Public sector strikes on Wednesday

[brocklanders023]

On the issue of saving money through the pension robbery...

The government worked out the figures for my pension and what money could be saved based on a 1% opt-out. My Union got YouGov to survey members and reported back the opt-out could be over 20%. Going by the governments own figures if more then 7% (I think) opt-out this grand money saving plan will actually cost money. Great plan chaps!

This was reported back to the brains in London and is one of the reasons we're not on strike on the 30th and negotiations are ongoing.

 

[brocklanders023]

Going by your example.... Do you really think if and when things improve the government will turn round to me and say 'thanks for helping us out of a hole. We're minted again now so here's a bumper pay rise and we'd like to reduce your pension contributions'? No, no they won't. I don't expect to profit when the world's a happy place but I also don't accept being shafted because of the actions of others

Head. Sand. Bury away.

I hope you get your way, and your pension, really. Fill your boots. I'll remind you in a year or so when swathes of public sector workers are being made redundant and basic services cut even further that I told you cuts had to happen somewhere. That's what happens when there's a limited pot of money and it doesn't cover everything. But hey, so long as you don't have to contribute a bit more to your own future.

As for who i'm expecting to pay for my state pension? Er, as a tax and ni payer i'm paying for it aren't i?!

Why am I sticking my head in the sand? I simply replied to your example. You're very good at dodging questions. Do you think if I agree to be shafted now I will be rewarded in the future when times are better (as you said your friend has been)?

As for your state pension. You seem to think we're all going to live until we are 150 so how long do you think the small chunk of tax you contribute will cover you for?

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. You get all upset with me for daring to save for my future whilst doing nothing to protect yourself and expecting the state to bail you out when you're old. You'll be glad of all the nasty Public Services when you get to that point.

 

[brocklanders023]

Perhaps modernisation, perhaps using principles from the business world to streamline and re-engineer process where it helps the SERVICE, but not profit. Better SERVICE.

What if a private enterprise could provide the same service at less cost? Or better service at the same cost? As you say it's the service that matters, not who provides it surely?

Shit private schools or hospitals wouldn't make money. There's an inherent motive there to drive quality which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would love the NHS to be dismantled in my lifetime but doubt any government would have the balls despite the improved outcomes other systems provide. For some reason we are wedded to the idea that the state should educate us, care for us, house us and be involved at every level of our lives. Why? They're utterly shit at most of it.

(I have a feeling that this mere suggestion might just invoke an outpouring of pro-state dogma equal to any 'business is best' rhetoric...)

Are there actually many / any job sectors that have any true job security any more?

Civil servants?

Just remember this next time you moan about the cost of gas/electric/transport etc. A private company wants to make money, lots of money, as much as possible. I'm sure they'd flutter their eyes and promise not to be naughty at first but as soon as the market is sown up and no one has a choice prices will go through the roof. Look at the evidence. It's happened and would happen again.

 

[rosstheboss]

Tory 'Divide and Conquer' rhetoric certainly seems to be effective on here... :?

What about the usual 'Tory scum' rhetoric that always ends up being spouted by the unions and the strikers??? Swings and roundabouts!!!

 

[apache]

I went from 24 years in public sector (MoD) to 5 years now in private sector. I did really well in my T&Cs and pension in the public sector, and now don't do so well on either of those in the private sector.

However, I don't (and never really did) believe that my taxes in the private sector should fund the pensions of my oppos in MoD (and the rest of the public sector).

Suck it up folks, it's time to face reality - you've done better than the private sector since the year dot - and now you're being asked to accept parity.

 

[Rumble]

When did I ever say I expect to retire comfortably on my state pension? That's right, I didn't. In fact i'm well aware that it'll be next to worthless, which is why I described my personal situation as it stands as f*cked. Perhaps you can understand why that means taxpayers like me don't have a lot of sympathy for public sector workers being asked to contribute a bit more to their disproportionatly good pensions?

All I said is that I can't currently afford a pension, I realise i'll have to make up for that later in my career when I can afford it. Not to mention working significantly longer than is the norm now. See, i'm going to support myself, I don't expect the party to do it for me. Do you get that now, or do you need it again in shorter words?

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Tory 'Divide and Conquer' rhetoric certainly seems to be effective on here... :?

What about the usual 'Tory scum' rhetoric that always ends up being spouted by the unions and the strikers??? Swings and roundabouts!!!

...and the vast majority of the whole population who vehemently objected to the Poll Tax??

Considering we are currently governed by a Prime Minister who doesn't actually have a mandate to do so and who, together with his wife, is worth £70,000,000 I don't see why people shouldn't fight for what little is rightly theirs - we do after all live in a democracy??

 

[apache]

I don't see why people shouldn't fight for what little is rightly theirs - we do after all live in a democracy??

I guess we are into the detail of WHAT is 'rightly theirs'?

If the pension fund is made up of a percentage of tax payers money who will NOT see any of it back in their retirement (ie private sector workers) it is easy to argue that the money in that fund is NOT rightly theirs is it not?

It's the same argument I have with a benefits system which pays people who choose not to work out of MY hard earned. They think the money is rightly theirs, I disagree. It is mine. But, that's a different subject.

As far as what the PM does or doesn't have, that is totally irrelevant in this argument.

 

[Neil]

I don't see why people shouldn't fight for what little is rightly theirs - we do after all live in a democracy??

I guess we are into the detail of WHAT is 'rightly theirs'?

What was contractually agreed when they commenced employment?

Surely they should have the right to at least fight for that...

If the pension fund is made up of a percentage of tax payers money who will NOT see any of it back in their retirement (ie private sector workers) it is easy to argue that the money in that fund is NOT rightly theirs is it not?

I'm not buying the logic.

Their wages are also made up from taxation, too.

Pragmatically, I expect most public sector workers will, long-term, have to negotiate some kind of compromise, I see nothing wrong in then simply fighting for what is their terms and conditions.

I've said it all along, the politics of envy should be put aside for this. For some, the grass is always greener - if the terms and conditions for public sector workers have always been so prestigious, you'd have thought there'd be private sector workers clamouring to go to the dark side.

It's the same argument I have with a benefits system which pays people who choose not to work out of MY hard earned. They think the money is rightly theirs, I disagree. It is mine. But, that's a different subject.

It is, and in fairness, not all are people who are work dodgers, malingerers or scroungers.

Bearing in mind, some of those, will be people who've spent years, decades even, of paying their taxes, only to fall on hard times, or lose their jobs. Let's not play the argument of extremes and assume the worst case scenario for everybody who's currently on benefits.

As far as what the PM does or doesn't have, that is totally irrelevant in this argument.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.

Modern day politics has taught us that for people like the PM and prominent politicians, there's little (indeed by mandate of law, for some of it) that can be considered off menu.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

I think you'll find that once we've paid our taxes we actually have very little say in where that money goes??

If we did perhaps we wouldn't have quite such a large overseas aid budget and more to spend at home?

If people are guaranteed a certain return on their investment as a way of securing their employ then there is a moral obligation to uphold said guarantee, otherwise they could have invested elsewhere and taken their chances with their own choice - then where would this bunch of robbing b*stards, sorry, Government be?...

...perhaps it's about time we learned a lesson from our American Cousins when it comes to getting rid of their own Leaders who are something of a liability??