Public sector strike 30th November

[DeletedUser282]

In an attempt to get a thread going about something more real-world than time travel, I figured I'd start a thread about the public sector strike next Wednesday

So, liek,
Good/bad? Thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser]

Bad.

The 6th Form isn't closing.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Bad....

I wish I could have a pension paid for by the tax payer but unfortunately I have to pay into my own pension out of my salary...

Welcome to the real world Mr & Mrs Public Sector... if you only work in the public sector for the pension then your in the wrong job...

Going on strike and annoying everyone that doesn't work in the public sector is a great way to get popular opinion on your side and help you fight for what you think you deserve... or may be not...

 

[DeletedUser]

They're protesting over massive bonuses that the rest of the country don't get anything comparable to. Yeah no. I mean sure i'd protest if someone was taking money away from me, so I can see why they're doing it, but they'd don't deserve to get anything and if they do it's a travesty.

 

[DeletedUser282]

Bad....

I wish I could have a pension paid for by the tax payer but unfortunately I have to pay into my own pension out of my salary...

Welcome to the real world Mr & Mrs Public Sector... if you only work in the public sector for the pension then your in the wrong job...

Going on strike and annoying everyone that doesn't work in the public sector is a great way to get popular opinion on your side and help you fight for what you think you deserve... or may be not...

You realise that Public sector workers have to pay in money too? It's just the same as an employer based pension scheme in the private sector.
The reason they are protesting is that they have to pay 3.2% more for "pensions", and this money goes towards cutting the deficit, which is clearly nothing to do with pensions, which seems quite bad to me. Essentially another tax on the public sector.

Much is made of the gap between public and private sector pensions, but almost invariably these figures do not consider that all teachers have degrees, when figures for workers with degrees in the private sector with employer pension schemes it is about the same.

The 2007 pensions review showed the current pensions scheme as fair and affordable. (admittedly the labour governments view of affordable was questionable)

Given what public sector workers do, and how much they get paid for it, it seems fair to me that they should get a decent pension for their hard work.

@last bit of your post- How do you suggest they stop this then? If you think that striking is clearly a bad plan here. I don 't see any other route they could really go down that has any real chance of success. The government keeps saying that they should negotiate more, but in reality the government won't negotiate with them, they have noone to negotiate with.

They're protesting over massive bonuses that the rest of the country don't get anything comparable to. Yeah no. I mean sure i'd protest if someone was taking money away from me, so I can see why they're doing it, but they'd don't deserve to get anything and if they do it's a travesty.

Massive bonuses? The pensions that they would get before the changes were around £10,000. Admittedly that is a fair bit of money, but I strongly disagree with your description of this as "massive bonuses."

Bad.

The 6th Form isn't closing.

Mine is

In general, I believe that one of the only things that is actually keeping a lot of teachers in their current job is that they have no viable alternative, if the economy gets mended then I can easily imagine a lot of teachers switching occupations, leading to a shortage in teachers, which would be bad for everyone. As really, given they amount they do, and the amount they get paid, a fair pension seems a reasonable deal to me.

(Much of post was more teacher specific than public sector workers in general, but that is the group that I know most about so I use their data for obvious reasons.)

 

[DeletedUser5582]

You realise that Public sector workers have to pay in money too? It's just the same as an employer based pension scheme in the private sector.

lol no! Yes the public sector contribute and yes that money goes into the central govt pot so to speak and not used to fund their pensions and why is this? Well the tax payer funds their very generous Final Salary scheme.

For the vast majority of private employees you fund a Money Purchase scheme where your contributions go into "your" pot which is invested and when you retire whatever is there is used to buy an annuity (an income for life) so bad investment, low interest rates at retirement and your pension is very small plus is dependent upon what you could fund during your working life as of course a lot of employers don't contribute towards their pension pots.

