What is it with public sector workers at the moment? Their pay and pensions are, generally, far superior to their private sector counterparts yet they are complaining about paying slightly more towards their pensions, or working for a couple more years. Outside of the small protected bubble that they live in their strikes have very little public support.
Then we have tube drivers, demanding a whopping quadruple pay for working boxing day. That is a whopping £700 for one day work!
Public sector pay and pensions is unsustainable in its current format. The previous Government realised this, but was too afraid to do anything about it for fear of losing key voters.
With another 'day of action' approaching two articles have today caught my attention:
What is it with public sector workers at the moment? Their pay and pensions are, generally, far superior to their private sector counterparts yet they are complaining about paying slightly more towards their pensions, or working for a couple more years. Outside of the small protected bubble that they live in their strikes have very little public support.
Then we have tube drivers, demanding a whopping quadruple pay for working boxing day. That is a whopping £700 for one day work!
Public sector pay and pensions is unsustainable in its current format. The previous Government realised this, but was too afraid to do anything about it for fear of losing key voters.
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Really? So those public sector teachers are paid more than private sector teachers? Public sector doctors & nurses are paid more than private sector doctors & nurses?
I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that.
As for the tube drivers on boxing day, why shouldn't they demand a high rate of pay for working on a public holiday and such an important one like boxing day. I know I'd demand at least quadruple pay to work on boxing day.
Him wrote:Really? So those public sector teachers are paid more than private sector teachers? Public sector doctors & nurses are paid more than private sector doctors & nurses?
I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that.
As for the tube drivers on boxing day, why shouldn't they demand a high rate of pay for working on a public holiday and such an important one like boxing day. I know I'd demand at least quadruple pay to work on boxing day.
There will always be exceptions to every rule and you have highlighted 2 of them. I would hazard a guess that if private sector teachers and doctors are paid more, this is partly to compensate for the fact they don't have a state pension.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
The Video Ref wrote: Then we have tube drivers, demanding a whopping quadruple pay for working boxing day. That is a whopping £700 for one day work!
Is it?
Where do your figures come from? They're certainly not in the links you provided.
When I worked in a unionsed environment, the norm for Bank Holidays was double time + a day in lieu, have things changed?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
The Video Ref wrote:There will always be exceptions to every rule and you have highlighted 2 of them. I would hazard a guess that if private sector teachers and doctors are paid more, this is partly to compensate for the fact they don't have a state pension.
So what if they don't have a state pension? They get a very good final salary pension, or at least the private teachers do anyway which is at least as high as the state would pay, plus they get better wages.
Which public sector workers aren't exceptions to the rule?
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
I'm curious: should ordinary working people simple accept what's thrown at them and be prepared to suffer?
It's a fact that the income gap in the UK over the last 30 years has widened. Is this good? Is this acceptable? Do working people have to take something that those at the top don't have to?
We're all in this together, right?
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Thing is you have a generalised viewpoint that covers ALL public sector workers, which is misguided. For example, the Teacher's Pension Scheme (TPS) is actually wholly self-funding in it's current format and changes were madein 2007 to ensure sustainability. The fact is the amount paid in by current teachers exceeds that going out to retired teachers and all forecasts maintain that this will continue to be the case indefinately. The trouble will come if young teachers decide they can't afford to pay into the pension, or decide not to in the early years of their career, which may result in the government having to then compensate this loss. The givernment are risking a self-funding scheme actually changing to a scheme that is not self-funding! However, other public sector pensions are not sustainable and need changing, just not all of them.
What is it with public sector workers at the moment? Their pay and pensions are, generally, far superior to their private sector counterparts yet they are complaining about paying slightly more towards their pensions, or working for a couple more years. Outside of the small protected bubble that they live in their strikes have very little public support.
Then we have tube drivers, demanding a whopping quadruple pay for working boxing day. That is a whopping £700 for one day work!
Public sector pay and pensions is unsustainable in its current format. The previous Government realised this, but was too afraid to do anything about it for fear of losing key voters.
With all due respects: b*llocks.
