Strikes among public sector workers begin

[funk de fino]

Then you are possibly being a fool by not paying in enough to make your pension significant when you retire.

The standard amount is what I am talking about and mine is a decent pension and my company puts in a decent amount. I am not talking AVC here.

I also have a previous pension. I will be well enough off but thanks for your concern anyway.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Democracy means that the government is decided by a popular vote. It says nothing about strikes.

Nor does "it" say much about changing jobs if the one you are in is no longer tenable. But you can do that. (Frankly, if I was a schoolteacher I'd have quit twenty years ago, though not over pay).

Public sector workers have already accepted a pay freeze, already lost a chunk of their pensions from the rpi->cpi switch, already lost pay from the national insurance increase, and are already set to retire later. The pension contribution increase on top of all that is a step too far.

I can quote you stories of private industry pay cuts of as much as 20%. Some take it and some quit. Everyone is set to retire later. Many people have no pensions at all.
Like I say, I don't question the reality of your grievances. I do question that they only apply to "public sector" employees.
And I still haven't heard what striking is going to achieve.

 

[WildCat]

You do realise that the 'evidence' does not support the claims made for it. A skeptic would spot this.

The evidence supported the claim that public sector pay growth was higher than in the private sector. Then you moved the goalposts to "historic higher public sector pay", which was never the issue. It's irrelevant what the pay scale was in 1980. We're talking about now.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize I was not trying to argue against anyones facts. It was my anectodal experiences and was posted as such. It was a comment.

Sure it was "just a comment" until you decided that your "anecdotal experiences" justified your rant against "hooray henry millionaires trying to kid us these people are well off and deserve to be brought down peg or two so that they can try and cut spending."

 

[funk de fino]

Sure it was "just a comment" until you decided that your "anecdotal experiences" justified your rant against "hooray henry millionaires trying to kid us these people are well off and deserve to be brought down peg or two so that they can try and cut spending."

Thats exactly what the hooray henrys are doing. Your posts are fact free nonsense attempt to have a dig. Creepy.

Try actually finding out about public service workers and maybe even talk to a few.

 

[Lothian]

The evidence supported the claim that public sector pay growth was higher than in the private sector. Then you moved the goalposts to "historic higher public sector pay", which was never the issue. It's irrelevant what the pay scale was in 1980. We're talking about now.

and where is the evidence that the public sector pay growth is higher?


The issue is pensions. The strikes which are the subject of this thread is not about public v private pay growth. It is about the withdrawal of pensions. Back in post 16 I said "staff in those schemes were for most (if not all) of their careers paid far less than they would earn outside the public sector. They accepted lower pay rises because the pension benefits included in those agreements were part of the overall remuneration packages"
This strike is about 1980. It is about promises made then previously and subsequently. The public sector has traditionally accepted lower pay because they were promised good pensions. The government are revisiting the pensions part of those agreements but not the pay.

 

[Giz]

This strike is about 1980. It is about promises made then previously and subsequently. The public sector has traditionally accepted lower pay because they were promised good pensions. The government are revisiting the pensions part of those agreements but not the pay.

How often in the private sector are benefit packages offered in 1980 still on offer? They aren't. Private sector workers have seen final pay plans turned into career average plans, or frozen and them pushed into DC plans... how can the public sector expect to be immune from what is happening?

This is a lot of people who don't know how good they have it, complaining about being brought back to earth.

The world has changed. Interest rates are lower, longevity has improved, Labour added a bunch of public sector workers, the private sector already made the same transistion... these things make changes inevitable. (Unless you can get Labour to fight the next election on "gold plated pensions [and a pony] for everyone in the public sector") (which the Tories would love).

 

[funk de fino]

How often in the private sector are benefit packages offered in 1980 still on offer? They aren't. Private sector workers have seen final pay plans turned into career average plans, or frozen and them pushed into DC plans... how can the public sector expect to be immune from what is happening?

