Public-sector strike: does it get your support? Please vote in our Facebook poll

[HelenMumsnet]

Morning.

We'd love to know how you feel about Wednesday's public-sector strike action. Does it get your support - or not?

We've put up a little poll on our Facebook page to help us find out. Please do click and vote.

Thanks v much, MNHQ

When I say it isn't a recession I mean it's worse. It's not just a blip or an economic downturn. It's the way thing's are going to be from now on.

Clearly, what we need is better teaching of economics in schools.... Then, perhaps, people would understand that an economy can survive when more people are being paid from the "public purse" than pay into the public purse; that an economy can't survive when public sector workers have much more generous terms than private sector workers; that the terms of pensions and other aspects of workers' contracts must change when circumstances change or the employer (state or private) will go bankrupt....
Those of us in the private sector lost the final-year-salary link to our pensions many years ago. Our pensions will be based on what we've contributed to a pension fund and what we've managed to save over 45 years of working.
In short -- I do not support the strike today. It is irresponsible and groundless.

Not on FB,don't support.

65% of private sector workers have no pension provision at all.

I just wrote a big long post to all those who don't support the strike.

I deleted it simply because I feel my argument would fall on deaf ears [well eyes]. It's a sad day when private v public sector are in a race to the bottom. Not the top. Where is the sense of support? One sector is apparently worse off than the other. And instead of trying to make one sector better, we seem happy to make the other sector worse. But hey! As long we are all in the same boat, that's ok then .

Earlier saw an excellent interview with Tim Farron (Lib Dem party president) on BBC News. Although obviously at the end of the interview the BBC reporter attempted to put a pathetic and very obvious spin on it of pitching people one against the other. We'd just watched the interview ourselves you moron reporter.

It was good to see someone saying the bleeding obvious for a change.

Tim Farron said it's time for Labour to be honest and admit for the good of the country that there isn't an alternative. If there was a "golden" land alternative he'd be all for it.

Unfortunately there isn't and under Labour we would be in a much worse place including what the current deal on the table is. Labour need to admit that the current situation for deals/job losses would be WORSE under Labour. We know that - admit what their plans were/are.

Personally I think Labour need to stop playing school boy policitics (Ed Balls particularly) and get behind the country. There is no alternative.

Tim Farron said the deal offered 3 weeks ago by the government made some changes and was more in favour of lower paid workers AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HIGHER PAID PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS.

We have headteachers out because it's them being affected and they're pretending they're doing it for the minions and cleaners etc! They're doing it because it affects them more than it affects the lower paid public sector workers.

As above simple economics money coming in needs to be more than money going out to pay the interest (we are not even diminishing the actual debt). can your household run like that when your Barclaycard interest is higher than our salary? Not the debt the interest.

Yes we need and will have public services but as even Greece has now woken up to the fact that we need to be doing it an affordable level to the country.

Forget the bankers the last government exploded public services to burdensome proportions and borrowed on the strength of the evil bankers bringing in more taxes and the economy expanding on the never never etc.

It?s the last government?s gambling with public money and borrowing that?s the problem. We are trying to service the interest on previous Government's borrowing against money that's coming in.

Posodas - agree, listening to radio this morning I came to the conclusion that economice ought to be compusory untill 16. At the moment no economics is taught so how can people be epected to understand? Although one would have thought the basic premise of 'what comes in mustn't exceed what goes out' would be fairly simple to grasp.

I do not support it as the pension schemes as they stand are not affordable to the tax payer/Government (set to get wose longerterm). I do not see 65% of private sector workers having no pension provison as a good thing at all. I think a sustainable compromise has to be reached (with possibility of further change if anything else changes eg further increases in life expectancy, significant changes in GDP). All accrued pension to date must be honoured (so I think that it is right to go to court over the CPI to RPI switch).

agree with hanahsaunt -
the increase in contributions isn't going into pension funds which are in the black and self sustaining - the money is going directly into deficit reduction, created by bank bailouts.

Quoting one union leader - "The question is not whether we have a deficit, but who pays? Rather than tackle corporate tax avoidance, this government has announced a further £25bn in tax breaks to big business"

This is not merely about public sector pensions - this is the biggest day of action yet against the austerity measures.

Temporary corporate tax cuts when a country wants to avoid a recession what a silly idea.................................

You do realise that makes pretty good economic sense.

I don't support the strike.

I support the delaying of the pension age to reflect the increase in life expectancy. 20+ years of retirement is simply not affordable or sustainable. It wasn't affordable or sustainable before we had the credit crunch and ensuing recession, never mind now.

