Public sector pensions

andyrm

philthy3 wrote:

I'm just refering to local business here where all the staff have been goven £3k and shares because a new contract was won.

The other issue that some public sector workers have to contend with is that we can't belong or vote for certain political parties irrespective of them being recognised parties, some of us can't strike or work to rule.

2 points here - so the staff were paid a bonus because the company performance was above & beyond expected targets, i.e. they did a good job and overperformed? What exactly is wrong with that? Performance related pay is a good thing. It motivates the motivated, and weeds out the lazy.

As for being "able" to strike or work to rule - this is something I hate about unionised workforces. Strike action is lowest common denominator action, base behaviour instigated by undereducated and over opinionated idiots who refuse to look at the bigger picture and whether their demands are sustainable. It's not something to aspire to be able to do. Unionised workforces would do far better to have a credible, intelligent and articulate person with good negotiating skills, not some shop floor firebrand who threatens to disrupt operation if they don't get their own way.

markos1963

SheffSimon wrote:

If the regulations state you have to retire after 30 years, change the regulations so that you retire at 65 and can therefore make your full pension contribution. Simple.

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Perhaps you'd like to see a 67yo policeman,paramedic in an emergency or an 80yo social worker in charge of a child abuse case, I know i wouldn't. And yes, I am prepared to pay for it in my tax's. What I'm not prepared to pay for is 4 million unemployed like we did in the 80's just for the Tories to prove yet another political theory of theirs.

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

rhext

markos1963 wrote:

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

Change them? Or maybe just review them in the light of the fact that people are living healthier for longer?

starlet_gt

I'm currently a 2nd year student psychiatric nurse and before I went for my training I worked full time on acute psychiatric wards for 3 years as a nursing assistant. Can I imagine doing shift work well into my 60's? can I hell. Shift work is incredibly hard when you're expected to go back and forth from nights to days and 18 hour shifts and if the shit hits the fan you're expected to stay on and help.

It has a big effect on your health.

cycladianpirate

markos1963 wrote:

SheffSimon wrote:

If the regulations state you have to retire after 30 years, change the regulations so that you retire at 65 and can therefore make your full pension contribution. Simple.

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Perhaps you'd like to see a 67yo policeman,paramedic in an emergency or an 80yo social worker in charge of a child abuse case, I know i wouldn't. And yes, I am prepared to pay for it in my tax's. What I'm not prepared to pay for is 4 million unemployed like we did in the 80's just for the Tories to prove yet another political theory of theirs.

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

Have you ever joined a Ponzi scheme?

andyrm

starlet_gt wrote:

Shift work is incredibly hard when you're expected to go back and forth from nights to days and 18 hour shifts and if the shoot hits the fan you're expected to stay on and help.

It has a big effect on your health.

Plenty of people in other industries (aviation/transport/haulage/manufacturing) manage just fine............

Anonymous

andyrm wrote:

starlet_gt wrote:

Shift work is incredibly hard when you're expected to go back and forth from nights to days and 18 hour shifts and if the shoot hits the fan you're expected to stay on and help.

It has a big effect on your health.

Plenty of people in other industries (aviation/transport/haulage/manufacturing) manage just fine............

Do they? Buggered if I'm running after armed criminals on a nightshift when I'm in my 60's.

cycladianpirate

Private sector salaries and pensions are paid by profits. The company makes money, it gives some of it to workers, some to investors and some it reinvests.

Public sector salaries and pensions are paid by taxes and national debt.

That's the bottom line. The private sector and all employees (both public and private) have to pay for it in the end.

Much as I wish it did, it doesn't grow on trees....

da goose

Shift work is incredibly hard when you're expected to go back and forth from nights to days and 18 hour shifts and if the shoot hits the fan you're expected to stay on and help.

It has a big effect on your health.


Thanks, at least a few who have actually worked the shifts are endorsing my initial comments.....one of the most common phrases I hear when dealing with the public are:
"I COULDN`T DO YOUR JOB"
"DON`T YOU EVER GET DAYS OFF"
This being due to the fact one often deals with an individual many times over varying shifts/times of day and night.
I always look to the underground drivers to both pay/conditions/hours worked/ shift patterns and it reminds me how badly many public staff have been ground down already.

markos1963

cycladianpirate wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

SheffSimon wrote:

If the regulations state you have to retire after 30 years, change the regulations so that you retire at 65 and can therefore make your full pension contribution. Simple.

