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

All across Europe they are looking into altering these generous assumptions for unfunded public sector pensions.

Posadas, your post is exactly what I'm talking about.

Public sector workers buying from people who actually DO work .

Kettlecrisps I think the public sector anger, especially say in the NHS which is my employer, is that we are not allowed say "do you know how much this costs?". We are *not allowed" say that free healthcare at the point of service is unsustainable and that we don't offer top quality healthcare we offer the least amount possible that minimises risk. Many of our clients are outraged by this and so are disillusioned with what we provide, and over time many healthcare workers stray further from knowing what best quality care is and are fixated on what is feasible in a terribly stretched system. We are litigation conscious and complaint conscious, it is all about our responsibilities and the client's rights... the client who believes "I pay for this service so I deserve the best" even though what they pay is minimal.

Enter Smiley Dave and his "wouldn't it be brilliant if people offered their skills for free?" and you have an angry, stressed workforce stretched to their limit who feel second-best in everything with no voice to really fight it as the unions don't really have a grip or overview on the daily attrition of clinical skill as they cover too many disparate professions. We are being asked to do more and more for less and less while the population's health needs increase on an almost daily basis. People are told to bring their own alcohol gel to work, to bring their own pens and pencils, to supply their own watches, to pay for their own training etc while being told all the time that more is expected. There is a new initiative to save money every other day, varying widely from department to department and area to area.

Freeze pay, cut posts and then start on pensions and you find that people want to shout because there is no way of shotuing about the rest of it as the changes are multiple and diffuse and the unions can't keep track of them or generalise what's happening.

I don't think this is really about pensions at all, which is what makes me sad about the widespread lack of support. I think it's about what we want our public services to be and how much we are willing to pay for decent ones now and in the future. Pensions are the thing the union can fight about because it effects everyone in the same way but there is so much anger about so much more. I wouldn't strike about pensions alone but I won't cross a picket line today to support a government that has no respect for me or what I do.

Most private sector pensions go into a DC pot. What this means is that what has gone in by employees and where lucky employers is all for the benefit of the one person and not for others as very few private sector schemes are defined benefit where you are in the queue. Effectively the basic state pension is a defined benefit pension though and in that one you will join the queue.

Thetasigmum, I don't know what profession anyone is on this thread is in so I am not ignoring anyone's professional opinion.

duchesse sorry you are wrong. With money purchase/defined contribution schemes you most certainly are saving for your own retirement. This should also be the case in funded final salary schemes although as Maxwell proved it used to be easier to rob those, not so much any more obviously with the measures introduced by subsequent legislation and regulation.

Rocks current average pensions in payment are broadly similar. This is because the retired population still mainly (but not exclusively) belong to the generations where public sector workers were significantly underpaid compared to private sector workers. And most private sector pensioners are still drawing their pensions from final salary schemes. This is about to change dramatically as the people in the public sector who benefitted from the (completely justified) massive pay hikes under Labour retire, on their final salary pensions, and the people who have only defined benefit pension in the private sector also retire and find out that the annuities they can buy are worth diddly squat (this was always going to be the case but at the moment annuities have fallen through the floor). The people in their 50s right now, especially the one in unfunded schemes, will be getting far more in pension than they ever 'contributed' since the contributions until recently were predicated on servicing the much lower pension payments for the older generations. Of course this has been being adjusted for for some time in some public sector pensions, especially the funded ones (e.g. the USS which used to have a zero employee contribution, which then went up to a massive 2% and has now gone up again).

This is not to say that the strikes are wrong or that the strikers are unjustified in feeling miffed - they are completely right to feel betrayed. We have all been betrayed. But it doesn't help your cause when you make claims which are essentially incorrect, and when you misrepresent the context in which these problems are being faced.

there is only one way to save decent public pensions for the majority of public workers and that is to radically restructure the pensions at the top end. But the unions won't currently allow it (e.g. the the fat cats run the civil service unions) and the government don't want to do it because public sector or not, the fat cats at the top of the tree are their natural mates. Ordinary union members need to wake up and smell the roses and realise that there is not a unanimity of interest here.

I think it a shame then for some members that the Unions chose to highlight an area that is probably (admittedly maybe just in my mind!) least likely to get support.

Rocks I agree with your points in the last post. The fact that has made this strike so weak is that it is based on pensions. This is never going to get the support of the private sector as it will be seen just like sour grapes and is walking into a trap. Had the strike been about the real issues that you have and been argued such by the unions. The amount of red tape in all jobs (private sector) as well is too much and people would have supported these strikes. Striking over pensions and using the slogan (fair pensions for all) and (fight for decent pensions) is stupidity. The strike is not for fair pensions for all as it does not fight against the State Pension which would affect all or pensions in the private sector and therefor not factually correct. The pensions offered will still be decent compared to the private sector. Therefore all the union arguments on striking over pensions appear very weak in the current climate (worldwide not just in the UK).

