30th of June strikes.
- Thread starter LeJosh
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
it is banned, but didnt stop us last time
its also a joke that police, military and firefighters are keeping a 60 retirement age but once again prison staff are forgotten about
Basically what my mate has texted back.
Legally can't strike but will anyway.
we know they havent got the room for 34,500 poa members lol
Sack them all then, I'm sure the state can find a new group of nutters to bully and abuse prisoners.
On the topic at hand, can anyone actually provide a reason, apart from an appeal to tradition fallacy, why all state workers should retire before the national retirement age, or why we should pay them very large pension entitlements? Pretty much everything issued by the trade unions consists of appeal to tradition so far. Incidentally, past contracts protect past earnings, not future ones, in employment law.
ooh they could put them all in prison...... oh wait....
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
60 year old police officers on the street Dolph?
I do agree that 55 should be kept as a retirement age for lower ranks. I also accept that my contributions, currently 11%, will go up in the current climate.
I do agree that 55 should be kept as a retirement age for lower ranks. I also accept that my contributions, currently 11%, will go up in the current climate.
I can see that some roles should be altered by exception, but that is not what is being protected at the moment.
Errrr no.
The scheme must not have commenced wind up before April 2005.
The schemes load poor funds into good funds in order that the Government itself does not have to foot the bill, although it is in effect a smudge anyway.
It loads burden onto prudent businesses. The weakest performing funds have to pay more, so they are themself in effect penalised.
The whole scheme is corrupted.
It should not be allowed, it is unfair and distorts competition.
I am suprised by your opinion and silence over the issue, to be frank.
Who says?
The public sector is not a larger problem. This is nonsense.
The nature of all funding is an issue.
Sack them all then, I'm sure the state can find a new group of nutters to bully and abuse prisoners.
My step father is PO. He served this country for 24 years in the Navy fighting for this country, he is a respectible and caring man who has difficulty in reconciling some of what he sees and has to deal with.
Your ignorance really knows no bound, and I have to wonder just how disgusting a personallity you must have in real life.
I bet you make friends really easily.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this, can anyone explain it better for me. I'm using rough estimates here;
So lets for argument sakes, say you started working at 20 earning £20k gross p.a., you work till 60, thats 40 years, let's assume a yearly pay rise of 2%. Over 40 years you pay into the pot 3.5% pension, working out at around £43.8k.
Your final salary after these 40 years of pay rises is just over £44k, lets assume your final salary pension is about a third, so around £13.4k, so the pot you've accured over fourty years is divisable by the pension you'll get bang on by 3, that's three years of drawing a pension out of your "pot" before it's dried up, after that it's coming out of public funds, and the pension you draw stays the same?
Is that something like how it currently works?
So lets for argument sakes, say you started working at 20 earning £20k gross p.a., you work till 60, thats 40 years, let's assume a yearly pay rise of 2%. Over 40 years you pay into the pot 3.5% pension, working out at around £43.8k.
Your final salary after these 40 years of pay rises is just over £44k, lets assume your final salary pension is about a third, so around £13.4k, so the pot you've accured over fourty years is divisable by the pension you'll get bang on by 3, that's three years of drawing a pension out of your "pot" before it's dried up, after that it's coming out of public funds, and the pension you draw stays the same?
Is that something like how it currently works?
Do I need to use sarcasm tags in future?
Yep, that's currently how it works.
I actually agree with you here, but you have to remember why the PPF was created following Brown's smash and grab raid of a couple of hundred billion and the subsequent consequences to private sector defined benefit pensions...
Public sector pension liabilities run to several trillion pounds. The costs of even the PPF protected funds doesn't even come close.
You could try I suppose, I doubt it would change your opinions or persona much. You rarely have anything nice to say about well anyone. We all have our political beliefs, but yours cover well everyone and certainly start to get more distasteful and fanatical when looking at social and employment demographics which you ideoligically disagree with.
If it isn't 99% of everyone is stupid, it's public sector workers are backwards and unviable, others are violent and bullies etc Stitch it all together and what have you got, someone who generalises like its going out of fashion. That's without touching on the poor etc. How can you blame me for picking up such an impression?
Do you know how small your little 'blame Labour' smash and grab really is in the larger scheme of things?
This is why on your intellectual level, I don't actually learn from you anymore. You narrow the whole problem down to a partisanship, either from uncertainty of the topic or a reluctance to discuss it.
Public and private sector liabilities are approximately similar.
PPF funds are still over all poorly performing.
In the interests of fairness, let's look at how private sector pensions work. Your employee starts work at 20 earning £20k a year and pays 3.5% into their pension pot. The employer pays a contribution as well, let's say double the employee contribution, 7% which means in your example he has a pension pot worth £131k at age 60. So that's 10 years of final salary pension not 3. The pension pot might be worth more or less as it's handed over to the City boys to play with and get rich off.
So if we are to force the public sector workers to have private sector pensions then in effect the first thing we have to do is give them all the equivalent of a 7% pay rise. Then you'll find middle managers in the public sector saying - hold on, I'm earning £40k a year with a crap pension while I could be earning £65k a year in the private sector with a crap pension. So we'll have an exodus of all the best public sector workers unless we give them an even bigger pay rise. Deficit anyone?
A reduction in the numbers of civil service middle managers? You say that as if it'd be a bad thing.
A reduction in the numbers of civil service middle managers? You say that as if it'd be a bad thing.
The Scottish government cut out 25% of the middle-high management out of the NHS and in turn gave Scotland free prescriptions instead with the efficiency savings.
This is what we need, Whitehall is unlikely to achieve it so quickly.
yeah you have to love dolph, for scalding people who generalise and then makes a massive generalisation about prison officers, double standards, I guess he is a tory so that comes with the territory, he will U turn next
I guess he is just jealous that there are some people in life that are prepared to stand up and not take the BS spouted by the government, all his posts basically support the ideological tory class war.
Anyway your step dad has probably had a hard time, witnessing horrific events, as most people in the job have, but yet we are going to get a kicking come retirement by not even being treated the same as police, fire and military, despite doing a similar job.