I agree with those who say this should have been done years ago. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now. Better late than never.

I can see both sides of this.

On the one hand public sector workers are (generally) not highly paid and a good pension is one of the benefits of taking a salary which may be slightly higher in the private sector. I can also see that if you are close to retirement age, you would not want people messing around with your pension, when you have no time to do anything about it.

On the other hand, we have to wake up to what these pensions cost us the tax payer - it is enormous - which is exactly the reason why most defined benefit schemes in the private sector are now closed to new entrants, people have been bought out/asked to make significant extra contributions. We need to decide where it is most appropriate to spend the money and if the pension scheme, rather than the individual should be taking all the risk.

I say this as someone with a public sector pension

"Better late than never." Great words.

"We need to decide where it is most appropriate to spend the money and if the pension scheme, rather than the individual should be taking all the risk." Well worded, sounds very close to the Hutton report!

:-) Of course, one of the reasons why the pension schemes are all in such a mess at the moment is because the financial markets are in such a mess - the investments which the pensions have made have plummeted in value...

"you would not want people messing around with your pension, when you have no time to do anything about it." All of the Hutton report which the Government is meant to be basing negotiations on makes it clear accrued pension should be honoured. Also the offer I read about (BBC website) mentions no change in pension scheme to those within 10 years of retirement. Those outwith that time frame are planned to end up with 2 pensions the old and new scheme (whatever that is).

Do not support it, at all.

The first Hutton report (2007) into pensions significantly over valued the contributions as they put on a ridiculously generous discount rate of 3.5% above inflation!!!!!!

My understanding from reading the facts is that public sector pensions are actually very similar on average to private sector pensions, with private sector pensions being very marginally higher.

The amount of rubbish being spouted about wealth creation in the mdeida etc is ridiculous.

There is virtually NO wealth creation in this country. None. There is a very limited primary and secondary base, with the tertiary sector being overloaded in both the private and public sectors. We don't make anything like enough to sustain and grow the economy. It's as simple as that. My dh is technically private sector (e.g. the government does not pay his wage). He identifies himself as such as he works for a consultancy providing infrastructural services but the government is the main funder of contracts. He waffles on about how I have better terms and conditions than he has, but a) that is totally untrue and b) we are both really state employees, it's just much clearer and transparent in my case.

I agree people should have a better grip of economics. I think people should pay for education and health more than they do and certainly it wouldn't kill people to buy some health insurance and contribute to their own care instead of bleating on about how horrific the NHS is but not wanting to pay anything into it other than a paltry amount of taxes for the service that they expect, while then saying that public services are a drain on the economy! Seriously??

media

Hello iggly2 just wanted to thank you for taking the time to post on these threads. I did a day of trying to explain why these pensions are unaffordable yesterday and was in utter despair by the end of it. There aren't many putting the counter case. And I know no one is listening, but you and the fews others eg niceguy etc makes me feel a bit less like a lone voice on here

I just don't see why people can't see that if you pay on 6% and get40% back that is unaffordable??! None of this is fair. None of it is nice for anyone except possibly about 250 bankers. I am staying off fb for the day today as I cannot bear the sanctimonious posting from the strikers. I am spending the day doing literacy and numeracy with the girls as that seemed the most effective way of protesting against the strike and making sure that they don't lose a day of the education they will desperately need to pay the taxes they will be paying to pay for these pensions.

chickin not a strange thing to say at all. Retiring at young age is bad for you. So you are too old too work but ok to travel. WTF wants a rest for the rest of their lives. Retire at 60 live til 80 thats 20 years!!!!

rocks - I find it incredible that you believe that public sectors are largely similar to those in the private sector if not slightly smaller. Only 5% out of the 69m in the private sector enjoy such levels of pensions. Where have you gained this information from?

Don't support the strike as we are all living longer and need to pay more for our pensions. Think it is good that everyone retires at 65 instead of enhanced early retirement. I do wonder though if people will be able to cope with the physical side of work after 65, but perhaps all this gym attendance will pay off.

Dora, the teachers' pension pot is in the black and will be for the next 50 years. Reform is needed urgently but the strike is about the lack of negotiation primarily, not the basic need for that reform. I think many strikers find it hard that no one responds to that, that the strike is seen about maintaining the status quo.

It's interesting feel you have the skills to do a professional's job on your day off. It is utter tosh to say that a child will lose out by missing one day of school but make your protest as you will.