Now the state sector employee has none of those issues to worry about as their pension is based on years worked divided by normally 60 (NHS is an 80ths scheme but they get their tax free lump sum without a reduction in their pension the sods) multiplied by an average of their 3 best earning years in the last 10 (so 13 but lets keep on topic here). So a civil servant who earnt 30k a year and had 40 years service would get a pension of 20k a year. To get the same pension privately you would need a fund of just under half a million and thats before you link it to inflation (state employees get that automatically) and pay for spouse benefits (yes you guess state folk get 50% spouse benefit thrown in)

So no worries about poor investment returns or low interest rates for the state sector worker but in the past they earned less than their private sector equivalents and the deal was that their pensions made up for it. Now they earn the same or indeed often more and yet still get exceptionally generous pensions schemes.

Now I can see why they are miffed that mid contract so to speak their pension rights are being changed but to strike and kick the taxpayer again in the current climate?!

So please do not say that the state sector pension are remotely similar to what the vast majority of private sector folk have.

Should they strike in the current climate?

No.

Should they be upset that half way through their careers their pension contracts are being changed.

Yes.

Am I upset for them?

No think they are, compared to their equivalent private sector worker, incredibly lucky.

 

[DeletedUser282]

lol no! Yes the public sector contribute and yes that money goes into the central govt pot so to speak and not used to fund their pensions and why is this? Well the tax payer funds their very generous Final Salary scheme.

For the vast majority of private employees you fund a Money Purchase scheme where your contributions go into "your" pot which is invested and when you retire whatever is there is used to buy an annuity (an income for life) so bad investment, low interest rates at retirement and your pension is very small plus is dependent upon what you could fund during your working life as of course a lot of employers don't contribute towards their pension pots.

Now the state sector employee has none of those issues to worry about as their pension is based on years worked divided by normally 60 (NHS is an 80ths scheme but they get their tax free lump sum without a reduction in their pension the sods) multiplied by an average of their 3 best earning years in the last 10 (so 13 but lets keep on topic here). So a civil servant who earnt 30k a year and had 40 years service would get a pension of 20k a year. To get the same pension privately you would need a fund of just under half a million and thats before you link it to inflation (state employees get that automatically) and pay for spouse benefits (yes you guess state folk get 50% spouse benefit thrown in)

So no worries about poor investment returns or low interest rates for the state sector worker but in the past they earned less than their private sector equivalents and the deal was that their pensions made up for it. Now they earn the same or indeed often more and yet still get exceptionally generous pensions schemes.

Now I can see why they are miffed that mid contract so to speak their pension rights are being changed but to strike and kick the taxpayer again in the current climate?!

So please do not say that the state sector pension are remotely similar to what the vast majority of private sector folk have.

Should they strike in the current climate?

No.

Should they be upset that half way through their careers their pension contracts are being changed.

Yes.

Am I upset for them?

No think they are, compared to their equivalent private sector worker, incredibly lucky.

Well I had a nice well thought through response typed up, but this idiotic forum decided to nuke it, so this response is likely to be much worse than the original.

I did not say that the pensions were the same, I said that the structure was not much different, as it appeared to be implied by the post I quoted that they believed that all public sector pensions were entirely state-funded whereas all private sector pensions were entirely funded by the employee themselves which is clearly untrue.

When you compare private sector vs public sector pay, you are comparing some teachers with degrees, with those who left education at 16. Based on the qualifications that teachers have v.s. similarly qualified private sector workers, their wages are still less.

You state that you feel it is unfair for the public sector to kick the tax payer again. It seems to me that it is the public sector worker that is being kicked again, for an economic crisis that started because banks in the private sector were incompetent. They've taken their pay freeze and other cuts, but I feel that this 3% tax on public sector workers pay is going too far, especially when it is considered that they will get even less money at the end. They've suffered enough because of incompetence from the private sector a few years ago.

Based upon lower wages for the equivalent qualifications and general demands of the job I feel that they deserve better pensions. I can entirely see your viewpoint, but as I said earlier, I feel that if the government is not careful, if other possible prospects open up, I think many teachers will move to another occupation and it seems rather likely that their will be significant drop in the number of new teachers, leading to a shortage, which can't be good.

