Strikes take 2

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Osy, why not just quit while you are behind?
Even your lefty mates have given up on you.

For Osy:

‘call off the strike, we are still negotiating’ – this doesn’t work as laws on striking means your ballot has a use by date on the strike and if you miss it then the strike is illegal, so when the date of 30[SUP]th[/SUP] was announced that was the cut off point and a delay would be months due to the lead in times by law.

Public / private wage comparison has been affected by many of the lowest paid public sector jobs being taken over by contractors. Also in times of high unemployment (now) private sector wages for the lowest paid go down as there is a surplus of labour. Public sector are better protected against this as they are generally unionised and therefore have a collective voice.

‘You should be happy you’ve still got a job’, really? If you are employed at a certain rate and benefits and without negotiating your terms are changed would you really be so weak as to just accept it? If they want to change the contracts of certain jobs then do that for new employees and if you still attract the right candidates then all well and good. But if someone has worked for 10, 20, 30 years on the agreement of certain level of pension at the end of it – to change that is unfair and I would be surprised if it is legal.

‘Public pensions come out of our taxes’ – no they don’t, they come out of the pension investment that public sector employees and employers have paid into as a form of wages for however long they have worked there. You can’t take money out of a pension fund, that’s theft – Robert Maxwell did that and had to fake his own death and take up a job in a chip shop with Elvis.

‘Making the public sector pay more into their pensions will help us out of national debt’ – no it won’t because the sums involved are tiny, and with high inflation and frozen wages some will have to stop paying into their pension and the reduction in funds going in means the pot shrinks and the investment makes less and then the pension fund can not cover those that are still in it. Those who had to opt out will be the lowest paid and when they retire they will then rely on state benefits which do come directly from our taxes.

At the same time executive pay is still going up, celebs from Lewis Hamilton to Bono to Mrs Phillip Green are at home for the exact amount of time for them to claim to live somewhere else and massively underpay their tax, banks are still using tax loopholes to underpay by millions, and the other public servants - the MPs pay and pensions are untouched by austerity.

Public v Private workers is a very convenient distraction. I’m 40 and always worked in the private sector and started paying in to a pension (this is the first time my employers have) 6 months ago. To anyone who had been paying in for the last 20 years like I should have done I say – stand up for yourselves because my pension is going to leave me very poor and it would give me no pleasure to know others are not adequately covered.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I am........

that made me laugh

 

[osymandus]

Beffy - really ? It was actually Napster who made the point
Neil_f its a lottery its again as i said a choice . You go to the private sector thetes mote risk as i already said. Also these points are too general again . As i already said to C earlier my pet hate inthihos is lack of of detail and generlisatio. Its what has brought us to the strikes

 

[Reg Martin]

It is indisputable that public sector pensions are better than private sector pensions. I repeat, is that fair, especially given the studies that show the pay gap has been reversed?

On the whole I agree with the proposed public sector reforms even though I personally may lose in the long run but I am fortunate in having a lot of years service in to date that will be protected.
The report that led to these reforms by Lord Hutton (a former WHSB pupil apparently though before my time there) did warn against 'a race to the bottom' in pension provisions and I do think that there is going to be an issue in years to come with how people with small or no work-related pensions at all are going to get by in their old age.
On the subject of public v private sector wages some of the lower paid jobs are definitely better paid in public sector though whether that is a good or a bad thing is another question.
Some jobs such as Legal and Accountancy are, at the middle and upper ends of those professions, better paid in private than public sector. There still remain, though to a decreasing degree, other benefits to the public sector that mean people in those professions choose to stay there. Some choose to go from public to private for the higher pay though they need to do so early in their career.

 

[Firestorm]

Neil F has come in and its gone all sensible again.......
:sad:

Neil could you scatter a few misspelt long words in, Interspersed with some earth shattering theories from Sooty and the green Tellytubby just to keep this thread on topic

 

[Firestorm]

Beffy - really ? It was actually Napster who made the point

Is he the umpire slayer ?

 

[osymandus]

Thanks AAS they were some points i was refering to eariler.

It is not an indisputible fact firestorm you just happen to agree with the study that Neilf is quoting from . its a study based on a theroretical average.

 

[Neil_F]

Neil_f basiccly yes. its all speculation we provide suppersitions but we l cannot know.

Honestly, this is absurd. Why then did you make a claim that public sector workers earn less than private sector workers?

your providing these stats as as atelling argument. But its no more then anyone here.

I'm presenting them as evidence. That is what a reasoned argument does; it evaluates the evidence, including the viability of that evidence, and draws a conclusion accordingly. You have a habit of making an assumption without evidence and then claiming that it is impossible to know when presented with evidence to the contrary.

Yes a study presents a theory.However Unions and public sector have shown counter evidence they dont earn this averagee so the study is a hypothetical one at best.

