Public Sector Strikes

[G4Z]

The pensions are good, but they've already said that they need to lead by example and, after all, MPs are public sector workers too.

But if you think £65k is good, look at :-

- council senior managers, let alone Chief Execs
- Health Trust and Hospital Trust bosses
- university vice chancellors

and many, many more.

There are loads of those on £100k plus, and the chief execs and uni VCs are typically on £200k plus, and some on £300k plus. Many of them earn a LOT more than the Prime Minister, let alone a vanilla MP.

One of the points Hutton raises is that current public sector pension schemes benefit the very high earners far more than they do the average, let alone low earners. Hence the switch from final salary defined benefit to career average (CARE) defined benefit.

I quite agree mate, frankly I think there should be a salary cap in the public sector and I think 100k should be the absolute maximum you can earn if you are paid by the tax payer. I don't think we the tax payers see any benefit in paying out the large sums like we do to defence chiefs, lawyers, council CEO's and doctors. £100k is huge money, massive, a lot of these people are so greedy that they think it's nothing and that they are entitled to it. Well, if I were benevolent dictator there would be no bloody chance.

[roachcoach]

Actually I'm quite comfortable with [actual] doctors getting big money.


The other problem is well known fact that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

[Saracen]

Actually I'm quite comfortable with [actual] doctors getting big money.


The other problem is well known fact that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I have no problem in principle with people doing real jobs getting a viable wage, but whether you're a high-flying doctor, or a teacher or, frankly, the bloke that empties my bins, you're doing a real job. And yes, before someone points it out, I know a lot of bin-emptiers these days are private contractors, but contracted to the council and paid, albeit indirectly, by the tax-payer.

So I don't necessarily have a problem with doctors getting "big money" but when you're in a closed system and tax-payer funded, the tax-payer needs to get a fair value for money out of it.

So on doctors, I'd ask a couple of questions. First, does the average public sector doctor justify earning 4 times the national average wage? Second, given the substantial increase in doctor's pay in recent years due to contract changes, what enhanced value did the tax-payer get for a pay increase close to 50%, for some?

As with public sector pensions, there needs to be a balance between paying people a decent wage/pension, and getting value for money for tax-payers, and a fair deal.

[roachcoach]

I don't look too deeply into it, or rather I try not to.

For me it is a combination of several factors:
*It is a highly skilled profession
*There is a pretty limited talent pool for it
*The gruelling route to get there
*The necessity of the role
*Its fairly high stakes


Its just a personal opinion, I wouldn't be surprised to see few [if any] in agreement, I think they've earned it and continue to earn it a lot more than many other people at that kind of wage.


Value for money is an interesting concept, I doubt much done by central or local governments is "value" for money. Of course that's likely because I think they spend stupid money on stupid things that I disagree with. Which is why I try not to think about it too much

[TheAnimus]

Hrhrhrhr! I knew the 'stop bonuses' idea would get you. You select the item that will impact on you directly and selfishly object. Yet you instigate a ridiculously worded poll aimed at trivialising the concerns of millions of people who earn less than your annual bonus.

Actually no, being self employed I don't get any bonuses, I get most of the companies dividends, after core costs (such as staffing, and one of my highest overheads, software licenses) so I'd be completely missed by such a thing. However I do believe its a very good way to help motivate people.

You spent £6000 on flying lessons; isn't that more than the average public sector pension?

Not by a long shot. As was metnioned on Question Time (which is more frequently just people from the audiance trying to empart and awnser rather than ask a question!) a teacher on £32k per annum, will have a pension cost of £500k. Assume they work 42 years for it, and were on £32k all their life (this of course is not remotely true, but it will help balance out the compound intrest that would have accrued on their pensions, I could go off into a fuller discussion here, but beleive me this makes the figure conservative, we can run off into a full model if you wish) and the total amount is ~£12k per year. In other-words well over a third.

So in otherwords, learning to fly cost me, half as much as the pension contributions required per year for a teacher. Given that in the private sector the most employer contribution I've ever seen was 17% matching, I think their complaints about their contributions going up 3% are minor.

This is why us in the private sector, were all we have available is defined contribution, get pissed off with the extreme ignorance a lot of union members demonstrate towards the pensions, they have little idea of the costs, focus on affordability figures which are simply can we afford to service the debt

[TheAnimus]

As with public sector pensions, there needs to be a balance between paying people a decent wage/pension, and getting value for money for tax-payers, and a fair deal.

And ultimately this is the crux of the matter, In software for instance I've no problem with those who save often hundreds of thosands of pounds being paid inline with the contribution they make. I'd extend this too MPs too.