 

[DeletedUser5582]

Well I had a nice well thought through response typed up, but this idiotic forum decided to nuke it, so this response is likely to be much worse than the original.

I did not say that the pensions were the same, I said that the structure was not much different, as it appeared to be implied by the post I quoted that they believed that all public sector pensions were entirely state-funded whereas all private sector pensions were entirely funded by the employee themselves which is clearly untrue.

When you compare private sector vs public sector pay, you are comparing some teachers with degrees, with those who left education at 16. Based on the qualifications that teachers have v.s. similarly qualified private sector workers, their wages are still less.

You state that you feel it is unfair for the public sector to kick the tax payer again. It seems to me that it is the public sector worker that is being kicked again, for an economic crisis that started because banks in the private sector were incompetent. They've taken their pay freeze and other cuts, but I feel that this 3% tax on public sector workers pay is going too far, especially when it is considered that they will get even less money at the end. They've suffered enough because of incompetence from the private sector a few years ago.

Based upon lower wages for the equivalent qualifications and general demands of the job I feel that they deserve better pensions. I can entirely see your viewpoint, but as I said earlier, I feel that if the government is not careful, if other possible prospects open up, I think many teachers will move to another occupation and it seems rather likely that their will be significant drop in the number of new teachers, leading to a shortage, which can't be good.

Ok well an interesting response! My issues was on the pension themselves not on who is "worthy" or "deserving" and as I said I do emphasize with any worker who has their contract changed mid way through. You seem to talk about teachers a lot but let us not get specific as different public sector workers get different pensions (teachers though have a particularly good one though not exceptional that would be MP's!

Ok first up your comment on the structure of the pensions. You are mistaken. A Final salary pension is about as far removed from a Money Purchase one as you can get. If we take an analogy of cars the Money Purchase would be a Rover and the Final Salary a slinky two seater sports car so to even compare is grossly unfair. Yes both pay into their schemes but what they can expect out of them is wildly different. What rankles most is that Govt policy made most firms switch from Final Salary to Money Purchase (strikes?!?) as the legislation made running a Final Salary scheme unaffordable on top of which they removed tax breaks (on income derived from shares within the funds) taking a whopping 5 billion of value out of these funds each year! In the private sector they don't have the luxury of striking so looking on to this you should maybe appreciate their anger that the public sector now wishes to strike!

Now to who started the financial crisis! It is simplistic to say bankers bad public sector paying the price. I wouldn't bother saying what the financial sector brings in wealth creation or taxes as is immaterial. Politicians were more than happy to promote a credit boom as it made feel folks feel richer (sofa on credit oh look our house is worth heaps so what could go wrong) mirrors a govt borrowing money to pay for things today by spending tomorrows income. Now the time has come to pay it back and is an issue....

The public sector workers are certainly paying a heavy price for idiotic policies from those that rule us. Bankers well add a w and remove the b!

But the crux here is that when you are bust is no good pretending nothing is wrong. The private sector pensions have been pillaged by governments robbing our futures to pay for a bloated bureaucracy. Those in the public sector I think know this which is why only 30% voted in the ballots saying strike.

Is not about losing teachers (which is of course bad) but an acknowledgement that when the state employs a huge percentage of the workforce something is seriously wrong and the private sector can no longer pay for this largesse.

The public sector should remember that they have, even after the changes, a very favourable pension scheme way better than the private sector who don't have the luxury of striking and who themselves have been raided to an awful extent and did our public sector brothers and sisters take to the street when their pensions were taxed?

No.

So very sorry I do feel your pain but on balance I think the public sector should on this occasion accept the changes and striking is not just irresponsible but incredibly dangerous for the UK financially.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Never knew you know so much about pension Jo, and all if it correct...

A final salary pension and a money purchase pension are completely different... the simple fact that one is based on what you contribute and one is based on what your earning when you retire make creates the biggest difference...

