Public Sector Pensions

[RadiusBPO]

If there was scope for EVERYBODY to leave the shitty jobs behind and move up who would do the shitty jobs that you rely on?

Just because you have the brains/acumen/opportunities/drive/commitment or whatever it takes to make you successful in what you do doesn't mean everybody has.
If they did the country would fall apart as nobody would be prepared to do the low paid work that's needed to keep the countries infrastructure working.

I'm not knocking your success, just the notion you have that if you can do it so can everybody else.

Well i think there is scope for everyone to do what they want. Some people like the shitty jobs as they take no stress home or because they are generally shift work so they get 4-7 days off at a time. If that is what they want then fine.

Kind of OT now Sorry!

 

[Consultant sea]

If there was scope for EVERYBODY to leave the shitty jobs behind and move up who would do the shitty jobs that you rely on?

Just because you have the brains/acumen/opportunities/drive/commitment or whatever it takes to make you successful in what you do doesn't mean everybody has.
If they did the country would fall apart as nobody would be prepared to do the low paid work that's needed to keep the countries infrastructure working.

I'm not knocking your success, just the notion you have that if you can do it so can everybody else.

Usually low skilled jobs are recycled. The workers move up the ladder or move on. In my experience of employing people over the years in low skilled jobs the best ones where the ones who don't stay. They are usually very ambitious, hard working and fast learners and only take the job as a stepping stone. People with little ambition in the job I found not as productive as they have no goals or plans and don't strive to do better all the time. This is just my own experience.

 

[GeorgeStrait]

This may have been mentioned, I can't be bothered to read through all the posts though!

We pay these people a salary, then they moan about the pensions we pay them as well. They think they contribute towards their own pensions, but where is that money coming from, it isn't from their own efforts by a long way.

All public sector workers should have to work for a year or two in the private sector first, just as an eye opener. And teachers shouldn't teach if they haven't "done", theory is of no value without experience.

Yes, I'm grumpy tonight

 

[Podge]

Usually low skilled jobs are recycled. The workers move up the ladder or move on. In my experience of employing people over the years in low skilled jobs the best ones where the ones who don't stay. They are usually very ambitious, hard working and fast learners and only take the job as a stepping stone. People with little ambition in the job I found not as productive as they have no goals or plans and don't strive to do better all the time. This is just my own experience.

You miss the point. I'm not saying the opportunities are not there for people to progress if they wish, just that not everybody is able to take advantage of the opportunities, for a multitude of reasons. One of which may, I agree, be choice.

 

[Podge]

This may have been mentioned, I can't be bothered to read through all the posts though!

We pay these people a salary, then they moan about the pensions we pay them as well. They think they contribute towards their own pensions, but where is that money coming from, it isn't from their own efforts by a long way.

All public sector workers should have to work for a year or two in the private sector first, just as an eye opener. And teachers shouldn't teach if they haven't "done", theory is of no value without experience.

Yes, I'm grumpy tonight

How do you gain experience if you can't teach without it?

 

[GeorgeStrait]

How do you gain experience if you can't teach without it?

You misunderstand me (and don't piss me off tonight, I'm really grumpy ). How can say a careers teacher teach on a subject they have no experience of? What I'm saying is do all your teacher training (oxymoron there!), but also work in the real word for a bit before you try and teach our kids. School - college - university - teacher training - teacher, where is you real life experience in that?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

This may have been mentioned, I can't be bothered to read through all the posts though!

Classy.

You're telling us you don't care about what we think, but you think we should have to listen to your thoughts?

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If there was scope for EVERYBODY to leave the shitty jobs behind and move up who would do the shitty jobs that you rely on?

People starting out?

Steve

 

[GeorgeStrait]

Classy.

You're telling us you don't care about what we think, but you think we should have to listen to your thoughts?

Steve

Not at all, I just thought I would throw in a thought that went with the thread title which seemed to have sod all to do with the last page of replies

I had read the first few pages yesterday though, so wasn't coming to the table totally uninformed.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

and apparently this is what the lady from UNISON says about some public sector workers.....

"Many public sector workers do very physically demanding jobs - expecting paramedics to carry patients into an ambulance at 66, 67 or even 68 is a danger to themselves and patients, and the same is true for nurses, midwives, bin men, road cleaners and many more"

The comments re. paramedics, nurses and midwives I can understand - bin men and road cleaners?????

Would someone still be emptying the bins after 30 or 40 years?

Wouldn't they have moved up the ladder to some extent?

If not, I'd be interested in knowing how much a bin man would earn after 30 years in the job, compared to a colleague who had been doing it for just one year.

In a fair world, wouldn't they earn basically the same?

