STRIKE!
Comments
-
supersonic wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:here's a question:
will people keep the value of the pensions they have already accrued? and will the changes only affect the moneys to be accrued from the future after the changes (which are going to happen whther we like it or not) have been made?
does anyone know the answer to this?
Basically the amount you get will not change, but the amount people are having to pay to get it will. I think! Teachers are being asked to put in more to get this amount - from 6.4% of salary to I think 8.8%. Though it could be as high as 9.6% by 2014
The police for example pay 9.5-11% already.
It works out in monetary terms about working one day per month without pay to offset against your pension....in the private sector we have to make contributions (the level you pay depends on length of service/time to retirement) and usually the employeer does (what level is dependant on employeer) guess who has to pay for the public sector....yes the tax payer so yes me in the private sector...if your not happy lets stop the support from the taxpayer and see what shite state of affairs your pension pot would be...
Oh and teachers if your so concerned about money...get a part time job in the fecking 13 weeks holiday you get you whineing selfish shits....0 -
Pudseyp wrote:
Oh and teachers if your so concerned about money...get a part time job in the fecking 13 weeks holiday you get you whineing selfish shits....
While I completely disagree with the strikes, I can't knock a teachers holidays. Mrs G did her first year of full time teaching last year and would leave at 7am, come home at 7pm and work at home until half 9 earliest, then do a whole day at home each weekend in planning and marking, she never got full ppa and was leaned on to go in during her holidays to sort her classroom etc, they deserve the holidays they get, or the proportion of them they actually get. My problem is that the public sector is so swollen now compared to what it's original purpose was, it's remit is so far reaching, and if we can't chop some of these things from that remit and bring the number of people working in the public sector down more, then the money has to come from somewhere else.i take no delight in sering people worse off, but if the money isn't there it isn't there0 -
As do Fire Fighters but both the Police and Fire Fighters need to pay more because they retire at 55 where as the rest of the public sector will be expected to work beyond 65.supersonic wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:here's a question:
will people keep the value of the pensions they have already accrued? and will the changes only affect the moneys to be accrued from the future after the changes (which are going to happen whther we like it or not) have been made?
does anyone know the answer to this?
Basically the amount you get will not change, but the amount people are having to pay to get it will. I think! Teachers are being asked to put in more to get this amount - from 6.4% of salary to I think 8.8%. Though it could be as high as 9.6% by 2014
The police for example pay 9.5-11% already.0 -
Gazlar wrote:Pudseyp wrote:
Oh and teachers if your so concerned about money...get a part time job in the fecking 13 weeks holiday you get you whineing selfish shits....
While I completely disagree with the strikes, I can't knock a teachers holidays. Mrs G did her first year of full time teaching last year and would leave at 7am, come home at 7pm and work at home until half 9 earliest, then do a whole day at home each weekend in planning and marking, she never got full ppa and was leaned on to go in during her holidays to sort her classroom etc, they deserve the holidays they get, or the proportion of them they actually get. My problem is that the public sector is so swollen now compared to what it's original purpose was, it's remit is so far reaching, and if we can't chop some of these things from that remit and bring the number of people working in the public sector down more, then the money has to come from somewhere else.i take no delight in sering people worse off, but if the money isn't there it isn't there
It's the above that people in the private sector don't realise. And I agree with everything said, including the final sentiments - but I feeel that the education system is something that must be invested in for the future economy. We don't earn loads or get mroe than our fair share. The only pro left in the industry is job security (and even then, in three years I was let go twice as I was last in, first to go - no redundancy payment due to the type of contract).
Anyways, my arguments are becoming cyclic, I'll keep watching and reading, and I'll thank you all for a quality discussion. Limes for all.0 -
It doesn't help when there are grossly incompetent people holding the purse strings, for example mrs Gs last school couldn't afford tippex, a new bulb for her smart board, board markers and other such stuff by xmas last year, but they could afford to spend 2000 quits on a wicker dragon for the front of the school.
It's one of my greatest bug bears, how much public money is spent making things look good. For example, the qe hospital in birmingham cost hundreds of millions, it was designed to look like the 3 funnels of the qe2, just how much did the complex design cost extra compared to what it would cost to build a functional square building, but still made it lok nice?
I know one of the glaziers who worked on the new bus station in wolverhampton, the waiting areas are 30ft high, each piece of 30ft high glass cost 20k. I don't know any 30ft tall people, why couldn't a smaller, better value building have been built that did the same job?.
this is money that could be saved and/or better distributed by thinking value0 -
Yup this has been a huge bug bear that the private sector has with the public sector.
Just common sense spending, it really does feel like the whole public sector is unaware of the finacial implications of the things they do so Value doesn't enter into there minds :S0 -
As do Fire Fighters but both the Police and Fire Fighters need to pay more because they retire at 55 where as the rest of the public sector will be expected to work beyond 65.