One the pension member pays for what they get out.. the other they don't... why do only a very small percentage of companies that used to offer final salaries pensions to their employees still do? Because private sector companies can not afford to subsides an employees income for 30+ years after they retire.. but Mr & Mrs Public Sector think that the government, hence the tax payer should... at a time when the government and hence the tax payer can't afford to pay for the NHS, tax Credits or any of other state provided social benefits...

The simple fact is, the world is fecked, the country is fecked because governments and individuals created a boom based on borrowing money... now it's time to pay it back, unless we want to be the next Greece, Ireland, Italy or Portugal... so surely it's only fair that we all make scarifies and lose benefits whether we work in the public or private sector...

And if anyone wants to go on about the poor teaches, police officers, etc... the highest percentage of stress related early retirement are all in the public sector... must be nice to take early retirement because of stress with a nice big fat pension paid by the tax payers... if you can't cope, change jobs like the private sector employees do...

I for one will be encouraging every mother, father and family that has to pay for extra child care due to the teachers strike to pop round and ask the teachers to pay for it... think that's unfair.. then how is it fair for teachers to strike and cause the additional cost to these families?.... families that on the whole will be struggling financially and would like nothing more than to have a pensions that they can pay proportionately less into and get proportional more back then your standard money purchase pension even after the governments planned changes...

(apologies Jo for just repeating a lot of what you said...)

 

[DeletedUser282]

Ok well an interesting response! My issues was on the pension themselves not on who is "worthy" or "deserving" and as I said I do emphasize with any worker who has their contract changed mid way through. You seem to talk about teachers a lot but let us not get specific as different public sector workers get different pensions (teachers though have a particularly good one though not exceptional that would be MP's!

Ok first up your comment on the structure of the pensions. You are mistaken. A Final salary pension is about as far removed from a Money Purchase one as you can get. If we take an analogy of cars the Money Purchase would be a Rover and the Final Salary a slinky two seater sports car so to even compare is grossly unfair. Yes both pay into their schemes but what they can expect out of them is wildly different. What rankles most is that Govt policy made most firms switch from Final Salary to Money Purchase (strikes?!?) as the legislation made running a Final Salary scheme unaffordable on top of which they removed tax breaks (on income derived from shares within the funds) taking a whopping 5 billion of value out of these funds each year! In the private sector they don't have the luxury of striking so looking on to this you should maybe appreciate their anger that the public sector now wishes to strike!

Now to who started the financial crisis! It is simplistic to say bankers bad public sector paying the price. I wouldn't bother saying what the financial sector brings in wealth creation or taxes as is immaterial. Politicians were more than happy to promote a credit boom as it made feel folks feel richer (sofa on credit oh look our house is worth heaps so what could go wrong) mirrors a govt borrowing money to pay for things today by spending tomorrows income. Now the time has come to pay it back and is an issue....

The public sector workers are certainly paying a heavy price for idiotic policies from those that rule us. Bankers well add a w and remove the b!

But the crux here is that when you are bust is no good pretending nothing is wrong. The private sector pensions have been pillaged by governments robbing our futures to pay for a bloated bureaucracy. Those in the public sector I think know this which is why only 30% voted in the ballots saying strike.

Is not about losing teachers (which is of course bad) but an acknowledgement that when the state employs a huge percentage of the workforce something is seriously wrong and the private sector can no longer pay for this largesse.

The public sector should remember that they have, even after the changes, a very favourable pension scheme way better than the private sector who don't have the luxury of striking and who themselves have been raided to an awful extent and did our public sector brothers and sisters take to the street when their pensions were taxed?

No.

So very sorry I do feel your pain but on balance I think the public sector should on this occasion accept the changes and striking is not just irresponsible but incredibly dangerous for the UK financially.

