Anyone else fearful that the 5% pay cut given to Cabinet ministers will be passed down to all public sector workers?

[JackiePaper]

It's not looking good is it, both me and DH work in the public sector, and if we get 5% pay cuts, NI goes up 1%, Tax credits are cut and VAT increases to 20% i don't actually think we will be able to afford food

Maybe, but most projects fail for the same reasons and I would be if these reasons where different. When your firm's survival depends on this it focus's the mind. Projects fail because:

Lack of User Involvement
Long or Unrealistic Time Scales
Poor or No Requirements
Scope Creep
No Change Control System
Poor Testing

How do you impose a bonus for 'achievements' in departments such as Social Services?

Isn't it just a 5% "cut" on their Ministerial pay? So, they keep their MP's salary but the Ministerial pay (which they have yet to receive) will just be 5% less than they thought they were going to get. Not quite the same as a 5% pay cut.

Apologies if this has already been said

JD - agree with some of your suggestions. Having my pay frozen wouldn't make much difference as rises are below rate of inflation anyway. Obviously I would not want to see final salary pension scrapped. This is a perk (one of few in the public sector). Without it, I think there will be problems with recruitment and retention. It helps to offset low pay and poor working conditions.

Nymphadora - that is a hard question. Just because it is hard it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It's hard because first we have to decide what Social Services are FOR. This is something we don't bother to do in far too many areas of government (and the private sector for that matter). So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Social Services is there to protect for harm those who cannot protect themselves. So the overall target needs to be less harm to those unable to protect themselves. That needs to be the senior managers objective. So the problem then is how do you measure that? Unless you have some way of doing so you have no idea if you are being succesfull or not.

'I have no union to protect me. I could arrive at work and be told that I am not longer needed.' Neither does my dh who is public sector as unions are not allowed in his part of the public sector. There are already rumblings about redundancies, and his part of the public sector are not entitled to redundancy pay, or so one website says. First I'd heard of it!

I think it is unfair to suggest stopping final salary pension schemes if people have been paying into one. There should be a point at which a new pension scheme is introduced, and the old one is closed except to existing members who have the option to move if they want. The old scheme will eventually wind down as those claiming the pension and their spouses die, so eventually no further liability.

Loving the way someone upthread said "oh yes the difference between public and private sector pay is skewed - because look if you take all "traditionally female roles" low paid people out of the private sector average, then people in the private sector earn much more than in the public sector".

Sorry but that's rubbish.

The public sector has many "low paid traditionally female " roles too.

You can't just cut swathes of people out of the equation if they don't suit your argument.

People who work in the hospitality industry etc are also people who have living costs, families etc, why should they be ignored.

scaryteacher many people working for private companies had final salary pension schemes that just shut, they were transferred to money purchase schemes for the remainder of their service.

Anyway.

I had a bit of a row about this with a friend the other day. There are some public sector roles and some private sector roles that pay well, and pay badly.

Statistically however the average wage in the public sector is higher (certainly when I was looking for a part time admin job recently the public sector were paying a lot more) and many of the positions do still have these fantastic pensions.

People in the public sector who are in final salary schemes need to understand that their pensions schemes are worth up to 25% of their salary being put away each year. I mean forget bonuses - I know hardly anyone in teh private sector who has had annual perks adding up to that amount. Meanwhile in the private sector, there is no compulsion for the employer to pay anything. In fact if I join my employer pension scheme I will actually lose 1% of my contributions to admin costs. That is not unusual.

What I would like to see is parity. Apart from the top bods, all the pensions in the private sector are money purchase, often with no employer conts. In the public sector, many have guaranteed final salary schemes. Combined with better wages.

I would like to see a situation where everyone who worked was enabled to retire on a decent pension. At the moment that is not happening and people are understandably a bit naffed off.

FYI DH works in the public sector and gets a guaranteed final salary pension so I am taking about changing something that would affect us IYSWIM.

I wonder what the difference in averages would be if all the perks - pensions, private healthcare, etc were factored in. ie what the jobs are really worth.

Ooo- My team is so dependant on other people doing their jobs like if Fostering don't have any long term carers we cant provide one and therefore achieve our team aim of placement stability. There is not a lot fostering can do about lack of placements if people dont want to foster.

Our area has been talking about changing the pension scheme as scaryteacher says and as I only started paying in a couple of years ago I'm already 'worse off' than those who started the scheme earlier.

