Get away from my pension.

[convert]

Why the bitterness towards public sector workers, who do a fantastic job for little in return? There is enough for everyone in this country, it's just that our government prefer to let the most lie in the hands of the few, because they belong to the 'few'. This is why British workers are at the bottom of the pile, instead of all supporting each other, like they do in France, they bicker and are full of bitterness and are divided, so they are easy pickings for treacherous governments such as this.

 

No bitterness at all. Just a healthy dose of realism. As for the rewards in the public sector being little. You're havin' a giraffe mate.

 

My Wife works in the public sector, so any changes would affect us.

 

However as many have pointed out on here, final salary schemes are no longer affordable.

 

You really think that there is enough for everyone in this country?

 

If so why is our national debt so large?

 

I'll tell you why, it's because the last administration ****** it all up the wall on a public sector that we couldn't afford even in the boom years.

 

As for British workers being divided; well I remember when they were last united in the 70's and 80's, look where that got them.

[convert]

I think the people of this country should beware of this 'divide and conquer' attitude being whipped up by a largely right wing media, (Murdoch and his cronies.)

It is being used to divert attention away from from where the big money is really being hoarded.

 

It only takes a bit of judicious digging on the internet to discover all manner of schemes and scandals that never get into the regular media.

 

As someone else has said on another thread, this Government is the first to have to run alongside an active internet with its relative freedom of information.

We should use it to challenge received orthodoxy, and question what we are being told, and realise how we are being manipulated.

 

Let's face it, for example, the expenses scandal hasn't gone away (and look how hard they tried to cover that up,) and we haven't even started looking into the European Parliament expenses - does anybody think we're getting value for money?

 

A couple of questions.

 

What is the total cost of MP's expenses?

 

What is the total cost of paying public sector pensions?

[Wildcat]

No bitterness at all. Just a healthy dose of realism. As for the rewards in the public sector being little. You're havin' a giraffe mate.

 

My Wife works in the public sector, so any changes would affect us.

 

However as many have pointed out on here, final salary schemes are no longer affordable.

 

You really think that there is enough for everyone in this country?

 

If so why is our national debt so large?

 

I'll tell you why, it's because the last administration ****** it all up the wall on a public sector that we couldn't afford even in the boom years.

 

As for British workers being divided; well I remember when they were last united in the 70's and 80's, look where that got them.

 

I am not sure which area of the public sector your partner works, but if it is the Civil Service the price she pays for her pension is significantly lower pay:

 

From Incomes Data Services, the experts on pay:

 

* Administrative officers across the civil service delivering a range of services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports are paid £4,608 (21%) less than their colleagues doing comparable jobs in the private sector. Compared to the rest of the public sector the gap is £4,045 (19%) and for the financial sector the figure is £3,330 (16%).

* Executive officers who typically work in a supervisory role or a job which requires a vocational qualification are paid £4,783 (18%) less than the private sector and £3,945 (15%) less than the financial sector. Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £4,503 (17%).

* Higher executive officers who manage teams of people are paid £5,338 (16%) less than their counterparts in the financial sector and £4,305 (13%) less than those working in the private sector. Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £1,873 (6%).

* Administrative assistants who typically undertake clerical duties such as processing benefit claims, tax credits and self assessment forms earn £979 (6.5%) less than the private sector and £572 (3.6%) less than the rest of the public sector.

 

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/FA6EFBE0-1760-41D8-817FACE6DDED4482

 

The reality for the Civil Service and the rest of the Public sector is that Pensions are deferred pay.

 

Across the public sector pay deals are half those of the private sector and with many areas having faced pay restraints for 3 years or more to say that public sector worker's have escaped the effects of the recession (caused by the banks not Gordon Brown) is the fantasy land.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6446DE20100505

 

The reason that the Express and ohers give a different story is they are distorting public sector pay figures with the inclusion of the "nationalised" banks pay figures or using average pay figures which don't account for the equivalence of the work.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-earnings-data/

 

Another myth is that public sector workers, work shorter hours one reason for this is that there are more part time workers in the public sector another contributor to that myth is the amount of unpaid overtime being ignored from the calculations.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/

 

Bristol University has calculated the public sector does 120 million hours of unpaid overtime a year, equivalent to 60,000 jobs.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945348.html

 

What we are seeing is the Tories doing what they have always done, look to the poor to pay for the excesses of the rich.

[milquetoast1]

The major problem with public sector pension funds is the open ended funding requirement of defined benefit schemes. You say your employer pays 9% of your salary, if it were fixed at that level it would probably be manageable, but it isn't and to be honest I'd be surprised if it were that low in order to provide the benefits it needs to, although I know some public service employers are finally placing a cap on their maximum contributions.

 

Final salary pension schemes are prohibitively expensive because the employer is having to provide a guarantee of pension benefits based on income and time served. By removing the guarantee element, the schemes become more affordable.

 

You say that you paid 9% year in year out, even when times were tough? Well I and may others have done the same but into defined contribution schemes, and I've seen the real value of my pension fund fall by about 20% in recent years (with no input or guarantee from an employer either).

 

Your fund and contributions paid and accumulated to date, are ring fenced against the vagaries of investment performance, prevailing interest rates and inflation..I'd say you'd done pretty well so far sibon!

This is the point, well made, by boyfriday.

 

When I started work 30 years ago, private sector pension schemes typically expected the employees to contribute 6% and the employer to chip in about 11%. As annuity rates came down many employers have got the employees to chip in more, chip in more themselves, or most likely close the scheme down.