Everyone I know in my company who was on Final pay scheme has kept it. Their's were not changed and they were not forced to work longer Only people who joined companies after they were phased out had to go on the new types.

In fact 50% or just over 1.5 million public sector pensioners receive less than £5,600 a year and the average pension across all schemes is £7,841.

Police are quite high but then again why should they not be?

The fact that the private sector had managed to screw us with our pensions should not mean the govt should get away with it. They should be forcing the private schemes to give us better.

As usual the rich kids have it the wrong way round and thats without even mentioning their pensions eh?

 

[Giz]

Everyone I know in my company who was on Final pay scheme has kept it.

You are A+ on anecdotal evidence today!

The fact that the private sector had managed to screw us with our pensions should not mean the govt should get away with it. They should be forcing the private schemes to give us better.

Not neccesarily disagreeing here (as I think a lack of decent provision for retirement amongst the private sector could be a big issue in future for the UK... and the USA for that matter).

(Weird, I just kinda agreed with an "increased regulation is the answer" opinion in economics - doesn't happen often!)

As usual the rich kids have it the wrong way round and thats without even mentioning their pensions eh?

Not sure what you mean?

 

[funk de fino]

You are A+ on anecdotal evidence today!

I did bring some figures dispelling the gold plated pensions nonsense though eh?

Not sure what you mean?

MP pensions anyone?

 

[Giz]

I did bring some figures dispelling the gold plated pensions nonsense though eh?

Nope. Just showing the average annual pension doesn't help... because what is important is how many years of service went into accruing it.

i.e. if the average pension is 6,000 per annum, is the average worker serving 5 years (accruing 1,200 annual pension per year) or 20 years (accruing 300 per year). Without an average pension in retirement, per year worked in public service, we are not able to see how generous the plans are.

MP pensions anyone?

Politicians being hypocritical? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

You know what I'd like to see? Rather than have votes on MP's pay, just have it set to a multiple of the median wage. (or maybe the mean - maybe I could be convinced either way). Say, 2x average for a backbencher, 3x for a junior minister, 4x for more senior positions... give them an incentive to run the country better... and to share the pain of a recession.

 

[Lothian]

How often in the private sector are benefit packages offered in 1980 still on offer? They aren't. Private sector workers have seen final pay plans turned into career average plans, or frozen and them pushed into DC plans... how can the public sector expect to be immune from what is happening?

This is a lot of people who don't know how good they have it, complaining about being brought back to earth.

The world has changed. Interest rates are lower, longevity has improved, Labour added a bunch of public sector workers, the private sector already made the same transistion... these things make changes inevitable. (Unless you can get Labour to fight the next election on "gold plated pensions [and a pony] for everyone in the public sector") (which the Tories would love).

and exactly the same has happened in the public sector with regards pensions. Final salary has long gone.

People are not objecting to new pension products becoming the norm. They are not objecting to increasing the retirement age. It is the revisiting of old contracts that people are objecting to. How many in the private sector are being told the pension benefits they have been promised and contributed towards will no longer be given to them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You do realise that the 'evidence' does not support the claims made for it. A skeptic would spot this.

The evidence absolutely supports the claim that public sector pay is higher than private sector pay.

You refuse to acknowledge this because you appear to have a quasi religious belief that you refuse to question. Put your fingers back in your ears and keep shouting "la la not listening".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How many in the private sector are being told the pension benefits they have been promised and contributed towards will no longer be given to them.

You really have no idea what life in the private sector is like do you?

A few quick examples of pension schemes outside the public sector being closed to ALL members:

Unilever:

"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9e51a64-6604-11e0-9d40-00144feab49a.html#axzz1QwtXf57N"

"A survey for the National Association of Pension Funds, the main trade body for employer-based plans, found that about one in five schemes had closed the door to future accruals for existing members by the start of this year – up from only 7 per cent a year earlier.

Joanne Segars, chief executive of the NAPF, said: “Over the past year a record number of final salary schemes have shut to existing members.

