[Big Dave]

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067997/Heathrow-braced-chaos-hundreds-Border-Agency-workers-walk-out.html

[tomtom]

But do the government ever ring-post their income from one area for that specific area?

If not, then are you happy for the public sector wages to be taxed more than the private sector at source?

I don't see why the public sector should pay more tax than me?

Yup - loads of governments have spent from the pension pot like ol'Bob above did - but this Government is now asking the workers to pay more into the pot that the govt is 'borrowing' from... outrageous...

Imagine putting a quid into a piggy bank every day, so at Xmas you have £££ to spend. But someone keeps emptying the bank, and then has the temerity to say 'hang on, your piggy bank's a bit empty - you're better put some more in!'...

Bet you'd be chuffed to do that!

[slackline]

But do the government ever ring-post their income from one area for that specific area?

If not, then are you happy for the public sector wages to be taxed more than the private sector at source?

I don't see why the public sector should pay more tax than me?

No and neither do I respectively, but people who've still got a number of years to retirement can easily pull out of their public sector pensions and instead put their remaining money into private personal pensions (or possibly transfer the existing amount if possible too?).

Wouldn't that seriously screw over these plans to pilfer the supposed pension pot?


I really don't know a great deal about this and don't have much faith in some of the numbers being bandied around in the media, hence some pretty dumb questions as I try and understand what all the fuss is about (actually getting work done today so don't have a great deal of time to do tons of research).


Is that fat old bloke the one who threw himself off his fancy yacht?  Maxwell?

[john horscroft]

None of the options apply to me so I've gone pink anasazi.

I disagree with the government and the strike.

Shit Jaz, you sound like a labour politician!  Get off the fence!

[galpinos]

No and neither do I respectively, but people who've still got a number of years to retirement can easily pull out of their public sector pensions and instead put their remaining money into private personal pensions (or possibly transfer the existing amount if possible too?).

Wouldn't that seriously screw over these plans to pilfer the supposed pension pot?

It would also mean that the public sector employee would get an even worse pension. Cut your nose off.....
If they start a private pension, the sole contribution is their's, there's no employer contribution so they are shafted there. I get a matched contribution form my employer (to a max percentage - as do most private sector employees to a similar degree) so the public sector employee opting out of the scheme would have gone from a decent pension to one worse than the standard private sector employee.

[IanP]

I asked a question about sustainbability above (re employer contributions) but didn't get an answer so looked it up myself and found that both the Teachers and NHS employer contribution arre 14% so that's a minimum 4% extra on most private sector schemes, significantly more in many cases - for example my company has sliding contribution starting at 4% in your 20's and rising to 10% in your 50's, I'm 'lucky' enough to be on a flat 10% which was agreed when we were moved out of the final salary scheme. 

So even if you ignore the underwriting of the potenially significant risk involved with final salary schemes the government is contributing significant amounts to these pension schemes - given the present state of the UK balance sheet it must be at least a valid question to ask whether this sustatinable.

I don't won't make a definite judgement on the rights and wrongs of either side but it doesn't really seem that the 'I'm striking because I'm entitled to this' is the right way forwards.

BTW I'd think it unlikely that the details of you pension entitlement form part of your contract.

[tomtom]

OK, I did some digging rather than quoting what my colleagues wife told me..
2007 teachers pension agreement (google it if you like)
Retirement age up frmo 60 to 65
Linked to CPI instead of RPI (this makes a surprising difference)
Employee contribtion up from 6 to 6.4% (I was wrong here, sorry)
Employer contribution up from 13.5 to 14.1%..
Theres some extra shizzle about reduced final payments and increased costs of buying years etc..

[slackline]

No and neither do I respectively, but people who've still got a number of years to retirement can easily pull out of their public sector pensions and instead put their remaining money into private personal pensions (or possibly transfer the existing amount if possible too?).

Wouldn't that seriously screw over these plans to pilfer the supposed pension pot?

It would also mean that the public sector employee would get an even worse pension. Cut your nose off.....
If they start a private pension, the sole contribution is their's, there's no employer contribution so they are shafted there. I get a matched contribution form my employer (to a max percentage - as do most private sector employees to a similar degree) so the public sector employee opting out of the scheme would have gone from a decent pension to one worse than the standard private sector employee.

