To think public sector workers

[firsttimemum77]

Are being 'punished' for mistakes made by bankers / previous government? I work for my LA and at the moment everything around making savings is centred around our jobs and salaries! People think we earn loads, get bonuses etc etc - I certainly don't and I work unsociable hours with no bonuses and a average wage which pays my mortgage and bills...

So AIBU to feel like this or do I deserve it because I work in the public sector!

theirs there's

Mrs Vidic

The gratitude bit wont wash, your jobs are not inherenty more worthy

You can't only say that about jobs in the voluntary sector

I don't agree (and I'm a Tory).

Our local primary school head is certainly 'worthy'. She does a job that is difficult in a way that is hard to comprehend unless you watch her. I'm pleased she will know exactly how much money she will have on retirement. And exactly when she will be able to retire. She's earned that. She's made a difference to the lives of many children.

So you are saying that people in the private sector will need to put in 20% of their salary in order to get the same benefit as public sector counter-parts? So that means they will need to contribute an extra 14% then. In my field, private sector workers have a salary greater than 14% more than I receive. So quite doable.

It doesn't matter whether public sector workers are more "worthy" or not. The point about the public sector is that - in theory - it guarantees essential services, all the things needed to maintain the basic requirements of a well functioning society (and one in which private business is able to operate): law and order, education, public health etc. If you want decent health care, schools, police/defence forces and social services, you need some means of persuading people to do those jobs, and to stay in those jobs.

And if in the current climate you find yourself looking enviously at their benefits, you can either re-train and join them, or console yourself with the knowledge that when the next boom comes, your private sector compensation will inevitably race ahead of that of the public sector once again.

Am I missing something obvious here ? Have read whole thread.
Why is every single person on the planet not quitting their private jobs and going public then ? for the great pension.

My step dad retires today. prominent postion in SS. Worked for SS his whole professional life. Pension is o.k. but not that great, says my mum.

Agree Zephirine - I made the point about recruitment and retention but it was ignored by Splodge.

Oblomov - because no one worries about their pensions enough. Which is why so many people don't have one at all.

ooo - btw (re point you made yesterday) I have time to post here because I'm on maternity leave. Don't use mumsnet when at work.

and one poster made the point that many guarantees and opportunities, esp pension wise, closed 8 (??) years ago, to new entrants. is that not true ?
so best we all go public. i worked for county council some years ago. best i try and get back in there, for the pension ? is thta whta splodge is actuallty suggesting, for us all ?

sorry, should have put a little at the end there !!

I think we knew what you meant

ladylush - that wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at EVERYONE ;)

Ideally you'd need to take pension guarantees out of the equation in public-sector packages and adjust salaries upwards in compensation (i.e. so that recruitment and retention were unchanged).

Ooo - I know you did

rubbish at taking own advice

The scheme that Spodge refers to in her examples closed to new entrants in October 2002. I'm not entirely sure how the new one works out the benefits, but it is still a lot more generous than a private scheme.

But although I'm in the best scheme, I still have a lot of years before retirement I can't see it staying as generous as it is now tbh. I also think I'll be working probably until I'm 70 (if the brain keeps up that is).

It wasn't that I didn't realise the difference and how hard it is in the private sector and how early you need to start preparing (who in their twenties thinks about pensions?). Its just that I felt the tone of some posts on here has been a bit off, and some of the facts chosen out of context.

according to ?.htm" REL="nofollow" >this article, five or six yrs ago 40% of companies had final salary pension schemes.

I think it's worth remembering that many people in the private sector do have good pensions, it's not just the public sector.

www.myfinances.co.uk/pensions/news/final-salary-defined-benefit-pension/final-salary-pensions -unsustainable-claim-96-of-firms-$1306329.htm

not sure why that link didn't work but here's the source

Not quite, Ladylush - if only it were that simple!
The exact amount you would need to put in is undefinable. If you retire at a bad point in the market you can't guarantee a thing. which is why so many people with DC pensions are currently saying they can't afford to retire.

The thing is, pension schemes used to be a "gratuity" - a kind, paternalistic thing your employer did for long-standing employees to help them in the short period between retirement and death. These days we live for unpredictably long periods, the government has meddled with the tax treatment of schemes and put layers and layers of regulation over what used to be a simple act of generosity. So DB pensions are prohibitively expensive to provide, which is why you won't come across new schemes these days. In fact, all you ever hear about are scheme closures (i.e. shutting to new joiners) and schemes being frozen (no more accrual for anyone, and existing members switching to a less generous scheme for future service).

Some people in the private sector do have decent pensions but I expect most of them will be shuffling off into retirement in the next few years. The key difference though is the cost. The NHS schemes particularly are going to be quite a burden on the taxpayer. When you consider how many people have worked in the NHS in the last however many years (the NHS is huge!), each of them accruing benefit which cannot be taken away once accrued and the fact that the NHS schemes (all of them, I think, but am not 100%) are unfunded so that the bill goes to the taxpayer as and when each person retires (so there is no investment, planning etc) you can see that the cost could be quite a drain. I would rather see these pension schemes reined in than even more taxes being raised to foot the bill.

Ros Altmann, who is even more of a pensions geek than me, published some figures here a couple of years ago which make me break out in a cold sweat.

Again, not having a go at public sector workers, but the pension arrangements for much of the public sector really are quite different from the rest of us.

God, I really am a geek.

If you think public sector workers are paying for their own pensions by paying contributions of 6% per annum you are deluding yourself - public sector employers have to pay additional contributions of between 17 and 20% of employees pay on top of that 6%. And where do these employers get the money to pay that 17 to 20%? Yes, that's right, the taxpayer.

maybe footballers could take a pay cut, or what about cheryl cole [talentless bint emoticon]

So to go back to the OP's original point, let not the pot call the kettle black

We bailed out the banks to the tune of £300 per person

We're bailing out your pensions to the tune of 17k per person

And to those who say that they are more worthy and for working in the public sector and the only real benefit they have is their pension - I thought you were morally superior so wouldn't you just do the job without the extra fancy pension?

If you think public sector workers are paying for their own pensions by paying contributions of 6% per annum you are deluding yourself - public sector employers have to pay additional contributions of between 17 and 20% of employees pay on top of that 6%. And where do these employers get the money to pay that 17 to 20%? Yes, that's right, the taxpayer.