Jeremy Clarkson

scullysdad said:
Ah - but the point everyone seems to ignore about public service pensions is that they were taken into account in the overall salary package over the years - so people have had lower pay and lower pay rises over their career than people in the private sector - and now oh dear, what a shame we cant afford to give you what we promised - well flipping well blame the private sector that got us into this mess!
Click to expand...

The pension mess is because we are living longer.

When pensions were introduced a man was not expected to draw a pension for more than five years. Now he is expected to live more than three times that and it costs more than three times as much. Private sector schemes realised this was not a situation which could be continued LONG before the crash, the Public Sector has just been slow to catch up because it's such a vote loser for Labour that they would not address it.

Your overall salaries are now at least as high as in the private sector for the same job. Far higher in areas of deprivation in the north of the country. Since the oldest ones of you are still on a final salary deal, not an average salary, you are WAY ahead of where you could possibly have expected to be when you went into the scheme.
 
Tinselface said:
Was talking to a guy working at a quarry today, saying how the teachers now are the same as the miners. Striking over the smallest thing - he told me one mine had gone on strike for a week because someone wasn't given a pair of wellies at the right time (the story is longer than that - but thats the gist of it!)
Click to expand...
Yep , and now there is no UK mining industry as such, Unions in the 1970 s were prone to strike at the drop of a spanner, but that is history. Maggie Thatcher stopped them, now she is over 67 and no one has asked her to work for a very long time [she lost the plot and had to go]
Miners were RED, teachers are pretty moderate, there is no comparison
 
Last edited:
I think some people seem to have forgotten public sector workers are taxpayers too, the point "we are" paying for your pensions is really ignorant.

Pensions, for most normal (eg not head teachers, directors, managment) workers is one of the only "perks" of the jobs, and now they are being asked to work longer and contibute more for less.
A normal teacher, after 20years working can only expect to be paid roughly £7,000 more than the min. wage, nothing in the public sector is gold plated apart from a few lucky creeps who push their way up the promotion scale.

To be blunt, and this may be veering away from the point, at 67 i'd rather be sitting in an office doing paperwork, than teaching roudy kids, running around picking up sick, etc.

As always the baby boomers are getting a much better deal again. 50 year old has to work 6 years more than a 51 year old, i also don't find that fair.

Yes, i'm probabally going to be slated and that, but that's how i see it from a 15 year old's point.
 
animal said:
I think some people seem to have forgotten public sector workers are taxpayers too, the point "we are" paying for your pensions is really ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yes, but imho its a null point that public servants pay tax as their tax has already been someone elses tax int he first place! They may as well not and get paid less (so take home pay stays the same) the cost of the paperwork to sort tax out for all the public sectors workers must be huge - so why not cut out the middle man?

:)
 
The pension mess is because we are living longer.

When pensions were introduced a man was not expected to draw a pension for more than five years. Now he is expected to live more than three times that and it costs more than three times as much. Private sector schemes realised this was not a situation which could be continued LONG before the crash, the Public Sector has just been slow to catch up because it's such a vote loser for Labour that they would not address it.

Your overall salaries are now at least as high as in the private sector for the same job. Far higher in areas of deprivation in the north of the country. Since the oldest ones of you are still on a final salary deal, not an average salary, you are WAY ahead of where you could possibly have expected to be when you went into the scheme.
Click to expand...

Average length of public sector pensions was only 2 years in the 70s!

Way ahead? Really? In terms of £ received, maybe - but what about all the salary received in the past when private sector jobs were getting 5+% rises and the public sector "enjoyed" 1 3/4% ?

Over the long term public sector workers paid in a lot of money in terms of depressed pay to take account of the great benefit of the gilt pension! And now they want to say - oh that doesn't count, we can't afford it!

Say you pay in to a Christmas club £10 a month for 10 months and the club turns round in December and says - oh sorry we have spent your money on something else - here's £50 - how would you feel?




