Public sector pensions

Wundahorse said:
So much for the private sector,i bought a settee and armchair from a well known firm,clearly from money that SP pays me through her taxes.After weeks of delivery delay the furniture arrived,but they sent the wrong chair.How is that for efficiency.And i get fed up trying to buy goods from very bored staff who would clearly prefer to be elsewhere.Some people decline to put money into their pensions by choice,and then complain when they have little other than what the state provides when they retire.Also all the people who fritter their money in their working lives can look forward to care home fees being paid.I have always been careful and saved,and when i eventually retire,that is if i live long enough to enjoy retirement after working all those extra years the Govt..have heaped on us,my savings and pension will be diverted to paying my care home fees.
Click to expand...

And what has ANY of that, all true, got to do with public sector workers striking over a reduction in their pensions to a position where they will still be way over what the private sector has? I hope the whinge helped you feel better, but it has nothing to do with the discussion!
 
fburton said:
Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?
Click to expand...

Road diggers are mostly private sector. If they are working for gas, water, telecoms or electricity companies then they contribute money to the public sector. If they are working on road maintenance for the council, they do not contribute money to the public sector, because for that piece of work, they effectively ARE the public sector.

I agree about the men who stand and stare down the hole!
 
fburton said:
Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion.
Click to expand...


do you live near me? I only ask because this totally describes our road diggers.:)
 
tinselunicorn said:
SP if you use the advanced button you or if you quote someone you are in the advanced edit options where you just highlight the words you want and then click on the bold, underline or italic icons at the top :)
Click to expand...

I got no icons :( Snot fair !!! I shall thcream and thcream until I get thome.

TU what am I doing wrong? My browser is Firefox, perhaps that's why I don't get the icons. Do you get to see the text commands - and for example? If so, can you tell me the commands for italic bold and underline and I'll use those.
 
Santa Paws said:
I got no icons :( Snot fair !!! I shall thcream and thcream until I get thome.

TU what am I doing wrong? My browser is Firefox, perhaps that's why I don't get the icons. Do you get to see the text commands - and for example? If so, can you tell me the commands for italic bold and underline and I'll use those.
Click to expand...

Go into User CP at the top and check your settings - maybe you haven't got something ticked:o
 
BeesKnees said:
Thank you Paddy55 for making a case at least. Interesting though that you only quoted half my sentence, the other half being "and how it should be paid for?".

You are right of course that people without pension provision are a drain on the state, but the reality is that it is less of a drain than paying for public sector pensions, quite simply because the amounts provided are under credits and state pension are less.

I am going to be tiresome and reiterate the PS works don't really pay tax and NI. Yes you receive a payslip that says tax and NI paid on it. Did you ever have that money? No like all PAYE it is taken from your employer, in your case the state. So the state says on a piece of paper given to you 'we paid your tax and have given it to........ourselves'. You see? It isn't real, it's smoke and mirrors. It never went anywhere, it's just in the tax pot, in the treasury. That pot is no richer after the paper transaction than it was before.

In my case, my employer has to ring up HMRC and make a payment each month from the business account, which has money in it from the services we provide and which people pay for, to cover my tax and NI. That is money the
state now have that they didn't have before.

The bottom line is if the public sector has a legal right to the pension provision as it stands then they should be in court fighting it out, not striking.

And I still haven't heard how you think your pension should be paid for?
Click to expand...

I think the taxpayer should pay as part of their funding of public servces. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I agree that things have changed in recent years however I remember many pay reviews in the past when our pay was compared to comparable outside jobs and the pension "benefit" was taken into account. The level of civil service pensions was not always considered to be so exceptional. I remember my father who started his pension in about 1987 from a large private sector employer was on a superior scheme to the civil service one. However that was in the past.


I also understood that civil servants (I don't know enough about others to comment) have a right, as part of their conditions of service to join the civil service pension scheme. That is not compulsory. As a member of that pension scheme one then gets the benefits set out in the scheme.

You make a comment about "fighting it out in court" that is what I understand the unions did a couple of years ago when changes were proposed. My understanding was that the changes introduced had to be reversed as a result of the court decision.

The question seems to be should the conditions of the pension scheme be updated to bring it inline with modern life expectancy etc. I see no problem with this. There are always going to be winners and losers when anything changes.
For example when the female retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 I lost out badly. I lost out a second time when it was increased to 66.
So some public sector workers will lose out when the retirement age is increased. This will be inevitable. It is a fact of life as society progresses.
In the same way to reflect economic conditions then public sector workers will have to make contributions towards their pensions.
What suprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to take a stand to implement this. What was the government doing for the last 10 years?

as for "paying tax" I perfectly understand your "gross" and "net" argument.
I just think it is a silly one that doesn't really add anything to how public sector pensions should be calculated.
 
fburton said:
Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?
Click to expand...

To continue with your tangent (and agree with it), in the Netherlands and Germany, not only do I see road workers actually working, but they aren't universally male either. Its quite normal to get female ones.

Such companies are usually what I term "quasi public sector" - dependent on the public sector to get work, most likely wouldn't survive if they depended on purely private sector work.
 
Last edited:
Santa Paws said:
Pensions are not generally part of an employment contract. Check your contract, I think you may find that it is not there. This is normal.
Click to expand...