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Perhaps you'd like to see a 67yo policeman,paramedic in an emergency or an 80yo social worker in charge of a child abuse case, I know i wouldn't. And yes, I am prepared to pay for it in my tax's. What I'm not prepared to pay for is 4 million unemployed like we did in the 80's just for the Tories to prove yet another political theory of theirs.

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

Have you ever joined a Ponzi scheme?

No
My pension scheme is in the private sector and it's a final salary one. We pay about 13% in to it and whilst it's had problems and has needed some tightening of benefits it works. What's more it's been reopened to new recruits as the need for new money to come in is very important.

nadir

GeorgeShaw wrote:

rhext wrote:

Because the output of the private sector pays the public sector's wages!

Of course the public sector also pays the private sector's wages ...

not only that, but the output of the public sector creates a very necessary social and environmental framework that allows the private sector to go about its business, thus we have a safe and generally law abiding society and not the fecking wild west, we have a transport infrastructure that hasnt completely fallen apart (the legacy is still there despite the neglect by the freemarketeers of recent decades), the population are to large part educated (to some degree), and are maintained in a good state of health and fitness, they are not plague ridden and living in a pestilential sewer, thanks to the nhs and environmental and public health innitiatives.

wake up

Stone Glider

Has anyone mentioned that Local Government Pensions are fully funded? Thought not.

Divide and rule still works well. Why are Private Sector pensions falling apart? You do not value them sufficiently, or you would fight.

The envy/spite generated by the actions of a powerful/motivated union among the emasculated Daily Heil readers is sad. If you feel you deserve decent treatment, demand it and if not forthcoming, fight for it.

Slapshot

I sometimes wonder if people in the private sector actually have a clue what goes on in the Civil Service/Public sector. The vast majority of us earn less than £25k a year basic and need to work stupid shifts, weekends and overtime to make a livable wage.

Our pensions have always been something that have made low wages and the like workable but we are rapidly heading to a stage where that isn't the case. 8 years ago they changed our pensions system with a few reserved rights for some, most of us now HAVE to pay upwards of 3% of salary into our pensions schemes, many of us more but add in the fact that we have a maximum contribution as well of 5% as well. At 45 years old, I'll need to work till I'm at least 65 and as things stand I'll have to up my contributions as well.

Most of started work with a set of terms and conditions that we've seen torn to bits numerous times, my T&C are so different than what they were it's almost a joke.

As a civil servant I had my salary frozen, my allowances reduced, my pension ios underattack and all the while Cameron and his crackpots and increasing taxes, inflations is rising, fuel prices are out of control but we have to contribute to putting the country and as they control our income we're the easiest target.

They talk about fair, they don't understand the concept, the bank are sitting laughing at us, the PM and his cronies are all in with the financial sector.

I signed up for life, but if the chance came now I'd be out like a shot!

Slapshot

rhext wrote:

I still don't understand why public sector workers should be protected by right from a demographic issue which everyone else is expected to just deal with.

You're right, we shouldn't so here's the solution, pay us a market value wage rather than cap it, freeze it or change the goalposts on our ability to earn......ahh hang on, then there would be complaints and whinges about public sector pay rises.

Everyone wants the infrastructure that the public sector creates and provides, shame so many people don't understand they have to pay for it.

wiffachip

Stone Glider wrote:

Has anyone mentioned that Local Government Pensions are fully funded? Thought not.
.

what does that mean ?

sheffsimon

markos1963 wrote:

SheffSimon wrote:

If the regulations state you have to retire after 30 years, change the regulations so that you retire at 65 and can therefore make your full pension contribution. Simple.

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Perhaps you'd like to see a 67yo policeman,paramedic in an emergency or an 80yo social worker in charge of a child abuse case, I know i wouldn't. And yes, I am prepared to pay for it in my tax's. What I'm not prepared to pay for is 4 million unemployed like we did in the 80's just for the Tories to prove yet another political theory of theirs.