Yes, but imho its a null point that public servants pay tax as their tax has already been someone elses tax int he first place! They may as well not and get paid less (so take home pay stays the same) the cost of the paperwork to sort tax out for all the public sectors workers must be huge - so why not cut out the middle man?

:)
Click to expand...

That is true of most money - has been tax at some time!

Oh - and income tax was introduced as a temporary measure!
 
I quote from today's Telegraph on the monthly Office of National Statistics figures ( which is an independent organisation - before anyone argues this is just a Torygraph spin):

"Workers in the public sector are now being paid more than £2,000 extra a year compared with employees in the private sector, after public sector pay continued to race ahead of inflation.

The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year, in the three months to the end of November.
This is the first time that the gap, which has slowly widened under the Labour Government, has hit more than £2,000 and came as figures showed that the discrepancy between pay increases in the public and private sector had never been so wide.
The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) prompted experts to warn that so far the private sector had borne the brunt of the recession and that the Government needed to take action sooner rather than later to tackle the growing public sector wage bill.

Nearly all of the increase came from the public sector, with nurses, teachers, civil servants and other public workers enjoying an average annual pay rise of 3.8 per cent in the three months to the end of November. Meanwhile private sector employees saw their salaries rise by just 0.2 per cent, as thousands of firms froze their workers' pay as part of a desperate bid to cut costs in the recession."

The public sector 'deal' (that you took a lower paid job in exchange for benefits and a good pension) has not been true for some time and is no longer a valid argument.
 
Tinselface said:
Yes, but imho its a null point that public servants pay tax as their tax has already been someone elses tax int he first place! They may as well not and get paid less (so take home pay stays the same) the cost of the paperwork to sort tax out for all the public sectors workers must be huge - so why not cut out the middle man?

:)
Click to expand...

This could work if not for the large numbers who have more than one job. I do, and lots of my colleagues at school have at least one other job, not in the public sector. I can just imagine the mess the tax office would get into, sorting that lot out.
 
scullysdad said:
Say you pay in to a Christmas club £10 a month for 10 months and the club turns round in December and says - oh sorry we have spent your money on something else - here's £50 - how would you feel?
Click to expand...

I would feel the same way as I did when Gordon Brown removed £5 billion a year from pension funds, plus the compound growth on the previous years' £5 billions (ie the loss gets BIGGER every year) reducing my personal pension pot by a signficant amount. That was done after 20 years of already paying in without a penny from an employer or the government and at an age when I had no time left to make good the shortfall.

That was also the nail in the coffin for most defined benefit private sector pension schemes which are now rare when they were common.

You all think you are alone and being picked on, don't you? The rest of us have ALREADY BEEN THROUGH IT!!!
 
Last edited:
Posted this on another thread and decided to throw it in here as well. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb ;)

I literally don't think it matters what anyone says, the views are too entrenched. The Private sector very obviously think that the public sector are bumbling, incompetent dolts that are latched onto a lucrative nipple and living a life of luxury with the promise of more reward in retirement. The public sector are exasperated and frustrated because they feel they have been robbed. The two sides will never see eye to eye, unless of course all public sector workers are reduced to minimum wage or something.

From my perspective things appear thus: I am a lecturer in FE. I work pretty hard, pay loads of tax and am expecting to work until I am about 70 before I can afford to retire. However, I am also a temporary member of staff, since cuts have placed an embargo on appointing anymore permanent posts. I do indeed enjoy long holidays, enforced by the fact that the college closes and I am not paid for this time, so struggle along by saving to pay rent etc. I could live better if I didn't have a horse, but on the other side I don't have children so I think they are comparable in cost. I doubt very much I will be taking home a massive pension, and don't think I am living in enviable conditions compared to a private sector worker. I am sure I will be told to suck it up, and I did end up choosing this career so must bear some of the responsibility, but the same can be said for anyone who chose private sector over public - you made a choice, so don't castigate others for the choice they made. The govt promised a certain pension per worker, they can no longer deliver. How or why they can no longer deliver is somewhat irrelevant as they made a deal and now are reneging. The fact they already did something similar to the private sector does not make it right.

