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 should add that police pay has been frozen for the last 2 years and police officers are not allowed to strike.

I am aware that other parts of the public sector are striking. I was using teachers as an example. Not all parts of the public sector are striking.

Worth remembering it's not just about the teachers.

niceguy2 comments makes sense to me.

I still dont understand differences between private and public sector:

gaunyerseljeannie
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.
I enjoy my job, glad you do too. Unfortunately T&C's change, you cannot expect to keep the same T&C's through your whole working life if they are no longer affordable.

Some don't have a choice.. don't know what world you live in??
My choices are restricted by my skill set and family circumstances, so same world as you. When my T&C's have been changed I had to decide to stay or go - it was better to stay as limited alternatives were not attractive to me.

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^
Most employees are not irreplaceable private or public (I know I'm not). Replacements will be less experienced, some worse, some better. New recruits may be more enthaustic as they do no have the negativity of "we used to have....." (we have found this in our workplace).

I can understand "we are not getting enough information so we can see our pensions are no longer afforable" and this should be resolved. If you could see that they are not self-sustaning without the goverment putting in more money would you accept the changes?

worth keeping in mind that where i live in Surrey, public schools are so dire (one v good and massively oversubscribed CoE school), people do anything to educate their children privately. so not only our family pays for the education and do not use the services, the people that will be hit by teachers strike will be those most vulnerable themselves. at least where i am.

Bastarddog - well to be honest there is no place for complaining in the police force. Your husband will still come out with two thirds of his annual salary as his pension.* Retirement at 55 with a pension like that was never sustainable.

Retired police officers are well known for being absolutely loaded after they retire with their pensions and most take on another full time job, so rake it in.

*This is protected. The changes will only affect his future pay and conditions.

Linda, will you answer my question?

DH's pension scheme is completely self sustaining. The working officers pay the pensions of the retired officers. They taken no money from elsewhere. They pay 11% to keep this ticking over. Is it fair to take 15% and give the excess to the government while decreasing the value of the pension, cutting pay, increasing pensionable age and making people redundant? Can you see that what will happen is that their pension scheme will then have to be bailed out when nobody signs up for it?

Public sector workers will pay more into their pension, work longer and get less. But why?
Largely thanks to the actions of a load of bankers cashing in on financial deregulation over the last 10 years, sending this country into a hideous recession. However I don't see them suffering!
Good people. who make a decent contribution to society, such as doctors, teachers, nurses etc many of whom have recently renegotiated their pensions and had a pay freeze anyway, are being asked to pick up the tab for the financial sector's reckless behaviour.
I do appreciate that this is a gross oversimplification - however you have to ask yourself what kind of society do we live in where wealthy bankers who produce nothing and contribute very little of use to society are rewarded for appalling behaviour, whilst those that save lives and teach our children are vilified for having the temerity to expect a decent pension for their hard work. I am amazed people are not angrier about this!

I do not work in the public sector.

SwedeHeart, the retirement age of police officers has been 65 since the 90s. The serving officers pay the pension of the retired officers. They pay 11%. It's self sustaining. Yes those who joined before this can retire at 55 still but thousands and thousands of officers have joined since the changes and will retire at 65. And the two thirds of your salary thing is wrong too. It accrues at 1/60th a year.

Have any of you people who say that we can't afford public sector pensions looked at the figures?

The financial calculations show that even if the pension age is raised in line with the state pension age, and the contribution level stays the same, the public sector schemes are self funded and in the black.

So, why is the government insisting that the contribution level is raised? I will tell you why, so that they can raid the surplus in the pension scheme and effectively tax my pension fund before I get it.

Which is exactly what happened to many large private sector pension funds in the 80's & 90's and led to the reduction in the benefits that was forced on the private sector pension schemes because after the large private sector funds were raided they were no longer self sustainable as final salary schemes and the benefits at the end were cut.

And yes, this did happen, it happened to some of the schemes that I managed when I was a pension fund manager at the time. The attitude of the senior managers in these firms was that the pension scheme was an asset of the company, and could be used for any purpose they chose.