On the topic of the structure, I think part of this confusion was due to me simply rushing the posts. I was under the impression that whoever the first guy was, was saying that for all public sector pensions, the employee pays nothing towards their pension, and for all private sector pensions, the employee pays 100% of their pension.
My statement that they were in any way the same, was intended to mean that this is not true, and that in both cases employees money towards their pension. Having re-read the post I quote, I feel I may have misunderstood what he meant. I am aware of the different structure of pensions (though evidently not as much as you.) Structure was not a very good work to use their I'll concede, again I was being incredibly over-simplified, and by structure I meant that the government does not pay all of the public sector pensions, the public sector worker puts some in too.
Pretty much everything I have said about them being the same was based around my misunderstanding of the original post.

The only small comparison I made is that when the pensions of private sector workers with degrees is compared to the pensions of teachers, the gap is smaller than when the average private worker's pension is compared with the pension of a teacher. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Of course I'm not saying "bankers are bad! no more financial services for Britain!" as that would clearly be idiotic, and I am aware that Britain's high borrowing figures are one of the largest causes of the mess we are in. I just feel that public sector worker is paying for there mistakes a bit too much.

I agree that economically, it would be better for the economy as a whole, if there was no strike. If we had the circumstances where the government could control their people and make them decide that they actually don't want to strike after all, then economy overall would be better. But clearly by this point we are in the plot of 1984.

However, I do respect the right of the public sector workers to strike, as I can see the pain of having the deal changed half way through your working life, to a massively less favourable one. The point that the private sector workers didn't have the opportunity to strike against the changes, is regrettable, but I don't believe that it directly affects this issue, their pension deal has been changed, for many this is half way through their teaching career and they will now get much less than they had been promised previously, whilst having to pay more and work longer.

I think that if instead of an increase on pension money it was for example a longer public sector pay freeze, then I would be against them striking as I would see that everyone has to make sacrifices for the economy to work. However I just view this as a 3.2% tax on hard working public sector workers, whose jobs are not that well paid anyway given their qualifications, and to add to all that, they will get less money as a pension at the end. That just seems unfair to me, given that they were promised much better than that.

Onto the topic of irresponsibility, given that the strikes are happening, do you think that it is responsible of the government to continue to give no ground? They said that unions should get back to negotiating, but at the same time, refused to actually do any negotiating. Given that the strike is going to happen, if they continue to ignore it, then I would argue that continuing to not negotiate is worsening the economic conditions as it becomes more likely for another strike to happen.

And if anyone wants to go on about the poor teaches, police officers, etc... the highest percentage of stress related early retirement are all in the public sector... must be nice to take early retirement because of stress with a nice big fat pension paid by the tax payers... if you can't cope, change jobs like the private sector employees do...

Much of what you said is the same as what Lightyjo said, but I'll respond to this bit.
If the economy recovers to the extent that teachers can do this, then I'm fairly sure that lots of teachers will do this, that fact combined with the fact that less people will become teachers now that the deal is worse, and this could lead teacher shortages which are not good for anyone, this was one of my main points earlier.

 

[DeletedUser5582]

Again interesting reply. Ok am pleased we have sorted out the pension confusion as I still jump up and down when I see public sector folk do the "woe is me" bit as I really think they should be sat down and told exactly what their pension benefits are worth in monetary terms and what they would need to earn in the private sector to get the same benefits. Plus then would have a fireside chat to them about their sick pay benefits et al

Ok am guessing you teach maths Gargareth but Teachers seem to be the point you return to?

I still think that morally and for the points made above Teachers should not strike on this. The financial package they will get is still generous and if they don;t think so they should move into the private sector? But of course teachers in the private sector are denied access to the State teachers pension scheme by.....civil servants and militant Teaching Unions who despise the private schools even though folks that sent their kids there are being taxed twice?!

For me the strikes are an example of short term ism (see 1970's industrial relations and then say Oh look we have no car industry and no ship yards in fact we make very little these days hence Balance of Payments issues and wealth flowing out of the country but meh that is going off topic). To strike on this issue, even though it will cause misery for everyone else especially if they have kids, is almost unbelievable. Do teachers read the news? Do they understand what happens if the UK goes bust or the matter of what happens when you owe heaps and suddenly can;t roll over the debt anymore? Who will pay your salaries then if the state is bust?