Rocks mumsnet is also full of threads where public sector workers - in particular teachers - blithely claim that they could walk into a private sector job tomorrow at three times the salary.

They really couldn't.

Claims like that undermine the professionalism of everyone in a 3x-teacher-salary-paying job. They are incredibly annoying to be honest.

"Ordinary union members need to wake up and smell the roses and realise that there is not a unanimity of interest here." This is something that worries me the "high flyers" in the public sector get more out for their invested employee contributions, especially if on a final salary pension payout and get a good raise pre-retiring. There will be NHS employees/headteachers/Civil servants etc that will be retiring on pension pots with a value above £1 million pounds (though a big part of this is to do with poor annuity rates across the board right now). Personally I would like a floor placed on pension payout (also a ceiling as well-but according to the Hutton report this is harder to do).

I don't support the strike. Many of those striking have secure jobs. They should be grateful for that.

However I do think that it would be better if people could retire at 65 whether they work in the public or private sector. This would free up more jobs for young people apart from anything else.

I also think that the Government would be in a stronger position to argue the case on pensions if MPs and Senior Civil Servants had to have the same pay freezes, revised pensions as other public sector workers.

Rocks you haven't read the whole thread then.

If the strike isn't really about pensions but about the "whole system" then there is a case for the whole system being overhauled.

However a country can only tackle that once it's balanced the books. Currently we are viewed by the rest of the world as having a government that can tackle deficit. If we lose that credibility ( which the strikes will seriously contribute towards this) then we are in the same situation as Greece etc. with all the "human misery" that entails.

Really let's get the country facing together that these cuts need to be made. If we are luckly and somehow manage to escape the downgrading the likes of Italy have been exposed then well then that's the time in the future to sort the rest out.

However we are in too precarious a position for this strike action right now.

Good to see some very informed comments on this thread [on all sides of the debate].

This might be of interest:

www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/as2011/public_sector_as11.pdf

It's a presentation given by the IFS on Public sector pay & pensions.

Well said Kettlecrisps. Italy pays circa 7.2% on iis loan interest. We pay less than 2.5%.

"But it doesn't help your cause when you make claims which are essentially incorrect, and when you misrepresent the context in which these problems are being faced."

I take it that you are a professional in this area from your earlier post. Have you considered that a lot of the fine detail is hard for people who are not professionals in this area to understand and rather than "misrepresenting" perhaps they are explaining things as they understand them, based on their ability to make sense of these things?If I used a lot of medical jargon to explain my very niche, specialist area of expertise without using plain English examples to make it accessible to you, you would probably struggle to understand the finer details of what I was saying too... some of the terminology and figures don't make perfect sense to me, but that doesn't make me unentitled to have an opinion. That's not the same as saying you can do a teacher's job with a few worksheets.

Iggly, they can't really take a stand on the rest of the changes to the public service as the unions are just too large and cover too many professions. Unite, which is my union, covers every industrial, occupational and professional sector of the economy. Frankly I can't see how they could find a common issue that affects all their public sector members, particularly as some of the cuts are very insidious.

For example, we have been set a very specific target with relation to a certain clinical group. The outcome is unmanageable within the timeframe, and there is good research evidence to suggest that what we are being asked to do is not clinically feasible with current resources. Yet, when we don't meet this target this time next year, we will lose funding which will make it harder to achieve. Over a number of years, we will need to sell this service and our outcomes to commissioners when we really can't manage them. This will justify cuts to this particular service as we can't, based on current resources, actually do what we need to do to make the service work. When it doesn't, the commissioners will say: "why should we pay for this service when it doesn't work?". Well no, it won't. Not with the resources we have to make it happen. It would be very difficult to explain the ins and outs of this to the public, I think.. because it is so specific to my profession and although similar is happening in other professions, it is hard to see unless you really understand the clinical evidence. We can't have more money from the public coffers, it isn't there. But people don't want to pay... people are very adamant they want a free NHS..

There is so much wrong, and pensions are only part of it. I would much rather strike about the rest of it, but that's not an option. I just can't pass a picket today because it would show support for the government on public sector reform and I just don't feel it.

"Rocks you haven't read the whole thread then"

I have. It is 13 pages long. I don't remember the details of every single contribution.