I also find it infuriating that C**tron and his colleagues rake in huge salaries, retire on huge pensions and seem to do very little more than make quips at each other across the house of commons. I would feel more vindicated if these swine were forced to endure the same conditions and cuts as their "employees" as it were.

And Mr Clarkson, a spanner who spends his days having d*ck measuring contests with his friends by driving around in cars, has a brass neck on him for suggesting that he works hard. Faffing around in a car and occasionally ejaculating some diatribe intended to offend and bait those of a sensitive nature does not equate to hard work in my book!!
 
BeesKnees said:
I quote from today's Telegraph on the monthly Office of National Statistics figures ( which is an independent organisation - before anyone argues this is just a Torygraph spin):

"Workers in the public sector are now being paid more than £2,000 extra a year compared with employees in the private sector, after public sector pay continued to race ahead of inflation.

The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year, in the three months to the end of November.
This is the first time that the gap, which has slowly widened under the Labour Government, has hit more than £2,000 and came as figures showed that the discrepancy between pay increases in the public and private sector had never been so wide.
The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) prompted experts to warn that so far the private sector had borne the brunt of the recession and that the Government needed to take action sooner rather than later to tackle the growing public sector wage bill.

Nearly all of the increase came from the public sector, with nurses, teachers, civil servants and other public workers enjoying an average annual pay rise of 3.8 per cent in the three months to the end of November. Meanwhile private sector employees saw their salaries rise by just 0.2 per cent, as thousands of firms froze their workers' pay as part of a desperate bid to cut costs in the recession."

The public sector 'deal' (that you took a lower paid job in exchange for benefits and a good pension) has not been true for some time and is no longer a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Public service pay scales have been frozen but people still progress up the scales until they reach the maximum - hence the higher award figures in the sector - you could argue that the rate for the job is the max of the scale - everyone below the max is being underpaid for the job.

The average wage bill per employee is going to increase as a higher percentage of the workforce will be on the max of their scales - nothing to do with pay awards but the contraction in the public sector which sees fewer jobs for new people at the lower end of the scales. The £2000 gap is for AVERAGE salaries - get rid of all public sector workers bar one and pay that one £30,000 and you have a "gap" of £8,500!

The argument is still very valid for people who joined the public service some time ago!
 
Last edited:
scullysdad said:
Public service pay scales have been frozen but people still progress up the scales until they reach the maximum - hence the higher award figures in the sector -

Whether it's a pay award or an incremental rise, it's still a pay rise and one that private sector workers aren't getting!

you could argue that the rate for the job is the max of the scale - everyone below the max is being underpaid for the job.

So you mean 'real' public sector pay should be even higher?!

The average wage bill per employee is going to increase as a higher percentage of the workforce will be on the max of their scales - nothing to do with pay awards but the contraction in the public sector which sees fewer jobs. for new people at the lower end of the scales.

The contraction is happening at middle and higher ends too i.e. The restructuring of Primary Care is taking a whole tranche of management out of the NHS; and the creation of school 'Super Heads' who run two or three schools thereby only requiring one person instead of several. Thus the reduction in top level positions and their pay.

The £2000 gap is for AVERAGE salaries - get rid of all public sector workers
bar one and pay that one £30,000 and you have a "gap" of £8,500!

Yes but it's the median (of millions, not one!), and not the mean, which makes it a more accurate average. And the argument that the top end pay skews the figures is true for both sides, probably more so for the private sector where pay differentials between top and bottom are massive.

The argument is still very valid for people who joined the public service some time ago!
Click to expand...

Yes, you're annoyed that you won't get what you were promised. We get that, and have some sympathy because we have been going through it for years! It's the attitude that because you are public sector, you should be protected from the financial realities of the current economic situation that gets on our wick!
 