Hmm, my wife is quite pleased she now teaches hairdressing (at a local college) and that she has any pension at all, prior to making the switch to teaching she paid into a private pension all on her own, which was hard work on a hairdressers salary. Hairdressers and a lot of other private sector workers (and I'd hazard a guess that its not a negligible proportion of the populace, mechanics, till-jockeys, anyone who's self-employed (~12% or working population a few years ago etc.) don't get any employer contributions either, so whilst a fair proportion of those in the private sector do have employer matched contributions I'm not sure its most.

Given the lesser of two evils you have to choose one (or go on strike it would seem).

Perhaps society needs to change....





(More seriously the continued obsession with longevity, and curing cancer/dementia/heart disease/etc. really isn't doing western societies any favours, the time money and effort would be far better invested in reducing the inequalities that already exist around the world in living standards and providing everyone with clean water, sanitation and enough food each day.  Idealisitic, yes, but thats just like my opinion, man).

[john horscroft]

I joined the Public sector workers march in the centre of Sheffield today.  Although I'm no longer employed in the public sector, I felt it was right to support them for any number of reasons but the single biggest factor was a determination not to sit on my hands while this shit storm of a govt screws one group of workers after another.  FFS, I wish we were all in this together, ie, prepared to fight for each other's rights rather than joining in the mud slinging as soon as someone says, no, i'm not taking any more.  The kind of supine acceptance of the govt's case exhibited by some of the posts on this thread makes me want to puke.  The coalition is hitting the poorest hardest and I feel the strikes are in many ways a response to that.  There is ample evidence that the burden of pension provision is going to reduce over the next few years rather than rise, see the Hutton report, "Details of the Hutton review of public sector pensions. ... Using this measure, the cost of public sector pensions is projected to fall from a peak of 1.9 per cent ... So costs are already coming down and are manageable."  Much of what is going on is ideologically driven not economically hence the welter of skewed statistics form the govt and the right wing press.  If all we do is sit on the sidelines sniping at each other, then we're doing the govt's job for them.  What we should be doing in my humble if slightly mardy opinion is stick together and fight for better workers rights regardless of whether its public or private sector.  OK, rant over for now you bunch of fucking toadies......

[Jaspersharpe]

I can't believe you said I sounded like a Labour politician! 

Anyway. There's a lot of shite being talked by both sides which is why I said I disagree with both the government and the strike. How about some fact checking.........

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-public-sector-pensions-row/8608

[slackline]

Channel 4 Factcheck analysis from June 2011

It too cites the Hutton report as forming the basis of the proposed changes, have things changed substantially since then to invalidate this apparently objective analysis?

To answer my own question before I post Worse of than current situation, but the envy of most private sector workers. <-- EDIT : Same link as Jasper's posted


One 'catch' that seems a valid objection appears to be using Full Time Equivalence (FTE) in calculating whether someone is below the £15k threshold

[fatkid2000]

I'm lucky enough to receive a public sector pension via the NHS - however I may consider leaving it if contributions go up.

I have to pay roughly 20% of my salary into it. As I'm a self-employed GP I have to pay both employers and employees contribution.
I've got 30 years service - if I retire at 65. So some serious financial advice may be needed.

The only reason to stay is the survivors benefits and the tax implications.

As stated above the NHS pension is self-funding.

[Stu Littlefair]

So in summary, are we saying

- its true that the public sector pension scheme is sustainable, in the sense that there's enough money in the scheme as it stands.

- the Hutton report predicts that the pensions burden on the state will actually decline in the future

- public sector workers took a significant cut in their pensions already, under labour

- they're now being asked to pay more into their schemes, work longer AND receive less when they retire

- this in the context of a wage freeze when living costs are rising rapidly.

And, based on these facts people argue that they shouldn't strike? I find that pretty gobsmacking. OK, public sector pensions are the envy of many in the private sector, but surely the answer to this is to improve the private sector pensions?

This does just look like a raid on public sector workers, because it's more politically advantageous than tax rises for all. I'm surprised so many people seem to agree with the government line

[rich d]

Good summary Stu - but I don't see striking inconveniencing the government but it does inconvenience and cost lots of other (equally) struggling workers money. Strikes also seem to turn people against public sector workers and allow the government and the facts to hide behind an idealistic smokescreen. So I'm against the strikes (and the government)

[mrjonathanr]

...and teachers are striking aren't they?