Public sector pay has been frozen for two years, following decades of below inflation rise.
Even the Hutton report accepted that public sector pensions are sustainable.
Before the 2007 reforms to the schemes, the costs of pensions were expected to peak at just below 2% of GDP around 2020, and then fall again (the Baby boom generation is a bulge, not a permanent increase).
After the 2007 reforms - which were negotiated, unlike the current attempt at diktat - that peak has already happened (the cost peaked iin 2009 at around 1.8%, iirc, and is already falling). The 2007 reforms cut the future costs of pensions by 10% (Hutton's figures) - and the Chancellor's unilaterial decision to base future increases on CPI rather than RPI* inflation has cut future costs by another 15%)
Incidentally, some figures on the two largest schemes:
The NHSPS is a 'pay as you go' scheme where pensions are funded by current contributions - over the past 10 years or more, contributions have exceeded payouts by £2bn a year, money that goes straight to the Treasury.
The LGPS is a 'funded' scheme - contributions are invested and pensions paid out of the investment funds: the scheme invests about £4bn a year in the UK economy - the various invesment funds are currently responsible for a total investment in the UK economy of £140bn. The scheme has enough funds to pay out its commitments for the next 20 years, even even if it received not another penny from either contributions or investment income[/b].
Both schemees are 'cash rich'.
What Hutton refused to answer was whether public sector pensions were 'affordable' -saying that was a political question.
And a point to note about the proposal to increase employees' contributions by an average of 3.2% wages (an average 50% or so increase in the amount people will be required to pay): not a penny of that will go into the actual pensions schemes.
In the pay-as-you-go schemes it will go straight tot he Treasury. Ind the funded LGPS, it will fund the £900m reduction in councils' block grant.
The proposal is nothing more than a 3% tax levied for being in a pension scheme and used to pay for reducing a deficit which is the direct result of the banks and financial services industry screwing the economy in 2008 (a tax, incidentally, is being levied at the same time that the government keeps floating the idea of a 10% tax cut for high earners).
But the big danger is that if you increase contributions by that amount, you discourage people to join the pensions scheme and make provision for their old age, so they will rely more on taxpayer** funded benefits, increasing future costs to government, and at the same time risk making the schemes themselves unsustainable if not enough people are paying in.
* There's a particular irony in the Euro-sceptic Tories opting for CPI. RPI is an index designed to measure UK inflation as it affects people who buy things. The CPI index was invented purely as a measure to make like-for-like comparisons across the EU (which is why it doesn't include, eg, housing costs - housing 'markets' being different and therefore not comparable across the EU).
** Taking both active members and deferred members into account, the pensions schemes in question cover about 20% of the workforce, in both the public and private sectors, who are - of course - taxpayers themselves.
On and some mythbusting:
Quote:Pensions: busting the myths MYTH - People are living longer which means they're claiming their pensions for longer - this needs to be addressed.
The schemes were revised to take account of this three years ago - so scheme benefits and costs are now 25% lower.
In addition, life expectancy has increased, but less so for manual workers and the low paid.
MYTH - There's a big public sector pensions deficit that has to be repaid.
There is no funding gap - the public sector schemes were assessed for long term risk and adjusted accordingly three years ago and are now very secure.
Both the local government pension scheme and NHS pension scheme are currently cash rich with income far exceeding outgoings - some £2 billion in the case of the NHS pension scheme.
MYTH - Public services and public service pensions are causing the financial crisis.
It was the banking sector's reckless risk taking and excessive greed that caused this global recession.
MYTH - We're all in it together. Everyone has to make sacrifices right now - why not public sector workers?
We are all facing cuts to our public services - on top of this public service workers are facing unprecedented job cuts and a pay freeze.
We will all end up paying more tax if people drop out of the scheme to end up relying on the state in their old age.
MYTH - It's not fair, why should the public sector get good pensions when the private sector doesn't?
The average director of a FTSE 100 company has a final salary pension worth £3.6m or £174,963 a year, while the average occupational pension generally is £9,500 a year and the average public service pension is £7,800 a year. That's the real unfairness.