What I dislike is paying them an unknown sum. That is the problem with a lot of the defined benefit schemes, they are simple a huge risk, so therefore a large cost. If we paid an MP £100k pa, with a private sector style pension, they would probably cost the tax payer the same over their life. But better than that, we pay directly up front for their services when we want them. None of this labourite we'll pay it tomorrow, because this time next year, we'll be millionares milarky.

I also wouldn't say things are really bad, the weather in London today is loverly, but also we're not really facing any serious hardship, sure things are worse than they would have been if we had a cast iron rule about government borrowing and service contract costing, but we're OK, so long as we are all willing to except that what has been had previously is un-sustainable.

This is what gets my gander thou, all these oldies who've had a better lifestyle by piling the debt on to, well quite frankly people like me who are 26 and economically active, then having the audaciousness to strike about it...

[Blitzen]

I was at a seminar a few weeks back, and it was pointed out that in the near future (October rings a bell), that EVERYONE that earns a wage will have a deduction towards a pension taken from source if they have not already got one sorted out.

I am one of the lucky ones i think. I work for a pricate multi-national, and although i pay 7% of my gross, and can add AVC's, i am on a fianl salary pension. As it stands now, my monthly pension will be just under £2100 per month. I know that can change, but it makes me feel that much safer.
I will be able to retire when I am 55, and earlier if I sacrifice a certain percentage.

[santa claus]

This is what gets my gander thou, all these oldies who've had a better lifestyle by piling the debt on to, well quite frankly people like me who are 26 and economically active, then having the audaciousness to strike about it...

Would that be the same oldies who were working hard when you were still a twinkle in your father's eye? Y'know, the oldies that made it possible for you to go to uni to get a decent education. The ones that provided for you whilst you secured yourself a job and enabled you to be economically active. And now you object to a little giving back?

I was at a seminar a few weeks back, and it was pointed out that in the near future (October rings a bell), that EVERYONE that earns a wage will have a deduction towards a pension taken from source if they have not already got one sorted out.

I am one of the lucky ones i think. I work for a pricate multi-national, and although i pay 7% of my gross, and can add AVC's, i am on a fianl salary pension. As it stands now, my monthly pension will be just under £2100 per month. I know that can change, but it makes me feel that much safer.
I will be able to retire when I am 55, and earlier if I sacrifice a certain percentage.

Very nice too, and well done for making provision for yourself. Public Sector workers are striking to get under 50% of that kind of private deal so it blows the notion that public sector pensions are gold-plated out of the water.

It's pretty obvious that private sector workers who have not responsibly provided for themselves as you have, and as public sector workers have, are spitting bile that they will have to dip into their honeypot to look after themselves when they are older.

Suck it up.

[Saracen]

....

Very nice too, and well done for making provision for yourself. Public Sector workers are striking to get under 50% of that kind of private deal so it blows the notion that public sector pensions are gold-plated out of the water.

It's pretty obvious that private sector workers who have not responsibly provided for themselves as you have, and as public sector workers have, are spitting bile that they will have to dip into their honeypot to look after themselves when they are older.

Suck it up.

Can you clarify the "notion" of public sector pensions being gold-plated? I mean, who claimed it, and in what context?

It's something union leaders love to refer to because it, quite rightly, winds up people on modest pension levels which most, though by no means all, are. But what was meant? For example, Nick Clegg used that term (idiot that he is, he ought to have known better) but if you read his speech, he was not talking about the size of the pension, but the conditions in which it operates.

What people need to remember is that there's two main types of pensions in the public sector - funded, and unfunded (or pay-as-you-go).

In the funded types, employees pay in and those contributions buy assets, and the net value of those assets at any given time is what's used to pay out pension liabilities. That model is just like most private sector pensions. But the "pot" is subject to market forces, and is not certain at any projected point in time.

Then there's PAYG pensions, with 4 big ones in particular. There, employees contributions are used to pay current retirees liabilities, and there is no asset purchase going on. So it's not as if those employees are building a pot from which their pensions will be paid, because they aren't. And, if the net contributions from employees fails to meet net payouts to pensions, it's the taxpayer that picks up the shortfall and that, largely, is the problem. The payout of individual pensions, by and large, is not huge, but the conditions attached to it, such as it being totally divorced from market risk, are, because it's underwritten by the taxpayer. And the projections of the extra taxpayer contribution required to pay is projected to rise hugely, and indeed, has risen hugely in recent years, because (in large part) people are living longer.

