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

There are virtually no jobs in the private sector and there are very very good graduates turning en masse to teaching and plenty of great teachers who cannot get work. There is absolutely no retention or recruitment problem, quite the converse. Students are being turned away even from Teach First. We are perhaps now moving into a Lost Decade, like Japan has had. We can pretty sure that teacyhing jobs will continue to be much sought after eveni f there there were no pension at all of any kind (the position huge numbers of us in the private sector face without the security of earned income).

If we removed all pensions from new state workers you could still recruit them so I don't think we need to worry at all about recruitment and retention issues. If the public sector think the private is living the life of riley on massive salaries they are totally wrong. It has been decimated. It has suffered the recession much earlier and continues to suffer it and there are very few employer pensions out there for many workers.

It entirely depends which part of the country you are in and how good your qualifications are. In East Anglian urban areas unemployment is still comparatively low for graduates, for example, and those with NVQs above Level 3.

Top PGCEs have been turning wannabe teachers away for years, by the way. At best you have a one in six chance on the best courses, and it has been that way as long as I have taught on them.

There is absolutely no retention or recruitment problem

Teaching has a massive retention problem - 50% of teachers leave with in 5 years, and that was before the pensions crisis!

This is true Feenie. Teacher wastage stats from the DfE tell the story well. The majority of Teach First candidates pack up after the end of the two year training programme as well.

And as for there being no problem with recruitment - there are still bursaries offered as incentives to train in many, many shortage subjects.

Just posted this on another thread but I think it's relevant here.

Just responding to someone that had said the Labour line of go for growth etc. Yes we all want growth in the economy - but the world is having the same problem. USA went with the Labour policy of growth and haven't made any more dent in the situation. I think it's our growth is 0.5 USA is 1.5. That really isn't much difference for a 100% difference in approach to the situation. Which tells us how big the problem is.

The best you can hope for currently is stablility which is the starting block for beginning to eventually develop growth. But what's the first step if you go to citizen's advice with a debt problem?

You have too much in debt on your credit card. You go to citizen's support they say we'll freeze the interest (for this I mean the fact that our government borrowing is an extremely low 2% currently) and you live on the reduced budget available to you.

Yes when you finally get to the stage that your income is increasing and get a payrise/new job (i.e. growth in the economy) then you can pay more off as you will have more coming in etc.

However the first thing to do in the situation is to create a "stable" starting point i.e. freezing interest (using the citizen's bureau metaphor).

Or alternatively you ignore the problem of the debt carry on looking for work and look back and the interest on your credit card (i.e. Italy's 7% because world lose confidence that you are seriously reducing the current deficit) is costing you more than you are able to merely stay afloat on.

Remember we have as much debt as Greece but the global perception that we have a governemnt that will tackle it. If we lose that perception/confidence (think unions/Labour trying very hard on this) and our interest rates go up to Italy's levels etc. then we won't be able to cope.

First step is baby step to stabilise situation which is what is happening at the moment. Yes everyone wants growth but you have to wait until you get the new "job" (back to citizen's advice thingy there) to start paying back more.

Forgot to say the other alternative CBA would give you if you can't manage your debts is to go bankrupt. Most optimistic advice from CBA would be stabilise your interest rates and then slow and steady concentrate on developing new income to repay the debt. t

CBA certainly would never imply that it's going to be easy and you would expect it to be miserable. That's what tackling debts is miserable - it was much nicer having the fun while spending wasn't it.

That's where our country is and the world at the moment. It will take time but would you rather have firm daddy dealing with the problem in hand of stabilising the world perception of our country (ie at lest keeping borrowing cost down) or good time daddy (labour) going around saying it really doesn't have to be this bad and he's got something up his sleeve (he hasn't).

It is this bad. Grinning daddy ain't nothing but misguided, a fool or can only say the opposite of something because he can't think of anything sensible to say. Labour's policy has been tried by USA and didn't work either. This is bigger than our country and its policies. Other countries would give an arm and leg to be at 2% govrenment borrowing.

Malaka...please dont think that I dont have sympathy for the situation that you find yourselves in. I am really not the 'hostile' uncaring person that inhibernation has painted me to be on this website. My husband and I are in the same position after all but we dont have the benefit of being able to demand that the public support us because the money is gone.From where I stand the public sector workers are asking the tax payer to pay out more in order to protect their pensions when we just cant afford it. We are struggling to provide for our child's future and security because he will always depend on us. You ask why I wouldnt support the school teachers...for me its very simple...we feel that they are using our defenceless little boy who faces enormous challenges in order to get what they want. The strike wasnt an isolated incident...we are already being threatened with more..that is going to be damaging to our little boy so how can we support it? If the public sector wins its cause our taxes will rise to pay for it putting our own futures at risk and indeed our present standard of living. I am sure that it sounds selfish but I absolutely must stick to my priorities. I dont hear anyone asking for my support...but I do hear them demanding it loud and clear!! Where will all these people leaving the public sector go if they dont achieve what they want? We in the private sector are in a worse state than you are. Many of us havent just been asked to work for more and for longer..our pensions are gone altogether...what is there to attract disallusioned public sector workers? Surely the public sector must insom small way sympathise with the views of people who have lost all their future security.

inhibernation - moving away from London may not be an option you want to follow, but it's an option that many people in the private sector have had to take.

From what I understand, recruitment is an issue in areas such as London (and other expensive areas), and certainly cost of living is a problem. This is why I said up-thread that I think the Unions are focused on the wrong thing. They should be focused on salaries and funding into public services, not pensions.