To get the full pension you need to have done 30 or 35 years service, depending on when you joined. Teachers can retire at 55 and get a 'premature pension'.0 -
55 is the normal retirement age for both Police and Fire Fighters they can go at 50 if they have 30 years service.supersonic wrote:As do Fire Fighters but both the Police and Fire Fighters need to pay more because they retire at 55 where as the rest of the public sector will be expected to work beyond 65.
To get the full pension you need to have done 30 or 35 years service, depending on when you joined. Teachers can retire at 55 and get a 'premature pension'.0 -
i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.0 -
Sheep,
For a public sector monkey sometimes you almost talk common sense at times. of course I expect you to hunt me down and leave me in a ditch with my head backwards
0 -
sheepsteeth wrote:i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.
were you born into public service or are you accepting less then 40 years
0 -
Public sector workers all have bad aids.0
-
Briggo wrote:Public sector workers all have bad aids.
And shite pensions......apparently0 -
mak3m wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.
were you born into public service or are you accepting less then 40 years
we only have to do 22 years in the military for our full and immediate pension. i will be 40 at my 22 year point but i have (as have most of the army) been granted an optional final 2 years if i want them.
only got 7.5 years to go!0 -
what do you plan on doing after that, hookers and blow? getting wasted?sheepsteeth wrote:mak3m wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.
were you born into public service or are you accepting less then 40 years
we only have to do 22 years in the military for our full and immediate pension. i will be 40 at my 22 year point but i have (as have most of the army) been granted an optional final 2 years if i want them.
only got 7.5 years to go!
i never knew the military had to work such a short amount of time!0 -
jay12 wrote:
what do you plan on doing after that, hookers and blow? getting wasted?sheepsteeth wrote:mak3m wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.
were you born into public service or are you accepting less then 40 years
we only have to do 22 years in the military for our full and immediate pension. i will be 40 at my 22 year point but i have (as have most of the army) been granted an optional final 2 years if i want them.
only got 7.5 years to go!
i never knew the military had to work such a short amount of time!
i plan to live in a small cottage in north wales, ride my bike, keep some chickens and ducks, grow some vegetables and maybe do a simple, no responsibility job where i am not responsible for anyone or anything that happens to them.
we do work a relatively short amount of time i suppose but there are certain physical and social restraints put on us during those years, it is very hard to be fit enough after about 40 to keep up with blokes (and women) in their early 20s0 -
sounds good!sheepsteeth wrote:jay12 wrote:
what do you plan on doing after that, hookers and blow? getting wasted?sheepsteeth wrote:mak3m wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:i was to be retired at either 40 or 42 years of age with an immediate pension and fairly hefty lump sum based on final 2 years of rank.
i thkn it is going to change now in some way but i should still be retiring at 40 or 42 (whichever i decide) with an immediate pension and a payout, but i think the value of both will be less now.
i dont particularly mind if im honest as with it being public sector pension and in particular a military one, it is about as good as you get in the whole country.
were you born into public service or are you accepting less then 40 years
we only have to do 22 years in the military for our full and immediate pension. i will be 40 at my 22 year point but i have (as have most of the army) been granted an optional final 2 years if i want them.
only got 7.5 years to go!
i never knew the military had to work such a short amount of time!
i plan to live in a small cottage in north wales, ride my bike, keep some chickens and ducks, grow some vegetables and maybe do a simple, no responsibility job where i am not responsible for anyone or anything that happens to them.
we do work a relatively short amount of time i suppose but there are certain physical and social restraints put on us during those years, it is very hard to be fit enough after about 40 to keep up with blokes (and women) in their early 20s
yeah, i can totally understand why0 -
i will have to get a job of some sort, i will be mortgage free if all of my plans work out so my pension should actually pay for me to live well enough but i will need a reason to get up i think.
so far my longest plan was to be a teacher but i dont think i can be fucked with it. mainly because i recently got a very basic civvy teaching qualification which was so full of hippy nonsense it would make your head spin. i teach for a living and am better at it than almost any of the civvies who have tried to teach me and i can certainly do it better than the bloke who tried to teach me how to teach.
the current new plan is to be a butcher.0 -
that sound pretty decent.sheepsteeth wrote:
the current new plan is to be a butcher.0 -
Aha sheeps keep at it
both my brothers joined the RAF at 16 complained biterly about how crap it was all the way up to the point they retired at 38
0 -
mak3m wrote:Aha sheeps keep at it
both my brothers joined the RAF at 16 complained biterly about how crap it was all the way up to the point they retired at 38
it is one of many good reasons to be in the forces.
i must admit, it wasnt something i thought about when i joined up at 17, i just wanted to be a soldier. its only during the last few years as i have grown up a bit that i have considered the huge benefit that the pension really is.
i feel very fortunate to be taking home my wages and i cant remember the last time a soldier complained about his money or equipment, it is often other people who think it should be better. All of the soldiers that i work with think their money is good and certainly in the last 3 years or so, our equipment standard has improved massively.
im planning to do the next 9.5 years as i have recently been selected from promotion so i feel like my career has had a bit of a boost after missing out on the last couple of opportunities to select.
cant wait to get to my next post and get on with it.0 -
Bet you wished you'd joined the Greek army though, you'd get to wear this
I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
cooldad wrote:Bet you wished you'd joined the Greek army though, you'd get to wear this
that is quality gear, i wonder if our pompe and ceremony looks as webbo to them!0 -
Gazlar wrote:It's one of my greatest bug bears, how much public money is spent making things look good. For example, the qe hospital in birmingham cost hundreds of millions, it was designed to look like the 3 funnels of the qe2, just how much did the complex design cost extra compared to what it would cost to build a functional square building, but still made it lok nice?