There comes a point when folks need to see the bigger picture. The Government is saying "we are going bust" without actually saying that as of course the markets would go nuts. I can see the Govt. saying you know what lets make all schools Free Schools and go to the voucher system. Get rid of all those very expensive Education authorities and for me the best bit would be to get politics out of Education. But also get rid of all the Teachers on the Final Salary Pension scheme.

Support the strikes if you will but be VERY careful that you donlt actually get what you wish for!

Finally (well done if you have got this far!) to say the Govt has refused to negotiate is a fib nay a whopper! As the Govt, I believe, offered an improved deal just the other week (which when I read was amazed at its generosity) and has threatened to pull the offer if the strike goes ahead (very hard to pull a new offer if refusing to negotiate?!)

Lets keep to the facts please and not make stuff up as is an emotive subject.

 

[DeletedUser282]

Ok am guessing you teach maths Gargareth but Teachers seem to be the point you return to?

I still think that morally and for the points made above Teachers should not strike on this. The financial package they will get is still generous and if they don;t think so they should move into the private sector? But of course teachers in the private sector are denied access to the State teachers pension scheme by.....civil servants and militant Teaching Unions who despise the private schools even though folks that sent their kids there are being taxed twice?!

For me the strikes are an example of short term ism (see 1970's industrial relations and then say Oh look we have no car industry and no ship yards in fact we make very little these days hence Balance of Payments issues and wealth flowing out of the country but meh that is going off topic). To strike on this issue, even though it will cause misery for everyone else especially if they have kids, is almost unbelievable. Do teachers read the news? Do they understand what happens if the UK goes bust or the matter of what happens when you owe heaps and suddenly can;t roll over the debt anymore? Who will pay your salaries then if the state is bust?

There comes a point when folks need to see the bigger picture. The Government is saying "we are going bust" without actually saying that as of course the markets would go nuts. I can see the Govt. saying you know what lets make all schools Free Schools and go to the voucher system. Get rid of all those very expensive Education authorities and for me the best bit would be to get politics out of Education. But also get rid of all the Teachers on the Final Salary Pension scheme.

Support the strikes if you will but be VERY careful that you donlt actually get what you wish for!

Finally (well done if you have got this far!) to say the Govt has refused to negotiate is a fib nay a whopper! As the Govt, I believe, offered an improved deal just the other week (which when I read was amazed at its generosity) and has threatened to pull the offer if the strike goes ahead (very hard to pull a new offer if refusing to negotiate?!)

Lets keep to the facts please and not make stuff up as is an emotive subject.

Teachers is the point I return to as that is the area in all of this that I know most about, but I'm not a teacher and have no plans to ever become one.

I feel that it is perfectly acceptable for teachers to strike on this, given how much worse the new deal is from the old one. If this was the only cut that they were facing then I would agree with you, but they've done their bit to fight the deficit with the pay freeze and a whole host of other smaller things.

Again you say that if they don't like it they should move to the private sector, right now I don't see that happening as most of them will feel that in the economy's current state they would struggle, but if it improves then I can see teachers moving to the private sector as you suggested, this combined with less people becoming teachers could lead to a shortage of teachers, which would not be good for anyone.

Wait? Now your suggesting the government should give out more money to the private sector, to private schools? That doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your "we're going bust! need to cut everything now!" argument.

Strikes can be a short term issue, but if the unions feel that they aren't being listened to they are likely to get more militant. Not really good for anyone.

If you look at the autumn statement and the general state of the economy you should be able to see that it is extremely unlikely for us to go bust, we are in a mess, but we are not as bad as that.
I highly doubt that the government would do the things you suggest, for the simple reason that if they did, they wouldn't get reelected for a while.

