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

Tbh it often seems irl that anyone who says "public sector workers going on strike? There is no IT union! I can't do that in the private sector" are usually a bit thick.

"When anyone enters into an agrrement it should be honoured full stop".

Could I point out that the major public sector schemes all include provision for increased contributions? The proposed changes are not breaches. Nor will any changes be retrospective.

The Armed Forces pay/pensions are under review - move to career average seems inevitable, and other changes are being discussed. But they have a separate pay review body and are not on the same timetable as other public sector workers.

scaryteacher - you would rather potentially give up extra billions to spend on schools/hospitals/poverty in the UK if it means that we don't have to give more overseas aid? It's the banks that will be paying, so surely extra aid overseas is a good thing, not a bad thing.

As for the argument that the banks will go elsewhere where there isn't a tax - London already has a transaction tax on shares - 0.5% that its competitors don't. And yet London has one of the biggest stock markets in the world.

The London financial institutions couldn't just ship out to Asia/the US because it's an important geographical base between the time zones of the US and Asia. And Germany won't benefit because they've already signed up to implementing the tax.

So the government's arguments against it are pretty weak.

Incidentally, there is an unelected man in Parliament whose job it is to protect the interests of the City.
'The Remembrancer has Parliamentary duties, involving a constant watching of all Bills introduced, or proposed to be introduced, to see whether they are likely to affect the interests of the City Corporation. These duties necessitate constant communications with the various departments, the Ministers, and the permanent officials. For this purpose the officials Of both Houses of Parliament give him facilities of admission and attendance, and in the House of Commons he has the privilege of a seat "under the clock." '

Who do you think Cameron is working for, the bankers, or for the public when he opposes a tax on the banks for the benefit of the public?

It's going to be 2014 really isn't it for the AFPS to be altered? I must read all the stuff from the Forces Pension society.

You don't get it - we would still pay the overseas aid plus the tax. Money raised won't get more schools etc, it will be used to reduce the deficit. It won't just be the banks that are paying - don't be naive - we all use banks, so charging for accounts will go up. I am already in Belgium being charged for using any other cashpoint than those of my Belgian bank ...expect that to hit soon in UK.

France and Germany like this tax (and yes, you bet they've signed up as it gets them off the hook with their foreign aid commitments) as it will not help the city. The financial institutions could ship out at any time they choose, and both Barclays and HSBC have looked at it.

Extra overseas aid is a bad thing imo...until what is already sent is used properly and doesn't disappear into the pockets of the corrupt regimes, I think in many cases it is wasted money.

"1. No cost of living increase - in real terms we are down £100+ per month

1. No pay rise despite meeting target so the school can save money - down £200 per month"

1. Join the club - the rest of the world isn't getting col raises either.
2. Annual pay rises (length of service) are still being given in my local authority - they are rare outside of the public sector anyway. I work in the third (charity/community) and cNt remember the last actual pay rise I had. I have only been able to increase my pay by changing jobs.

the scheme I am responsible for is part of LGPS

NB
as somebody who has spreadsheets that quantify FRS 17 for our scheme, I knw it is scare mongering bollocks - as are most "pension scheme deficits"
they both assume a current discounted value of all future liabilities and assets

but the elephant in the actuaries room is that thick people die younger and are cheaper

PS I'm self employed. A pay freeze and regular incoming amount would be bliss!!

I work in the third (charity/community) and cNt remember the last actual pay rise I had

Me too. I'm also a UNISON member in a company that doesn't recognise unions. I've already informed my manager I shall be taking unpaid leave in order to strike on the 30th.

But talking the LGPS is an umbrella scheme that is administered in different ways by the various organisations that have it. So the council I work for has no deficit and in fact our pesion pot is very healthy but then We pay higher then the average contributions. In other councils the workers pay less and in some their schemes are not looking so healthy. So even when talking about a single scheme in the case of the local gov pension scheme there are variables.

Also for those wanting to know how much the government pays into the scheme it is nothing as it is not tax payer funded.

Hidingundertheundergrowth makes a good point, there is no "public sector pension" different schemes have different outlooks, noone can have a good knowledge of all.