They are also gold-plated in comparison to private sector equivalents. One example given recently was a teacher on a £32k a year salary receives a pension payout at today's rates which, if bought in the private sector, would require a £500,000 pension pot to achieve and few on £32k could afford it. Again, provision is gold-plated compared to the private sector.

There is of course an obvious solution to much of this problem, and teachers ought to be wary of it. There is a balance to be had between the provision made, per pro, and the payout liability incurred. At the moment, the liability significantly outstrips the contribution. So, per head, they cost a lot more than they put in. The obvious long-term solution, therefore, to an ever-increasing tax-payer liability is a reduction in head count. Every reduction in head count reduces liability by a lot more than it reduces contribution. And in these days of tight financial austerity because, as Labour's ex-Chief Secretary to the Treasury so famously and fatuously quipped, "there's no money left", it may be the only option if they refuse to wake up and smell the coffee.

[santa claus]

..........if they refuse to wake up and smell the coffee.

Hrhrhrhrhr! Nice attempt to divert away from the private sector which, irresponsibly, has not made personal provision for their retirement and have just realised that the lazy man's wealth they've accumulated in their stocks and shares, property deals and hedge funds is going to have to be used at least partly to fund their dotage.

It's a nice try by the Government and its cronies to pillage the public sector, which it sees as a soft target, to ensure that those that bank roll them keep their nest eggs intact, but the cat's out of the bag.

We have brilliant public services. Dedicated people who work hard to contractual arrangements the private sector would sneer at and part of that contract is their pension. It is not a benevolent gift; it is earned and owed and should be paid in full.

Hands off Clegg & Cameron, you haven't even been elected. And I hope the Public Sector shows you that walking the talk is harder than cosying up to your City mates. Wake up and smell the coffee .

[TheAnimus]

It's a nice try by the Government and its cronies to pillage the public sector, which it sees as a soft target, to ensure that those that bank roll them keep their nest eggs intact, but the cat's out of the bag.

pillage what? The debt pile? You can't pillage something which isn't there.

You could be dramatic and call them slippery, misleading or even lieing. But there is simply no money there.

In the private sector, I could through my company offer a pension scheme, say don't worry you'll all get your final sallary as a pension no matter how long you live. I would not be able to accurately predict the costs of said scheme, but I could offer it. When of course it turned out that this was un-sustainable, and the limited entity went bust. So lets say its the £32k teacher. They paid in contributions of 8% per year. Then the fund goes pop. Well tough ****. Go to the PPF and see what you can get.

That is why the private sector people are saying "erm what?" this is money that has in no way been earnt or set aside it is money that doesn't exist. The only way to get it is to continue to tax people, which is incredbly unfair.

I would liken a lot of the public workers who are complaining about this to been suckered in to a fairytail idea of pensions. It is simply not fair, we can only afford to service the debt, that is to say pass it on to future generations.

[santa claus]

.....pass it on to future generations.

And you see that as you which is why you're all of a lather. I certainly don't mind paying tax to fund an earned remuneration so please include me in your future generation.

And, as each day goes by, the appallingly worded poll in this thread is seeing increasing support for the public sector. You can load the gun TA, but you still need to be able to hit the target mate. Fail .

[TheAnimus]

Would that be the same oldies who were working hard when you were still a twinkle in your father's eye? Y'know, the oldies that made it possible for you to go to uni to get a decent education. The ones that provided for you whilst you secured yourself a job and enabled you to be economically active. And now you object to a little giving back?

Without divulging personal information, your wrong on two of your major ideas there, they don't apply.

Now which ones provided for me? What did they provide exactly? A service, which we will continue to want to be provided, but they are going to have had a considerably better lifestyle than their children afforded.

That makes as much moral sense as the idea I should respect my parents because they gave birth to me, that I should be a servent to them because they fed me as a child.

When a parent has a better lifestyle than their child will, and passes that debt on, its immoral. I don't see how it can be anything else.

[santa claus]

When a parent has a better lifestyle than their child will, and passes that debt on, its immoral. I don't see how it can be anything else.

LOL, your mum and dad must be so proud of you .

[TheAnimus]

LOL, your mum and dad must be so proud of you .

Yes because they know if ever I have a child (well a planned one) it will have an equal or greater quality of life, that I'd never hold back my genetic future, just to gain a few years off work.

[santa claus]

Yes because they know if ever I have a child (well a planned one) it will have an equal or greater quality of life, that I'd never hold back my genetic future, just to gain a few years off work.

Sieg Heil Herr Animus!

Can you clarify the "notion" of public sector pensions being gold-plated? I mean, who claimed it, and in what context?

Sorry Saracen, no insult intended but Gold plated pension is a pretty worn out term.