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

I imagine there are a number of sedentary jobs in police, or social services suitable for a 65yr old? As for your 80yr old comment, irrelevant.

markos1963

SheffSimon wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

SheffSimon wrote:

If the regulations state you have to retire after 30 years, change the regulations so that you retire at 65 and can therefore make your full pension contribution. Simple.

You are joking? Let's just change all employment laws that protect us from harm or protect workers from being overworked so that we can save a few quid?

Perhaps you'd like to see a 67yo policeman,paramedic in an emergency or an 80yo social worker in charge of a child abuse case, I know i wouldn't. And yes, I am prepared to pay for it in my tax's. What I'm not prepared to pay for is 4 million unemployed like we did in the 80's just for the Tories to prove yet another political theory of theirs.

Good pensions are affordable for all, we just need to prioritise our spending and get younger people paying in to them as soon as possible to keep them realistic.

I imagine there are a number of sedentary jobs in police, or social services suitable for a 65yr old? As for your 80yr old comment, irrelevant.

Why pay a policeman to do a sedantary job at full pay when you can retire him on a pension, doesn't add up.
80yr old isn't irrelavant, if they can't afford to retire then they are going to keep on working.

Captain Fagor

In the pursuance of informed debate, I would implore people to take an hour out of their lives and watch this:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/brit ... -story/4od

The reality is that the bail out of the banks (which added £80 billion to the national debt) is a drop in the ocean compared to the £4.8 trillion debt that the UK government has accrued. To pay this debt, we need to create an economy which generates tax revenue (private sector) instead of consuming tax revenue (public sector).

Given that the UK public sector is now larger than the private sector (especially when geographically remote from London), I fully expect to be in the minority. Based on my previous criticism of public sector pensions, I'll likely be subject to heated verbal abuse too. To try and preempt this, as the program rightly explains, the "big ticket" disciplines within the public sector (police, doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen) are essential and provide a critical service. However, they only represent a small fraction of the public sector, and I think we need to look closely at the necessity of the other jobs within the public sector.

andyrm

I remember watching that a couple of months back - one of the most interesting things I have seen in a long time, and it fully reinforced my views on a bloated public sector and the financial black hole it creates. The very fact that the public sector doesn't have to answer to shareholders and operate profitably (or at least conduct itself like a business, even if not on a 'for profit' basis) means that waste and inefficiency is allowed to continue. Couple that with weak management, apathy in the workforce and rules that make it very hard to sack anyone who isn't hitting standards and you have a major problem.

random man

I watched that programme and it had a very simplistic attitude. He compared us with Hong Kong, a country which had no welfare state or public sector to start with.
Our economy is dependent on the welfare state and public sector to keep going - we may not be creating wealth but the money circulating in the system is keeping the patient alive.

What needs to be asked is why is the private sector so small and how can it be expanded rather than just attacking the public sector because no matter how much is saved in the public sector our economy won't grow without massive investment in industry.

GeorgeShaw

Captain Fagor wrote:

To try and preempt this, as the program rightly explains, the "big ticket" disciplines within the public sector (police, doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen) are essential and provide a critical service. However, they only represent a small fraction of the public sector, and I think we need to look closely at the necessity of the other jobs within the public sector.

Public spending
=============
Health 18%
Pensions 18% (note, before people start, this will include everybody's old age pension)
Welfare 17%
Education 12%

That's 65% and we haven't started on police and firemen, then there's defence, transport ...

Quite a large "small fraction".

Noclue

Read this with interest as i work in the public sector also, and there are some valid points on both sides of the argument. I've been working in the public sector since i was 19, 6 years in the army and 10 years now as a firefighter, and i have to agree that reform is needed, average earnings instead of final earnings gets my support, as does capping some pensions, my chief officer earns more than the PM (£200,000 p.a.) and i dread to think how much his pension will cost the tax payer and i don't think that he's worth any where near that much. But the reality is that for most firefighters working to 65 is just not practical, not to mention safe, and no there isn't enough back room jobs for every one to be put in we would simply have to create jobs for people to do which isn't value for money for the tax payer either.
For what it's worth though London fire brigade shut it's old pension scheme about 5 years ago and any joiners since then will have to do 40 years and retire not before 65 anyway, but they are only paying 6% contributions rather than 11% that i'm paying, i would also add that i would also consider it fair to increase my contributions to about 14%, but as many have already explained don't be sucked in by the right wing press, their agenda doesn't benefit you either (if your a private sector worker).

