Public sector strikes on Wednesday

[apache]

Neil, I get confused by multiple quoting - so I wont.

Your comment on the politics of envy is slightly out of place. I worked in the Public Sector for approx 4/5ths of my working life, I am now private sector. The grass was greener regarding T&Cs and pensions in my Public Sector employment. I gained greatly compared to my private sector counterparts. It doesn't make it 'fair'.

I don't believe the Public Sector should lose their good pensions simply because I don't get one any more - just because it isn't fair. It never has been. Just because that's the T&Cs you signed up for doesn't make it fair either, and I agree, if you've planned your life around your T&Cs / pension etc, it is going to be very painful. That's life. Perhaps these changes could be made easier, perhaps not. I don't know the details.

Suggesting the PM has too much money / gets paid too much etc - well if that isn't good old socialist envy, what is???

Regarding Benefits - you have me all wrong. The benefits system is there to provide for those who cannot work, be that through ill health, loss of job in economic down turn etc. It is NOT there to provide for those who bunked off school, don't understand birth control, or are terminally lazy. You'd be surprised at how much of the pot they are soaking up, meaning those who CANNOT work have to go short. That stinks.

 

[Neil]

Neil, I get confused by multiple quoting - so I wont.

Your comment on the politics of envy is slightly out of place.

It wasn't directed, specifically, or solely at you - and no it isn't out of place, since - fundamentally - that's what this debate about public sector pensions is largely about.

I worked in the Public Sector for approx 4/5ths of my working life, I am now private sector. The grass was greener regarding T&Cs and pensions in my Public Sector employment. I gained greatly compared to my private sector counterparts.

On certain grounds - I worked in the public sector at the beginning of my career. I knew how strong the pension conditions were at the time, I moved on, for sound reasons.

If your public sector employment was so rosey, then why move to the private sector?

It doesn't make it 'fair'.

I thought you said the politics of envy is out of place? What's fair, in comparison got to do with it, per se?

I don't believe the Public Sector should lose their good pensions simply because I don't get one any more - just because it isn't fair. It never has been.

Well I'd strongly contend the "never has been" - but all the same, whether it's fair or not, can only be measure with context - which all comes back to envy.

If it was such a ridiculous benefit, as I questioned before, why haven't most of the private sector employees been clamouring to move to the public sector? Could it be that there were other attractions to working in the private sector?

Just because that's the T&Cs you signed up for doesn't make it fair either, and I agree, if you've planned your life around your T&Cs / pension etc, it is going to be very painful. That's life. Perhaps these changes could be made easier, perhaps not. I don't know the details.

I suspect most people who've been in a pension scheme for quite some time, haven't just been ignoring that prospect - it's not unreasonable to make plans around it.

I just don't get what's so offensive for workers to fight for their terms and conditions, that's all. Taking envy out of the equation, wouldn't most employees?

As I've maintained all along, I suspect that this won't conclude without some compromise - but all the same, fighting their case doesn't strike me as being wrong.

Suggesting the PM has too much money / gets paid too much etc - well if that isn't good old socialist envy, what is???

Well I wouldn't personally class myself as a socialist, per se. And I'm not suggesting that he has too much money or gets paid too much. I just think it's not irrelevant to his position as PM, and what he'll be expecting of the bulk of the population, and goes to his credibility to be able to empathise with most of the population. He's not a CEO of some private company, he's the PM of the country, leading and providing policy for the whole of the country.

Now I'm not of the belief that somebody who's rich can't do that, merely that in order to look relevant, they've got a challenge on their hands.

Regarding Benefits - you have me all wrong. The benefits system is there to provide for those who cannot work, be that through ill health, loss of job in economic down turn etc. It is NOT there to provide for those who bunked off school, don't understand birth control, or are terminally lazy. You'd be surprised at how much of the pot they are soaking up, meaning those who CANNOT work have to go short. That stinks.

Oh indeed - ironically, I believe in Tony Blair's take on that (not that that's something belying any political slant of mine, merely where what a particular politician has said on the subject that I agree with...) - a hand-up helping them onwards, rather than hand-outs to just live on them (clearly there are some genuine cases that may never truly migrate beyond having to rely on benefits, but I suspect we both agree, that that group is probably far fewer than current levels).

