That's not really what's going on with the pensions, they liked the conditions enough at the time they were employed, what they don't like is an attempt to change those conditions which were agreed to. It's a contract, both parties had consideration of the terms, it's wrong to try and force through a change of them.
30th of June strikes.
- Thread starter LeJosh
- Start date
But it does mean it is not the same as throwing away any previous contributions as you alluded to in your post.
However with people living longer pensions are getting more expensive so the options are get less, employee pays more or employer pays more or a combination of all three.
I would also like to make sure that everybody is aware of what taking legal, union sanctioned strike action actually means, in reality.
It does not mean taking a day off work. It means not working for a day, not being paid (though whether an employer chooses to reflect this will vary depending on their payroll department), it normally means taking turns to man an official picket line. And it also means ensuring that you catch up on the work that you did not do during that time, at a later date.
When you have a potential 750,000 people of your countries workforce agreeing to take strike action, surely, as a government you have to take a step-back and say "hmmm maybe we're pushing the people to breaking point". What I find interesting is that for such a fragile and weak organisation, our coalition government don't seem to be aware they were (inadvertently) elected by many of the people they are now seemingly ignoring, and they can be undone by those same people.
For those saying "just sack em", are you honestly that unable to show empathy? What if your employer turned round tomorrow and said that your pension scheme was kaputt, all of the money you had paid in yourself over the years was being massively devalued and the scheme you agreed to as part of your contract was effectively being withdrawn. Would you meekly say "oh ok", would you instantly start looking for a new job, or would you first of all make a fuss? Because making a fuss, en-mass, is nearly always done through strike-action once unions and industry leaders have sat down to talk (which they have already done).
It does not mean taking a day off work. It means not working for a day, not being paid (though whether an employer chooses to reflect this will vary depending on their payroll department), it normally means taking turns to man an official picket line. And it also means ensuring that you catch up on the work that you did not do during that time, at a later date.
When you have a potential 750,000 people of your countries workforce agreeing to take strike action, surely, as a government you have to take a step-back and say "hmmm maybe we're pushing the people to breaking point". What I find interesting is that for such a fragile and weak organisation, our coalition government don't seem to be aware they were (inadvertently) elected by many of the people they are now seemingly ignoring, and they can be undone by those same people.
For those saying "just sack em", are you honestly that unable to show empathy? What if your employer turned round tomorrow and said that your pension scheme was kaputt, all of the money you had paid in yourself over the years was being massively devalued and the scheme you agreed to as part of your contract was effectively being withdrawn. Would you meekly say "oh ok", would you instantly start looking for a new job, or would you first of all make a fuss? Because making a fuss, en-mass, is nearly always done through strike-action once unions and industry leaders have sat down to talk (which they have already done).
Um, a lot of the private ones have gone to pot years ago? And I gather anything paid in already is being ring fenced, so its more of a case of adjusting things from now due to people living longer. Of course no-one wants this if it happens to them, but things have to move on.
Why should my tax go towards supporting the continuation of an inflexible & outdated system? I don't have a freebie top up from the Gov, lots of free 'sick days', guaranteed pay rises no matter how well or poor I perform, living allowances, etc. I made arrangements for my retirement when I was in my early 20s, so I pay in a smaller amount over a longer period, on the basis that by the time I retire, I know the state pension will be pretty much non-existent any way.
Last edited:
Why did those who lost their pensions not make a fuss then? Or is it a case that those in private employment are simply not of the mentality that protecting what is theirs is important?
personally I'm in the University higher education sector, and only just entering into it from an employment perspective, so i will never see the pension schemes they are fighting for. However i fully support my potential future colleagues in their plight. They are having something taken away from them that was promised. They aren't large organisations, they are individuals. When an individuals assets are taken away they don't contract like a company, they end up unable to eat. Call that melodramatic if you wish but its a rounded simplification of the situation.
Also, I'm intrigued, if your taxes shouldn't go towards paying for workers within the public sector, i.e. those who do the jobs which facilitate the services that your taxes partly pay for, then who should they go towards? You say the system is unsustainable, then fine, it needs to be altered for the future, this has already happened. If I am to stay in the public sector and still have a pension I can actually live on, I need to look to private alternatives. But to take it away from those who were promised it is unfair, unjust and tbf basic lying.
if this government isn't careful they will go down in history much as the coalition Government of Germany did after the Great War...
You'll have to ask them - I'm sure they did, however private companies don't have the option of getting money from the tax payer to prop up their own schemes, so why would you want to make the company you work for suffer and potentially lay off staff to compensate?
