Strike and final pension

[EuroExpat]

Weren´t you shocked when you heard on breakfast TV this morning that the average worker striking today will receive a pension of only 4000 pounds per year? I´m absolutely horrified!! And the pompous so-and-so doing the interview said men deserved to get more money as they "worked" for more years than women. This sort of thing really makes me worry that women feel feminism is no longer needed.

[Normsnockers]

essemvee,

I was just pointing out what can happen, courtesy of unions, in the public sector once a "perk" is made available for whatever reason to one group of staff.

[Notonstrike]

Interesting point.

For example, some years ago ago GP's were encouraged to carry out the fitting of contraceptive devices (some could even offer more drastic family planning services) for which they could claim an extra fee as part of their practice income.

As the fee related to sterlisation/contraception services by medical staff, it was eventually established practice for gynaecologists carrying out a sterlisation on a patient in theatre to put in a claim for such a fee. This was despite the fact that they were already being paid to carry out the theatre list as part of their normal weekly sessions. Not only that but the anesthetist claimed too !

I'm also told that ambulance drivers (now paramedics) could claim an extra fee if they had to stop and change a wheel during a shift, for which they were already being paid to work.

I personally found it greedy to be paid once for doing a job and to then snatch at every little potential misinterpretation that might allow further income claims.

I'm glad I'm out of it now and can't get so wound up by the naked greed of some well paid medical staff.

[wannaBe1974]

I think that public sector workers should spend some time working in the real world and then maybe they’d stop wingeing. I agree that some in the public sector (nurses/paramedics) have a difficult job to do and I wouldn’t want their job for any money, but the majority of the rest have an easy life. The civil service is over staffed with people who were practically born there, and benefits generally include:

Flexi time
30 days annual holiday
40% discount on medical insurance if you join Bupa
and in some departments, 6 months maternity leave at full pay.
And then they want to retire earlier than the rest of the people who are working in the private sector. Reality is, that most of the dead wood that is currently sat in the civil service wouldn’t last five minutes out in the real world.

[expatinscotland]

As for the ol' 'we get paid lower than in the private sector' argument. LOL! As a corporate refugee, I beg to differ.

[philippat]

wannabe, I think you're mixing up the civil service with the public sector, they are not the same thing and they don't have the same rights. The civil service already has the rights to retire that public sector workers are striking today to (hopefully) get.

I do not get any of the perks you state, I have extremely highly qualified and at management level in the public sector yet don't earn the national average salary.

Public sector workers are always bottom of the pile, the decent pension is one of the things that keeps us working for YOU and not for private industry. We are NOT wingeing (parp)

[Mosschops30]

I dont really know the full story but know they are trying to do the same for nurses re retirement age. Most nurses, and myself included wouldnt dream of letting the public down by refusing to work, whatever happened to providing a public service

[expatinscotland]

still don't see why i should have to pay for someone to work five less years than i've got to just b/c they're low paid.

so? there are a lot of us at the bottom of the dung heap, what makes one group more special than the other?

[philippat]

actually it will cost the public purse more if they remove rule of 85.

From unison:

Don't LGPS members retire in luxury on "fat cat" pensions?

No! We have paid 6% of our earnings into our pension scheme all our working lives. Women, who make up three quarters of the pension scheme members, get an average pension of just £31 a week.

Unlike many of our employers, we've never taken a pensions contributions holiday - they have.

For many, pensions fall below means-tested benefit levels.

Life expectancy is going up. Why should members of the LGPS be entitled to retire at 60?

Life expectancy has increased, but not for manual workers. And some jobs we do will be physically impossible over 60. What are we to do?

Won't this cost the taxpayer a fortune?

Actually, it will save the taxpayer around £2 billion.

Approximately 3-4% of council tax goes on the LGPS, but if it didn't fund our members' pensions, we would all have to pay higher taxes for benefits and state pensions for them.

The proposed cuts to the LGPS will cost the government £2 billion in higher state benefits and state pensions. And at the end of the day, that cost would be passed onto the taxpayer.


And unlike every other public sector pension scheme, the LGPS saves you and the government money. Contributions are invested and last year 28% of the value of the scheme came from investments.

[Mercy]

I'd love to know what all the perks are that public sector workers get.All my working life has been in local government or the civil service. Can someone please explain?

Yes NHS workers get subsidised childcare - but not in the place of their choice. And its only offered as an incentive for women (in particular) to return to work in a generally poorly paid sector. It's not some bloody freebie FFS.

[essemvee]

A lot of it is an outdated view that council workers sit on their arses and do nothing all day. Well that may have been true 50 years ago but isn't now... there've been lots of redundancies in recent years and we are all working bl**dy hard to provide decent public services on a shoestring. As for striking damaging public services - well yes, for a day maybe, but I see it as protecting them for the future (as well as protecting my pension rights, I'm not pretending to be entirely altruistic in my approach!).

[gomez]

essemvee - I work in the public sector and can sit without a doubt that many (but not all) people do sit on their a*ses all day.

I was and still am astounded at the lack of professionalism and accountability that is demonstrated at all levels. I am employed by a consortium of public sector bodies and I have encoutered this in each of the different sectors I am in contact with.

So the view of poorly paid, beavering away, poor put upon employees is not entirely true either.

[essemvee]

There are always exceptions; we can only each speak as we find - and I find in my London Borough that most people are working hard, trying to do the best for the public, and have shrinking budgets.

[Mercy]

I also think that there is a bit of snobbery and lack of appreciation as to what council employees do.