Thetasigmum, I am not a teacher so I can't comment on what you say about salaries in the private/public sector for this professional group. My salary in the private sector would be broadly what it is the public one, with a reference cost of about £70 an hour.. so if I could manage to generate enough work, I would have greater gross income but greater overheads too, which would mean I would probably end up marginally worse off in the short term but perhaps slightly better off once I was established. But there is nothing in it really. I would however lose out on a lot of professional networks and links to other professional groupings which would not be in my client's interests as opportunities for multidisciplinary working would be fewer. If I was in a private healthcare group however, I would probably earn much the same as I do now and could offer the same service with much the same benefits.

Rocks, you are right, there is a lot wrong. And I can totally sympathise with public sector workers who must get tired of the "initiative of the day" mentality successive governments come in with.

However, the fact remains that our income is a LOT less than our outgoings. And for a long time now our politician's have been hoodwinking us into thinking we can lower taxes and spend more. It simply is impossible. And how have they done this? By borrowing.

So now we have public services at a level which we shouldn't really have and benefits/pensions we can't afford. And now it's time to pay the piper for all our collective mentality of not holding our MP's to account for the last 30 years and letting them spend money we don't have.

As Kettle says, we need to return some sanity into our nation's accounts before we start a sensible debate on what we can really afford and where we want to spend the money we DO have.

The strikers simply are being unrealistic.

jackstarb good link. What worries me is GDP is so unpredictable. Yesterday it was down graded (GDP rise of 0.9% this year, 0.7% next year) and I believe in 2010 when the October interim (which a lot of analyses was base on ) report was done they were predicting circa 1.7% raise for this year.

rocksandhardplaces I am not a professional in this field. I do however feel that I understand enough of the basics.

Babybarrister, you are probably right that most people can't get a grip on the numbers.. though in some ways if they did wouldn't they be even more inclined to strike? I suspect that there are a great many people in the public sector who are in this sector because they are quite risk averse and having a secure pension has been a big incentive for them in choosing their careers. It is difficult for people who must suddenly face an uncertain future, even if there are good economic reasons why this must be so.

My talents are not in numbers and percentages (putting it, ahem, mildly) and it strikes me more and more from the general discussion that the figures are very difficult for people without an aptitude in that area to really grasp, which doesn't help. I am an intelligent, educated person with two first class honours degrees and a distinction in a Masters, but all are in the medical field and perhaps I am ill-equipped to understand this matter. I certainly can't fully understand some of what I am reading, and I will admit that.

However, it does make me think that my contention that most people striking really aren't striking about the pensions is likely to be accurate. Bear in mind the extremely low turn out on this vote. People found it hard to understand, across all unions. However, more people are striking.. and the reasons for that are complex. Not wanting to cross a picket line, not wanting to go against their union, feeling it is wrong to let others strike on their behalf.. these are all reasons I have heard people use to almost apologise for their part in this action (particularly in the NHS).

I feel there has possibly been a lot of information from all sides which has been quite technical which makes it harder for non-specialists to follow. As I said before, I think the governmental policy with relation to these cuts in general is to blind people, as all governments do, with spin and gobbledigook. The Unions, inevitably, are no different. No one says baldly: "the money is gone". They say "this way is fairer" or "this is unfair" rather than "this way is the only way we can survive".

Yes Rocks I agree with the language used in these debates.

This is why I think it's time for the smirking Ed Balls to be honest. Does he want the country to self combust under the confusion of the situation being created by pretending he has a wonderful alternative. Be Honest Ed. Get behind the country and forget the point scoring for once. Remember you were very much in the last government decision making centre and know the full story.

I think if Ed Balls wants (forget the leader puppet they currently have who is not even worth bringing into the equation) a future in politics he needs to be honest now. He is losing credibility like no-one's business.

Good post Rocks. I am a pensions manager and therefore know quite a lot about pensions. I have worked predominantly in the private sector with many different schemes and have been involved in closing final salary schemes and can really recommend that public sector workers to find out for themselves as I have found the union information very misleading and encouraging people to strike with scare facts. The Unison myths were very misleading. The government has not helped either. I would be paid more in the public sector but enjoy working in a company that actually trades and makes things (no attempt to be a martyr) I just enjoy it more. Believe me even with the cuts suggested you would not be able to achieve the same type of pension in most private sector companies and would be nowhere near if you opted out and joined a personal pension pension plan. The government should have provided two options - a dc scheme with the same employer and employee contributions, although in TPS this would need to be notional and a second which would be a career average to age 65 with a higher level of employee contributions. This would have provided more options for people and the BBC ended up doing this in the end. However, I support the strike in raising the issues but do think both sides have handled the situation very badly and do not believe they will make any difference and only the poorer paid have lost out on a day lost for either striking or taking time off to care for children. Both sides are spoiling for a fight.