And the Government now have the same attitude, they seem to think that it is a pot of money to be used as they wish.

So, I pay tax on my wages, I pay tax on my pension fund before I get it, and I pay tax on my pension when I eventually get it. So, my taxpayer subsidised pension is actually subsidised - by me.

showofhands sorry never saw your earlier question.

please understand, I am not an expert in pensions at all, I am just trying to see the difference between public/private pensions beyond the percevied (by others) public sector entitlement.

Your post (like niceguys) is factual to the affordability of pensions which I can relate to more. Is your DH's pension scheme a standalone fund? (if that makes sense).

If the pension fund is self sustaining where is the excess going? Is it to fund other public sector pension schemes shortfalls? Is it to pay for admistration? Do they tell you where it is going?

Not entirely sure what you mean by standalone. It's a UK wide fund, used by thousands, not just dh's colleagues.

Don't know the answer to the 2nd question but am endeavouring to find out. The scheme's transparent though so anybody could find out.

The New Police Pension Scheme (NPPS) came into effect on 1st April 2006. Officers who join the scheme contribute 9.5% of their basic salary into the 35 year scheme, and the minimum pension age will be 60 years, but officers may be allowed to continue working subject to certain conditions. Upon retirement officers receive a monthly pension of half their final monthly salary in addition to a single lump sum payment twice their normal final annual salary. Additional voluntary contributions can be made to improve pension benefits and some existing pensions can be transferred into a police pension - further professional advice on these matters should be sought.

Lindax you assume I work in the public sector, why?

Tell you what, I'd be a whole lot more amenable to considering changes to my pension if this government showed any commitment at all to:

a) 'punishing' those responsible (remind me what the RBS paid out in bonuses this year?)

b) brought in the commercial banking transaction tax (what was it, 1/16 of a percent on such transactions?)

c) acted on the obscene pay in boardrooms

d) enshrining the 50% top rate of tax

e) quit the 'we're all in this together', spoken by public-school educated upper-middle class boys with offshore Trust funds

I entered a contractual deal when I became an NHS radiographer. The pay was rubbish, the hours ridiculous (28 hour shift once a week on top of your normal hours, anyone?)- and bear in mind the previous government didn't wheel in the Shared Ownership Housing Scheme for fun- it was there because it was realised Key public sector workers could no longer afford to live in may areas where their skills were needed. BUT the perks were things like:

Subsidised meals
Free, laundered uniform
Free parking
A DECENT PENSION SCHEME

Now I've lost all of the above, I, under the wheeze called Agenda for Change (2004) now work 2 1/2 hours a week more than before for free; the independent Pay Review Body that oversaw our cost of living annual pay rise, (formed on the basis we were in a morally difficult position to take industrial action thus deserved different consideration)- gone, along with my annual cost of living pay rise; a 'new' negotiated more affordable pension scheme brought out and agreed upon last year- now scrapped.

Now they want me to:
-work longer
-pay more
-get less

The government is in breach of its contract with me.

I'm sorry if you're in a job with a rubbish pension scheme (though some of you might ask yourself like those of my radiographer colleagues who 'went private' on a higher hourly rate, gaily disregarding the fact that was to cover there being No Pension provision- whether that was such a good idea in retrospect...) but throwing me to the mercy of the Public Purse when I retire as my pension is so inadequate is hardly going to help you out, is it?

SwedeHeart, that may be what is on offer now so I stand corrected but it is NOT what dh signed up for though. His pension accrues at 1/60th, hes is NOT allowed to retire until 65 and he pays 11%, due to rise to 15%. And it is completely self sustaining. I presume that as it is self sustaining then they can change/improve what it offers.

And isn't it all irrelevant considering it's self sustaining. THEY pay for it and not just financially. They aren't striking. Do you seriously think it is fair for the government to dick around with their pensions when they aren't asking anything of anybody else in order to achieve them?

Round of applause for properlush.