The point on the new offer makes the unions look quite bad in the press I'll admit, but what actually happened with that.
The unions voted on the strike issue, they had been negotiating with the government for 8 months before this without actually getting anywhere. Then a couple of days later the government announced this new deal to the press with the demand that they not strike or the offer goes away. The "offer" was not officially put to the unions in any proper negotiation, it was essentially just put to the press to make them look bad.

I think that if they hadn't said "don't strike or you don't get this" then despite them not having actually properly offered it, it might have gone down better, but as the majority of people are unaffected by their new offer, the majority will have seen this is as. "Do want we say or you get nothing." Which I think if anything would make them more militant.

 

[DeletedUser3371]

Maggie Thatcher broke the unions in the 80's!

Spoiler: Just for Jo

throw a spanner in the works
English

Verb
throw a spanner in the works
(idiomatic) (UK) To be a problem, dilemma or obstacle, something unexpected or troublesome.
Half way through the production of Macbeth, the director found that the stage was smaller than he expected. This really threw a spanner in the works.
See also
monkey wrench (US)

 

[DeletedUser5582]

Wait? Now your suggesting the government should give out more money to the private sector, to private schools? That doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your "we're going bust! need to cut everything now!" argument.

No! If you are answering the part of vouchers is the same cost as education now just think if schools compete for money rather than just having it standards would go up (this is a new topic though!!)

I feel that it is perfectly acceptable for teachers to strike on this, given how much worse the new deal is from the old one. If this was the only cut that they were facing then I would agree with you, but they've done their bit to fight the deficit with the pay freeze and a whole host of other smaller things.

It is their right to strike and if I were a teacher I would be cross on a personal level. I just think they are being very short sighted here and not sure a strike is the right way to agitate for what they want. Is no easy answer and times tough for everyone but I think in 5 years looking back they will regret doing this.

Ok again you make an interesting reply but on the Autumn Statement do not think that because a politician tells us things are bad but manageable that this is the case. The UK debt is appalling (google trillion in pictures) and we not on the ropes only because other countries are worse. I am happy to talk about M3 money supplies and the Euro v Sterling and the whole shebang but not sure would be interesting (plus would remind me of my old job which would be bad).

But accept a few things. The UK may well go bust which would make the proposals offered to the public sector seem very good indeed. There are no "cuts"! Govt expenditure is rising just not as fast as it was. Crazy but true. Do not believe what Union bods or the BBC tells you without a pinch of salt.

Finally what percentage of Union members actually voted yes as a percentage of the whole membership (not just those who bothered to vote)

Is a very small number indeed and I know you are good at maths so tell me should a politically active minority be able to bring misery to a whole country over what remains a system that 50% of the workers can never have? (worse the same rule makers took away the FS scheme from many)

Fair?

Again I think that striking is not the best option here. Sorry but is my view!

Edit: my posts today were done without consuming coffee!

 

[DeletedUser282]

No! If you are answering the part of vouchers is the same cost as education now just think if schools compete for money rather than just having it standards would go up (this is a new topic though!!)



It is their right to strike and if I were a teacher I would be cross on a personal level. I just think they are being very short sighted here and not sure a strike is the right way to agitate for what they want. Is no easy answer and times tough for everyone but I think in 5 years looking back they will regret doing this.

Ok again you make an interesting reply but on the Autumn Statement do not think that because a politician tells us things are bad but manageable that this is the case. The UK debt is appalling (google trillion in pictures) and we not on the ropes only because other countries are worse. I am happy to talk about M3 money supplies and the Euro v Sterling and the whole shebang but not sure would be interesting (plus would remind me of my old job which would be bad).

But accept a few things. The UK may well go bust which would make the proposals offered to the public sector seem very good indeed. There are no "cuts"! Govt expenditure is rising just not as fast as it was. Crazy but true. Do not believe what Union bods or the BBC tells you without a pinch of salt.

Finally what percentage of Union members actually voted yes as a percentage of the whole membership (not just those who bothered to vote)

Is a very small number indeed and I know you are good at maths so tell me should a politically active minority be able to bring misery to a whole country over what remains a system that 50% of the workers can never have? (worse the same rule makers took away the FS scheme from many)

Fair?

