You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Possibly a little premature here, but after watching a Unison rep gloating about bringing the country to a halt later this year ("General Strike" was mentioned), I was wondering if anybody else would face the impossibility of getting to work in That London from the Surrey direction if the trains were out, and what we could do about it?
"Car sharing" springs to mind.
<plots bike route from Surrey to that London>
if practical, bike a couple of days plus work from home the others.
who would want to get to London if there was a general strike ?
shouldn't you be striking too ❓
Too far for me, allthepies. Got to get to Wapping.
Thanks, monkey. No.
Too far for me also - 37 miles.
Wondered if they'd look at a general strike, oh well I won't do a full strike. Work to rule maybe but never a walk out not in my job.
Still working to 66 that's going to rock.
Can someone set me straight on this please? One of the Tory chaps was mouthing off in parliament the other day, claiming that a "median income" (~£30k) worker in the public sector would retire (at 66 😈 ) with a pension that would cost a private sector worker nearly £500,000 to purchase. Please tell me that isn't correct, cos if it is, I'll lose A HELL of a lot of respect for the people about to strike.
What about now?
FACT CHECK: Financial advisers Hargreaves Lansdown have calculated that private sector employees would need to build up a pension pot of £189,151 - equivalent to £6,300 each year for 30 years - to receive the average annual pension paid to civil servants.It estimates the equivalent comparative figures for NHS workers and teachers are £221,155 and £298,596.
I have no respect for people who strike! Want to be thankful they've got jobs!!
I don't understand the figures. Does that mean that NHS/Teachers need to put in a pot of £221-299k to get the same pension as a private worker with a £189k pot? Or does it mean that NHS/Teachers who pay in £6,300 a year end up with those pension pots?
Never mind. Read the Fact Chack. Cheers.
Does that mean that NHS/Teachers need to put in a pot of £221-299k to get the same pension as a private worker with a £189k pot?
This one, it'll be some Pension scheme to get that for £6.3k per year.
It does go on to say there's more to it than than that but this £500k claim is bold.
If public sector workers have got it all so cushty, why isn't there an avalanche of applications every time a clerks job is advertised in Jobcentre's, Benefits offices, NHS offices etc. I'll tell you why because the jobs themselves are low paid! The figures being bandied about by the Government on Pensions, and financial advisers commisioned by the government are total fiction. Some of them are based on someone drawing a pension until they are over 100, others are being based on Senior Civil Servants pension, of which there are very few compared to 'the masses' The Government will win, they will cut pensions, and they will reduce public sector pay and pensions even more. It will make marvelous headlines in papers like The Daily Fail, and whilst this is going on the farce of moving the services to the Private Sector will increase. I have seen a lot of Public Services move to the private sector, it costs more, produces worse results, particularly for customer service, but it all looks good politically. Soon you will get the public sector service you pay for!
I have no idea how much the average teacher pays into their pot so it's a little bit misleading as a statistic. For me to get the same pension as a teacher I'd need to save the £299k over my working life. It's a way of comparing there's with yours that people can set the general public against those striking (and then maybe towards the government).
The £500k claim will be a figure using index linking or expected increases in wages in line with inflation or similar to make it seem larger.
I have no respect for people who strike! Want to be thankful they've got jobs!!
Erm??? So just because they have jobs means they can't try to prevent their conditions from being eroded? What a strange concept....
If public sector workers have got it all so cushty, why isn't there an avalanche of applications every time a clerks job is advertised in Jobcentre's, Benefits offices, NHS offices etc. I'll tell you why because the jobs themselves are low paid!
This.
If public sector workers have got it all so cushty, why isn't there an avalanche of applications every time a clerks job is advertised in Jobcentre's, Benefits offices, NHS offices etc. I'll tell you why because the jobs themselves are low paid!
Don't remind me. First job, straight out of uni with a Chemistry degree, Admin Assistant with the Immigration Department. The heady heights of a £9,500 annual salary. It was like I'd died and gone to Money No Object Heaven 😐
I earned more working as a chef in a pub.
Nope not a strange concept to me. Just be thankful they're earning! Must be nice to have a pension!
it is odd most people think the great oension problem is the fact that people in the private sector
I can see why people who dont have as good a pension as a public sector person is jealous or resents the public sector employee for their pension provision. personally you should be petitioning parliament and MPS to make sure you get something decent in your old age rather than begrudging those who have. Still when millionaires who dont need pensions tell poor people it is unaffordable who are we to argue.