As the risk of opening up the debate again, final salary pensions are unsustainable in this economy. What little money there is would be better spent on ensuring public sector workers are paid an appropriate salary for the work they do relative to the cost of living for the geographic location and to generally fund healthcare, education, social support etc, rather than focusing funding on a proportion of the population's pensions. That way it is an investment for everyone's future healthcare and education, and not just ensuring part of the population have a comfy retirement; the public sector may then get less than they expect in their pension, but the healthcare and social support would be bloody good (not that it's bad currently) and readily available, when and where it is needed; ie the pension may be less, but one aspect of a pensioner's cost of living would be lower.

I can't supply figures, stats or anything else to back this up, it's just a gut feel. And yes, I'm aware that some areas of public sector are paid more than private, so clearly these are not the areas I'm talking about.

There is a lot of mis-spend and poor management in the public sector (as in many private companies). I'm not pointing figures at individuals here; I'm talking about the system, the overly-bureaucratic processes and a culture that stifles effective change. I see the Unions as an example of this - hell bent on demanding their pensions, but not focusing on the issues that I believe are more relevant and more likely to have gained wider acceptance across the board.

And, to some other comments up-thread, I understand that public sector have signed up to T&Cs (sometimes decades ago) and expect these to not change. But the world HAS changed. You are in a bubble if you are sitting in the middle of it all with fingers in ears going 'la la la' demanding that your 40 year old T&Cs be maintained. Economic change is why so many private sector individuals have lost their final salary schemes; companies have had to adapt or die.

Plinkerty, inhibernation, everybody
while sitting through an irrelevant presentation this morning I read through the Annual Report of the Hampshire LGPS (for 1 1/2 hours)
which is a funded scheme (unlike the teachers etc)
BUT as it has to have its numbers audited is probably more reliable in its assertions than ANYTHING the Unions or Government puff out.

I love to write spreadsheets (like my credit card one which is free to all)

shall I write a pension one based on published stats so people can quantify THEIR pensions for perspective???

so at least we can all have REAL numbers to work from

Sorry, got a bit feisty there. It's been a long week.

Blimey, that must have been a dull presentation :) Yes please, if you have real numbers, do share.

Real, unbiased and clearly defined figures are the one thing that's been rather sparse in the whole pension debate.

I understand that public sector have signed up to T&Cs (sometimes decades ago) and expect these to not change

No. There was an agreement made in 2007 to up payments if a valuation showed it was necessary. So the government HAVE an agreement - they just need to provide the figures. So why aren't they biting our hands off and showing them?

I must have misread an earlier post then.

No idea why the government isn't showing figures. As I said, there's a lack of hard figures being shown by either side in the debate.

Feenie and plinkerty
I utterly get Feenies anger and I'll do my level best to get the numbers right

a couple of favours from you (and the lurkers on the thread)
can anybody find me the links to the employees and employers contribution rates for THEIR OWN schemes for the past 30 years

what I'm looking to produce is a sheet where you put in YOUR start date and salary and current salary and the initials of your scheme

it will then produce your own personal "bit" of the scheme

that will hopefully allow people to make their own decision
but I need contribution rates (and if there are any investment types lurking) investment return rates from 1950 onwards

the MAIN stat I picked up this morning is that if you have made it to 65, you are likely to make to to 84 - rather more than was budgeted when you started work.

Please feel free to message me - this is an important issue that I honestly think real numbers may clarify

Hi Talkin, thanks for taking the time to do this. Will see what I can pull together tomorrow.

Vast numbers of people have no pension though. The self employed don't get a bean.

Most people are employed in companies under 5 staff and they don't even have to offer a stakeholder pension.

Housewives tend to have very little pension provision.

Yes, some employer schemes are not too bad. My oldest child has just joined one although I haven't checked its terms.

Yes, getting figures would be good,.

What we do know is that Government after Government has plundered and changed the pensions rules. When I set up my own (no one contrib utes but I) I could take it at 50 but without any consent on my part the Government decided to change the rules so 55 not 50 was the default age. It would take a page to write about how things are changed in pensions by the state over the years from the Labour raid on pensions to all the changes in how much you can put in, to the maximum sums now applying to what is in the fund and all sorts of changes. It certainly puts people off bothering.

Given the state makes your income up to a minimum level (albeit it low) if you don't earn much you might be better off putting nothing in as if you save into one you will not then get the state top up to the minimum income the state thinks you need on which to live. They removed the incentive (labour) by bringing uin a minimum guaranteed income for the old for all the right reasons but it certainly had an impact on those on low incomes and whether it is worth paying in. Also consider the msasive charges which are taken out by those running funds and even the tax relief begins to look not quite the advantage it might have seemed.

In the meantime, this from the Pensions Policy Institute may (or may not!) be useful.

Xenia
please READ what I've said
you aren't on other threads either
I plan to quantify PUBLIC SECTOR pensions
I'm a self employed FCCA accountant, please do not lecture me on numbers

Plikerty, Feenie, MRZ, all the other publicsector workers (including inhibernation!!)
I need all the historic stats you can find - particularly contribution rates

And this from "Professional Pensions".

The 21/21 post did not to me seem to refer to the public sector. I hadn't read above. If no one posted it would be a dull place.

PS if there are any investment bank bods lurking, I could REALLY do with average FTSE250 return rates per year since ww2

(sad as it is I've got the blank columns to slot that in - but data and sources are king)

Talkinpeace, sorry, have no idea. But the onus is on the government to provide the evidence - and if they have the agrement to up contributions anyway, why not grab it?

Because they won't, we have to go by the latest public reports - both of which say the changes made in 2007 make the whole scheme sustainable - one as late as Dec 2010. That's all we have to go on.

So - the evidence as it stands does not in any way match an agreement which they already have - but keep very bloody quiet about. Why?