their jobs but that is equally true of almost any organisation. This is a separate issue from pensions but one which should be looked into.

Basically the ONLY reason anyone would want to work in the public sector is for job security and a half way decent pension. It is simply wrong for the government to decide to change our contracts of employment because the previous government let the banks play fast and loose with our money. We are not in this predicament because of "fat-cat" public sector pensions but because of amoral financial institutions who placed a massive bet on behalf of the whole country withut our permission!

It is really demoralising to be the constant butt of misguided criticism when the reality of public sector employment is anything but cushy. If we do not offer some form of incentive - such as job security and good pensions then who will want to work in the public sector? The reality of this will really start to hit home when people begin to receive really poor service from schools, hospitals, government agencies etc - you may think it's bad now but I think it could be much worse.

Here's my can-argue-both-sides viewpoint.

I was looking the other day at the BBC site on public sector pensions. They give details of all the schemes.
I was at the unfairness across the schemes. Take a nurse, a teacher and a civil servant, all earning the same amount. Let's leave out the private vs public pensions argument at the moment.

The teacher pays 6-odd percent of their salary to get a 1/60th accrual and 2/3 final salary.

The nurse pays 6-odd percent of their salary to get a 1/60th accrual and 1/2 final salary.

The civil servant pays only between 1.5% and 3.5% depending on what scheme they are in. Same accrual.

I find it unfair that the nurses pay so much, have so much physical and mental stress and then get only half when teachers and civil servants get 2/3!

Even the latest (supposedly equalising) new proposals with higher contributions/working much longer for all, still don't iron out the civil service's advantage. They'll still take home 3% more.

Scuse me? How come the government staff get priority? Oh sorry, I thought this was cloud cuckoo land.

Now the public/private bit. DH is trying to get his pension sorted at the moment. He didn't come out of college until his 30s after he pulled his socks up in his 20s. He has spent quite a bit of the past 8 or 9 years not earning much thanks to the slump in the IT sector and paying nothing into any pension, so at nearly 50 he is running out of time. We still don't think he'll get anywhere near the pension I will get: I've now been public and third sector for 16 years. If I stop working now, I'll still get a better pension than him.

But I've never had a bonus, when friends in private sector used to get thousands every Christmas (and then fritter them, in a lot of cases, when they'd have been better off shoving them in their pension and claiming the tax back). About the only P. Sector perk I've found that's ever been any use is the ability to get an account at Costco!

Some things are choices. I could earn lots in the private sector, nearly did once go and work for a pharmaceutical co in their R&D dept, doing what I do anyway. Would have got a massive raise, a car, a half-decent pension (yes really), private heathcare, subsidised childcare, bonuses... But I chose to stay because I think someone's got to do things for the country as a whole and not for profits of shareholders.

And it'd be nice if I have a pension, too.

As an addendum: I should like to see all public sector employees (including MPs!) get precisely the same pension for the same number of years of service with the same contributions, bar two points:

1. Most employees would be defined as low risk/desk job. They'd accrue at base level.
2. Some (eg armed forces, beat officer police, A&E staff) should be deemed high risk for as many years as they aren't flying desks, and should accrue their pensions at a much faster rate for those years. They could choose therefore to retire earlier at the same pension as a base level person, or go to full age and get more.

'Stop being greedy cnuts'

Seriously? How utterly outrageous that bankers of publicly owned banks are earning absolute fortunes with bonuses on top (they might leave the country) and the financial fiasco is their fault (hey the government didn't say we couldn't) and it is nurses and teachers and policemen who are pissed off at not only having a pay freeze but then a pay cut in the form of increased pension contributions, which will be worth far less by the time we actually stagger into retirement that are the greedy cnuts.

People's ire at their own shitty conditions appears to be aimed at the wrong people. Divide and conquer is working.

Tax the banks.

Jenai - not many people do know that. So, if you hear or see HM Forces don't contribute to their pensions, then please, correct the misapprehension.

snore, yawn...

Not all public sector workers are wonderful nurses and not all private sector workers are bankers... if you hadn't noticed.

I will not be happy to see my neighbour sitting in a deckchair in his back garden on two thirds final salary after a working life sitting in a local government office whilst I am having to work till 67 at least and then find that my pension contributions have yielded nowt.

Moonbells some in HM Forces have to go well before state pension age. Dh retires the day before his 53rd birthday, as that is the age his rank in the RN retires. He'd love to stay in for longer, but the chances of an extension are nil.

Plans are in the pipeline to change the Armed Forces Pension Schemes - they already changed the scheme about 7 years ago, but will now close both and open a new one not based on final salary. I'm glad it isn't that long til dh retires.

"MrsTerryPratchett maybe private sector would have been your best bet then, considering a 6 fig salary could mean a substantial private pension contribution."

Maybe I should ask one of the parents of the children with severe disabilities I supported whether they would rather I had worked in the public sector.

I think people's pensions should reflect what they have paid in. Do public sector pensions do this?

But then I also think this whole debate is skewed by the cost of living in this country - it is virtually impossible to save enough to support yourself for 20+ years of leisure unless you are rich. Unless someone else picks up the tab.

It must be hard though, if you've expected to be able to retire at 65 or whatever on an ok amount of money.

stop being such a martyr, this attitude is what irritates me. You work in the public sector by choice.

Tax the banks

The shortsightedness of this always brings me out in a rash. Nice in theory, but only works in practice if every other country does the same. Good luck trying. I'm sure plenty of countries would love to see the UK do this...

Idealism at its best.