As a union rep you can do almost anythin gyou wanttp public sector workers and they will generally see the reason for it and take it on the chin. however when you mess with pensions they ALL become very militant. one of the teachers unions has never even had a strike ballot in over a century for example.
Part of the employment deal was the pension.
I note no one is begrudging or complaining about the army or the police who get far better pension deals than teachers or civil servants/teachers etc....odd that like the politicians realise who they will need onside in the upcoming battle.
I personally think the battle should be to make sure every person has access to decent pension provision which will require movement on all sides. Of course dave wont actually expect his chums in big business to make a contribution though he will go for the easy target of getting folk to hate public sector workers.
It will be messy IMHO.
Just be thankful they're earning!
Thats what the mill owners said when they had no H & S etc. The employer always makes more from your labour than they do so they should be thankful we are all willing to be exploited as well. Redressing this balance to give a fair and equitable solution is not a bad thing - what do you think the pensiondela is like for the CEO of organisations that dont have pensions for their workers?
Effing sheep tbh most of you I wont strike I wont do this, I am grateful for my job sir 🙄 and you wonder why we get shafted by employers and the private sectro has shit pensions...you let them get away with it. Look at France they dont **** with the workers there as they block the streets of Paris.
Must be nice to have a pension!
It is which is why we don't want it messed with. How many times have we seen Private Sector workers cry out for the Government to help because they're company pensioned failed. This is the same.
A Jobcentre manager with responsibility for literally millions of Pounds of taxpayers money, managing anything up to 70 staff earns less than a Manager of a small MacDonald s outlet (No disrespect to managers of MacDonald's) The outright lies being bandied about by the media under the Tories control is an absolute disgrace, it's nothing more than propaganda being put out by the Government so that the vast majority of the public will not support the Public Sector workers and that will leave the Tory millionaires free to kick the sh!t out of them until there is nothing left.
And anyway, why shouldn't there be well paid jobs with good pensions? Wouldn't you like one??
The Labour Party seems awfully quiet about all this. Why aren't they opposing the proposals ?
Nope not a strange concept to me.
Maybe your short-sightedness is why you apparently don't have one?
The Hutton report found the average pension payments - including workers and dependents - in 2009-10 were as follows:* Local government worker: £4,052
* NHS worker: £7,234
* Civil servant: £6,199
* Teacher: £9,806
* Member of armed forces: £7,722
Thats the reality. Pensions are not that fantastic on average - and all reducing pensions will do is put mote people into poverty and needing benefits. This will have a greater cost to the taxpayer.
Most public sector pension funds including the teachers have been reformed to make them sustainable and to limit the taxpayer contributions.
Its an ideological attack on the public sector - don't be conned.
The right wing media have built up a moral panic over this and have created a bogeyman for the Tories to attack.
the real pensions crisis is the private sector not providing decent pensions - thus the private sector workers will have to live their retirements on benefits ie at cost to the taxpayer. Its not the public sector that will cost the taxpayer in pensions, its the private sector
Why worry, 17% of you might not make it 👿
The chances of living past age 65 actually *increases* the longer one lives.
In the U.K. one's life expectancy is 77.8 years at birth, but increases to 79.3 by age 30, 79.9 by age 40, 80.9 by age 50, 82.6 by age 60, 85.2 by age 70, 89.2 by age 80, 95.0 by age 90, and 102.6 by age 100.
However, the death rate also increases (which is to be expected). At age 30, the death rate per 100,000 people is 111.4; at age 40, it's 233.4; at age 50,it's 520.8; at age 60, it's 1,136.9; at 70, it's 2,657.6; at age 80, it's 6,712; and at age 85 and older, it's 13,798.6.
Out of 100,000 people born in a given year, 83,057 (or 83.057%) should still be alive at age 65; but only 2,523 (or 2.523%) will be alive at age 100.
Would you not agree tho that the public sector is slightly bloated in some areas?? Surely this is where the cuts should/are/will be taking place?? I'm fortunate to have a reasonably paid job and I've worked hard to get there, but we cannot afford to put into a private pension. I don't sit whining about it, I go to work, don't throw bricks around in a strop and just get on with it!! I have no other choice!!
