Public Sector Strikes

[eastbank]

Yes if you are talking right at the top end, a small percentage, but in general these "rich work shy loafers" work very hard for low pay.

 

If I can get one of the made up jobs, I will come back and apologise. Until then I maintain you are talking ploppy poo

 

 

so the public sector are on the minimum wage.....get no goverment pension...get no sick money when off work....get no perks.....don't think so....if they are so hard done by....why do it.....

[sharrowman]

Quit beefing about being hard done too in the private sector and go on strike to improve your terms and conditions

[Fishcake]

so the public sector are on the minimum wage.....get no goverment pension...get no sick money when off work....get no perks.....don't think so....if they are so hard done by....why do it.....

 

are you for real? I didn't say they don't get sick pay!?!?!? Are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it or do you believe what you are saying? Where does your information come from?

 

I have worked in some crap jobs since leaving school but why do them? Hmmm a tricky one that.................oh right to get paid!

 

Yes we get an amazing pension..........oh wait we don't.

 

So where do your facts come from Easty? Seriously do you know first hand? Have you read them? Did a man down the working mens tell you it?

 

I will pass on your words of wisdom to the millions of workers who aren't completely happy with their working conditions.

 

"Eastbank says don't do it if you don't like it"

 

Great advice

[Keith Rich]

Who,in government,is unelected? Who gave the money to the banks?

 

 

At the last election no party won an outright majority. The only reason the Nasty Party had the biggest share of the vote was because of a hate campaign directed against Gordon Brown by the right wing press. (Mail,Sun,Express,Times, Torygraph)

 

Yes Labour bailed out the banks. But if the banks had not been saved it would not only have meant economic disaster for the country but also for anyone who had savings in theses banks. Gordon Brown led the way in this and other countries followed including the USA. The fact that these banks are now back in profit proves he took the right decisions.

[SHYTOT]

so the public sector are on the minimum wage.....get no goverment pension...get no sick money when off work....get no perks.....don't think so....if they are so hard done by....why do it.....

 

My brother was a teacher. He had a 6 week holiday every summer and around 4 weeks every Christmas plus several others in between. He onl contibuted to his pension based on his salary at the time but became a headmaster at age 50 when his pay topped £60K/annum. When he retired aged 58 he received a pension of around 3/4 of his final headmaster's salary. So his pension is over £35K, which is more than he was paid for much of his career.

Life expectancy would be 84 years so he can expect to draw this pension for 26 years. However when he reaches 65 he will also be eligible for a state pension as well. It's a tough life.

[Cynic]

Why do threads about controversial issues always end up with a few people taking extreme views that aren't based on accurate/current facts? It kills the discussions.

[L00b]

That is a point that I'm trying to make, although quite indelicately.

I didn't think so Quite enjoying this discussion, sibon

All the pension funds are different and operate to different rules, so trying to discuss them as a single entity doesn't really get us very far.

That is agreed but (sorry if I'm belabouring )since the strike is now about more than (teachers') pensions, is it not the case that discussing pensions (and public sector pay/perks/etc.) as a single entity is the strikers' own doing?

Absolutely. It is a pretty good deal. I've no argument with that. That is why I'm keen to hang onto it.

I'm not seeing where, in the document you linked, there was any mention or suggestion that existing pension arrangements at the time would be worsened?

 

Only new entrants to teachers' pension schemes would have (ever-so-slightly) less favourable terms. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been the norm in both the public and private sector for decades, to gradually accomodate a rapidly-increasing life expectancy within demographically-stagnant societies. I.e., the communicating vases principle in full effect (with ref to my earlier post).

 

Can someone therefore kindly explain to me (s-l-o-w-l-y, English is not my first language, and I understand quick but I need explaining a long time ): how do current proposals worsen ongoing public sector pension deals (i.e. established/signed for deals, for current employees-not-new-ones)?

 

EDIT: Aside from the RPI/CPI thing, that is (since it affects all equally).