Captain Fagor

GeorgeShaw wrote:

Public spending
=============
Health 18%
Pensions 18% (note, before people start, this will include everybody's old age pension)
Welfare 17%
Education 12%

That's 65% and we haven't started on police and firemen, then there's defence, transport ...

Quite a large "small fraction".

The stats I quoted from the Channel 4 programme referred to the portion of the public sector workforce represented by frontline services. IIRC the big-ticket items amounted to just under 2m of the 7m persons (i.e. 30%) employed in the sector.

The costs you quote will include all the staff associated with these services, not just frontline staff. If true, they illustrate the disparity between the portion of the workforce (say 30%) and the budget (say 50%) in providing the services. Either frontline staff get paid a hell of a lot more than the other staff (which I doubt) or there is a layer of administrative burden being placed on the taxpayer without any accountability for the value that it adds to the process.

Please - just watch the programme. See what you think. It advocates sweeping changes to our society which would affect everyone - not just the public sector. One thing is for sure: something has got to change. At the moment, we are living a lifestyle being funded by committing future generations to a lifetime of debt and economic misery.

rick_chasey

For the people who say the public sector "consumes" tax, it's not how it works, since there is no such thing as a finite amount of cash. This is macro economics and it doesn't work like your bank account works.

Take the componants of GDP. They are:

Consumption: Private expenditure (usually the biggest componant) e.g. rent, food, petrol etc.

Investment: As it says - mainly includes business investment, but also accounts for houses etc (though not financial products, since that's counted as 'saving')

and importantly:

Government spending: What the gov't spends. Salaries, military equipment etc. It doesn't include stuff like unemployment benefit, since that's transfered cash, rather than spending.

Finally ,you do net exports, i.e the amount received on exports minus the amount spent on imports.


Any gov't spending behave economically just like private spending (i.e. consumption), and, importantly, is subject to the multiplier effect.. That's why some people 'fear' when gov't cut too much during recessions - it quite literally reduces GDP, since it is a compnant of GDP. And if the multiplier effect is bigger than 1x, then a gov't spending cut costs the economy more than the value of the cut.

So anyone who comes out with stuff like "gov't spending is money down the drain" or "we pay for it" is, simply, wrong, and ignorant of how it actually works.

holker

blackpoolkev wrote:

I didn't say my boss was ripping me off.I will say you failed to give a satisfactory answer to my question.

Ok here goes:-

You are not contributing towards the public sector pensions black hole. You are as a taxpayer funding public services. These are two quite separate things.

The Government provides public services free of charge to the user, for e.g. healthcare, education, policing. In so doing it incurrs costs. One of these costs is the employment of people who are remunerated in the form of wages and pension promises. Other costs include buildings (police stations, prisons, schools), IT systems, equipmet (scanners, tanks, patrol cars).

Therefore the question misses the point. The real questions are:-

Is the cost at which the Government provides these services "fair" and "reasonable"? Cost would include wages, pensions, buildings, equipment etc.

Could the private sector do it more efficiently, including additional requirements to earn a profit and return for shareholders?

How should these services be funded? For e.g. through taxation or by the consumer by charging the user for policing or health care

wreckedmyklein

wiffachip wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

Has anyone mentioned that Local Government Pensions are fully funded? Thought not.
.

what does that mean ?

It means the money is already invested to pay for future pensions as opposed to the pay as you go civil service scheme. Unfortunately, the local government schemes are not fully funded.

They are funded, yes. But they are very badly funded compared to most private sector schemes. This is because the government allows them much more flexible rules than the private sector.

The pensions regulator would come down like a ton of bricks on any private scheme funded as badly as virtually all the local government schemes. There is a bombshell to hit when these funds start paying out more in pensions than they get in contributions. Fortunately for them, they do have a government guarantee, so whatever happens the taxpayer will have to provide them.