I'm fortunate to have a reasonably paid job and I've worked hard to get there, but we cannot afford to put into a private pension. I don't sit whining about it,
It is why you have a shit pension from your employer...those who moan unionise and take action get a better pension deal than you ....could there be a link there? Do you want people to be as bad off as you?Would you prefer to have a good pension now? If someone tried to take it away wiuld you be cross?
PS we will all pick up the tab for your non pension as you will essentially be on benefits when you retire....why are people not as angry about paying for this?
I'm fortunate to have a reasonably paid job and I've worked hard to get there, but we cannot afford to put into a private pension.
But, if the norm was for greater employer contributions in the private sector, recognising the value of their workforce, you wouldn't have this problem.
I don't sit whining about it, I go to work, don't throw bricks around in a strop and just get on with it!! I have no other choice!!
And that may just be the reason why you do have the problem...
"What Sir? Bend over Sir? Certainly Sir...."
Would you not agree tho that the public sector is slightly bloated in some areas
I'm sure it is, but it's blindingly obviously under-resourced in others. This is also not what the discussion is about.
Double post???
There has to be savings made to pay for the mistakes of the Financial world, but don't be fooled by the very slick Tory propaganda machine. Those savings do not have to come from the pockets of some of the countries most loyal servants, those who make the public services of this country the envy of the world - the public sector workers.
I'm off the Mountain mayhem to de-stress!
Double post???
Nope, just two people, who often seem to have diametrically-opposed views on STW agreeing. Must mean we're serious!
How can a small company as ours is, afford to also pay into a pension. And yes I'll enjoy drawing my pension when I'm entitled to it and for whatever it's worth. I'd love to know what percentage of subbies in the building trade had pensions!! I think you'd find it to be a very small number!!
Surely that is your choice as to how you spend your money, or save!I'm fortunate to have a reasonably paid job....but we cannot afford to put into a private pension
As for your other comments, don't they equally apply to many/most working the public sector, or do you just assume that public sector workers don't work as hard as you? 🙄
How can a small company as ours is, afford to also pay into a pension.
Employ a better accountant.
EDIT: Or pay staff less, but give them better benefits such as a pension - a bit like the public sector does.
......and of course none of this was going to happen under a labour government 🙄don't be fooled by the very slick Tory propaganda machine
and of course none of this was going to happen under a labour government
Noone said that. However, as there isn't a left-wing party in the country at the moment, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
What about a new system ? Where everbody is equal and we all work/live for the benefit of each other in harmony 😯
it willl on be a so called general strike amongst those paid by the taxpayer , thats [b]us and them[/b], and [b]them[/b] want us to pay more for [b]thems[/b] pensions that [b]us[/b] also pay for now, while [b]us[/b] also pay for our own.
Stumpy, yeah I can really see Dave and his mates going for that idea...
I'm fortunate to have a reasonably paid job....but we cannot afford to put into a private pension
So you choose not to pay into a pension. Don't worry our extra contributions will see you right.
No project. You only pay for the pensions in the same way as the taxpayer pays the wages.
Do not be conned by the tory lies on this. public sector pensions are affordable and sustainable. Its nothing to do with the finances its all about an ideological attack on the public sector and of the politics of envy.
Do not be conned by the tory lies on this. public sector pensions are affordable and sustainable
As I mentioned earlier, why are the Labour party quiet on all these "lies" ?
A reminder:
PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS ARE TAXPAYERS TOO.
So essentially we contribute twice over to our pensions.
allthepies - because they don't want to be seen to be sticking up for the public sector as the tory press have so successfully convinced everyone that the pensions need reforming. Same as they convinced everyone that massive public sector cuts are needed and labour were so weak they got into a competition with the tories to see who could pledge the biggest cuts
weak and ineffective labour party
it willl on be a so called general strike amongst those paid by the taxpayer ,
Funny you mention that. I was going to ask my (NHS) employer what this large lump, labelled PAYE and Pension, which is deducted from my salary every month, is actually for.
I work for one of the quangos and our pension is self funding yet it still gets called into question when public sector pension get looked into. And the way I can see retirement age going I think i'd be getting death in service before my pension.
I thought Dave and his mates are there to help me ? Government elected by the people to run things for the benefit of ALL the people. You know like the police force.....paid for by the people to police the people ? next step a greed free world 😉
headfirst - Member
A reminder:PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS ARE TAXPAYERS TOO.
So essentially we contribute twice over to our pensions.
Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post
So follow the rules that the rest of work by or look for a new job, we could do a swop.