It's an unskilled job and the more experienced guy has clearly shown no initiative and no suitability for greater responsibility.

I suspect, however, that because it's public sector the experienced guy would have had 30 years of undeserved pay increases and earning quite a decent wage.

Am I being unfair in assuming this?

Steve

 

[GeorgeStrait]

I suspect, however, that because it's public sector the experienced guy would have had 30 years of undeserved pay increases and earning quite a decent wage.

Am I being unfair in assuming this?

Steve

No you are spot on, and make a valid point, why does some bin man with 30 years "experience" get paid so much more than someone doing the same job for a year?

 

[RedEvo]

Listening to Any Questions today a union leader was making the point (and I use the term loosely) that lowly public sector workers shouldn't be paying for mistakes made by bankers.

This is in reference to the economic crisis we are in.

However, the public sector pensions crisis pre-dates the financial crisis by quite some time. It's been brewing for a generation. The debate on this subject in general (not in this forum) is almost devoid of even the simplest of facts.

d

 

[Matt1959]

Would someone still be emptying the bins after 30 or 40 years?

Wouldn't they have moved up the ladder to some extent?

If not, I'd be interested in knowing how much a bin man would earn after 30 years in the job, compared to a colleague who had been doing it for just one year.

In a fair world, wouldn't they earn basically the same?

It's an unskilled job and the more experienced guy has clearly shown no initiative and no suitability for greater responsibility.

I suspect, however, that because it's public sector the experienced guy would have had 30 years of undeserved pay increases and earning quite a decent wage.

Am I being unfair in assuming this?

Steve

I can see your point - unlikely that there will be many binmen ending their career at age 65 and unlikely that many would enter this job in their 60's so whats the woman on about Re. bin men wages - I would think there are pay scales irrelevant of age for this sort of job...

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Listening to Any Questions today a union leader was making the point (and I use the term loosely) that lowly public sector workers shouldn't be paying for mistakes made by bankers.

Maybe they should, however, pay for funding the political party whose mistakes allowed the mistakes of the bankers?

This sort of nonsense rationalisation really gets my goat. Why should public sector workers be the one segment of society that doesn't suffer because of this problem?

I never voted Labour, I didn't take out a mortgage I couldn't afford and I'm not a banker, but I'm losing out due to the low interest rates I'm getting on my savings.

So maybe this union muppet can explain why I should be paying for the financial crisis, when his Labour-funding, Labour-voting, Brown-supporting members shouldn't?

Steve

 

[Podge]

I don't know what we're talking about bin men for, hasn't this service been contracted out already to the private sector in most councils?

 

If people want a retirement where they have a lot of money they should pay for it themselves, the gov or their company shouldn't have to contribute IMO.

Well if the government did not take half of everyones earnings I suspect a lot more would be happy to do so.

You can not absolve the government of responsibility at the prices they charge.

Earl

 

[MASSEY]

The fact of the matter is they are too excessive. If the people working in the public sector don't like the reform they should sod off else where

It's not up to them to say "all the good people will go" because this won't be the case, most people hate swapping jobs and very often there is nothing better to swap to.

 

[Matt1959]

The fact of the matter is they are too excessive. If the people working in the public sector don't like the reform they should sod off else where

It's not up to them to say "all the good people will go" because this won't be the case, most people hate swapping jobs and very often there is nothing better to swap to.

playing devils advocate here - you could argue that these public sector people have signed up on the basis of the benefits offered at the time and now the goal posts are being shifted I'm sure there will be talk of "if I'd known how this would turn out, I'd never have taken the job"

 

[RedEvo]

The public sector unions are talking big in the news tonight. I fear they are not going to get the support of the people especially as their arguments against the proposed changes are without merit.

Not one union spokes person has said anything that I've heard other than emotional and factually incorrect clap trap. They need to address the questions raised and the points made in this thread for starters.

d

 

[RadiusBPO]

playing devils advocate here - you could argue that these public sector people have signed up on the basis of the benefits offered at the time and now the goal posts are being shifted I'm sure there will be talk of "if I'd known how this would turn out, I'd never have taken the job"

That is probably true. I've talked to a lot of people who were looking for a council job, even if it was a low one just because of the pensions being offered.

 

[RedEvo]

playing devils advocate here - you could argue that these public sector people have signed up on the basis of the benefits offered at the time and now the goal posts are being shifted I'm sure there will be talk of "if I'd known how this would turn out, I'd never have taken the job"

Like private sector workers you mean? We have to suck it up but they think theirs should be ring fenced. I don't think it's a credible argument and once you consider the range of other benefits they get such as full sick pay etc, again paid for by tax payers, it's all starting to unravel.

d

 

playing devils advocate here - you could argue that these public sector people have signed up on the basis of the benefits offered at the time and now the goal posts are being shifted I'm sure there will be talk of "if I'd known how this would turn out, I'd never have taken the job"

I expect the million or so in the private sector who have lost there jobs may also feel that way.