I'd probably feel the same if I was them, however it has been a long time coming.
I meant my tax shouldn't prop up an old system, when it can be adjusted. I have no problem with paying tax for public services per se.
The problem is that in the case of higher education workers pensions there is a £17 billion difference between the assets/income in the pension fund and the promised expenditure on pensions. All the gov is trying to do is close the £17 billion deficit in the pension fund.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Were was the unions during the last govnerments policy of very low pay rises for the public sector and the introduction of tuition fees?
Because the private sector works on REAL economics! It is not backed by government and supported by the tax payer... If a business can not afford to pay a level of benefit then it either reduces those costs, makes people redundant or if its stupidly continues to pay then goes bust and EVERYONE losses their jobs..
Most private sector companies got rid of final salary schemes years ago, most private sector companies got rid of the sort of schemes the public sector are now being offered years ago.. most private sector business operate much worse schemes than what's now on offer to the public sector..
I can quite see that the public sector workers are upset about there pensions... hell I was upset when my final salary scheme was converted to a 4% employer contribution!! but frankly the economics of these schemes simply don't add up and I would much rather I kept my job... I can see very little sympathy coming from the general public for the unions when everyone else is making sacrifices and reducing there own standards of living...
It's odd isn't it that a complaint often heard is people in the private sector generalising public sector workers as having gold plated pensions. Yet it's ok for you to do the same..
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 1,785
- Location
- Cardiff-ish, Wales
Like the Bank system, for example. Oh wait ...
Having worked some years a go for a business that paid over 2 million "private sector" pensioners a week I can tell you that's by far the massive exception to the general rule..
We are talking about the top of the top... the 0.00001% not the whole sector...
And a ceo pension scheme is a good, and realistic, representation to bring to this debate
.I am not arguing that they did't do wrongs because clearly they did! BUT two wrongs don't make a right.. Public sector pensions need massive reform that can not be argued when you look at the assets of these schemes vs the expected payouts.
Of course it isn't true, just like it isn't true that the public sector all have gold plated pensions. There are a few elite rich that do in both sectors, but the average joe has, on average, a pretty average pension. I was just pointing out the fallacy of his argument.
I'd genuinely like to know how you'd propose to campaign for private sector pension reform. Come on, you're full of good ideas.
I was baiting slightly with my comment there admittedly, my point though is that whether the economics behind the pension scheme as it stood was flawed from the start or not, a government which is facing such wide scale strikes (and it really should be known that the majority of people don't want to strike, it's hard work to do legally, and contrary to many peoples beliefs, those in the public sector often hold quite a bit of pride in their work, they know that striking makes them unpopular), is a government that is unable to manage itself properly.
This isn't a problem that is just going to go away, the miscalculations have been solved for the future, and realistically, the current generation who are having their money taken away from them may have to concede they were victims of a huge mistake. However, at the moment, neither side is going to back down and its going to need the government to be the clever ones to try and find a way to soften the blow. They aren't doing that, they are staunchly telling people what they are going to lose and ignoring it when they push back.
This is going to get worse before it gets better, tough times ahead for everyone tbh.
This isn't a problem that is just going to go away, the miscalculations have been solved for the future, and realistically, the current generation who are having their money taken away from them may have to concede they were victims of a huge mistake. However, at the moment, neither side is going to back down and its going to need the government to be the clever ones to try and find a way to soften the blow. They aren't doing that, they are staunchly telling people what they are going to lose and ignoring it when they push back.
This is going to get worse before it gets better, tough times ahead for everyone tbh.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 27
It's interesting, for example with the NUT only 25% of the membership voted for a strike because 60% of the membership didn't even bother to vote yet they are all supposed to strike. There is also a lot of FUD about pension values etc.
I appreciate that it is a difficult time but there are too many who want to stir things up and it means a lot of people don't get objective (non agenda?) information, being made to react. This makes it hard for a logical ddiscussion between the sides.
I appreciate that it is a difficult time but there are too many who want to stir things up and it means a lot of people don't get objective (non agenda?) information, being made to react. This makes it hard for a logical ddiscussion between the sides.
Ignoring your nonsensical rhetoric aside for a moment, what do you plan to do when the "proletariat" overthrow the "bourgeoisie"?you certainly act like it
exactly the political system doesnt work, as people are being elected with hardly any turnout, but you cant then scald the unions for achieving a greater turnout.
your probably just jealous because daddy owns a business and doesnt like to see the workers gaining a bit of power
Marx said that the Proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and its about bloody time