Guest sibon Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Agreed, however... ...I very much doubt this situation (all fair that it is to you and the taxpayers) is the rule, whereby the current issue (which, as you acknowledge, simply has to be tackled). When you consider the public sector funding 'issues' in places like, say, Greece and Ireland, not forgetting France (that timebomb has yet to go off, and it'll be a loud one), thank God the Gvt is making a start. Might not be going the best way about it, but it really a case of inaction is worse than any action. I've no doubt that some public sector pensions need reviewing. My own was reviewed five years ago and devalued by 15%. There are plenty of other public sector pensions that are sustainable. Of course, as the number of public sector employees falls, this picture will alter. If the government want a sensible consultation, they need to start being honest about the situation. By lumping together Teachers, NHS, Civil Service and Armed Forces pensions, they are deliberately clouding the issue. Armed forces pensions are non-contributory. Teachers pensions require a 15% contribution. Civil Service pensions have differing rates of contribution. It isn't really fair to lump all of these together. It is politically convenient though. Slash the pensions of public servants in the name of austerity whilst deliberately misleading the public about the nature of the problem. In the meantime, we continue to strut around playing at being the world's policeman. If we can afford our warmongering, we can surely afford pensions for nurses, doctors, teachers and firemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I somehow doubt that my "Management" will be trying to outsource me. They will be manning the barricades too. Does this mean the people that voted for the strike will try to prevent those that didn’t vote to strike from going to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffieldS8 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Police officers can't strike though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strikerPaul Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Name me any profession or establishment where the public one is either better paid or cheaper? Few examples for you Private solicitor 70k vs Government CPS solicitor 40k Public health club vs private health club NHS vs paying private health care How much do you think a private company would charge to do the job of a fire fighter or police officer? Scaffolders charge £250 just to put some poles up, so what costs would putting a burning house out? Without the public sector the country would stop operating. Quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Does this mean the people that voted for the strike will try to prevent those that didn’t vote to strike from going to work? No. It means that for the first time in their history, the NAHT have balloted for strike action. Nobody stops anyone from going to work if they choose to. That is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Name me any profession or establishment where the public one is either better paid or cheaper? Pretty much all of them Public sector pay still rising faster than in the private sector New research from Policy Exchange reveals that the gap between public sector and private sector pay is still rising. Despite private sector workers losing out during the recession, public sector workers have seen their advantage grow (May 9th) The new analysis shows that despite the coalition’s attempt at pay restraint, public sector salaries continued to rise as late as December 2010. That was despite pay for many workers in the private sector actually falling even before inflation is included – meaning that many private sector workers will have seen drastic cuts in their standard of living. This study shows that the public sector 'premium' - the additional pay a typical public sector worker receives over a private sector worker - is now up to 35% calculated on hourly pay. For typical annual pay the premium is up to 16%. This new research updates previous work from Policy Exchange which showed that 2009 was the first year in which average pay for public sector workers as a whole was now on average higher than for all private sector workers. Other key findings include: • Public sector pay premiums rose in every part of the earnings distribution in 2010 apart from at the very top. Pay shrank (even in cash terms) for the bottom 30% of private sector workers. • The public sector pay gap continued to increase up to December 2010 in spite of pay freezes. This is true when you consider the gap between the typical (median) hourly pay of a public and private sector worker, and also when accounting for differences in the composition of the workforces. • Public sector incomes have grown at double the rate of the private sector since 2002. • Since the start of the recession, the hourly pay premium for the typical public sector worker has increased. After taking into account differences like age, experience and qualifications, the hourly pay premium for a public sector worker was 8.8% as of December 2010. This almost doubled from 4.3% two years earlier. • The public sector pay premium for a typical worker increase in every region of the UK between 2009 and 2010 (except Yorkshire). As in 2009, the largest premium was found in Wales and then the North West. • In Scotland, the North East, the North West and Wales, a typical public worker can expect to be paid a fifth more than the typical private sector worker. • The only group where private sector pay is actually higher than the public sector is for the top 10% of earners. Policy Exchange director Neil O’Brien said the figures showed that the big public sector unions were risking their members’ jobs by continuing to push for big pay increases. He said: “Public sector pay has got hugely out of control. There is pressure on budgets like never before because of the deficit. If the unions want to preserve their members’ jobs they have to realise that pay is an issue which will have to be looked at. “This is an issue of fairness. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect private sector workers to make all the sacrifices. We need a much better-balanced system of public pay, with organisations like the NHS and schools given greater freedom to vary pay so they can attract staff but also get value for the taxpayer.” The report makes a series of recommendations, including: • Local pay-bargaining and an end to national strike ballots. This would create a situation in which it might make more sense for local union officials to seek better deals than the national one could provide. This would allow us to follow the example of Sweden, which combines organisational-level negotiation of terms and conditions with workplace or individual negotiation of pay. • Replace the two-year pay freeze on individual salaries with a freeze in the total pay bill for public sector organisations. This would allow different tradeoffs to be made between headcount reductions and pay cuts in different regions and sectors, saving jobs and promoting efficiency. • Reforming public sector pensions. This would involve imposing an increased public sector pensions levy (as in Ireland) and transitioning new public sector workers onto defined contribution pensions, as in the private sector. Source: Policy Exchange http://www.govtoday.co.uk/index.php/Finance/public-sector-pay-still-rising-faster-than-in-the-private-sector.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 You've assumed a lot there based on a couple of comments. I maintain that most public sector works get a good deal compared to most private sector workers in average jobs. I'll probably be lucky to get as much out of my pension as I personally pay into it. That will be the same for a lot of private sector workers. No-one denies that private sector workers are up against it, but the argument that everyone should have it as badly as the worst off is a bit of an odd one don't you think? Perhaps you're on minimum wage and have really bad working conditions, but if not there are people who are doing worse than you. Does that mean you should be dragged down to their level? I don't see why that would be a good thing. The reason, as far as I can see, that private sector workers have had it rougher than public sector in some senses is that public sector workers have tended to organise together in unions, less so in the private sector. That's a choice to a large extent, and there are plenty of executives and shareholders doing very nicely while you and your colleagues in the private sector get shafted. Judging from a lot of the comments on various sites, a lot of people in the private sector just seem defeated. I've seen comments along the lines of 'I'm resigned to being in poverty in retirement so I don't see why people in the public sector should be any different'. What an attitude! Chinese workers living in a one party totalitarian state are successfully striking for better wages and conditions - surely if they can manage it then people in the UK can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 No. It means that for the first time in their history, the NAHT have balloted for strike action. Nobody stops anyone from going to work if they choose to. That is illegal. Let’s hope that the majority that didn’t vote or voted against the strike will go to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Let’s hope that the majority that didn’t vote or voted against the strike will go to work. Why? If they want to strike they should be able to. We don't live in a totalitarian state... do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Strange that just trying to defend the status quo, to tread water and see contracts honoured becomes bullying. Your agenda led mind is plain to see. If the union members were on top salaries and just wanted more then you may be right. You do realise this is Sheffield Forum and not Tunbridge Wells Forum? Where I live has got nothing to do with it. Not everyone in Sheffield is a working class labourite. I dont think this forum is one sided is it? I've worked in both public and private sectors so I have authority from both sides. I was even made redundant from the civil service. BUT - I still cannot see why people in the public sector feel they are being so hard done by to a point of wanting to strike. What's happening is nothing new to most who work in the private sector and its been that way for years. I really dont think that the middle of a recession is a smart time to be striking. ANY job can and would be outsourced if the management or government felt is was a good decision. Why are people not happy with the simple fact they have a job and income - lots of people dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.