I thought they were striking because they've got to pay a bit more and work a bit longer, but then......so does everyone else.  Its a simple self-evident fact {etc}

I suspect I may be confused by the points tomtom is getting at. 

Slack-line, I agree with your last point. I mostly agree with what Tomtom has posted, which has never happened to me before, tbh. Try this:

Teachers are striking because they don't like be taxed by the government for deficit reduction purposes and having it passed off as necessary changes to pensions. Changes to teachers pensions aren't necessary. On current data (derived from government figures) we could all stop contributing completely and pensions could be honoured as is for 35 years from the existing fund (accrued since 1923). Hutton ushered in an agreement in 2007 that allowed the government to declare the scheme fair and sustainable. Cameron et al are just cutting wages by 3% and selling it as something it's not.

There are other changes such as RPI > CPI and longer working life. I work hard - in a way that I do not believe I will be capable of in my mid/late 60s when the new retirement age will be. We don't have front-line police officers working at these ages because they are not equipped to do the job as they should. What about teachers? My contract is based on a nominal 37.5hr week but in reality is around 50, and I may work late (till 2am one night last week, then up at 6, it was just busy) and at weekends and during holidays, including contact time in school.

Any teacher who retires early will have a correspondingly reduced pension. Some will remain capable, some will be just about get through to the end despite their years- I don't want my child taught by these teachers, or to be one- and some will get the push early.

The academy system represents the privatisation of public education, but funded by public money. Academies are, as you may know, schools run as businesses, but funded by a slice of public money and any other sponsorship money. Of course this means the reduction of parent governors and the sponsors getting seats on governors' committee. McEducation, anyone, with Ronald McDonaldGove?

Eventually all schools will be run this way. Terms and conditions are set by the school, and not in the teachers favour. I can't see many ageing teachers being retained for example. Pay, conditions of service and workload are key factors in recruiting and retaining good staff. Schools need good teachers who are enabled to work effectively. The current raft of proposals will do the opposite.

We often hear that the indecent sums paid to top execs are 'market rate' and necessary to secure good staff. Trust me, decent pay and conditions are necessary to secure good staff in other walks of life too. Do you want second-rate nurses and teachers?


Currently I've got a sustainable pension and am remunerated fairly for my work. I don't need more, I don't expect less. If there were a hypothecated tax to establish a proper pension for all, I'd be prepared to pay a lot more than 3%. But that's not going to come from this Tory government. (Apparently there's some from the Liberal tradition in there too, what a joke).

BTW after 6 years my current pension is in 3, not 4 figures, so treat Cameron's numbers with some suspicion. Why is the burden of deficit reduction falling on the least equipped to pay for it - across the board? And why are we giving money away to those who already have it,  David Hartnett ?

I'm on strike because the education system and my income are unreasonably threatened by a bunch of crooks Slack-line, and they'll lie to you as often as they'll lie to me. Constantly.

[Stu Littlefair]

Rich - Fair enough. I guess it depends on what you think about collective action  in general.

One thing to think about; in the US middle incomes have not risen at all in the last 20 years. This is a period where GDP has increased 50% and pay for the rich has increased over 30%. Things are better in the UK, but  a similar pattern is true.

A lot of this is because collective bargaining is out of favour - labour is "weak" at the moment. So companies increase efficiency and profits, but little of this wealth is ever seen by the poor and middle class.

It has been argued that this is the root cause of the west's decline and the financial crisis. With rising living costs and stagnant wages, a worker's only option is to borrow more or reduce his standard of living. If everyone borrows too much, well, we've seen what happens then. And we're seeing what happens now when everyone reduces their standard of living; growth disappears as consumers stop spending.

For this reason I generally support strikes if the cause is just - I don't see that the economy is served by a labour movement that is too weak.

[fried]

I'm sorry, but of course striking inconveniences the government, if it didn't they wouldn't spend as much time and money arguing against it.

I've worked in both the private and the public sector and in my experience people are extremely reluctant to strike, and only when they feel they have no choice is this option taken.

This has been the largest strike since 1979 and as such can be taken as the proverbial 'canary in the mine' for peoples' general opinion as to the state of the nation.