[Rupert_Baehr]

My brother was a teacher. He had a 6 week holiday every summer and around 4 weeks every Christmas plus several others in between...

 

How many hours a week did he work? Did he ever take children away on school trips during his holidays? When did he do his lesson planning? - Did he have to prepare materials for the next term during those holidays? I don't know what the figures are today, but a few years ago it was estimated that the average working week of a teacher during term-time was somewhere between 55 and 60 hours.

 

Assuming your brother only worked during term-time, then - if he worked for 38 weeks a year - he would put in between 2090 and 2280 hours per annum.

 

Somebody who is not a teacher, who gets 4 weeks (plus Bank holidays - a total of about 6 weeks off a year) who works 37.5 hours a week would do 1725 hours work per annum - Rather less than the number done by a teacher.

 

He onl contibuted to his pension based on his salary at the time but became a headmaster at age 50 when his pay topped £60K/annum.

 

Do you know anybody who has a pension which relies on a fixed contribution throughout the whole of their working life? Don't most people (those who pay into pension schemes) pay a percentage of their income?

 

When he retired aged 58 he received a pension of around 3/4 of his final headmaster's salary. So his pension is over £35K, which is more than he was paid for much of his career.

 

That's life. Beer costs rather more now than it did during most of his career - along with most other things.

 

If he got a 75% pension for (about) 35-37 years work, why do other teachers get 1/80th of their final salary for each year worked? - Those on that scheme would get 43.75% - 46.25%. Rather less than 75% you say your brother is getting.

 

Life expectancy would be 84 years so he can expect to draw this pension for 26 years. However when he reaches 65 he will also be eligible for a state pension as well. It's a tough life.

 

Do teachers have a different life expectancy to other people? If not, surely other people will be drawing their pensions until they are 84, too?

 

Not only did your brother pay into the teachers' pension scheme, he also had to pay into the state pension scheme. He paid into two schemes. If he paid into the state scheme, why shouldn't he draw a state pension?

 

Presumably, when you reach 65 (or a lower age, if you're female) you too will get a state pension.

 

If being a teacher is such a good deal, why do so many teachers leave and find other jobs? Why do we read about 'teacher shortages' and 'retention problems in the teaching profession'?

[Guest sibon]

I didn't think so Quite enjoying this discussion, sibon

 

Me too. I think we are doing our bit to improve the signal/noise ratio on this thread.

 

Only new entrants to teachers' pension schemes would have (ever-so-slightly) less favourable terms. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been the norm in both the public and private sector for decades, to gradually accomodate a rapidly-increasing life expectancy within demographically-stagnant societies. I.e., the communicating vases principle in full effect (with ref to my earlier post).

 

Can someone therefore kindly explain to me (s-l-o-w-l-y, English is not my first language, and I understand quick but I need explaining a long time ): how do current proposals worsen ongoing public sector pension deals (i.e. established/signed for deals, for current employees-not-new-ones)?

 

EDIT: Aside from the RPI/CPI thing, that is (since it affects all equally).

 

Pardon me for referring specifically to the previous changes to the TPS, but they are illustrative. All members of the TPS receive benefits based upon the new scheme from 2013. So, in my case about 60% of my final pension (when I get there) will be calculated under the pre 2006 rules. 40% will be calculated under the new (or subsequent) rules. So, my final pension will be less than I expected. (Please don't cry for me, I've made alternative arrangements as I don't intend to let the government work me into an early grave. )

 

I believe that is also a recommendation in the Hutton report that existing pension scheme members should be moved onto the new arrangements, so they will all lose out.

[crookesey]

This thread is a total waste of time, the public sector workers are too selfish or stupid, perhaps both, to work out that we have all been landed in the brown stuff by the last administration.

 

I just wish that I could meet a public sector worker who actually realises that he/she is in the mix with rest of us. They have very little credibility left these days, striking will put the final nail in their coffin.