BeesKnees said:
Yes, you're annoyed that you won't get what you were promised. We get that, and have some sympathy because we have been going through it for years! It's the attitude that because you are public sector, you should be protected from the financial realities of the current economic situation that gets on our wick!
Click to expand...

I think this sums it up perfectly. :)
 
BeesKnees said:
I quote from today's Telegraph on the monthly Office of National Statistics figures ( which is an independent organisation - before anyone argues this is just a Torygraph spin):

"Workers in the public sector are now being paid more than £2,000 extra a year compared with employees in the private sector, after public sector pay continued to race ahead of inflation.

The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year, in the three months to the end of November.
This is the first time that the gap, which has slowly widened under the Labour Government, has hit more than £2,000 and came as figures showed that the discrepancy between pay increases in the public and private sector had never been so wide.
The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) prompted experts to warn that so far the private sector had borne the brunt of the recession and that the Government needed to take action sooner rather than later to tackle the growing public sector wage bill.

Nearly all of the increase came from the public sector, with nurses, teachers, civil servants and other public workers enjoying an average annual pay rise of 3.8 per cent in the three months to the end of November. Meanwhile private sector employees saw their salaries rise by just 0.2 per cent, as thousands of firms froze their workers' pay as part of a desperate bid to cut costs in the recession."

The public sector 'deal' (that you took a lower paid job in exchange for benefits and a good pension) has not been true for some time and is no longer a valid argument.
Click to expand...

So if all public sector workers get a 10% pay cut it would bring them in line with everybody else,but their pensions would still be better so they couldnt complain. Would save the country a fortune,lets hope the Gov implements this.
 
I well remember the times when public sector pay was so bad that a career in Teaching,Nursing etc amounted to a vocation rather than a profession,whereas in certain elements of the private sector things were very rosy.In recent years unions have had to fight to receive a decent salary for the responsibilities that we have.I wonder how Jezza would fare if he had to do my job.I rather think he would run a mile,back to the home comforts of playing cars with his little friends.I have lost count of the times i have stayed behind to help hard pressed colleagues on the wards,and this i still do.If any of my patients are in crisis,i cannot leave until i have managed to arrange for various interventions,and they are safe to be left.Sadly,only very negative tales are told about teachers,Nurses and Doctors,but the public are unaware of the dedication that goes on behind the scenes,and this is with a backdrop of never ending cutbacks.Jezza needs a reality check.
 
minkymoo said:
Quote from a Unison rep: "Whilst he is driving round in fast cars for a living, public sector workers are busy holding our society together - they save others' lives on a daily basis, they care for the sick, the vulnerable, the elderly."

Umm, not when they are on strike they don't.

I object to being referred to as a 'pencil pusher' and 'in a gilded cage' just because I work in the private sector. I work damn hard thank you and at the end of the day, we all make our career choices. If you don't like it, get a different job!
Click to expand...

Obviously when they on strike they don't; but partly this is why they strike- they vital jobs in society and we would miss them if we didn't have them.
No one batted an eyelid when schools closed for the royal wedding.;

If they got a different job they would have to pay people more to do the job then!

As i said before, i'd rather be in an office when i'm 67 than teaching rowdy kids!
 
I work for the public sector are in the union but chose not to strike. I only work part-time as do the majority of the people I work with, and to be honest the pension we will receive now or when they bring in the changes won't make that much difference to me. I feel lucky at this present time to have a job, and don't agree with crippling even further an aurthority that has to make millions of pounds in cuts already.
 
