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

I work in the private sector (I am educated and work in a manufacturing environment for a large successful mutli-national company) and when I signed up to my pension it was a very nice defined benefit, final salary pension.

Our pension fund could no longer afford this, so we are now paying more, for less money (defined contribution) and retiring later. Its not what I signed up for, but if the pension fund cannot afford it there has to be changes (money cant appear from nowhere!).

It is unlikely I will be able to do the job I am doing now (stress/regularily working from home unpaid when ds is in bed to catch up) when I am in my sixties and will need to career change before I retire (probably earning signifcantly less).

Most people I know in the private sector have had similar changes over the last few years.

Our manufacturing site has negotiated 3 year pay rise deals with the unions (made in good faith at the time) that have had to be retracted due unforeseen changes in business/economy which make them no longer affordable.

Most people I know in the private sector have had no or pitiful pay rises in the last 5-ish years (as companies cannot afford increases due to their increasing costs - including pension contributions).

Most people I know, due to increasing outgoings costs have a lower standard of living than they did before (struggle to have annual family holidays etc).

Genuine question : As we all have the choice to stay or leave our jobs/professions if we think we can get a better deal elsewhere, and ignoring all of above reasons as they relate closely to the private sector too - why is the public sector pensions any different in their contributions/benefits needing to be changed so their funds can afford it?

Top marks to swedes for the most patronising post.

Exactly Lindax. Working in the public sector doesn't automatically mean that you should be treated any differently to those in the private sector. The recession will have an impact on everybody unfortunately- money can't just magically appear because you feel your job is more 'worthy'.

Here we go again...Private sector pensions are crap, so public sector ones should be too...blah blah blah.

However, for me it is less about the increase in payments and more about the lack of transparency. Workers would agree to the terms more readily if the Government would only show us the figures that prove pension schemes need to extra money to be sustainable. The figures available show that, at present, they are sustainable, which means that teachers, in particular, are paying more of their salary in and getting more out for what?

The answer is as an extra source of Government income - i.e. another tax. Just on the public sector.

This is why I am striking. I think it's a terribly slippery slope if people take being lied to and manipulated by the Government lying down.

Can we pack in the private vs public sector debate, please? It's not a sensible argument. A private sector cleaning job can not be compared to a public sector legal job - it's a nonsense. The private sector situation is irrelevant. The problem is purely how the Government is treating it's own workers.

that was supposed to be more in and less out. Doh

I don't think its about "if you don't like it, you should get out" solution, because that won't solve the problem of recruiting and retaining good quality staff for industries like education and health.

I'm not saying that people who work in these industries are better people or deserve more, but that we have to question whether we want to take risks in the quality of provision in these areas.

plus - I have worked in the private, public and voluntary sectors. I don't think I am special for the job I do. I don't think I should be treated differently. I just don't appreciate being lied to.

ssd - well your husband is one of the public service workers who obviously thinks the proposal is not a big deal as you and him haven't even discussed the ins and outs!

Lifeissweet - who lied to you and what was the lie?

Genuine answer...... for you Lindax
Some people actually choose to work for less because they really believe in what they do personally and politically, that doesn't mean they should be treated like shit. Some don't have a choice.. don't know what world you live in??
You and scarlettesmummy2 will doubtless be the first bleating when you can't access public services for yourselves and your families if the workers all bugger off to the private sector

We've been told that we need to pay more because the pensions scheme is unsustainable, Swede. The only figures available suggest that it is self-sustaining, so that is a lie - unless they can prove otherwise, which they are refusing to do - for some reason.

Lifeissweet- the private sector situation is absolutely not irrelevant. Where do you think the taxes comes from that pays for the private sector? Yes, that's right: corporation tax (private sector corporations) and income tax (private sector workers). Yes, public sector workers pay tax too but the public sector can only exist because the private sector funds it.

Publis sector workers are not entitled to better pensions than the private sector just because they are employed by the Government. Everyone is taking a hit on their pensions these days. People are living longer- the money is just not there to fund 30 years of post-retirement living.

Of course is is unsustainable Lifeissweet. The country has no money. The UK has the biggest overall debt in the world (that includes government, banking and personal debts).

Conditions change for everyone. The private company I worked for (two actually) changed their pension schemes. It's real life I'm afraid.

You are NOT losing anything.

The existing accrued pension for the public service is protected under the remit of Lord Hutton's commission. The final-salary link for pensions built up until any change comes into force should also be maintained, Lord Hutton says.

That should read, "Where do you think the taxes come from that pay for the public sector"?

Education and health are not businesses, they don't make money. That's what tax is for.

We need to ensure quality recruitment and retention occurs here. Which is why we need to pay for it.

teachers and other public sector workers should not take the rest of the population for a fool. the party is over guys, your pensions were totally unaffordable years ago (I remember researching the problem when studying Econ in the mid 90s) and under the current economic conditions it is totally laughable to assume the country should to just carry on those schemes. it is not going to happen under labour or under tories.

sorry but at 26 a teacher has plenty of time to adjust and should be made to go into the new pension provision. twenty fucking six! i can totally understand people in their fifties who are upset as they have virtually no time, but at 26??

