Strikes take 2

[Rusty Shackleford]

 

[applelover]

Despite not being a local government employee the association my firm has with the council entitled me to enter the local government pension scheme. Obviously I did this as the pension scheme is decent.

At the time I signed a contract which formed an agreement that I would pay 6.5%, and my employer and the state would make contributions as well. When I made this agreement I agreed to receive a final salary pension.

We can have a boring public v private debate until the cows come home. However where do you stand in the fact that I've signed an agreement and formed a contract only for the government to rip it up. I took annual leave to join the last protest in London and have done the same again. If the same level of protest had occurred from members of private schemes they may not have been as utterly raped as they were.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

We can have a boring public v private debate until the cows come home. However where do you stand in the fact that I've signed an agreement and formed a contract only for the government to rip it up.

Where did you stand on bankers being paid bonuses that they were contractually obliged to receive?

As for the pension, I believe that the terms and conditions of employment may be changed by the employer after a set amount of notice is given in writing. Your accrued credits can't. I believe. be taken from you, but your future ones can be changed. I don't like the concept of changing contracts, but what would you prefer? Changes to your contracts, or redundancies?

 

[steveo]

At the time I signed a contract which formed an agreement that I would pay 6.5%, and my employer and the state would make contributions as well. When I made this agreement I agreed to receive a final salary pension.
We can have a boring public v private debate until the cows come home. However where do you stand in the fact that I've signed an agreement and formed a contract only for the government to rip it up. I took annual leave to join the last protest in London and have done the same again. If the same level of protest had occurred from members of private schemes they may not have been as utterly raped as they were.

But circumstances change and if the money isn't there to payout where will it come from? People in the Private sector suffer as well. If a small business fails to make a profit it goes skint resulting in the loss of jobs for the people who work there, a lot of who have never had a pension, let alone a reduced pension.
The country is skint. Everyone will suffer a bit but we are far better of than some of our European cousins.
ps What time will the cows come home?

 

[applelover]

Where did you stand on bankers being paid bonuses that they were contractually obliged to receive?

As for the pension, I believe that the terms and conditions of employment may be changed by the employer after a set amount of notice is given in writing. Your accrued credits can't. I believe. be taken from you, but your future ones can be changed. I don't like the concept of changing contracts, but what would you prefer? Changes to your contracts, or redundancies?

I've actually not got a problem with bankers bonuses, they are private individuals making agreements with their employer. I have no idea why we ended up with public money attached to some banks in the way that we did. We should have guaranteed savings, let them burn for taking a risk and losing, and then picked up the peices and sold it to the highest bidder.

These pensions are actually affordable, this argument has been shown to be defunct. The argument now is about public v private sector scheme fairness. In otherwise the race to the bottom.

 

[osymandus]

Where did you stand on bankers being paid bonuses that they were contractually obliged to receive?

As for the pension, I believe that the terms and conditions of employment may be changed by the employer after a set amount of notice is given in writing. Your accrued credits can't. I believe. be taken from you, but your future ones can be changed. I don't like the concept of changing contracts, but what would you prefer? Changes to your contracts, or redundancies?

Under law both are perfectly valid . If you accept one you must accept the other . However the wider impact of either schemes is whats being ignored . As applelover already states some of these pensions are affordable espicailly the teachers ones already audited by a Westminster report. Another issue causing people to strike is the generalised methodologies used for all services and how people will be able to operate in these jobs at an older age (do you really want front emergency service people in their 50's no longer physically able to perform that role ... having to wait another 15 years ?)

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

(do you really want front emergency service people in their 50's no longer physically able to perform that role ... having to wait another 15 years ?)

I have to say, that's completely ageist. I know, and have worked with, many people in their 50s and 60s who are far fitter than some of the twenty something couch potatoes we're currently producing as a society.

 

[osymandus]

I have to say, that's completely ageist. I know, and have worked with, many people in their 50s and 60s who are far fitter than some of the twenty something couch potatoes we're currently producing as a society.

Hence my wording of physically capable , and my usage of the 50's would indicate length of service . I don;t disagree that many are fitter , but joints , muscles and ligaments wear out with constant usage and damage . The age issue isn't about the age of the person its the level of experience and the wear and tear on an already stressful vocation.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm not in favour of the strikers, but at least they get off their lazy asses on occasion.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Hence my wording of physically capable , and my usage of the 50's would indicate length of service . I don;t disagree that many are fitter , but joints , muscles and ligaments wear out with constant usage and damage . The age issue isn't about the age of the person its the level of experience and the wear and tear on an already stressful vocation.

So, when you asked if I wanted emergency service people in their 50s working, and the problems of people working in these jobs at an older age, you actually didn't mean anything about age at all?

I'm sorry Osy, I know sometimes what you mean isn't always what you say, but in this case you've just turned a complete U turn.

 

[osymandus]

So, when you asked if I wanted emergency service people in their 50s working, and the problems of people working in these jobs at an older age, you actually didn't mean anything about age at all?

I'm sorry Osy, I know sometimes what you mean isn't always what you say, but in this case you've just turned a complete U turn.

No I used a number of 50 as a common understanding of a long time but normally associated as being able to work . Front line emergency services are a physical and tiring job where people get harmed and injured . Maybe I could have elaborated more , but the idea is that pensions of public servants will be extended and they will have to work longer . Now no matter how fit you are after 50 years service (lets say even starting at 18) you loss muscle mass , your cartlidge wear out your joints are damaged (please those in the medical profession correct me if I'm wrong ) , your sense's will reduce . My point is age is matter of wear and tear as much as a number we attribute it to.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

No I used a number of 50 as a common understanding of a long time but normally associated as being able to work . Front line emergency services are a physical and tiring job where people get harmed and injured . Maybe I could have elaborated more , but the idea is that pensions of public servants will be extended and they will have to work longer . Now no matter how fit you are after 50 years service (lets say even starting at 18) you loss muscle mass , your cartlidge wear out your joints are damaged (please those in the medical profession correct me if I'm wrong ) , your sense's will reduce . My point is age is matter of wear and tear as much as a number we attribute it to.