We are entering a new phase in the decline of these pensions. Rising long*evity and the expense of final salary pensions mean an increasing number of firms are looking at this option. More closures are inevitable.”

ASDA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11501047

"Asda is the latest in a long line of similar scheme closure by other big employers.

In the past few years, firms such as Aviva, Taylor Wimpey, Trinity Mirror, Pirelli, Fujitsu, Barclays, Morrisons, Vodafone, BMI, Dairy Crest, IBM and Costain have all shut their final-salary pension schemes to their existing members."

Hell, even charities like the NSPCC have to do it because they need to balance income and expenditure as well:

http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/item/9235/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

And most of those are not moving to a career average scheme, they move to defined contribution. What will remain on offer in the public sector, even if all the changes go through, will still be vastly better than is typically available in the private sector, in addition to the higher salary the public sector worker enjoys.

But I'm sure you will ignore these facts as you have all the others because your "view" tells you different.

 

[Lothian]

The evidence absolutely supports the claim that public sector pay is higher than private sector pay.

You refuse to acknowledge this because you appear to have a quasi religious belief that you refuse to question. Put your fingers back in your ears and keep shouting "la la not listening".

I refuse to acknowledge it because you keep asserting without providing any data that shows a like for like comparison for similar jobs.

 

[Lothian]

You really have no idea what life in the private sector is like do you?

A few quick examples ...snipe.....

You think your anecdotal evidence trumps all the actual evidence so far in this thread?

You do realize this is a skeptic's board?

..

 

[funk de fino]

Nope. Just showing the average annual pension doesn't help... because what is important is how many years of service went into accruing it.

Are you for real?

i.e. if the average pension is 6,000 per annum, is the average worker serving 5 years (accruing 1,200 annual pension per year) or 20 years (accruing 300 per year). Without an average pension in retirement, per year worked in public service, we are not able to see how generous the plans are

Again, the fact that we have all been duped into crappier pensions doesnt mean of lot of the lower paid persons here should also be. To be fair, a lot of them do essential jobs that contribute greatly to everyones lives.

Politicians being hypocritical? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

You know what I'd like to see? Rather than have votes on MP's pay, just have it set to a multiple of the median wage. (or maybe the mean - maybe I could be convinced either way). Say, 2x average for a backbencher, 3x for a junior minister, 4x for more senior positions... give them an incentive to run the country better... and to share the pain of a recession.

What they earn or get in a pension doesnt really bother me. What bothers me is when they start going after people who have less for the "good" of the country debts.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I refuse to acknowledge it because you keep asserting without providing any data that shows a like for like comparison for similar jobs.

As I said, fingers in ears and "la la la not listening".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Are you for real?

I would guess he is. You do know that those averages are dragged down by including people who work in the public sector for a very short period, right?

Again, the fact that we have all been duped into crappier pensions doesnt mean of lot of the lower paid persons here should also be. To be fair, a lot of them do essential jobs that contribute greatly to everyones lives.

Read the IFS and Policy Exchange reports. We are NOT talking about lower paid persons when we talk about the public sector.

 

[Lothian]

As I said, fingers in ears and "la la la not listening".

My point has consistently been that the public sector has traditionally been paid less in comparison to the private sector for the same jobs and a good pension has been the compensation. If you have provided data refuting that it will be easy for you to link to it again. The fact is you have proved nothing apart from some irrelevant tables comparing growth in different jobs (from different starting points) and current averages which are unreliable for all the reasons in Ben Goldacre's article.

I have been listening but you have nothing of relevant to say.

You show me the tables showing how public teachers have over the years consistently been paid more than their private counterparts.
You show me the tables showing how public lawyers have over the years consistently been paid more than their private counterparts
You show me the tables showing how public doctors have over the years consistently been paid more than their private counterparts
You show me the tables showing how public accountants have over the years consistently been paid more than their private counterparts

The claim I am making is that generally the public sector has received lower pay for the same jobs in return for a good pension. I don't think this is controversial. If you have something which shows I am wrong lets see it.