I very mnuch doubt you have the skills or would take the massive paycut.
headfirst... explain how you pay twice ? no beef,just curious 😀
Tj I have just reported your comment, you have absolutely no idea what skills I have or what I earn.
Edit: see apology below.
Genuine LOL @ headfirst
Err you forget your place youngman TJ is always correct about everything, isn't he ?
You pay towards pub sector pensions thru your taxes, no? EWell guess what so do I. Then I have a pension contribution to make as well.
Nope, just two people, who often seem to have diametrically-opposed views on STW agreeing. Must mean we're serious!
Wondering which one of us is having an epiphany 😉
I work for one of the quangos and our pension is self funding yet it still gets called into question when public sector pension get looked into
true that. there is not one large scheme for all public sector workers. there are many - with similar benefits with their own discrete pots to fund them. Even those that are self funding - ie they have the money to pay are now somehow deemed unaffordable. The issue is just the govt wanting us all to have less
as no one seemed bothered here is the army scheme from the army website - much better pension than teachers yet no mention of this being unaffordable ....odd that isn't it
Nobody joins the Army thinking about retirement. But when the time comes, the Army's pension scheme will be there to support you. [b]Most civilians either have to pay into a private pension fund, or contribute from their salary into a company scheme to ensure they have something to live on when they retire. But in the Army you are entitled to monthly payments based on your final salary, without having to contribute to your pension at all[/b].
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65. And if you serve for 12 years you'll be entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant on retirement too. Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension and tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army, and a second lump sum when they turn 65.
Tj, in my ire I may have misunderstood...oops. I'm sorry!
I see, sorry for being a bit thick. I also pay towards a public sector pension via my taxes and I pay into a private self funded pension also as I like to cover my options. Does that make us equal ?
headfirst - Member
Tj, in my ire I may have misunderstood...oops. I'm sorry!Posted 21 seconds ago # Report-Post
NEVER EVER APOLOGISE to TJ, hes not used to it,
headfirst
By the sounds of it you seem oblivious to the fact that public sector workers also pay pension contributions. It is the private sector where some companies provide non-contribu[b]tory[/b] pensions but like the public sector, it is in the terms and conditions and forms part of the decision as to whether the job package is attractive.
Project: those rules being: my employer is doing me the honour of allowing me to work for them so I will let then do what the hell they like to me.
No thanks.
Woody I'm in the public sector
Junkyard
Interesting point re the army pension. On of the guys I work with (who is 10 years younger than me) receives a services pension now which is more than I will get when I retire in 15 years time. He is also 10 years younger than me.
Nice if you can get it!
headfirst - aplologies, got my wires crossed from skimming others quotations 😳
Watch the mass exit over the next 8 years especially in the final few and particularly Women from the NHS and other public sector. They're going to have to fill these some how which means employing more staff which of course costs more in training.
There's loads of ex-service Bods Woody, quite a few have left the last year or two and come back part time now running on 2 pensions plus a part-time job.
YUP - and PTS seems to get a high % of ex police and Prison service too. You would need a pension to survive on the wages they pay 😉
Aye that's true they do, although bank PTS has attracted some ex-A+E staff back some of who "Had enough of these lot and I'll never be back" of course I don't remind them of these words. 😈
Can't blame them if they are still fit enough to work. I certainly don't want to be carrying 20 stone munters down stairs at 65.....................although I seem to have nicely side-stepped that one at the moment 😉
its interesting that the only peole we dont seem to target are those currently/about to retire. They are the ones who will get out vastly more than they have paid in , have ridden the post war boom and tbh [many] are not very poor or even close to it - my parents have more income than me and no mortgage and spend 6 mths abroad in their expensive motorhome. Everywhere we go they getin for less than I do [ i amnot saying some pensioners are not poor but lets not pretend that some are also very well off/comfortable indeed]
We ignore these in all this unaffordable notion but they are the ones who have not paid enough to cover their payments. We will be paying for our pension and theirs meaning we will pay more to get less than them. this seems unfair so why not have a pop at those who have benfitted most from this?
When I leave that'll be it, I've done almost 22 years now and just another 28 to go I think that's enough.
wrightyson - MemberWant to be thankful they've got jobs!!
😀 I love comments like that !
And it is precisely the attitude which the Tories, historically the party of high unemployment, want people to have.
Yes, we live in a society which doesn't recognise [i]the right to work.[/i] Employment is seen very much as a [i]privilege[/i] ...... for which we should be grateful.