Again I think that striking is not the best option here. Sorry but is my view!

Edit: my posts today were done without consuming coffee!

I was answering about Private sector teacher's pensions.

I don't really see their option's other than to strike, other than of course to just accept the change.

Based upon the figures that I have viewed, I still think it is unlikely for us to go bust. Our situation is not as bad as Greece, nor even the US. But I do accept that there is a small possibility that the UK could go bust, which would admittedly make the deal look good.

You can't base statistics on percentage of everyone including those that didn't vote, as simply, you don't know how they would have voted.

A similar argument could be about the 2010 general election. Conservatives for 36% of the vote. There was around 65% turnout. That means they got ~23.5% of the overall vote and so is it right that they have as much power as they do, given that?
Yes.

I don't see any other real alternatives for them here other than to strike, or just to accept the measures. I know that if it was me, that I would strike and so am on their side.

I still maintain that this will lead to less people becoming teachers, which will mean that in some schools it will become the choice of hiring bad teachers, or no teachers, which will damage the quality of education of young people, that in itself could do some economic damage in the long term, especially when you consider the education cuts that have already taken place.

 

[DeletedUser]

Im probably wrong on many points here wrong, but i thought that the public sector theoretically and practically get less payment for the same work if it was done for the private sector. Especially in the sectors which are important, like hospitals and schools (teachers, nurses, doctors etc).

Reason for this is that the private sector get payment from people paying for their services while public sector gives the same/similar sevice for a reduced price/for free. The public sector's task is not to gain as much money as possible from their service while the public sector's plan is mostly just that (not all, but most).

In other words, public sector jobs is supposed to give security, necessary services and a resonable payment to the worker while public sector's goal... is simply just for proffit, the more the better.

If all these things are correct then wouldnt it be fair for the public worker, which does not try to run the risk as the people working in a private section does and gets less money for the same work, to get a better pension? :?

 

[DeletedUser5582]

yes it would and that was the way it was that public sector workers doing the same job (how you qualify this beats me) got lower pay but great pensions.

However the gap has narrowed and in lots of cases overtaken the private sector.

Funnily enough was watching the news today (clearly they get their stories from TW forums!!) and were interviewing private sector folks who were saying (I paraphrase) Pensions?! what bleep pensions we can't afford to pay for a pension.

For me, still, am sorry is harsh but does the public sector really know how lucky it is? I appreciate the pay freeze against inflation (especially the index where the cost of a hamster is removed-if you doubt this go see what goes into the basket of goods..!) and their contracts being changed mid term BUT their package is still fantastic ( I say this as an ex IFA)

Now slightly cheeky but take last years snow storm....Google who went to work!

Am sorry but the strike is wrong. If you are eating a cream cake when half the population has moldy bread and someone takes a bit of cream away should you really be striking?

 

[DeletedUser6603]

I work in the public sector and I got to work in the snow, and I commute 75 miles, whats your point jo? ;-)

 

[DeletedUser5582]

I work in the public sector and I got to work in the snow, and I commute 75 miles, whats your point jo? ;-)

you are special and we loves you! You may keep your Final Salary pension!

Clearly I was generalising not talking specifics. Is an emotive subject and is no right or wrong. As said above I do feel for those having their pension rights changed mid way BUT I also think that they should spare a thought for those who would drool at such a package and striking is not the way to win hearts and minds here.

 

[DeletedUser6603]

I really dont want to get into this too much, might get into trouble and all that.....

But - its not about hearts and minds. I dont really give two hoots what you or anyone else thinks of me for being a civil servant and going on strike to be honest (no offence intended). What matters to me is that my employer is so willing to break the terms and conditions of my employment with them when I have stuck to my end of the bargain for every single working day of my career to date, and will continue to do so. There is an awful lot more going on in the public sector than I would like (or dare) to go into, but take my word for it, things are not good.