"We need to ensure quality recruitment and retention occurs here. Which is why we need to pay for it."

this is also what we hear about the boardroom and banking salaries... get real

If you take the example of my dh who has no right to strike but I suspect would if he could, the 'oh the private sector has had to accept pension cuts falls down'.

DH's pension scheme is self sufficient. The working officers pay the pensions of the retired officers. They do not take money from your taxes. DH signed up years ago, agreed to pay his 11% and the pension scheme works with no detriment to anybody else and no finances required from elsewhere.

What will happen now is that he will have to pay 15%- with the extra 4% going to the deficit- the pension will be worth much less at the end and he'll have to work longer to be allowed it. On top of a pay freeze already. And his colleagues being made redundant so they're working harder because recruitment's also been frozen for at least 2 years so the work just keeps increasing.

Basically, the government are proposing that dh pays an extra 4% in contributions, loses a significant amount of his pension, works for longer, has to do other people's work too, earns less and does it because we're all in it together apparently. Ironically, what will happen is that people won't sign up for the scheme because they can't afford it and it's not worth it. So then instead of a completely self sufficient workable situation, the money will have to come from elsewhere and again the public sector will be lambasted for taking money out of the country's pot. But if you leave their pensions alone, they're taking no money from anybody and the pay and recruitment freezes means they're already taking their hit.

In short it's like this:

Public sector staff are pissed off that the government are expecting them to work for longer, pay more and get less back. And at first glance that would seem awfully unfair. Especially since some like teachers thought they'd renegotiated their deals a few years ago.

However, when you look at the bigger picture then things are not so simple.

People are living longer which means more pensions to pay out for longer. The government is in massive debt. One of the biggest in the world. In fact, very similar in percentage terms to Greece. The only reason we've not gone down in flames like Greece is because we've got our own currency so we've been able to set our own interest rates and pump money into the economy (aka Quantative Easing).

The hole is so large that it can't be plugged by "taxing the fat cat bankers". This is a fundamental hole which successive governments have ducked and ducked, passing the bag of nails to the next.

The idea that these public sector pensions are sustainable assumes that the government makes a very large contribution which no other employer would. The very government who is entirely skint.

So realistically we ALL have to work longer, pay more and expect less. In that context I think the strikers are being incredibly selfish and unrealistic. Because what they are saying is in effect "I don't care where the money comes from, I want what was promised to me." Which is fine if we could afford it but we can't.

Well afford is a relative term. We could afford public sector pensions if we cut spending elsewhere. What would you like to cut? Education? NHS?

The thing that riles me most about all this is the 'party's over' and 'gold plated pensions' arguments. The public sector is not a great homogenous mass with the same set up meted across it. Large parts of it pay for their own pensions, they take nothing from you. They signed up for a job and for a pension and now every single part of what they do is being made untenable and the public at large has fallen for the hard sell of why they deserve it. Maybe changes need to be made, I freely admit that. But dh already works in a job where he receives daily abuse and people honest to God spit at him and mutter about 'I pay your pension'. No you don't. You will though if things continue as they are.

niceguy, you think it's fair to blindly increase dh's pension payments to 15%, change his pensionable age and decrease the value of his pension when it's wholly self sufficient, just because he's technically public sector? To just take his money when his pension takes nothing from the government?

Great post showofhands.

What's coming across clearly from this thread is how some people just stupidly perceive the 'public sector' as some great mass who all work under the same conditions and with the same pension deal.

I have yet to see figures which convince me that all public sector pensions are a drain on resources- it seems many are self sustaining.

I am in the private sector myself, but worked in the public sector previously and have never worked as hard as I did then. When people start saying things like 'the partys over for public sector workers ' all it shows is that they don't have a clue.

My dh is a police officer. He pays 11% of his salary per month in pension contributions. As I understand it teachers currently pay 6.4% and the proposal is that they will have their contributions increased to 9.3%. Police retirement age has also been raised from 55 to 60. So my 56 year old husband is working a 24hour rotating shift pattern, with 6 weeks holiday a year, dealing with life threatening situations on an almost daily basis. There is so sympathy for the teachers strike in our house.

"and people honest to God spit at him and mutter about 'I pay your pension'."

well this is totally unacceptable and is beside the point.

i do not understand where your dh works, but it is acknowledged that absolute majority of the public sector pension schemes are not 'self-sustainable' at all and those that appear to be, are because they rely on recruitment increases (ie more public spending). so your dh's scheme is probably no longer self-sustainable with the recruitment freeze.

i started paying into my pension from 26 (which is 13 years ago) having studied economics and realising that pension is a massive time bomb. there were numerous studies over the years (well before the credit crunch in 2008), which were widely publicised, so it is not and should not be presented as an out-of-the-blue shock

currently i do not work. hmrc has sent me a letter inviting to make voluntary ni contribution to guarantee access to the state pension. i am pondering as i am convinced state pension in 25-30 years will be means-tested (and rightly so), so my additional contribution will be a puff of air at the end.

It's a public sector strike bastard. Not teachers.