The Strike

verylonglegs

GiantMike wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

How many times does this need to be said. It is not a race to the bottom.

Couldn't agree more:

I don't get overtime; therefore nobody else should?
MPs get very good expenses and I don't; therefore they shouldn't?
I get 5 weeks holiday a year. Some people get 4; therefore I should only get 4?

The race to the bottom just makes everybody worse off. You have to look at the big picture.

OK let’s go for the big picture, yes it shouldn’t be a race to the bottom in an ideal world but my job is exposed to the global market and has to remain competitive in this context, a quality product at the right price. To get a better pension deal I’d have to persuade millions of people around the world who’d love to have a lifestyle like ours not to compete so that the company I work for has no choice but to meet my expectations. It’s a fantasy is it not?

Pross

GiantMike wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

How many times does this need to be said. It is not a race to the bottom.

Couldn't agree more:

I don't get overtime; therefore nobody else should?
MPs get very good expenses and I don't; therefore they shouldn't?
I get 5 weeks holiday a year. Some people get 4; therefore I should only get 4?

The race to the bottom just makes everybody worse off. You have to look at the big picture.

No, it's not a race to the bottom but whatever is provided has to be sustainable in the long term. If someone can explain to me how the scheme is self-funding in the long term with current rates of contribution and no change to the retirement age then fine and we should all be demanding that our private pensions follow the same model. The thing that public sector workers often claim is that the pension is a big benefit that compensates for low rates of pay but my argument is that where jobs are directly comparable e.g. cleaning staff, care workers this is often not the case. Likewise, in the jobs where the private sector does pay more then there are usually other factors where the public sector job has greater benefit such as leave or working hours. If a public sector job came up at my level in my field of work I would jump at the chance to get back in, with 25 years to go to retirement I could top my pension up to a far higher level and have up to 16 days extra a year off including flexi time (as I currently work more than enough hours to earn that) in return for a pay cut of about £1k. I left the public sector for 2 reasons:

1.Boredom due to overstaffing, this is less likely to occur these days as department sizes have been cut in size over the past decade.

2. Lack of promotion opportunities as the job was so comfortable that people weren't leaving and vacancies weren't coming up.

It's not about a race to the bottom but of making people aware of the financial reality of life and making them see that what they have or even what they are being asked to accept is actually pretty good. It would be lovely if we all earned the same salary and benefits as Britain's top executives but it just isn't viable (and even if it were the economy would just get messed up by huge inflation rates!).

pb21

GiantMike wrote:

pb21 wrote:

I don’t get any bonuses, despite how hard or how much profit I bring to my company, therefore no one else should, including bankers.

OR, would you be better motivated at work if your employer gave you a bonus based on what profit you brought to the company?

Let's say you could get half the pay you get now, and the other half as a bonus (based on your current output). That way, if you work harder/smarter/whatever you could earn more so you and the company benefits. Used properly, bonuses are one of the best ways to motivate employees and that's the reason a lot of companies and unions settle disputes with 'productivity bonuses'. Work harder, get more; win-win.

So some things some people have are good for how productive they are at work.

Maybe keeping pensions as they are, what people have been expecting for the last however many years, instead of changing them for the worse, will make them more productive at work.

GiantMike

Pross wrote:

If someone can explain to me how the scheme is self-funding in the long term with current rates of contribution and no change to the retirement age then fine and we should all be demanding that our private pensions follow the same model.

I'm not sure where this concept of sustainability comes from. It seems to be a new concept to justify cuts.

The NHS is not sustainable. It costs the taxpayer money and isn't self-funding. Same for most tax-payer funded organisations. The pension bill is a part of this overall unsustainability, but so are operations, A+E etc.

GiantMike

pb21 wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

pb21 wrote:

I don’t get any bonuses, despite how hard or how much profit I bring to my company, therefore no one else should, including bankers.

OR, would you be better motivated at work if your employer gave you a bonus based on what profit you brought to the company?

Let's say you could get half the pay you get now, and the other half as a bonus (based on your current output). That way, if you work harder/smarter/whatever you could earn more so you and the company benefits. Used properly, bonuses are one of the best ways to motivate employees and that's the reason a lot of companies and unions settle disputes with 'productivity bonuses'. Work harder, get more; win-win.