I also elected not to strike as did most front line medical staff,but respect the fact that the Teachers stood up in force,losing a days pay to make a point that the Govt..can't continue bullying people.The fact is staff are having their pay cut,with many people being forced into accepting lower bands of pay.In the NHS you have to jump through so many hurdles to gain increments these days,without any guarantee of success.Also it needs to be taken into account that some Teachers are vilified for supposedly failing to educate kids.The reality is some kids,and their parents are not interested in learning and do not encourage them to achieve academically.This is caused by inherent social problems prevalent in our society.I know i could not teach these kids,and TBH would not want to.It is very easy to blame Teacher's,Doctor's and Nurse's,not to mention Social Worker's,when in fact the root cause lies elsewhere.Perhaps the delightful JC might like to teach in a sink school as one of his Top Gear challenges,or anyone on this forum who is critical of these public sector servants.They may well need to reappraise their awareness and assumptions.
 
horserider said:
Is Unison the new government ?
Power seems to have gone to their heads, not content with trying to leave the sick and elderly without care, children without education, the grieving unable to bury their dead, they now want to deprive us of Top Gear.

I never thought I'd say this, but bring back Mrs Thatcher. Someone needs to have the balls to stop this madness.
Click to expand...

Mrs Thatcher doesn't have balls.
 
Hollyberry said:
Much as Jeremy Clarkson irritates me, he does also make me laugh and he is right on the button with this one. Idiots who striked yesterday might not be so smug if they were instantly replaced. In these difficult times anybody who has a secure job should be thankful, there are not many people who have a secure pension in store for them and for too long the public sector have been pandered and spoilt and yes I know a lot of them do a good job, I am one of them, but you have got to be realistic in the financial mess we are in and just belt up and get on with it like a lot of people in the private sector are doing.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it is not a simple case of wanting to strike.
I am a personal friend of a few of the teachers at my son's primary school, none of them wanted to strike and the decision to close the school was made at the last moment with great regret.
Their union has put a huge amount of pressure on them to strike and they are all going above and beyound to make sure the children get the day back somewhere else in the school year.
Granted that may not be the same situation in all schools, butplease keep in mind that not everyone who was on stike wanted to be.
 
Yunalesca said:
To be fair, it is not a simple case of wanting to strike.
I am a personal friend of a few of the teachers at my son's primary school, none of them wanted to strike and the decision to close the school was made at the last moment with great regret.
Their union has put a huge amount of pressure on them to strike and they are all going above and beyound to make sure the children get the day back somewhere else in the school year.
Granted that may not be the same situation in all schools, butplease keep in mind that not everyone who was on stike wanted to be.
Click to expand...

Did someone hold a gun to their heads to make them close the school? If they didn't want to be on strike why were they on strike? What an example to give the kids "We don't wan't to strike but some nasty Union people are verbally bullying us and making us do it."
 
To be fair, my understanding is that if you are a member of a union and the ballot comes out in favour of a strike, you are expected to go along with the majority decision. Thats the deal. Its not really an option not to strike.

Where they do have a choice is in which union they join ( or indeed whether they join one ). So for instance my sister, who is a teacher chose not to join the NUT as she believed they were too hardline.

She's off on mats leave at the mo, so didn't have to make the decision.

I believe in the principle of unions and the right to strike. I just wish those who support this one showed a little more awareness and sensitivity of the fact that the average private sector worker is worse off than they are yet is still contributing to their pensions, when they often don't have a pension of their own.
 
BeesKnees said:
To be fair, my understanding is that if you are a member of a union and the ballot comes out in favour of a strike, you are expected to go along with the majority decision. Thats the deal. Its not really an option not to strike.
Click to expand...

Plenty of NUT teachers made that decision not to support the strike though...... some of them were brave (otherwise known as "scabs"), some probably could not afford to lose the pay.
 
I agree, I left the PS Union I was in when I realised what they were doing in my name. When they negotiate a national pay agreement for you it feels wrong not to pay your subs, but when they manage to negotiate "weekly productivity bonus" to be paid to park maintenance staff who are on holiday, etc etc etc I couldn't stomach it. It's weak management that's allowed it of course, but it's got to change, we've run out of dosh. (thanks Gordon!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top