UNISON thinks everyone deserves an adequate pension, including workers in the private sector. We should improve bad schemes rather than make good ones bad.
Providing adequate pensions means that fewer people will be receiving welfare handouts after retirement, which would cost the taxpayer more money in the long run.
MYTH - Public sector workers have it too good with huge pensions.
The average public service pension is around £7,800 a year, for women working in local government the average is £2,800 a year, while the median for women working in the NHS is £3,500 a year: hardly huge pensions.
Saving towards an occupational pension in many cases means a person is receiving fewer welfare benefits during retirement, saving the taxpayer money.
MYTH - Taxpayers are paying for public service workers' pensions. That's not fair.
Everyone's taxes are used to pay for all public services - stethoscopes in hospitals, the salaries of primary school teachers, people to change the light bulbs in street lamps, and part of these people's pay is their pension.
A pension is part of someone's salary package and is no different than an annual salary, a car, or the London weighting allowance. It's not fair to change something in a job contract after someone accepted the job.
One in five people working in the UK works in public services. They are taxpayers too.
MYTH - Public service workers retire at 60.
The normal retirement age in many of the public service pension schemes is already 65.
Raising the retirement age hurts some people more than others. In general we're living longer, but that doesn't mean everyone will have the same quality of life.
Many public service workers have jobs that are physically demanding or stressful, making it difficult or even impossible to continue working into old age. Similarly many low paid workers simply don't have the option of retiring early because they can't afford it.
Though I'm sure you'll ignore the arguments and facts, and simply dismiss the source.
What is it with public sector workers at the moment? Their pay and pensions are, generally, far superior to their private sector counterparts yet they are complaining about paying slightly more towards their pensions, or working for a couple more years. Outside of the small protected bubble that they live in their strikes have very little public support.
Then we have tube drivers, demanding a whopping quadruple pay for working boxing day. That is a whopping £700 for one day work!
Public sector pay and pensions is unsustainable in its current format. The previous Government realised this, but was too afraid to do anything about it for fear of losing key voters.
With all due respects: b*llocks.
Public sector pay has been frozen for two years, following decades of below inflation rise.
Even the Hutton report accepted that public sector pensions are sustainable.
Before the 2007 reforms to the schemes, the costs of pensions were expected to peak at just below 2% of GDP around 2020, and then fall again (the Baby boom generation is a bulge, not a permanent increase).
After the 2007 reforms - which were negotiated, unlike the current attempt at diktat - that peak has already happened (the cost peaked iin 2009 at around 1.8%, iirc, and is already falling). The 2007 reforms cut the future costs of pensions by 10% (Hutton's figures) - and the Chancellor's unilaterial decision to base future increases on CPI rather than RPI* inflation has cut future costs by another 15%)
Incidentally, some figures on the two largest schemes:
The NHSPS is a 'pay as you go' scheme where pensions are funded by current contributions - over the past 10 years or more, contributions have exceeded payouts by £2bn a year, money that goes straight to the Treasury.
The LGPS is a 'funded' scheme - contributions are invested and pensions paid out of the investment funds: the scheme invests about £4bn a year in the UK economy - the various invesment funds are currently responsible for a total investment in the UK economy of £140bn. The scheme has enough funds to pay out its commitments for the next 20 years, even even if it received not another penny from either contributions or investment income[/b].
Both schemees are 'cash rich'.
What Hutton refused to answer was whether public sector pensions were 'affordable' -saying that was a political question.
And a point to note about the proposal to increase employees' contributions by an average of 3.2% wages (an average 50% or so increase in the amount people will be required to pay): not a penny of that will go into the actual pensions schemes.
In the pay-as-you-go schemes it will go straight tot he Treasury. Ind the funded LGPS, it will fund the £900m reduction in councils' block grant.
The proposal is nothing more than a 3% tax levied for being in a pension scheme and used to pay for reducing a deficit which is the direct result of the banks and financial services industry screwing the economy in 2008 (a tax, incidentally, is being levied at the same time that the government keeps floating the idea of a 10% tax cut for high earners).
