Public sector strikes on Wednesday

[MikeD]

True, although my point was around private sector paying taxes to ensure that the public sector have these gilt-edged pensions that the private sector could never afford and yet still complain/strike about it.

I'm sure that taxes from public sector employees go towards all sorts of things that benefit private sector employees too. Because that's how general taxation works

 

[Scougar]

By the use of the 'gilt-edged' I can tell you've been sold down the river by reading particular papers when you start having a pop at civil servants.

The media has portrayed civil servants to be practically robbing the country, when that is REALLY not the case. The gov is just doing a classic divide and conquer technique, where the majority of people are in the private sector so they already are onto a winner when they pit private against public in the media.

The basics here at that there is a very bad financial situation, and it's not that pensions can't be afforded, it's a knee jerk reaction from the gov to try and stem the problem.

Do you remember them selling off the gold reserves when prices were stupidly low... raiding the pensions fund..... and other examples? I'm sure those were all fantastic idea's as well :roll:

Just because the pensions are crap for private workers, doesn't mean that those that have 'okish' one's should also suffer.

Once the pensions are lowered, are the gov going to raise the pay of civil servants to meet that in the private sector? I highly doubt it... which is why it's all double standards from the gov, and they have got you eating out the palm of their palm.

 

[stevec1975]

Fully and acutely aware of how taxation works, most seem to be missing the point of the message that I am trying to get across.

Agreed that the Government wants to play the public vs private sectors off against each other through the Media to divert the attention away from their mismanagement, makes sense from a PR point of view.

It is the case that scheduled pension liabilities with the current rates of growth cannot be afforded in the short term without cutbacks somewhere, although conversations around how this should happen is another can of worms.

 

[Neil]

Fully and acutely aware of how taxation works, most seem to be missing the point of the message that I am trying to get across.

I'm not missing your point at all, I just disagree with it.

If we're going to go off what the government is squandering money on, at least in my opinion, there's a whole heap of things way higher in my queue than public sector pensions.

It is the case that scheduled pension liabilities with the current rates of growth cannot be afforded in the short term without cutbacks somewhere, although conversations around how this should happen is another can of worms.

From what I remember from the synopses of the Hutton report, it's not so much unaffordable, as (from his perspective) undesirable.

I've got every support for people defending their terms and conditions, especially when people in charge of their investments have raided the pot, and used it for other things, and would still like to.

And you know what? I'd have the same degree of support if they were private sector workers, too.

 

[brocklanders023]

Brocklanders......I'd have to look but currently just shy of 9% I think and due to go up by 2.4% next year.

I realise it's a few percent less than you, but you do work 10 years less for yours and you get 2/3rd's salary.

Shaun

Sounds the same as the pension new starters get now Shaun. Our pension was reformed back in 2005 and all new Ff's go on to the new pension. Those in the old pension got to stay in it. As I mentioned earlier, if the government proposed another new pension for new employees but left those already in the job alone I'd be more inclined to listen.

 

[brocklanders023]

I'd call a public sector attitude one with an air of entitlement totally divorced from reality, not to mention a hugely over-inflated sense of self worth.

If I put 11% of my salary aside each month i'd have to choose between eating and paying the mortgage. That's what it means to not be able to afford something.

I'm 28, and like most of my peers i've never had a pension, can't afford it. Are you telling me, with a straight face, that despite that I should continue to fund above average pensions for a public sector which serves us so poorly? Maybe I could have more services cut so you can live a bit more comfortably in your old age at my expense. Seriously, many me the people in the public sector don't even know you're born!

I'd call you someone that believes far too much what they read in the right wing press rumble.

I know exactly what it's like not to be able to afford things thanks, I manage to successfully not afford things every day and my bank keeps sending me love letter to remind me what I can't afford. I don't look at my wage before deductions, I look at what I actually get in my hand. The pension is just another deduction, I've never seen the money.

You say you don't have a pension. When you retire and claim the state pension who exactly do you expect to pay for that?

 

[Scougar]

Afford? Perhaps you are under the impression that civil servants live a lavish lifestyle?

I have a £1000 pound overdraft which was reached by the tenth of the month. I still had to feed my wife and child with the money I didn't have. Please explain to me again why you think YOUR situation is a reflection of the private sector as a whole? Try to look at the bigger picture

I will personally have to pay about £70 (ish) extra a month for a pension that is ten's of thousands of pounds less. You do what you have to do in order to survive/live.

If you REALLY believe that cutting the pensions of civil servants is gonna help your bottom line.. then I think you are just believing 'the hype'.

 

[JeRkY]

If I put 11% of my salary aside each month i'd have to choose between eating and paying the mortgage. That's what it means to not be able to afford something.

Perhaps instead of demanding other people who have spent their time working hard and providing for their future, have the rug pulled from under them.You should take your own advice from your first post on this topic.

If you don't like it you could always get another job

From a private sector worker who has been paying into pension schemes often on a par to the ones available to public sector workers. I have full respect to those planning on taking action to defend what they have worked for.

 

[brocklanders023]

I'm sorry but didn't fire fighters strike following 9/11 asking for a 40% pay increase?.
Did you not take the job knowing what the pay and conditions were?.
Is it ok for you to change your conditions in response to world events but not for anyone else?.
Did fire suddenly become more dangerous?.
Unions need to do some thing and in this day and age there are no shortage of legal firms willing to take on injury/unfair dismissal claims.
You have no need for a union, they need to be needed.
Thats how the game is played, you will get what you going to get.
The government will offer less knowing the unions will ask for more.
You're being naive thinking this is a simple case of you against the system.

I find it disgusting that you suggest the last Ff strike had anything to do with 9/11. As cheesy as it sounds being a Ff is like being in a brotherhood and the death of so many of our number on that terrible day effected us all. You really need to have a look at yourself if you think for one minute we would ever try to profit from such a horrendous tragedy. Shame on you.

The action we took was in response to our wage falling in real terms to others in the Public Service. We came out of it hardly any better off and are now on less in real terms then we were before the action. It was very badly advised and those at the top of our Union paid with their jobs.

As I mentioned before, it is quite clear you have no idea about the bulk of the work the Unions and their reps do.

The last strike did follow 9/11 and It was stated on question time by a union rep that the job was now more dangerous following that day in response to being asked to justify the 40% demand.
Do you really believe you pay had fallen that far behind.
Most are worse off these days and most have some form of pension crisis be it now or at some point in the future.
The union staff are no different.
I'm sorry if you're offended by any of my coments, that was never the intent, we just have very different views on this.
I understand how unions work and what they do, most of it is job creation as they try to change there role in the work place.

The actions of the government after 9/11 made us more of a target to terrorists. When a bomb goes off who do you think are some of the first people there? It could be argued that this puts us at more risk although that was never the main arguement for the strikes.

Take 9/11 out of it altogether and check out the statistics on Ff deaths on duty in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15. These would suggest the job has become more dangerous. Believe what you want, these are the facts. It is also a fact that due to our old pay formula our pay had fallen way off the pace. The deal we ended up with did not address this in the slightest and all the top Union bods lost their positions as a result.

You say you understand what Union Officials do but then go on to prove you have no idea. Make your mind up.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

My mind is fine, and I stand by all of my coments.
Especially on strike action.