So, are you saying age matters, or is it purely down to a physical state of which age is but one influence, because currently you're flipping between the two more than an MP with a second home.

 

[osymandus]

So, are you saying age matters, or is it purely down to a physical state of which age is but one influence, because currently you're flipping between the two more than an MP with a second home.

Age as i understand it is the measurement we use for the change in state of molecules and movement of energy .
Number is a reference, the physical state is affected by the affects of this. Im not flipping back and forth at all . The passage of what we called age , and the wear and tear over these periods are IMHO a major factor .

I could have said 30 or 40's but they current retirement age for front line people without specific medical issues has been late 50's

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Age as i understand it is the measurement we use for the change in state of molecules and movement of energy .
Number is a reference, the physical state is affected by the affects of this. Im not flipping back and forth at all . The passage of what we called age , and the wear and tear over these periods are IMHO a major factor .

I could have said 30 or 40's but they current retirement age for front line people without specific medical issues has been late 50's

No, age is the term we give to the passage of time, measured on a linear scale of minutes, hours years etc. The change of state of our molecules would be ageing, a process that takes place at different rates in different people.

You could've used different ages as a reference, but they'd all be equally irrelevant to the argument in question

 

[osymandus]

No, age is the term we give to the passage of time, measured on a linear scale of minutes, hours years etc. The change of state of our molecules would be ageing, a process that takes place at different rates in different people.

You could've used different ages as a reference, but they'd all be equally irrelevant to the argument in question

Time a way to measure passage and decay or transmutation of energy , time is not a measurable force , as something ages i agree it becomes aged however given the time period I'm using as an example , every type of human for instance even with out an active live is affected by it. If you believe its irrelevant then your ignoring both physic's and medical science for your opinion.

 

[Perth Bambi]

Although I do not agree with the strikes and am not striking myself I do agree with the point Osy seems to be getting at. From my point of view (an outpatient physiotherapist who treats predominantly staff in the trust at present) I certainly would not want a 68 year old physiotherapist or nurse looking after me. It is a physically demanding job and I am not convinced a near 70 year old would have the physical capability to work as safe as possible.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Time a way to measure passage and decay or transmutation of energy , time is not a measurable force , as something ages i agree it becomes aged however given the time period I'm using as an example , every type of human for instance even with out an active live is affected by it. If you believe its irrelevant then your ignoring both physic's and medical science for your opinion.

No no no, time is a mechanic given to measure the passing of one specific event, the movement of the sun (though with modern atomic clocks you could probably argue that it's now related to radioactive decay) If you're saying time is used to measure the passage decay and transmutation of energy in a form other than this, then you're saying time is different for all of us. There are many factors that change the rate of decay of matter, does this mean time's different for each of these? Are you therefore saying that for every hour that passes for me, several days pass for a cup of milk in Algeria? I'm not saying that time is a universal constant, as it isn't. It doesn't alter for individuals all of whom reside on this planet though.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It is somewhat strange that at the time of mass youth unemployment government practice is to get people to stay in employment into old age. At the same time employers show that older workers are not attractive to them by overlooking them for experienced positions in favour of people in their 30's. The efforts that are put into getting young mothers back in to work at a time where there are less jobs available to them also seem misguided - comendable to give people the option but if its by force its just moving the money from benefits into nursery payments. Targetting different ages or genders to encourage people into work is bizzare if they aren't enough jobs to go round. Job creation surely is key.

 

[osymandus]

No no no, time is a mechanic given to measure the passing of one specific event, the movement of the sun (though with modern atomic clocks you could probably argue that it's now related to radioactive decay) If you're saying time is used to measure the passage decay and transmutation of energy in a form other than this, then you're saying time is different for all of us. There are many factors that change the rate of decay of matter, does this mean time's different for each of these? Are you therefore saying that for every hour that passes for me, several days pass for a cup of milk in Algeria? I'm not saying that time is a universal constant, as it isn't. It doesn't alter for individuals all of whom reside on this planet though.

Time is a concept we also use to mark the passage of decay as that's how atomic clocks measure its passage , its also commonly referred to as reference to memory of events and to place it in our perception of the changing of states .

The current defernition of the word is

the system of those sequential relations that any event hasto any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite andcontinuous duration regarded as that in ​

which

events succeedoneanother.

So its how how we perceive the sequential progression of events . It's funny you say it doesn't change for individuals as the perception of the passage of "time" does (even in the simplest concept of going to sleep ) , now if that has an affect on the universe around you is a different thing entirely (quantum physics ) . Example here of investigation into individual perception of teh passage of time http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...g-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/

However my point was just as a reference and an example to show a mostly likely example of the effect of the ageing of an individual .​

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Time is a concept we also use to mark the passage of decay as that's how atomic clocks measure its passage , its also commonly referred to as reference to memory of events and to place it in our perception of the changing of states .

I think you'll find that time was in use prior to the discovery of radiation. The fact that we use atomic clocks is because they're regular enough to keep time constant. Time isn't dictated by atomic decay, the regularity of atomic decay is used mark time.

As for people's perception of time, it's exactly that. Perception. Time itself passes at the same rate to all intents and purposes (slight fluctuations due to gravitational effect are too negligible at this level to consider).

I don't fully disagree that some jobs do have an "age" limit, though I'd argue that it's hard to legislate for an exact age for this (maybe regular tests, like an MOT, after a certain age?), I just wish you could admit you're wrong over your definition of time at a global level.