Nymphadora - That overarching target is for senior management - they then need to set targets down through the organisation that support that goal. You and Fostering both fall into Social Services don't you? So there should be someone who is respononsible for both areas, whose problem it is to sort out issues of your bonuses being affected by their actions (This is obviously somewhat idealised).

If you look at perks for the 'at the bottom' workers as in comparing care assistants in private /public sector majority of times working for the LA will be much better. If you look higher up in management level private sector probably comes off best as they are more likely to have company cars/health care etc.

Dh said he used to compare his job with his XGF. He was a Head Teacher and she was in IT , not very high up yet earned more than him with company car/health care. IMO the Head teacher is surely more important to society and has a lot more responsibility

OOo- far too idealised That would be the director at the V top and we regularly have to pretty high up to get managers to acknowledge issues (I would hate to be my Manager- no power to change the stuff for us and she is soooo caring about what we do)

ImSoNotTelling/ScaryTeacher - I think there you are slightly at cross purposes about what 'shutting' a pension scheme means:-

a) All the money in a final salary scheme is taken out and put in a money purchase scheme
b) The final salary scheme is frozen, current members receive the accrued benefits on retirement, ongoing pension payments now go into a money purchase scheme
c) Existing members continue paying into and accruing benefits in the final salary scheme, new employees pay into a seperate money purchase scheme.

A is illegal, b is what has happened to me and is more and more common, c has been happening for a long time.

ScaryTeacher said A is not happening B is happening, ImSoNotTelling then said no, B is happening.

ImSoNotTelling - My fear is that we will get equality between pension in the private and public sectors. And that the equality we will end up with is no substantial pensions.

Ahem

scaryteacher said she thought that b was unfair and that only c should be allowed

I hastened to point out that in the private sector, many many people have had b happen already

I know how pension schemes work

ImSoNotTellign - I think you both do
Scary said "I think it is unfair to suggest stopping final salary pension schemes if people have been paying into one. There should be a point at which a new pension scheme is introduced, and the old one is closed except to existing members who have the option to move if they want. The old scheme will eventually wind down as those claiming the pension and their spouses die, so eventually no further liability."

I interpreted that as b. Actually reading it again it might be c. Hey ho.

b has happened to me

oooji - that is really bad Did they tell you what your projected pension will be based on what you paid so far? How long were you paying in to it? I've been paying into mine for 8 years but maternity leave and part-time working for some of that period will affect my overall payout.

All of this "average wage in the public sector is higher than the private sector" nonesense is a myth, because the make up of the owrkforce like-for like cannot be compared - see Ben Goldacre taking it apart here

The myth is however helpful to persuade everyone that we are on an inexorable drive to the bottom, in which all employment rights should be removed from everyone across all sectors.

The market free for all advocated by so many on here will result in a system like the USA where people get less than 3 weeks off in total each year (a typical private sector employee gets 9 days paid holiday a year with six public holidays), have no job security and non-existant maternity leave.

I fear for the future.

There is also the issue in public sector (and private but not really possible to influence that) of single status. It still hasnt been implemented here and this leads to there going to be massive bills for the council paying back pay. The common one wheeled out here is that road workers and Teaching assistants should be equally paid. Road workers get bonuses which dramatically increase their pay. The council has been dithering over this for years and schools (since I'm in that example) will be forced to make people redundant as they pay out the nack pay (despite the fact their budget is given at the old rate of pay for TAs they have been told they should have 'saved' for this eventuality)

Ladylush - I think they did, paid in for almost ten years I think. There was am employee consultation committee formed who asked pointed questions, but I don't think the outcome was in any doubt. They then did the same on the private healthcare - this time instead of rolling over the whole committee resigned, and in so doing won some concessions. Whoppe-fucking-doo. Oh, and no bonus last year. The one that we are always told we should consider part of out basic renumeration when comparing our salaries. This all went through when the bust was going on, so I don't think there was much appetite to fight back.

Oooji - people will be screwed whatever they do. Some people buy second properties instead of paying into a pension but with the increased CGT this is going to be less viable. I think firepile has a point.

"I can't completely shake the feeling that playing off the workers against the workers (public vs. private) is at least partially a conscious strategy to distract from such issues. " Agree v much with Meita. And LadyBiscuit - your friend in HE is taking the piss if that's what she does re lunch, etc. It's certainly not the norm - most of my colleagues used to eat lunch at their desks while working, there was no such thing as overtime or time of in lieu - they charmingly called our extra hours "giftwork".