The opinion that I've heard a lot today that a one-day strike won't change anything since noone will notice, or that evidently we don't need unions anymore has obviously been made ridiculous by the simple fact that people are prepared to go out onto the steets to voice their opinions.

[granticus]

As I'm sure you're all aware this strike is not just teachers with potentially quite healthy pensions at retirement, it includes all kinds of professions and people that work for local government etc.  Some of the worst hit by proposed pension changes will be those on the lowest wages that work hard doing shitty jobs in the public sector.

This all comes the day after billionaire George anounced further 'austerity measures' extending for longer, resulting in more job losses (than predicted) in the public sector.  The situation within the public sector is extremely tense, rumour mills are grinding away, morale is withering and the knives are being sharpened for 2012/2013 cuts. 

I used my legal right and I withdrew my labour today because of this poorly justified attack on our T&Cs.

[mrjonathanr]

I know of one TA who is looking to change to a nearer school: when their car-share partner leaves the petrol cost will become unaffordable. Why should they take a 3% pay cut when the largesse of tax write-offs to the very rich is measured in billions?

[IanP]

So in summary, are we saying

- its true that the public sector pension scheme is sustainable, in the sense that there's enough money in the scheme as it stands.

And, based on these facts people argue that they shouldn't strike? I find that pretty gobsmacking. OK, public sector pensions are the envy of many in the private sector, but surely the answer to this is to improve the private sector pensions?

Nobody has answered my question re whether public sectors workers getting employer contributions in the order of 4 - 8% of salary greater than private sector workers is 'sustainable'.  Obviously leaving things as they are means they will continue to get this additional contribution going forwards and it appears unarguable that there are pressures on public sector funding in all areas with the current state of public finances.

On the second pont of improving private sector pensions I can't imagine that increasing company contributions by 4%+ (how many billions a year is that?!) is a likely option.

We live longer - how can we expect to retire at the same age as our parents without either contributing significantly more or having less money?

[Oldmanmatt]

What is happening, public and private; is not right.
What option do people have, except striking? How can anyone influence their own future, if they have no way to make their point. It's not as if we can have an election tomorrow (and would any other party have any more empathy?).
Public sector covers a huge sphere and I think we would all be sorry to see a fully privatised society (take a look at your utility bills or try living somewhere without state medicine).
No, on balance; I support the strike.
And JR.. Sorry for that rant, it just annoys me...

[mrjonathanr]

Nobody has answered my question re whether public sectors workers getting employer contributions in the order of 4 - 8% of salary greater than private sector workers is 'sustainable'.  Obviously leaving things as they are means they will continue to get this additional contribution going forwards and it appears unarguable that there are pressures on public sector funding in all areas with the current state of public finances.

On the second pont of improving private sector pensions I can't imagine that increasing company contributions by 4%+ (how many billions a year is that?!) is a likely option.

The need to review all pensions is obvious enough. That's not quite what this administration is doing.

Revenue is not being sought from all possible contributors and lower paid and public sector workers are being aggressively penalised. I believe the government's strategy is relentlessly dishonest. It should be resisted for those reasons.

A proper review of pensions, including the universal pension, should be initiated. There's pain ahead, but let it be the product of honest debate and the path to an improved and equitable system. The misery of retirement looming for many in the private sector is not a reason to blindly push the public sector down too, it's reason to properly tackle the problem.

[tomtom]

So in summary, are we saying

- its true that the public sector pension scheme is sustainable, in the sense that there's enough money in the scheme as it stands.

And, based on these facts people argue that they shouldn't strike? I find that pretty gobsmacking. OK, public sector pensions are the envy of many in the private sector, but surely the answer to this is to improve the private sector pensions?

Nobody has answered my question re whether public sectors workers getting employer contributions in the order of 4 - 8% of salary greater than private sector workers is 'sustainable'.  Obviously leaving things as they are means they will continue to get this additional contribution going forwards and it appears unarguable that there are pressures on public sector funding in all areas with the current state of public finances.

On the second pont of improving private sector pensions I can't imagine that increasing company contributions by 4%+ (how many billions a year is that?!) is a likely option.

We live longer - how can we expect to retire at the same age as our parents without either contributing significantly more or having less money?