It isn't a hypothetical study as it actually took place. You might want to look up the definition of "hypothetical." Do you have a link to the union study? I deliberately used the ONS and the PPI because they are independent bodies that have access to substantial data. There is an IFS study that finds a bigger pay gap in favour of the public sector and a taxpayers alliance study showing an even bigger gap. I didn't quote those because I didn't think they would be as reliable (mainly due to lack of available data).

Your repeating the idea that all public sector are tax contributed. Again i ask for a specific detail on which specific industry in the public sector. Fireman and teachers have different contributions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446829

The BBC claim the NHS, teacher, civil service, armed forces, police and firefighters pension schemes are funded out of general taxation.

So who is wrong: you or the BBC?

 

[Reg Martin]

‘Public pensions come out of our taxes’ – no they don’t, they come out of the pension investment that public sector employees and employers have paid into as a form of wages for however long they have worked there. You can’t take money out of a pension fund, that’s theft – Robert Maxwell did that and had to fake his own death and take up a job in a chip shop with Elvis..

Because of my job this subject is one of the few discussed on here I know anything about (I know that doesn't stop me contributing on everything else:smile: ) but what you say is incorrect
To my knowledge only the Local Govt Pension scheme is what is known as 'funded' ie operates as a private fund and invests on the stock market. That is funded by employees and employer contributions - but employer contributions are in effect taxpayer funding
The other public sector schemes which usually have lower employee contributions than the LG pension have no earmarked fund and pensions being paid now are largely funded by current employer ie taxpayer contibutions.
There is also more than one way to take money out of a pension fund. The conservative govt of the 80s did so by suspending employer contributions to the LG fund temporarily. The labour govt did so to the LG and all private sector funds by abolishing tax relief on pension fund investment income in 1997

 

[Eastblack]

Beffy - really ? It was actually Napster who made the point
Neil_f its a lottery its again as i said a choice . You go to the private sector thetes mote risk as i already said. Also these points are too general again . As i already said to C earlier my pet hate inthihos is lack of of detail and generlisatio. Its what has brought us to the strikes

Osymandus I admire your conviction on this argument (and others for that matter), and to some extent enjoy reading your posts, but I would love it if you either used spell check, proof read your posts, used correct punctuation or structured your sentences.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

that made me laugh

I am nothing if not honest.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Osymandus I admire your conviction on this argument (and others for that matter), and to some extent enjoy reading your posts, but I would love it if you either used spell check, proof read your posts, used correct punctuation or structured your sentences.

How very dare you sir,change a genuis,never,osy is perfect and a pure joy to behold and was the inspiration behind dr sheldon cooper from the big bang theroy,honest guv.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thanks AAS they were some points i was refering to eariler.

It is not an indisputible fact firestorm you just happen to agree with the study that Neilf is quoting from . its a study based on a theroretical average.

So you've phoned a friend, you can still use 50/50 and ask the audience.

 

[Neil_F]

Public / private wage comparison has been affected by many of the lowest paid public sector jobs being taken over by contractors. Also in times of high unemployment (now) private sector wages for the lowest paid go down as there is a surplus of labour. Public sector are better protected against this as they are generally unionised and therefore have a collective voice.

There are many reasons for it, but it doesn't mean the gap should be ignored. Here is the link to the ONS study and it even has the data in Excel form:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_233736.pdf

‘You should be happy you’ve still got a job’, really? If you are employed at a certain rate and benefits and without negotiating your terms are changed would you really be so weak as to just accept it? If they want to change the contracts of certain jobs then do that for new employees and if you still attract the right candidates then all well and good. But if someone has worked for 10, 20, 30 years on the agreement of certain level of pension at the end of it – to change that is unfair and I would be surprised if it is legal.

Of course it is legal. Any pension rights accrued to date are protected, it is only future accrual that changes. Millions of people in the private sector have had their terms and conditions changed, for example by closing defined benefit pensions to further accrual or changing to career averaging. Unilever recently closed their final salary scheme to further accrual.

‘Public pensions come out of our taxes’ – no they don’t,

As Teeside says, they do. You are completely wrong on this. Your contributions go into the general taxation pot and your benefits are paid from the general taxation pot.

‘Making the public sector pay more into their pensions will help us out of national debt’ – no it won’t because the sums involved are tiny, and with high inflation and frozen wages some will have to stop paying into their pension and the reduction in funds going in means the pot shrinks and the investment makes less and then the pension fund can not cover those that are still in it. Those who had to opt out will be the lowest paid and when they retire they will then rely on state benefits which do come directly from our taxes.

You've repeated the mistake about there being a fund. It isn't about the national debt but the deficit and fairness. The public sector pensions liability is currently more than £1 trillion. That is entirely unsustainable.