Point is that pensions should be equal for a given earnings ,whether in the private or public arena.

Having a government putting foreward the idea that public sector workers are more valuable is ludicrous,having them and us key workers is just not on.

Earl

Earl

 

[Podge]

We can't blame the public sector for defending their corner (even if it is indefensible) we would do just the same in their situation.

 

[Matt1959]

We can't blame the public sector for defending their corner (even if it is indefensible) we would do just the same in their situation.

I personally wouldnt but I know what you mean...

 

[Will-man Rodders]

Happy to give you details as to how a teacher's pension works:

Contributions:

Teacher pays 6.4% of their salary as a pension contribution, the employer pays 14.1%

Benefits:

The pension can be drawn from age 60 (it can be drawn from 55, but is actuarially reduced in this case, at quite punitive rates, to keep things simple we'll not look at this scenario.) For each year that contributions have been made, the pensioner recieves 1/80 x their final salary, plus a one off lump sum of (number years of contributions/80) x final salary.

So, as an example, a teacher who retires, earning £30,000 in their final year of service, and who has taught for 28 years would recieve:

28/80 x 30,000 = £10,500 pa pension, plus a one off lump sum of £10,500

A teacher earning £30,000, with 38 years of service (contributions) i.e. started teaching on qualification at age 22 and retires at 60 would recieve

38/30,000 = £14,250 pa + a lump sum of £10,500

The above is based on those who joined the scheme before January 2007 (I think)

Jeff

Just to point out that while the figues quoted above are correct (for the pension and lumps um the teacher will recieve) they do not show:

-- a surviving spouse receives a pension of up-to 50% of the teachers pension until their death;

-- any surviving minor child will receive a pension of up to 25% of the deceased teacher's pension until they [the child] attain age 18

-- all pensions are index-linked

-- if a teacher retires early through ill-health they can qualify for an enhanced teachers pension i.e. the number of years already worked by the teacher is increased; I cannot find exact details of how much now but it used to be doubled in some cases, and by adding 7 years on in others

-- if a teacher dies while employed there is 'death in service' payment


Many public sector schemes have similar benefits. In the NHS there are a few specific occupations that have enhanced accrual i.e. the employer is given 2-years worked for everuy one year actually worked once they attain age 50 (though these pensions are dying out).

Members of the Fire Brigade and Police contribute more themselves than teachers, as does their employer. Their benefits reflect this in that they can (or perhaps that should read 'could') retire at 55.

 

[Esk247]

...don't forget those who don't have a company pension to fall back on.

In the news it's all about Basic Pension and your Company Pension added on. As mentioned, this COULD lead up to £370 a week in total pension. However, not everyone stays with the same company or organisation for life and many companies don't have pension policies in place, as well as those who are self employed. So they fall back on the state only pension and any savings they may have (sometimes leading to the sale of the family home and downsizing to release some cash for a more comfortable retirement).

To me, the system is totally unfair and biased. It needs ironing out but i don't think protests and walk outs are going to help anyone, it needs a plan of action not just spitting dummies out all over the place like we do every year. (and that gets us no where..look at petrol prices).

p.s. i'm in my 20s so i dont have much of a clue about pensions other than there won't be any pensions when i 'retire', i'll have to stick the money under the mattress and hope that the 'guvmint' don't come and steal it from me to pay for a space programme for Africa.

 

[RedEvo]

Maybe UKBF should be the voice of the ordinary man and woman in the private sector who broadly speaking think it's time for the public sector to embrace a dose of reality. The media is full of the big bad government this and the wonderful deserving public sector that.

Decent hard working private sector employees and employers are sick of paying over the odds for the public sector but our voice isn't being heard. I'm sure the BBC would welcome an approach from UKBF pointing out that many in the private sector are debating this subject and looking for answers from the public sector.

The public sector unions have stormed the moral high ground on this virtually unchallenged and it's not in the interests of the country for the debate to be polarised in this way.

It's worth noting that Greece's current problems have in part been brought about by a runaway public sector.

d

 

[andygambles]

IMHO this has just revealed pensions for what they are. A giant ponzi scheme.

 

[Podge]

All I see is a lot of envy from people not getting as much out of the system as others are.
Is it really the state of the economy (and it is in a state) you are worried about?

 

[RedEvo]

IMHO this has just revealed pensions for what they are. A giant ponzi scheme.