I believe the term used for the increased employers contribution is 'deferred salary'... As in you get less now but more in the long term. Public sector wages were/are/soon will be at this rate, lower than their private sector equivalents etc.. And this was part of the payback.... Thats what I've been told not necessarily fully believe..

[Stu Littlefair]

IanP - the question of what is sustainable is a difficult one. One way or another, old people need enough money to live. That means a pension which supports them.

The money for that has to come from somewhere. You totally reject increasing employer contributions in the private sector, yet the alternative is for the employee to shoulder the burden. Either way, it's money taken out of the economy, with all that implies.

What is unsustainable is the fact that many private sector workers have NO pension provision and most have pensions which will be insufficient. Unless we want to simply cull old people, we're spending money now that we need to save until later. Thats unsustainable.

As to the implied position you take that public sector workers should contribute to austerity, well they already are. Their wages will drop in real terms by a similar amount to the private sector (albeit slightly more slowly), they have seen and will see massive redundancies. According to the IFS they can expect this to continue for two years into the NEXT parliament, well after growth has returned to the private sector.

All this is necessary. I suspect the unions will even accept a deal with two of the three government proposals included (they already have conceded moving from RPI to CPI). However, it is just wrong to hit them with a triple whammy of paying more, working longer and getting less at the end.

I had a look on the pensions calculator. A "typical" 30 yr old schoolteacher loses 3% on their salary, works 3 years longer, and gets £6000/yr less for their sacrifice. No wonder they're on strike.

[slackline]

...and teachers are striking aren't they?

I thought they were striking because they've got to pay a bit more and work a bit longer, but then......so does everyone else.  Its a simple self-evident fact {etc}

I suspect I may be confused by the points tomtom is getting at. 

Slack-line, I agree with your last point. I mostly agree with what Tomtom has posted, which has never happened to me before, tbh. Try this:

Thanks for the perspective there JR, I clearly misinterpreted what tomtom had written, and as I wrote need to educate myself a bit more about the issues, and your post and others in this thread have helped greatly, thank you all.

I personally don't envy teachers at all and think that most work damn hard at a difficult job as it has always been patently obvious that they have to put in a lot more hours than they are contracted to do (that and the fact I've no interest in teaching as an activity in and of itself as I remember being at secondary school and a large proportion of other kids at the time having no interest or desire to actually learn whilst at school and just generally dicking around and being disruptive making it hard for teachers to actually do what they've been employed to do).

I've never agreed with the gov't letting off companies who owe large tax bills, but the issue of academy's isn't one I've even given any consideration to as its of zero relevance to me (being childless), another area I've not bothered to inform myself about as there are only so many hours in each day.  That said I disagree with the privatisation of education (and of course healthcare) at any level, as its a 'service' that should be run for its own intrinsic benefit to society and not to turn a profit.

It isn't any surprise that a financial incentive is required to entice staff in any line of work, although there is already variation in the standards of those employed as nurses and teachers (personally I disagree with league tables by which hospitals and schools are ranked, funnel plots are far fairer means of assessing variation in performance, but I digress).  I guess if there is a defecit of applicants then employers would have to revise what they are offering when they can't recruit enough people (and they couple of grand that was being offered to new maths/science teachers was a piss-take).


The issue of having to work at a job that you may not be physically suited for is a wider issue that an aging society will have to address.  I doubt my mechanic mate is going to be able to lie around under cars in winter fixing them, or hoist engines out when he's 60, let alone 65 or 67.  There are all walks of life where this will be a problem and the government/society will have to address this.


I rarely believe much of what the government says, particularly the statistics which are spouted out, often without context or any explanation of how they're derived.  I find the aforementioned Factcheck and Fullfact.org to be useful in this regard.  Personally I'm pretty disenfranchised with democracy in this country, it doesn't work fairly at all and has little value as its all just petty bickering, opposing the other parties just because they're the opposition and when one team does get into power it just spends its time undoing the last parties policies and whatever else it can to get re-elected, rather than using evidence as a basis for policies.

I'm still not sure whether I support the strikes now (as I don't think its necessarily the biggest impact that can be made and massively inconveniences others, alternatives might be working to rule), but I do understand more about the issues that have pushed people to strike and have some empathy with that.