Yet strangely enough those who see work as a [i]privilege[/i] rather than a [i]right[/i], are invariably also the first to slag off people for being unemployed......they can't seem to make their minds up.
Of course blaming the unemployed for the high levels of unemployment caused by government policies, is a very old Tory trick.
when that happens will we able to tell people they are ****s then? 😀When I leave that'll be it, I've done almost 22 years now and just another 28 to go I think that's enough.
Junkyard
Don't forget that your parents (and mine too as it happens) will be paying tax* on those pensions, so the government still gets some back.
*unless they manage to spend so much time out of the country that they are not liable, of course
yes they pay tax but that does not negate the fact the big issue is they paid in less than required to get their entire pension entitlement [ assuming they live an average length obviously] and we have to pay cover this and get less for ours. I am still not sure why that is fair.
] Can I not get a better pension and leave my kids to pay for it just like they did? We are resolving this issue by penalising us rather than them. Why?
Can we not share the pain equally? After all they cant strike can they 😉
When I mention this to them they just laugh and mock they really dont care as they are on to a winner
Junkyard - what makes you think that [b]they[/b] paid in too little?
Increased longevity and reduced yield on investments both mean we need to invest more in our pensions. Its not necessarily down to underpayments from previous members of any particular scheme.
Can I not get a better pension and leave my kids to pay for it just like they did? We are resolving this issue by penalising us rather than them. Why?
That would require cross party agreement, a cohesive long term plan and a crystal ball. All administered by a bunch of self-serving politicians who's response would make your parents look like amateur mockers
project - Memberit willl on be a so called general strike amongst those paid by the taxpayer , thats us and them, and them want us to pay more for thems pensions that us also pay for now, while us also pay for our own.
With logic like that, it's a wonder that you can type at all.
When you consider a job, you look at teh whole remuneration package. Traditionally this was:
Private sector: Higher wages, performance based bonus, lower job security, lower or no employer contributions to pensions.
Public sector: Lower wages, no bonus (apart from possibly quango execs), higher job security, higher employer contributions to pensions.
Now it's more like:
Public sector: Low wages, no job security, and reduced pensions for more input.
It really isn't rocket science. The private sector business model has always been high up front benefits to attract staff, whereas public sector was more less now, but you should get some repayment later in life.
£500K would buy an index linked annuity of approx £15,000 per annum for someone retiring at 60, so the MP was right. But that doesn't mean that the other figures are wrong, as the [u]average[/u] pension paid will include many former staff who don't have a full period of service so will not have a full pension. They might of course have other pensions from other employers though.
Private sector pensions have been mishandled for decades now. Pension holidays in the 90s saved [b]employers[/b] around £18 billion (according to the Inland Revenue) while the employees where still paying the same contributions they always had. The stockmarket appeared to be able to make up for the lack of employer's contributions.
Strangely enough during this period companies reported huge profits - because they weren't paying pension contributions. Fund managers still got their fees, the savings were passed to shareholders and the pensions went from surplus to deficit:
Unilever, the maker of Wall's ice cream and Persil enjoyed seven years of pension holidays. It not only saved millions of pounds but in 1999 also swiped the fund's £270m "surplus", adding it to Unilever's profits. Since 1992 it has stripped £1.2bn from its fund and about two thirds, £726m, was handed back to shareholders in the form of higher profits and bigger dividends. Bitter? Unilever pensioners certainly are. They have run a long-term campaign for the money to be used to boost their pensions rather than directors' salaries, but without success.
*Unilever did let their employees take pension holidays as well but that didn't help matters in the longterm.
It's another case of the private sector rewarding failure to plan ahead and build sustainable businesses, pure greed. The tories are using the public sector as a whipping boy for the failures of the private sector. And they're the ones that started it:
"The Tories have got a lot to apologise for." That is the view of Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at the charity Help the Aged.Like many organisations, it believes the previous Conservative government dealt generations of older people a serious blow when, in 1980, it scrapped the link between the state pension and earnings.
...
Kohler also criticised the Tories for allowing people to opt out of occupational pension schemes in the 1980s. Apart from the damage caused to occupational schemes, the Conservative government also offered millions of people what were dubbed "bribes" of thousands of pounds each to contract out of Serps, the top-up state pension.
Figures and quotes taken from [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004/jul/10/pensions.jobsandmoney ]Here[/url]