By the way, the comments earlier about the cost of a decent pension are generally correct. 2/3rds of pay at 60 would cost at least 25-30% of pay. Pensions in today's world of much higher life expectancy are very expensive

One final point. When pensions were first introduced, they didn't generally come into payment until an age higher than life expectancy. They were in effect, insurance against living too long. Now we expect care and education for up to 20 years, work for no more than 45 years and then pension for 20+ years. It's no wonder they cost so much

cycladianpirate

Rick Chasey wrote:

For the people who say the public sector "consumes" tax, it's not how it works, since there is no such thing as a finite amount of cash. This is macro economics and it doesn't work like your bank account works.

Take the componants of GDP. They are:

Consumption: Private expenditure (usually the biggest componant) e.g. rent, food, petrol etc.

Investment: As it says - mainly includes business investment, but also accounts for houses etc (though not financial products, since that's counted as 'saving')

and importantly:

Government spending: What the gov't spends. Salaries, military equipment etc. It doesn't include stuff like unemployment benefit, since that's transfered cash, rather than spending.

Finally ,you do net exports, i.e the amount received on exports minus the amount spent on imports.


Any gov't spending behave economically just like private spending (i.e. consumption), and, importantly, is subject to the multiplier effect.. That's why some people 'fear' when gov't cut too much during recessions - it quite literally reduces GDP, since it is a compnant of GDP. And if the multiplier effect is bigger than 1x, then a gov't spending cut costs the economy more than the value of the cut.

So anyone who comes out with stuff like "gov't spending is money down the drain" or "we pay for it" is, simply, wrong, and ignorant of how it actually works.

My God! I thought the old 'wealth creation' argument had died a death in the Seventies!! Seems it's alive and kicking on Bikeradar of all places. No doubt you are under the impression that if the last labour government "just had a few more years" everything would be hunky dory.....

You might wish to consider micro economics old son and, more importantly, address your mind to the "fundamental economic question".....why do people bother getting up in the morning???

GeorgeShaw

Captain Fagor wrote:

The costs you quote will include all the staff associated with these services, not just frontline staff. If true, they illustrate the disparity between the portion of the workforce (say 30%) and the budget (say 50%) in providing the services. Either frontline staff get paid a hell of a lot more than the other staff (which I doubt) or there is a layer of administrative burden being placed on the taxpayer without any accountability for the value that it adds to the process.

If you think you can provide a service by only paying the salaries of front line staff then you're living in an alternative universe. Let's just go through a few of the other costs you might be thinking of dispensing with in the NHS. Receptionist/admin worker salaries - what about those doing lab analyses, do they count or not? Building construction and maintenance. IT systems and maintenance. Cleaners ... I'd rather do without MRSA. Kitchen staff - we can all get relations to bring food in like they do in the third world, can't we? Teaching/training - we don't need educated doctors, do we? Do I need to go on? :roll:

Captain Fagor

GeorgeShaw wrote:

If you think you can provide a service by only paying the salaries of front line staff then you're living in an alternative universe. Let's just go through a few of the other costs you might be thinking of dispensing with in the NHS. Receptionist/admin worker salaries - what about those doing lab analyses, do they count or not? Building construction and maintenance. IT systems and maintenance. Cleaners ... I'd rather do without MRSA. Kitchen staff - we can all get relations to bring food in like they do in the third world, can't we? Teaching/training - we don't need educated doctors, do we? Do I need to go on? :roll:

I'm not denying that all tasks require support staff and a certain amount of admin. However, the public sector is not subject to the commercial pressures that private organisations are. It is inefficient as a direct result.

The government insists that monopolies can not exist in business (BAA being a recent example), as this results in poor value for paying customers. Yet it insists on state monopolies for health and education. Outside of China, the NHS is the biggest institutionalised organisation in the world!

I'm sure you will go on (and on), but it's highly unlikely we'll agree on this subject.

Have you watched the programme?

kacknar0800

It's cool cut the only real decent perk for being a public servant then in 10 years time when we have complete monkeys for police/nurses/fire then we know why because if you want to have quality services only the monkeys are going to do it for less.

Not sure about anyone else but when i'm old I want to know that the man driving the ambulance has half a brain.