 

[apache]

My public sector employment was rosy in some ways - the reasons I left are fairly complex but an increasingly impenetrable fog of mismanagement and the accompanying rise in stress levels was amongst the reasons. The final straw was a forced re-deployment some 200 miles south, which would have caused untold issues with family (kids schools, wife's job etc) so I left to do similar work in private industry.

The kick in the pants was that I was a mobile grade (MoD) so there was no redundancy on offer - it was a resignation. So, on balance, not all was rosy.

Here in the private sector, I'm paid rather a lot more for what I do, but the pension is non-existant and the leave entitlement is 10 days less(!) :shock:

However, it's my choice based on sound reasons - and it's a choice open to many others in the public sector - unless of course they have no useful skills and are being carried by the tax payer...

Anyhooo, better do some more of this work I'm being paid by the hour for!

 

[ededwards]

This seems to be going round in ever increasing circles with positions becoming more firmly entrenched. That said, a far more intelligent and well informed friend commented (I hope that he won't mind me putting this up here):

There is an awful lot of nonsense spoken about the private/public sector distinction, much of which has its origins in discredited 17th century economics (get me). Chief fallacy: the private sector creates all of the wealth; public sector workers are parasitic on this. If ‘creates’ means what it usually does, this is clearly false. The economy would not be very productive without doctors, teachers, or roads, for example. The real difference between the private and public sector is how the activity is funded, not what it produces: public sector economic activity is funded by coercive means, i.e. taxation. When people bang on in the blogosphere about public sector parasites what they really mean is that they resent being taxed. To which the appropriate reply is to point out that the free market does a bad job of providing some of the things that most people, in a saner moment, agree are worthwhile. Talk about wealth creation (the CBI are the worst culprits for this) is just a confused way of talking about whether taxation is justified.

I thought this made interesting reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13962454 with the PM saying that MPs should be treated as public sector workers in terms of pensions. The same article states that contribution from the Exchequer to the MPs pensions would be capped at almost 29% :shock:

 

[pigman]

....... a far more intelligent and well informed friend ....

not sure what that says about the contributors on this thread. I reckon there's a good stack of intelligence here, its just in their lunacy they like retrobikes as a sideline.
I'm gonna continue to watch and enjoy, and despite the entrenched views, the respect and behaviour between the contributors has been good.

 

[Rumble]

When it really comes down to it I don't think many people, including me, begrudge taxation. What your friend hasn't mention is the value that taxation gives us. What annoys taxpayers is when the see, or even think they see, waste, extravagnce or inefficiency which all detract from the services the public sector is there to provide. I personally think a modernised, streamlined and more efficient has the potential to provide far better value to taxpayers.

 

[taylorsummers]

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??

£70m, really??

 

[rosstheboss]

...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??

Yes, perhaps we should learn from our American cousins and have leaders only in office for two terms which hilariously would mean we wouldn't have had to put up with the entirely unelected buffoon Gordon Brown, who, as memory serves, managed to f*ck it up for everyone, not just the public sector...

 

[rosstheboss]

...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??

Yes, perhaps we should learn from our American cousins and have leaders only in office for two terms which hilariously would mean we wouldn't have had to put up with the entirely unelected buffoon Gordon Brown, who, as memory serves, managed to f*ck it up for everyone, not just the public sector...

 

[marky2484]

Agree with you Rumble. Problem is, can't think of the last time I saw a "public sector does really good job" story in the media. There must be some, surely? Yes - there are always ways of doing things better, the system would be perfect, otherwise.

Hutton was very keen that, combined with changing public sector provision, private sector provision should also be addressed. THAT all seems to have gone quiet.

Not expecting anyone to shed tears for me, but the Chancellors statement WRT public sector pay today effectivly means that,with a conservative estimate of inflation rates, I will be 25 - 30% worse off in real terms by 2015.

My partner works in retail, for minimum wage. Her boss has just announced that she is expected to work late shifts, until 11pm, then straight onto early shifts , at 5.00am. 4.5 hours sleep. You're lucky to have a job,etc etc.

Still, all in this together.

EDIT. Yeah, I know, if you don't like it, get different jobs........ :roll: