Firemen strike over gold plated pensions

[angos]

The problem as I see it is that governments couldn't afford to pay the public sector the wage they are being paid, they got round this in part by giving them IOU's in the form of pension contribution, these contribution haven't been put in a pot, they are just promises to pay out in the future, which are to be funded by the next generation. The people that made the promises were never going to be the people that had to fulfill them, so should the younger generation fulfill the promises made by the older generation, or should the older generation just receive less than they were promised.

[Doom]

The problem as I see it is that governments couldn't afford to pay the public sector the wage they are being paid, they got round this in part by giving them IOU's in the form of pension contribution, these contribution haven't been put in a pot, they are just promises to pay out in the future, which are to be funded by the next generation. The people that made the promises were never going to be the people that had to fulfill them, so should the younger generation fulfill the promises made by the older generation, or should the older generation just receive less than they were promised.

 

Whilst I understand what you're saying, isn't that unfair?

 

For example someone may have worked for 20 years in the NHS as an accountant earning £30k/year, when their equivalents in the Prvate Sector are earning £40k/year.

 

They may well have turned down job offers to work in the Private Sector, the reason being that although they earn less, they have the sweetener of other benefits, a good pension being one of them.

 

I think it's morally wrong now to turn around 20 years later and take away those sweeteners that they've earned over the last 20 years.

 

I'd certainly agree with changing their pension terms and conditions going forward, but not what has already been banked.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[angos]

Whilst I understand what you're saying, isn't that unfair?

 

For example someone may have worked for 20 years in the NHS as an accountant earning £30k/year, when their equivalents in the Prvate Sector are earning £40k/year.

 

They may well have turned down job offers to work in the Private Sector, the reason being that although they earn less, they have the sweetener of other benefits, a good pension being one of them.

 

I think it's morally wrong now to turn around 20 years later and take away those sweeteners that they've earned over the last 20 years.

 

I'd certainly agree with changing their pension terms and conditions going forward, but not what has already been banked.

 

Regards

 

Doom

 

Yes its unfair which ever way they do it, its unfair to the people that have worked and expect a pension of a set size, but its also unfair to the generation that are expected to fund it. So should it be unfair to the generation that elected the government which made the promises or unfair to the generation that had no say in the matter because they wasn't born.

 

Bare in mind many people pay some of their wage into private pensions and they may not perform as well as expected, so they might have to spend their retirement with less money than expected. Pension prevision is a bit of a gamble and the public sector should have to take the same gamble as the rest of us.

[truman]

For example someone may have worked for 20 years in the NHS as an accountant earning £30k/year, when their equivalents in the Prvate Sector are earning £40k/year.

 

 

Would that be the case though?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay

[Doom]

Would that be the case though?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/public-private-sector-pay

 

I've no idea, but the point is people who have worked in the public sector may well have turned down better opportunitites elsewhere because of the sweeteners they signed up to when they joined the public sector.

 

Whilst I agree that the whole pension system in the public sector is no longer affordable because of increased life expectancy, it's morally wrong to take away their pensions that have been earned over the last 20 years.

 

Any amendment to pensions has to be from this date onwards, those that have already been earned should not be touched.

 

As someone who has never worked in the public sector it would be better for me financially if they did cut their pensions, but it doesn't rest easy with me. What next, taking money off people with savings to help pay off the national debt?

 

Regards

 

Doom

[WeX]

The fact that people don't make arrangements for a pension doesn't somehow make a pension from employment comparable with the state pension. The two are completely unrelated.

 

not really. the state pension is what previous generations contributed to and lived off in later life. now people are being told to have a backup pension too.

 

How much does a fire fighter personally contribute to their pension and how much does a member of the public need to contribute to receive an equivalent pension at the same age?

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2013 at 11:30 ----------

 

I've no idea, but the point is people who have worked in the public sector may well have turned down better opportunitites elsewhere because of the sweeteners they signed up to when they joined the public sector.

 

You wrote before that an equivalent accountant would be paid less in the NHS compared to the private sector (without any evidence), but as soon as someone points out the average pay of the public sector is greater than that of the private sector your response is "I've no idea"!

 

That appears to be correct, you do have no idea as you are just regurgitating old mistruth's. The ONS stats show that the average public sector worker receives an hourly wage rate that is 8% higher than that of the average private sector worker.

 

Now you are forgetting your earlier comment and claiming the private secrete has better perks. In my experience of both the private and public sectors, the only place I received any kind of perk was in the public sector.

 

Then when you factor in the generous pensions and earlier retirement ages. The public sector have it by far better than the private sector and this is why us in the private sector (especially those of us who have previously working in the public sector) do not buy their complainants and moans when their perks are reigned back.

 

If the public sector pay conditions were so bad, no one would work there, but as they have the highest number of professional people in their ranks, the fact is the sector is capable of attracting so many people goes to show the conditions are by far more attractive than some would like to let on.

[lotar]

I dont think the public have much sympathy for them now, they work on the side taking other peoples work, dont really do a deal in the way of putting fires out ( apart from cars and wheelie bins ) most builders do a 4 year apprentiship whilst firemen do short courses and work on the side for peanuts, taking work from reputable people. i have a mate whos a firemen and he says they do jack all day... so why do they apply for the job if the money is crap ?? it is a semi skilled job and i think they get paid plenty for what they actually do, I have no sympathy for them unless they stop moonlighting and stick to putting fires out ( and fitting smoke alarms ) they kill the private builder.. its simple.. if the conditions and pay are bad in any job, leave and do something better..

[Doom]

You wrote before that an equivalent accountant would be paid less in the NHS compared to the private sector (without any evidence), but as soon as someone points out the average pay of the public sector is greater than that of the private sector your response is "I've no idea"!

 

That appears to be correct, you do have no idea as you are just regurgitating old mistruth's. The ONS stats show that the average public sector worker receives an hourly wage rate that is 8% higher than that of the average private sector worker.

 

I think you need to look back at my initial post, which stated:

 

For example someone may have worked for 20 years in the NHS as an accountant earning £30k/year, when their equivalents in the Prvate Sector are earning £40k/year.

 

I used it as an example and used the words 'someone may have worked'.

 

I didn't say it was a fact or an average across the board, I was suggesting an individual (that's 1 person) could well have turned down a better paid job because of the other sweeteners in the public sector.

 

I don't have any individual examples, but out of all the millions of people who work in the public sector, don't you think some may have turned down better paid jobs to remain where they are because of the pension?

 

Regards

 

Doom

[cuttsie]

I dont think the public have much sympathy for them now, they work on the side taking other peoples work, dont really do a deal in the way of putting fires out ( apart from cars and wheelie bins ) most builders do a 4 year apprentiship whilst firemen do short courses and work on the side for peanuts, taking work from reputable people. i have a mate whos a firemen and he says they do jack all day... so why do they apply for the job if the money is crap ?? it is a semi skilled job and i think they get paid plenty for what they actually do, I have no sympathy for them unless they stop moonlighting and stick to putting fires out ( and fitting smoke alarms ) they kill the private builder.. its simple.. if the conditions and pay are bad in any job, leave and do something better..

Fully agree with that! I used to get sick of em moonlighting in the building trade while genuine building workers were struggling to find work.

[harvey19]

This type of pension paying a percentage of the salary were introduced when the salaries earned by those in such jobs was low.

Over the years the salaries have risen therefore increasing the financial reward the pension attracts by the unchanged percentage calculation.