I think there is an element of that.

d

 

All I see is a lot of envy from people not getting as much out of the system as others are.
Is it really the state of the economy (and it is in a state) you are worried about?

Of course there is an element of envy,but there is also the fact that every working person in Britain contributes £1.334 a year towards public service pensions.

Hence the less well off are possibly a bit peeved about giving there hard earned to the better off sections of society.

Earl

 

[RedEvo]

All I see is a lot of envy from people not getting as much out of the system as others are.
Is it really the state of the economy (and it is in a state) you are worried about?

Then I'd suggest you read the threads again. Nobody is suggesting public sector workers shouldn't get a pension. What's being suggested is the inequity of a public sector worker putting £1 in and getting £1 + £x back where x is paid for by people in the private sector who themselves couldn't afford the payments to secure a similar pension.

Nobody in this forum or any other, including the established BBC debate programs, has brought forward a credible argument. There stance is simply that it's always been that way and shouldn't change.

They (the union leaders) have even tried to argue that their members are not responsible for the economic crisis and shouldn't have their pensions changed when they know full well the pensions crisis pre-dates the banking collapse and has been ignored by successive governments.

d

 

[Gord]

I'm sure the BBC would welcome an approach from UKBF pointing out that many in the private sector are debating this subject and looking for answers from the public sector.

Turkeys( Publicly funded BBC) are not going going to start voting for Xmas anytime soon.

The mainstream BBC news is a lame IMHO and simply acts as a platform for self - serving politicians ( of all colours ) and Unions to deliver disingenuous messages. Because most of it goes unchallenged, this increases the time, trouble, effort and payback for getting more disingenuous coverage, and so the bullsh*t cycle propagates.

I am convinced, by the way, that the BBC carries a left wing bias, but the unchallenged, unexamined claims and commentary generally applies to all groups.
It's simply poor quality news reporting.

 

[MASSEY]

I never voted Labour, I didn't take out a mortgage I couldn't afford and I'm not a banker, but I'm losing out due to the low interest rates I'm getting on my savings.

I see what you are saying but the majority of the country are still feeling the pinch, i know a lot of people that would be screwed if rates were to rise.

I guess the better off just need to just take it on the chin and have a heart.

Something these public sector workers could do with understanding rather than trying to bleed the system.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I spoke to a big union guy, I pointed out that in my local authority , 1 in 6 workers is on the sick at any given time. 25% of the workers take enhanced pensions due to early retirement ill health (then remain on the sick as that is not means tested), 30% of council tax currently goes to subsidise the authorities pensions black hole.

I asked him where does he think the money comes from to fund all of this? His reply was. "I don't care, not my problem".. I then told him that in reality I am paying MORE to fund local authority pensions than my own, he replied 2 that's your problem not mine".

At that point I wanted to rip his head off, but kept calm.

I TRULY believe that we should make them all redundent, and outsource ALL the work, the lot, every last job.

lets see how they get on in the real world.

We don't NEED to employ this many people, we should outsource the lot.

It is abhorrent, how unequal the benefits are between the public and private sector. The public sector terms and conditions of employment need to be brought into real world levels.

 

[Esk247]

If you want to see waste...take a trip round your local Council Offices and watch 'Life CoOrdinators' and 'Buildings Operative Inspectors' tidying paper and watering flowers.

 

[Connexions]

Totally agree with OWG here. It's disgusting the gap between public and private sector pensions.

There is very little public backing for the incoming strikes, the unions know this just as david cameron does.

Also, the figures for those on sick in our council and NHS are disgracefull. In most cases they can be off work sick and still get full pay.

If i am off sick (private sector) I get SSP. It's laughable the difference in working conditions.

Typical public sector pension is up to 15% employer contribution....mine is 2.5%. Make it fair and privatise the lot.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I see what you are saying but the majority of the country are still feeling the pinch, i know a lot of people that would be screwed if rates were to rise.

I guess the better off just need to just take it on the chin and have a heart.

I agree. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

(As are millions of other people.)

There's no point in having a good rate of interest if the economy collapses and your money loses value.

Something these public sector workers could do with understanding rather than trying to bleed the system.

Exactly. They want everyone else to take the hit, but for them to avoid it.

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I spoke to a big union guy, I pointed out that in my local authority , 1 in 6 workers is on the sick at any given time.

That's really, really high.

According to the ONS, the % of people taking sick time is 2.5%. For the public sector, it's 3.1%.

Steve

 

[RedEvo]

That's really, really high.

According to the ONS, the % of people taking sick time is 2.5%. For the public sector, it's 3.1%.

Steve

I'd be interested to see the stats on the average time a private sector worker is off sick compared to a public sector worker.

d