to ask someone to explain to me why the strike on Wed re pensions is happening as I'm confused

[ssd]

what is the change going on that the strikers wont accept?

even though dh is a public sector worker and I have watched the news I dont really get what its about, plse can anyone explain it to me?

thanks

The sad thing is that most of the strikers don't actually know what it's all about. If they knew the full facts I imagine the reasonable ones would not be striking.

don't know if I agree with you there swede, dh would certainly know but he's asleep. otherwise I'd ask him, public sector workers arent thick you know

anyhoo, back to op, I've just seen governmnet have offerd a new deal, but whats the old deal and whats the new deal offerd, thats what I want to know

Less pension for more money, that's the crux of it.

Considerably less pension for considerably more money!

isnt it about how when they can retire too?

so why do they need to increase their pension payments?

thanks

I want to see transparency in the Government figures.

The TPS already has a clause in it for teachers to pay more if required, but the government has not provided any proof.

Also published figures vary from deficit to 40 billion in the black. (yes I know unfunded so our glorious leaders have spent it)

All of the strikers I know know very well why they are doing it. To imply otherwise is frankly a little patronising and rather stupid.

For many it isn't just pensions but the reforms to various sectors. Nhs, teaching etc.

I don't actually agree personally with the strike (I voted "no" to the ballot) but as I am part of the Union, as it is a democratic process and the majority have said "yes" to strike then I am striking.

The crux is less pension for more contributions and working until late sixties. Personally, I would be happy with the more contributions bit if my pension was protected. A big issue is that we signed up for something and now they are changing the terms and conditions in a fairly major way.

Three changes to pension... Pay larger contributions, pay for longer as increased pension age, get a smaller pension at the end of it. Triple whammy...

DH is striking because he'll be expected to pay £100 more into his pension every month (which we can't afford!), pay in for longer than he expected when he signed up to it but get about £200,000 less out of it at the end.

Which sounds like he must be getting a huge pension - he won't, whatever's in there when he retires (say at today's retirement age of 65) that money could have to last him 35 years or so. That's £5k a year less to live on in his old age.

If everybody with private pensions was suddenly told 'You've got to pay far more than you expected every month for the rest of your life, we're going to give you far less money at the end and you've got to work longer to get it - and you've got to suck it up, that's final' then there would (quite rightly) be bloody uproar in the private sector.

so why have the changes been proposed?

and what age did puclic sector works think they were going to retire at if not at pension age?

It's not only patronising, it's intellectually very lazy to write off the views of people you don't agree with as ignorant.

I work in the public sector and I agree with the strike but I'm not going on strike. I can't see the point. It has little public support and the government just do not care - they're tories and believe in small government. The public sector is going to be ripped to shreds and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

I can't speak for all public sector workers, but a few years ago the teachers negotiated a deal that meant no pay rises but the pension would be protected. Fair enough.

Only no, now that deal is being reneged on and still no pay rises and we will mess with your pension after all.

Flisspaps except that happened years ago, and there wasn't "uproar" people just moved to defined contributions (not benefits ie they know how much they'll pay into the pension, not how much they'll get at the end which will depend on so many things) Private sector pensions are now almost universally completely different from the public sector, because the defined benefits method requires much too high contributions whilst working now the generations who are retiring will have much higher life expectancy than when the model was first designed.

To overcome that increasing the working time, and increasing the contributions is necessary, a better alternative would be to moved to defined contributions like the private sector.

Three changes to pension... Pay larger contributions, pay for longer as increased pension age, get a smaller pension at the end of it. Triple whammy...

Just like in the private sector then.......oh but I forgot public sector workers are special.............

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

It is about broken promises and being sick of being lied to and messed around with.

The government already have an agreement that teachers will up contributions should a valuation prove it necessary.

They would rather up contributions without the evidence, make us work longer and lower the sum received at the end.

More evidence of ridiculous spending decisions

Can only speak for myself. I will have to contribute £50 more per month to my pension (am part time).

Will not get my NHS pension until I am 68. Work in a physically hard job (on feet all day, lifting etc).

I support the strike, but my union RCN has not balloted for strike action so will be going into work on Wednesday.

We also negotiated no pay increases, but hands off pension with the government. We have kept our side of the bargain, go figure who has not.

And Swede, yes I do know why the public sector workers are going out on strike, thank you very much.

1. Increase retirement age
2. Pay more into fund
3. Retire with a pension that is averaged out over your working life and not a final salary pension (I think this is where the major losses are coming from)

so simply: work more, pay more, get less.

just read that letter from the 26 year old teacher- if the pension offered is so crap, why not take out a private pension? no-one is forcing him to pay into it.

This is making me cross- people in the private sector are often offered crap pension schemes, and work equally hard to teachers. Neither my husband or I have a pension at all, and neither do most of our friends as money is just too tight at the moment.

nikon1968 that is a pathetic arguement. If you are not happy with what your employer is doing, it is your responsilbility to sort it out. Just because you can't be arsed, doesn't mean that I should let my employer walk all over me .