S**t loads.
There's a local college in Colchester where the Principle wanted a functional building and it would have cost £7million.
Then everybody else had to 'buy in' to the design and fit out, in the end they borrowed £10million and applied for £10million in funding and put half the college into portacabins whilst the build started. Halfway through the funding stopped so now they're still teaching out of portacabins, the foundations for half the building have been covered, the new bit that's finished is a nightmare to maintain, the old buildings they were going to demolish are having to be re occupied and rebuilt, plus the college owes £10million.
Or there's the wonderful home office building at 2 Marsham Street, looks really nice, but because of the design it's almost impossible to clean some of the glass exterior, and the interior M&E is a absolute nightmare - just imagine 500 zone climate control.Visit Clacton during the School holidays - it's like a never ending freak show.
Who are you calling inbred?0 -
Blame the government for ring-fencing budget items and removing the flexibiliy of the school and the local authority.Gazlar wrote:It doesn't help when there are grossly incompetent people holding the purse strings, for example mrs Gs last school couldn't afford tippex, a new bulb for her smart board, board markers and other such stuff by xmas last year, but they could afford to spend 2000 quits on a wicker dragon for the front of the school.
My wife's school a couple of year back could not afford to replace the lamps in their projectorss, not could they afford toner for the photocopiers and printers but during the same year about half the teachers got brand new laptops to replace there already fairly new laptops - all because of ring-fenced budgets.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Hey it could be worse. Our tiny island spent many millions on extending the runway at the airport so we could start to take big jets. Unfortunately, they forgot to ask any of the airlines if they would be interested in flying to a plssy little island in the middle of the Irish sea before they went and did it. Guess what, they can't.
Once they'd lashed millions at the runway extension though, they realized they could no longer see the end of the runway, so had to throw even more millions into putting in a new ATC tower.
sadly though, the new ATC tower is so high that it's often covered by mist rolling in off the sea.
To combat this, they had to spend many more millions again for ground positioning radar (like they use at Heathrow).
They are currently in the process of spending many more millions on putting up a massive security fence surrounding the entire airport to comply with some sort of international security standard.
All of this whilst tourism numbers, and numbers of passengers through the airport are actually DROPPING.
Unfortunately, nobody wants to come on holiday here anymore. Partly because you can go "proper" abroad for the same, if not less money, and be guaranteed good weather. And partly because the whole island is rapldly becoming some old, run-down cliche of a seaside resort.
Most of the old hotels have long since closed, and been turned into apartments (which in turn are largely owned by people who need a postcode here to benefit from tax breaks and barely ever visit).
I love this place, I really do. But it's being crippled by a government who have no farking clue what they are doing, and just want to milk as much for theirselves as possible before the whole thing collapses around them.0 -
If they can equip those heavy jets with motorbike transporting racks they could be on a winnerUncompromising extremist0
-
It's more local goverment for projects like that, not so much central goverment.
The main goverment doesn't spec how systems allocate budgets in that detail thats the reason there are layers of administration, which are terribly inflexible unlike the private sector. But then again i've met people in the private sector finance, and strangely i'm not suprised budgets are so badly managed indeed
0 -
Definitely agree with this. I went for the E2E, and enjoyed the weekend there, but I don't think I'd bother going back to explore the rest of the island I didn't visit. Douglas is a typical town/seaside resort, and Peel has a nice castle and a couple of nice pubs. For the cost of the ferry over there, I'd much rather go to France, and drive around for weeks visiting new places. Shame, as IoM is actually really nice!Cat With No Tail wrote:Unfortunately, nobody wants to come on holiday here anymore. Partly because you can go "proper" abroad for the same, if not less money, and be guaranteed good weather. And partly because the whole island is rapldly becoming some old, run-down cliche of a seaside resort.
Doesn't it have it's own government? I think they should employ Northwind, that's not a bad idea! I bet Liverpool JOhn Lennon Airport wouldn't be too happy with that though It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
Join us on UK-MTB we won't bite, but bring cake!
Blender Cube AMS Pro0 -
The way I see it is that we've got a bit of a tough time here. Many people now go overseas for holidays, for the reasons stated in my last post. But the ones who want to stay in the UK, have no reason to come here because we can't *really* offer anything you can't already find in england.
That's without taking into account the fact you can actually get a holiday for the cost of the ferry to get here (upwards of £300 for a family of 4 + car).
It's a great place to live, but I'd not want to visit.0