 

This all kicked off in the mid 90's to be honest, about the same time the MPs voted for a dramatic increase in their own pensions. Around that time my company closed the pension scheme to new members. A short time later, my company got the pension members to agree to move their own contributions from 6% to 7.5% and fix their benefits to RPI rather salary inflation. What the employees do not know is that their employer's contributions were moved up to 18%, then 22%, then 25%, then 28%, and for the last couple of years and the foreseeable future have been 33% of the employees salaries.

 

This is clearly unsustainable. It makes it harder for us to compete, increasing the risk of failure, and it also means the employees are subject to heightened risks from their company's failure.

 

Unfortunately, the time has come for public sector employees to share some of these risks.

[Wildcat]

This is the point, well made, by boyfriday.

 

When I started work 30 years ago, private sector pension schemes typically expected the employees to contribute 6% and chip in about 11%. As annuity rates came down many employers have got the employees to chip in more, chip in more themselves, or most likely close the scheme down.

 

This all kicked off in the mid 90's to be honest, about the same time the MPs voted for a dramatic increase in their own pensions. Around that time my company closed the pension scheme to new members. A short time later, my company got the pension members to agree to move their own contributions from 6% to 7.5% and fix their benefits to RPI rather salary inflation. What the employees do not know is that their employer's contributions were moved up to 18%, then 22%, then 25%, then 28%, and for the last couple of years and the foreseeable future have been 33% of the employees salaries.

 

This is clearly unsustainable. It makes it harder for us to compete, increasing the risk of failure, and it also means the employees are subject to heightened risks from their company's failure.

 

Unfortunately, the time has come for public sector employees to share some of these risks.

 

The public sector does by having reduced pay, indeed the public sector lost pace with earnings in the private sector since the 80s.

[milquetoast1]

Bristol University has calculated the public sector does 120 million hours of unpaid overtime a year, equivalent to 60,000 jobs.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945348.html

 

6m people are employed in the public sector, and Bristol university has calculated that they all work through one of their lunch hours once a fortnight. I'm breaking up inside.

[boyfriday]

Around that time my company closed the pension scheme to new members. A short time later, my company got the pension members to agree to move their own contributions from 6% to 7.5% and fix their benefits to RPI rather salary inflation. What the employees do not know is that their employer's contributions were moved up to 18%, then 22%, then 25%, then 28%, and for the last couple of years and the foreseeable future have been 33% of the employees salaries.

That's spot on and the crux of the issue that most beneficiaries of final salary schemes are unaware of-the employers actual contribution.

 

I recently had a conversation with a mate who's a GP who was moaning about her position with regards to income and her FS pension.

 

After we'd done some back of a beer mat calculations it turned out the pension fund required to pay her pension benefits if she were in a private pension scheme, would be £2.5 million, imagine that for every doctor, consultant and senior manager in the NHS alone!

 

This is clearly unsustainable. It makes it harder for us to compete, increasing the risk of failure, and it also means the employees are subject to heightened risks from their company's failure.

Indeed, in fact one of the reasons the Royal Mail is such an unattractive business right now is because of the huge funding deficit that the pension scheme is carrying.

[convert]

I am not sure which area of the public sector your partner works, but if it is the Civil Service the price she pays for her pension is significantly lower pay:

 

From Incomes Data Services, the experts on pay:

 

 

 

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/FA6EFBE0-1760-41D8-817FACE6DDED4482

 

The reality for the Civil Service and the rest of the Public sector is that Pensions are deferred pay.

 

Across the public sector pay deals are half those of the private sector and with many areas having faced pay restraints for 3 years or more to say that public sector worker's have escaped the effects of the recession (caused by the banks not Gordon Brown) is the fantasy land.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6446DE20100505

 

The reason that the Express and ohers give a different story is they are distorting public sector pay figures with the inclusion of the "nationalised" banks pay figures or using average pay figures which don't account for the equivalence of the work.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-earnings-data/

 

Another myth is that public sector workers, work shorter hours one reason for this is that there are more part time workers in the public sector another contributor to that myth is the amount of unpaid overtime being ignored from the calculations.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/

 

Bristol University has calculated the public sector does 120 million hours of unpaid overtime a year, equivalent to 60,000 jobs.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945348.html

 

What we are seeing is the Tories doing what they have always done, look to the poor to pay for the excesses of the rich.

 

First point. She's my Wife not my partner.

 

The sector she works in has a no dismissal policy, and allows it's workers 6 months off sick on full pay (which a substantial percentage of them use).

 

In my office (200+ people) No one works part time; in hers (80 odd people) at least 10 work part time.

 

 

I've not had a pay rise in over 2 years, in fact my take home pay has reduced by over £150 per month.

 

She has had a small payrise each year.

 

She gets 33 days annual leave (as do those who take six months sick!), I get 25.

 

In reality, not in some concocted study, the Public sector have had it too easy for too long. With the previous Labore administration pouring money they didn't have into a 'big state' system that we simply can't afford.

 

We couldn't afford it in the boom years, and we can't afford it now.

 

I'd suggest a 5% pay cut for ALL public sector employees, an increase in the contributions they have to make towards any final salary pension, and a drstic slimming down of the bloated civil service.

[Michael_W]

The cost of Public sector pensions is unsustainable, many workers in the private sector can't afford to put anything into a pension of their own, the 'public sector' pensions some employees off early and handsomely while many private sector workers will have to hope and pray they can remain employed until they drop !

[alchresearch]

As for the rewards in the public sector being little. You're havin' a giraffe mate.

 

Perhaps you could list the rewards that they get then?

 

I note you've mentioned some benefits your wife gets but that doesn't apply to all public sector workers - I certainly don't get anything other than basic sick pay, 23 days holiday, no pay rises for the last three years, dismissal just like anywhere else.