But the big danger is that if you increase contributions by that amount, you discourage people to join the pensions scheme and make provision for their old age, so they will rely more on taxpayer** funded benefits, increasing future costs to government, and at the same time risk making the schemes themselves unsustainable if not enough people are paying in.
* There's a particular irony in the Euro-sceptic Tories opting for CPI. RPI is an index designed to measure UK inflation as it affects people who buy things. The CPI index was invented purely as a measure to make like-for-like comparisons across the EU (which is why it doesn't include, eg, housing costs - housing 'markets' being different and therefore not comparable across the EU).
** Taking both active members and deferred members into account, the pensions schemes in question cover about 20% of the workforce, in both the public and private sectors, who are - of course - taxpayers themselves.
On and some mythbusting:
Quote:Pensions: busting the myths MYTH - People are living longer which means they're claiming their pensions for longer - this needs to be addressed.
The schemes were revised to take account of this three years ago - so scheme benefits and costs are now 25% lower.
In addition, life expectancy has increased, but less so for manual workers and the low paid.
MYTH - There's a big public sector pensions deficit that has to be repaid.
There is no funding gap - the public sector schemes were assessed for long term risk and adjusted accordingly three years ago and are now very secure.
Both the local government pension scheme and NHS pension scheme are currently cash rich with income far exceeding outgoings - some £2 billion in the case of the NHS pension scheme.
MYTH - Public services and public service pensions are causing the financial crisis.
It was the banking sector's reckless risk taking and excessive greed that caused this global recession.
MYTH - We're all in it together. Everyone has to make sacrifices right now - why not public sector workers?
We are all facing cuts to our public services - on top of this public service workers are facing unprecedented job cuts and a pay freeze.
We will all end up paying more tax if people drop out of the scheme to end up relying on the state in their old age.
MYTH - It's not fair, why should the public sector get good pensions when the private sector doesn't?
The average director of a FTSE 100 company has a final salary pension worth £3.6m or £174,963 a year, while the average occupational pension generally is £9,500 a year and the average public service pension is £7,800 a year. That's the real unfairness.
UNISON thinks everyone deserves an adequate pension, including workers in the private sector. We should improve bad schemes rather than make good ones bad.
Providing adequate pensions means that fewer people will be receiving welfare handouts after retirement, which would cost the taxpayer more money in the long run.
MYTH - Public sector workers have it too good with huge pensions.
The average public service pension is around £7,800 a year, for women working in local government the average is £2,800 a year, while the median for women working in the NHS is £3,500 a year: hardly huge pensions.
Saving towards an occupational pension in many cases means a person is receiving fewer welfare benefits during retirement, saving the taxpayer money.
MYTH - Taxpayers are paying for public service workers' pensions. That's not fair.
Everyone's taxes are used to pay for all public services - stethoscopes in hospitals, the salaries of primary school teachers, people to change the light bulbs in street lamps, and part of these people's pay is their pension.
A pension is part of someone's salary package and is no different than an annual salary, a car, or the London weighting allowance. It's not fair to change something in a job contract after someone accepted the job.
One in five people working in the UK works in public services. They are taxpayers too.
MYTH - Public service workers retire at 60.
The normal retirement age in many of the public service pension schemes is already 65.
Raising the retirement age hurts some people more than others. In general we're living longer, but that doesn't mean everyone will have the same quality of life.
Many public service workers have jobs that are physically demanding or stressful, making it difficult or even impossible to continue working into old age. Similarly many low paid workers simply don't have the option of retiring early because they can't afford it.
Though I'm sure you'll ignore the arguments and facts, and simply dismiss the source.
The Video Ref wrote:What is it with public sector workers at the moment? Their pay and pensions are, generally, far superior to their private sector counterparts
If their pay and pensions are far superior to their private sector counterparts then why don't private sector workers just leave and go and take up jobs in the public sector?
It's easier than uprooting to Switzerland or wherever.
Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019 League Leaders 2011 2016
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