[essemvee]

Def, Mercy!! People turn up their noses, think you don't have a "real" job in the "real" world...

[Mercy]

Yes because they can't afford to offer the right salary for a highly qualified and or motivated person. So at times you can end up with third best.

[philippat]

umm, if we are sitting on our arses all day then this strike won't have affected public services, will it?

actually I agree there is a lot of wasted energy in local authorities, BUT I think most people work extremely hard.

[FairyMum]

I still fail to see what the difference is between people who are employed by the council and people who work in the private sector. Surely there are highly paid as well as poorly paid people in both sectors?

[gomez]

Of course you are right we can only speak as we find and my view is not flattering to the public sector I am afraid.

Working within resource constraints is not unique to the public sector. But there are a huge number of ineffective and inefficient working practices and no real political will or inspired leadership to change them. And without the commerical threat of ceasing to trade what other imperative is there?

With single status and the equal pay issues financial the situation is going to get worse and hard calls will need to be made. This process will be made a whole lot harder by the Unions who are unwilling to accept any degree of change, regardless of whether it is necessary or in line with the wider market.

If the public sector as whole wants to be treated like the private sector in relation to salary, benefits etc. then it needs to be managed like the private sector and accept what this means for individuals in respect of performance and outputs. In the short-term those changes will be not be pleasant or indeed palatable for many.

[philippat]

I would agree about the lack of inspired leadership, but just because they are led poorly, is absolutely no reason for denying public workers their existing pension rights.

[Saggarmakersbottomknocker]

Having worked in both the public and private sector (and now the voluntary)- I absolutely agree with you gomez.

However I do think its unfair to change the contracts of existing workers - by all means introduce later retirement for new starters if necessary.

[Mercy]

Gomez, huge areas of traditional council responsibility have been contracted out with redundancies left right and centre. Just doesn't make the news. Schools are a classic example. They've even contracted out personnel and salary payment in some cases. The private company I know who have taken up this responsibility haven't got a clue about personnel issues in education - and what's worse don't really care. Won't turn up for meetings, pay overtime about 3 months late etc

[essemvee]

Totally agree with SMBK - the way to introduce change is to do so for people joining the scheme. It's unfair - in any sector - to change the rules of the game halfway through. As I've mentioned, I fully expect to work until 65 and have no problem with that; however it's the thin end of the wedge and the next attack (as is happening in the private sector) will be on final salary pensions. Mercy mentions getting third best because local authorities can't afford the salaries to get decent people - exactly the point. I and many public sector workers are in it at least in part because we want to provide services - I want to do something "worthwhile" rather than just making money - but we are not totally altruistic and the time will come when we - or young people with the same ideals - say "b*er that for a game of soldiers I'm off to earn a decent salary!

[jamiesam]

One of the main gripes of the unions (and staff) involved in today's strike is that the government has agreed conditions for pensions of groups incl civil servants, teachers and nurses that it is denying to other groups - primarily council staff but others too. These are contributory pensions, and are the basis on which Council staff took their jobs - it was part of the financial deal. In general terms, most (professional) Council staff take the view that what you lose on the swings (wages lower than similar jobs in private sector) you gain on the roundabouts (pension and job security - although that's not what it used to be!). I dare say that if your employer said we've decided to cut your wage OR pension, as a private sector employee you'd say 'yes, that's fair enough'. Errr, or perhaps not.

I must admit I do have difficulty with the approach that Unions should only protect rights of current workers. At the moment, you have teachers working on protected pension rights next to teaching assistants whose pension is threatened. Wouldn't it be even worse if you new that somebody who was a year older than you say had been employed on very different (pension) terms for exactly the same job - not very good for morale etc surely?

[essemvee]

The change has to be introduced somehow... surely it's better to do it for those joining the scheme than for those already IN it? Otherwise I completely agree with you jamiesam. Very well put! :)

[gomez]

But the costs are enormous - where is the money to come from? Why should a minimum wage worker elsewhere pay to subsidise my enhanced pension rights when they are likely to have no pension provision themself. Or will we deflect the money from service provision - libraries, public toilets, social workers, refuge collection?

Many private sector employees have had cuts and changes in their packages, including their pension provision over the last 5 years or so. Some which spring to mind inlclude Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS, Standard Life.

There have always a number of different pension schemes with different rules - Local Goverment Superannuation Scheme, Teachers, NHS, Civil Servants etc. All have different rules, some based on 60th some on 80ths for example. Why the demand for parity now, on this particular issue?

All however have the great advantage over the majority of private sector schemes in that they are final salary. The local goverment scheme having with a minimal contribution rate of around 6%. A huge benefit which would relate in general to an additional 10 -15% on base salary. We could suggest an increase in contribution rates to meet the costs of enhanced benefits, would that be acceptable? Shall we say 10% - still a low rate in comparision with PP or GPP schemes which the vast majority of the populatin contribute to. That would of course impact on all scheme members not just the relative few who can use the Rule of 85.

The wage differential is not now as big, certainly outwith the South East, so that argument is being eroded. For example a public sector home support worker would earn between 6.10 roughly and 8.25 depending on role, route etc. A private sector provider would pay their staff around £6.50 with no pension, fewer holidays and reduced training/development opportunities. A 3 years PQ accountant can earn in the region of £30,000 to £35,000 in the private sector. They would paid in the range £28,000 to £33,000.

Current memebers of the scheme nearing retirment do have some protection I believe. I think anyone with less than 15 to 20 years to retirement needs to accept the change. As with all employees if you are not happy with your working conditions - move job!