I think the public/private debate is red herring really. There are plenty of peiple in the private sector still getting cars, bonuses, pay rises and, yes, good pensions too. I know lots of them. They are all in well paid professional jobs and are doing fine. So to say that all peivate workers are suffering is not the truth. What they have been able to do is change jobs and look for a better package. Police, teachers, fire fighters can't do this. They are stuck with a choice of one employer largely.
I feel sorry for low paid workers in all sectors, but changing pension plans fpr publix workers won't help them. They won't get money back. When we have to cut back further in our household because our contributions are bigger, we just will spend a lot less in our local businesses. Who benefits from that?

I am intrigued as to what this government plans to
do to support this aging public sector work force.

It is unreasonable to expect a 67 to undertake 12 hour shifts on a busy ward, with infrequent breaks and highly physical tasks. Especially if they'd already been doing this for 40 years. Many nurses cannot work late into age due to the effects the job has on your body such as knee, neck and back injuries.

So, I envisage a large workforce who cannot perform the role they are contracted to do at a later age, and so therefore will be forced to take long term sick leave as there will be an indequate number of redeployement oppertunaties.

SDRT is already a substantial drag on London's competitiveness

It's been going since 1986, I simply don't believe you. We have one of the biggest stock markets in the world.

As it is it is fairly transparently a franco-german scheme to fuck the City.

Why has Finland signed up? Holland? Why are there campaigns and interest in Canada, the US (a franco-german scheme to fuck Wall Street, maybe?), Australia, Brazil, Argentina etc etc? Bill Gates made a speech to the G20 about it. A franco-german scheme to fuck the City, or an attempt to claw back some money from the banks who have majorly fucked up the global economy over the last view years and who are woefully under-taxed (according to the IMF).

The financial institutions could ship out at any time they choose, and both Barclays and HSBC have looked at it.

Then why haven't they moved out, hmm? Perhaps they know that other countries might not bail them out as much as the UK.

Simply ridiculous to say 'we can't afford' to give people the pension money that they have already paid in. We are not a bankrupt nation. We are talking about priorities; what we decide is important enough to pay for the general good of our community.

Can we afford to have 68 year old nurses and teachers? The people that think so seem to be the ones that can afford to privately educate their children and privately treat their illnesses, and are happy for the rest of us (private or public) to get worsening services in every possible area.

We're all in it together, are we?

We never set it aside. Indeed bits of it were raided and removed and there were employee contribution holidays and em[ployer contribution holidays for years as no one has proper foresight into the future.

When the state pension was set up most people drew it for about 2 - 5 years. Now many draw it for 30 years. It wasn't set up to operate as it now does.

We could all just start adopting unhealthy lifestyles and save a lot of money in pensions by just dying early.

YABU.

I always thought that the 'pay-off' for accepting low public-sector wages was job security, decent pension, etc. Now it seems that is not the case. Some people who work/ed in the private sector are getting pissed off when they've been on better money than us for yonks.

You forget that a recession is temporary. Public sector workers have, for the most part, done important jobs for years, and do not deserve to be turned upon in a situation that was not of their making.

'Simply ridiculous to say 'we can't afford' to give people the pension money that they have already paid in. We are not a bankrupt nation. We are talking about priorities; what we decide is important enough to pay for the general good of our community.'

They haven't paid it in, though, that is the point. They haven't paid in enough to cover thirty years of retirement, or twenty, on two-thirds of final salary.

Could you provide some evidence of that, please? Because the government won't.

Just Google on 'Actuaries report final salary costs' and you will bring up dozens, scores, of papers by British actuarial firms (independent experts) who will explain with lots and lots of figures why pretty well nobody, private or public sector, can afford to run a final salary scheme at a time when longevity continues to rise. Names you might want to Google on include Hymans, Towers Watson, Mercer, LCP.

Oh, and Aon, plus the The Actuary magazine. Plus the Society of Actuaries.

I am a copy-editor and proof-reader and one of my clients is an actuarial firm. I have been editing articles on this subject for at least a decade; probably more. The real scandal is that trades unions and the Labour govt. did not do more to communicate the deep nature of the problem to public sector workers years and years ago.

To retire on two-thirds of final salary, for up to 30 years of retirement, a public sector worker or their employer would have to have been paying in far, far, far more into a pension scheme from the moment the employee started working. Final salary schemes were designed at at time when living ten years after retirement would have been considered a very good innings. Many employees managed just five years.

YABU

Honour the contracts.