Reply to: Public sector strikes

[Fungus]

This argument held water at some stage however the billions upon billions pumped into Public Services over the last few years have largely gone on pay rises for these civil servants so their current rates of pay have caught up or exceeded those in the private sector so its the civil servants that are after and are in all likelihood going to get JAM TODAY AND JAM TOMORROW.

My advice for anyone on the supply side of money for public services is to get on the consumer side i.e. start working for the corporation aka HMG.

There's another argument too. When you start investing in pensions, and other savings schemes such as an ISA, you do so on the basis of the current pension regulations. However, the government can and do change pension regulations without regard to existing plans. If they don't suit you, that's tough, as you can't withdraw your pension fund, and re-invest it elsewhere. So the changes to public sector workers pensions is not unique to them.

This government are causing serious damage to pensions and discouraging people from saving for old age, which is especially serious because of the pension time bomb that awaits us in 20 years time. Ah yes, the country will be 70% Polish by then, so they will support us. Except they will have pissed off 5 years before, and gone back to a newly wealthy Poland.

Public sector workers are now a large and powerful body thanks to the huge expansion in numbers. For that reason they are starting to flex their muscles, in the same way the miners did in the Jurassic or Cretaceous era that some of us dinosaurs can still remember.

[vista]

Maybe

What these "clowns" are striking for is to have their agreements honoured. They make the quite reasonable point that, when you join local government, the retirement benefits are an essential part of the package: part of the reason why you accept lower rates of pay than the private sector.

Whether or not the package is overly generous, is not the point: a deal was made, and the unions want it to be kept for existing workers, who made that deal.

Wish I could say I'm stunned that a load of people on this board would prefer to renege on the deal if there was a few quid in it for them.

This argument held water at some stage however the billions upon billions pumped into Public Services over the last few years have largely gone on pay rises for these civil servants so their current rates of pay have caught up or exceeded those in the private sector so its the civil servants that are after and are in all likelihood going to get JAM TODAY AND JAM TOMORROW.

My advice for anyone on the supply side of money for public services is to get on the consumer side i.e. start working for the corporation aka HMG.

[expat]

I think you're all missing the point. If the government is moving the retirement age to 70 for everybody in the private sector, why should anybody be exempt ?

I think you are confusing state pension and employment pension. These are really 2 very different things.

State pension is given by the government to people. That's not a deal made by contract, it's just a part of how the government of the day runs social services. If they're moving the qualifying age to 69 or whatever, they're doing that for everybody.

Employment pension is provided by your employer. If you work for IBM then it's paid by your employer IBM: it's part of the employment contract between you and your employer IBM. If you work for the government, same thing: it's it's paid by your employer he government: it's part of the employment contract between you and your employer the government.

Now if an employer proposes to renege on the deal, the workers may object to their bosses trying to abandon an agreement. That's what's happening here.

And we (here) object to that because we are the employer, we made the deal, but now we can see that we can claw back some money from what we've committed to, if we just break our contract.

[ASB]

I think you're all missing the point. If the government is moving the retirement age to 70 for everybody in the private sector, why should anybody be exempt ?

The Gov is not moving the retirement age to 70. It is changing the conditions at which you qualify for a full state pension. This has never been under any sort of contract.

[Fungus]

Chuck the dog a bone Fungus...

But you'd already licked it clean ...

Well my late mother retired at 60 from nursing and received £14K per year pension, which I think is pretty damn good. I think she was only nursing for about 25 years too. I'm glad she got such a nice wad, as it made sure she could live properly, but I'm not keen on my paying for public sector workers to retire at 60. Part of the problem is that it puts pressure on the private sector.

An in addition, the public sector pensions used to be, and might still be, final salary pensions. So what my mother did was work long hours in her final few years, to ensure that she got a good pension. I'm sure all these whiney public sector workers do likewise.

[ratewhore]

Given your in depth discussion and analysis, there's not much more to say on the matter.

Fungus

Chuck the dog a bone Fungus...

[partimer]

fairness

I think you're all missing the point. If the government is moving the retirement age to 70 for everybody in the private sector, why should anybody be exempt ?
Nearly all this pension problems (tax raid) were created by the government and their so called solutions are not helping but making it worse.

Telling one bunch that they can retire at 60 and another bunch that they can't, isn't exactly fair is it ? The only real solution is that everybody (policitians included, male or female, firemen or army, etc.) should retire at 65. One fixed retirement age for everybody with no exceptions. Either keep the current rules with no change or bring in an universal retirement age for everybody with no exceptions. It's only fair ...

It's nice when you can vote for your own pay rise and pension, like members of the cabinet !
(Your only hope now is to become a MP.)

[Fungus]

Lazy b@stards - discuss...

Given your in depth discussion and analysis, there's not much more to say on the matter.

Fungus

[expat]

Can somebody explain this 85 rule?

If the sum of your age at retirement and your number of years' service is at least 85, you qualify for a full pension.

That ensures that even those who start their career late have a chance of a full pension. It is, in essence, part of the deal that is made with a public sector worker: after all, someone who joins a private company at 40 with 15 years' experience would expect to start on a higher pay; someone who joins government at that age will start at the botton of the pay scale, and would otherwise never catch up.

[Churchill]

Can somebody explain this 85 rule?

[expat]

I will be running plan B - An internet based business I have been running in parallel to contracting for some time.

Also have £250K in savings and no mortgage and villa paid for. Which was nice.

So it's goodbye IT contracting. You can send it all to India now.

HTH

Congratulations.

Do you think all those grasping overpaid local government workers will do the same? No, I suppose not.

[milanbenes]

Good for you

Milan.

[DimPrawn]

I will be running plan B - An internet based business I have been running in parallel to contracting for some time.

Also have £250K in savings and no mortgage and villa paid for. Which was nice.

So it's goodbye IT contracting. You can send it all to India now.

HTH

[expat]

There you go! Contract defined.
Calling it a contribution doesnt make it a contribution any more than calling radiation magic moon beams makes it any less dangerous (NTNOCN).
Last time I looked a contribution was voluntary.

Then you looked in the wrong place.

HTH

[milanbenes]

nice one

congratulations

will you be working over there - what doing ?

or contracting away from home ?

Milan.