So some things some people have are good for how productive they are at work.

Maybe keeping pensions as they are, what people have been expecting for the last however many years, instead of changing them for the worse, will make them more productive at work.

I couldn't work out if you were being ironic in your original comment or not. I agree with you that promised pensions should remain unchanged, or at least that people have the right to protest about the proposed changes. The point I was making about bonuses is that they can produce some very good results for the employees and employers, but I accept that in some cases this can cause damaging behaviour.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

The race to the bottom just makes everybody worse off. You have to look at the big picture.

Nice theory.

Big picture - where does the money come from to pay for the race to the top?

Pross

GiantMike wrote:

Pross wrote:

If someone can explain to me how the scheme is self-funding in the long term with current rates of contribution and no change to the retirement age then fine and we should all be demanding that our private pensions follow the same model.

I'm not sure where this concept of sustainability comes from. It seems to be a new concept to justify cuts.

The NHS is not sustainable. It costs the taxpayer money and isn't self-funding. Same for most tax-payer funded organisations. The pension bill is a part of this overall unsustainability, but so are operations, A+E etc.

Surely you can see the difference between paying taxes for services that you make use of and paying taxes so that someone else can enjoy a more comfortable retirement than you will yourself? The Unions often argue that the schemes are paying for themselves - if they rely on tax payers money then they plainly don't.

GiantMike

daviesee wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

The race to the bottom just makes everybody worse off. You have to look at the big picture.

Nice theory.

Big picture - where does the money come from to pay for the race to the top?

I'm not sure there needs to be a race anywhere. The employment market in the UK is free enough that people can choose where to work based on the salary and working conditions as well as the qualifications and experience they have (the big picture). This provides motivation to achieve in a competitive environment. The flip side is that we all get the same income regardless of what we do or how well we perform.

GiantMike

Pross wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Pross wrote:

If someone can explain to me how the scheme is self-funding in the long term with current rates of contribution and no change to the retirement age then fine and we should all be demanding that our private pensions follow the same model.

I'm not sure where this concept of sustainability comes from. It seems to be a new concept to justify cuts.

The NHS is not sustainable. It costs the taxpayer money and isn't self-funding. Same for most tax-payer funded organisations. The pension bill is a part of this overall unsustainability, but so are operations, A+E etc.

Surely you can see the difference between paying taxes for services that you make use of and paying taxes so that someone else can enjoy a more comfortable retirement than you will yourself? The Unions often argue that the schemes are paying for themselves - if they rely on tax payers money then they plainly don't.

I can see that there is a difference, on paper. However, part of the cost of public service provision is the cost of salaries and pensions. The same as the cost of ambulances are included.

The relative comfort of ones retirement is being used as a lever to get Govt support against the Union position. There are a lot of Public Sector workers who will a much less comfortable retirement than I will and will work longer to get there too. And some of them may well have saved my life or added to my quality of life. I pay taxes and I accept that some of this pays somebody's pension. I don't have children but I am paying for some schoolteacher's pension. Can I opt out of paying that? No. I also accept that some of the cost of my Tesco shop pays for somebody's pension too, but I can't opt out that either, unless I go to Sainsbury's and pay somebody's pension there instead.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

I'm not sure there needs to be a race anywhere. quote]

You are quite right. There is no need for a race.

What there is a need for is reforms.
To paraphrase the Labour guy - "There is no money". How many times does it have to be said.

Jez mon

GiantMike wrote:

Pross wrote:

If someone can explain to me how the scheme is self-funding in the long term with current rates of contribution and no change to the retirement age then fine and we should all be demanding that our private pensions follow the same model.

I'm not sure where this concept of sustainability comes from. It seems to be a new concept to justify cuts.

The NHS is not sustainable. It costs the taxpayer money and isn't self-funding. Same for most tax-payer funded organisations. The pension bill is a part of this overall unsustainability, but so are operations, A+E etc.

I don't see it that way. Otherwise you could surely say any business model was not sustainable. No business is self funding, they rely on other businesses/the general public to pay money for the products they produce. So does the NHS, the difference being the govt. force you to pay for the NHS.

The unsustainable argument comes from the tax income not matching the outgoings. That leads to an unsustainable business model, it's the same as any company, if it costs them more to provide their services, than they get for providing their services, they have an unsustainable model.