At the same time executive pay is still going up

Why makes the comparison with executives? This is a tiny minority of the population and a completely false comparison

celebs from Lewis Hamilton to Bono to Mrs Phillip Green are at home for the exact amount of time for them to claim to live somewhere else and massively underpay their tax,

Are you following them? What does this have to do with public sector pensions?

banks are still using tax loopholes to underpay by millions,

Which loopholes?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Neil_f basiccly yes. its all speculation we provide suppersitions but we l cannot know. your providing these stats as as atelling argument. But its no more then anyone here. Yes a study presents a theory.However Unions and public sector have shown counter evidence they dont earn this averagee so the study is a hypothetical one at best.

Your repeating the idea that all public sector are tax contributed. Again i ask for a specific detail on which specific industry in the public sector. Fireman and teachers have different contributions.

If you actually read what he says he doesn't say this at all.

 

[Firestorm]

Thanks AAS they were some points i was refering to eariler.

It is not an indisputible fact firestorm you just happen to agree with the study that Neilf is quoting from . its a study based on a theroretical average.

thanks for that Osy, I hadn't even read Neils post fully or read the study, as I now know I agree with it I won't have to bother .

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Because of my job this subject is one of the few discussed on here I know anything about (I know that doesn't stop me contributing on everything else:smile: ) but what you say is incorrect
To my knowledge only the Local Govt Pension scheme is what is known as 'funded' ie operates as a private fund and invests on the stock market. That is funded by employees and employer contributions - but employer contributions are in effect taxpayer funding
The other public sector schemes which usually have lower employee contributions than the LG pension have no earmarked fund and pensions being paid now are largely funded by current employer ie taxpayer contibutions.
There is also more than one way to take money out of a pension fund. The conservative govt of the 80s did so by suspending employer contributions to the LG fund temporarily. The labour govt did so to the LG and all private sector funds by abolishing tax relief on pension fund investment income in 1997

I largely embelished from the Evening Standard's Anthony Hilton:
But the popular perception that public-sector pensions are all about the Sir Humphreys of this world sailing into a golden sunset on a copper-bottomed index-linked pension is a fiction.The London Pension Fund Authority (LPFA) - which is the body that gives pensions to all those who worked in the past for the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and various other arms of government in the capital - shows how far from the truth this is. Last time I checked, it had about 20,000 people on pension.
Of these, 38 were getting a pension of £100,000 a year or more - that is one in 500, a ratio significantly less than you would find in most company schemes. The average annual pension for members as a whole was £4140 -about £80 a week. Women's pensions are almost invariably much lower because they have worked fewer years, earned less or been part-time.
The average pension paid to most public-sector employees in most occupations is similarly modest. It has not been designed to make them rich. It has been designed so that when combined with the State old age pension, they can live with a reasonable degree of dignity. Although it is true the average wage in the public sector is now higher than that of the private sector, it is not because they have had massive increases. Rather it is largely because the lowest-paid public jobs have been privatised.
Nor are local authority pensions, modest though they are, usually paid by the taxpayer. Like the LPFA , most local government schemes in this country are funded - the pensions are paid from a pot built up by the contributions of members and their employers during their working lives. It is quite wrong to claim that such pensions are paid directly out of taxes.
Because there are so many different schemes, it is difficult to generalise but the idea that State-sector pensions are unaffordable is over-simplifying the matter. It has long been the case, for example, that the day-to-day cost of pensions in payment - those actually funded directly by the taxpayer - is less than the amount paid by the exchequer to individuals as tax relief on private-sector pension contributions. Massively less. In 2007-08, when public-sector pensions had a net cost to the taxpayer of £4 billion, private-sector pension relief cost the taxpayer £37.6 billion. Only in the past 12 months has this figure come closer to balance, with the introduction of a relatively low ceiling on how much relief individuals can claim.

The very last thing he says is another pointer that the government talk up wanting us to be self reliant in old age, but make it harder for us to do that.

 

[pickledseal]

I'd love to see the MPs lead by example. They are on a nice tasty 1/40th scheme while other public sector workers are on 1/80th schemes. Wouldn't it be nice if they had started with their own pensions?

Apparently "they'll probably change at some point". Great.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I'd love to see the MPs lead by example. They are on a nice tasty 1/40th scheme while other public sector workers are on 1/80th schemes. Wouldn't it be nice if they had started with their own pensions?

Apparently "they'll probably change at some point". Great.

These second homes/duck ponds/porn films don't pay for themselves you know.

 

[Hotman]

I'd love to see the MPs lead by example. They are on a nice tasty 1/40th scheme while other public sector workers are on 1/80th schemes. Wouldn't it be nice if they had started with their own pensions?

Apparently "they'll probably change at some point". Great.

Jealousy and self-entitlement - the two predominant character traits evident from the lefties on this forum.