They not form part of a written contract of employment or statement of terms and conditions, but if habitually recieved, will usually form one of the implied terms of the contract. This does not mean it cannot be changed at reasonable notice, and with the agreement of both parties to the contract.
 
tinselunicorn said:
What suprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to take a stand to implement this. What was the government doing for the last 10 years?
Click to expand...



It's a good point. A Labour government ducked it because they knew it was a vote loser. To rub salt in the wound, they ducked it partly by taking £5 billion a year, every year, plus compound interest on all the previous years' £5 billions, out of the private sector pension pot.
 
Last edited:
Wundahorse said:
And i get fed up trying to buy goods from very bored staff who would clearly prefer to be elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Wundahorse can I suggest that before you criticise a bored shop worker who would prefer to be elsewhere, that you try working for 40 hours a week for under £12,000 a year (taxed and contributing to your pension), no sick pay for the first 5 days, no life assurance, no fallback if too ill to work again (just the sack), 4 weeks holidays, mandatory working on Bank Holidays, and no realistic pension?

Everyone would prefer to be elsewhere!
 
Last edited:
paddy555 said:
I think the taxpayer should pay as part of their funding of public servces. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Click to expand...

So as an addendum, can you explain why that seems fair to you when many of those tax payers can't afford a pension of their own?

paddy555 said:
as for "paying tax" I perfectly understand your "gross" and "net" argument. I just think it is a silly one that doesn't really add anything to how public sector pensions should be calculated.
Click to expand...

Silly or just an inconvenient reality? It is a valid argument when people are justifying the level of pension provision by saying 'we pay for it', when strictly speaking from an accounting point of view, they aren't?
 
Santa Paws said:
Wundahorse can I suggest that before you criticise a bored shop worker who would prefer to be elsewhere, that you try working for 40 hours a week for under £12,000 a year (taxed and contributing to your pension), no sick pay for the first 5 days, no life assurance, no fallback if too ill to work again (just the sack), 4 weeks holidays, mandatory working on Bank Holidays, and no realistic pension?

Everyone would prefer to be elsewhere!
Click to expand...

It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
 
Anglebracket said:
It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
Click to expand...

Excuse me. I've had many jobs where I only receive 20 days holiday per year. In fact when I say "only" I've counted myself lucky. I have several friends who only receive 15 or 17 days a year. On what planet do you live?
 
Anglebracket said:
It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
Click to expand...

Haha!

What planet do you live on?:confused:

Try talking to people who are employed in Costa, supermarkets and places like that who have to sign contrracts to say they will work on Bank Holidays - that includes Boxing Day:o

I think you will find in the private sector unlike the public sector you are not 'entitled' to a lot of things:o
 
Last time I checked there were 7 days a week? And on that note it's not a given that I will get any paid holiday let alone 4 weeks.
I am also one of those people that SP mentioned. To earn £300 a week gross I would have to work 50 hours a week - and I don't get a pension. I work in industries where I am exected to work on any day of the week, I don't get extra money for working bank holidays, therefore why the hell should I subsidise your pension as well as scrimping and saving to try and put a little bit aside for myself, as well as your cushy time and a half wages for working on a bank holiday?

And just to clarify, I left school at 16 years old - with A levels, have a HND in equine science (which did have a lot of science involved) plus having an NVQ on top. I gave myself a decent education I am not a "high school dropout".
 
Last edited:
tinselunicorn said:
Haha!

What planet do you live on?:confused:

Try talking to people who are employed in Costa, supermarkets and places like that who have to sign contrracts to say they will work on Bank Holidays - that includes Boxing Day:o

I think you will find in the private sector unlike the public sector you are not 'entitled' to a lot of things:o
Click to expand...

Again, no matter who you work for you are entitled to 28 days (5.6 weeks) holiday if you work full-time. You are not entitled to have bank holidays (including boxing day) off. I never claimed that anyone was legally entitled to have bank holidays off. I merely pointed out that everyone who works 5 days a week is entitled to 28 days off.

I thought this information might be useful to someone reading this and not being aware of their legal holiday entitlement.
 
Anglebracket said:
5.6 weeks = 28 days, as I have stated.

I am aware that none of these 28 days has to fall on a bank holiday.
Click to expand...

Absolutely the reverse of what you have read. All the 8 bank holidays can be included in the 28 days. Minimum holiday entitlement excluding bank holidays for a private sector worker is 20 days, 4 weeks.
 
BeesKnees said:
So as an addendum, can you explain why that seems fair to you when many of those tax payers can't afford a pension of their own?



Silly or just an inconvenient reality? It is a valid argument when people are justifying the level of pension provision by saying 'we pay for it', when strictly speaking from an accounting point of view, they aren't?
Click to expand...


I am lost, haven't read all the threads, but I'm not sure if you are saying changes need to be made to public section pension schemes or that, in your opinion, they should simply be abolished and workers should make their own arrangements.
It seems fair that if it is part of the terms of their employment that public sector workers should receive pensions. Public services have to be funded if we are going to have them.

Silly or inconvenient reality? well to me just silly. I cannot see anything inconvenient about it. It is just reality that public sector workers pay tax and NI in the same way as every other employee. I cannot see anything to be gained by looking at it any other way. Money is recirculating all the time.
Taking it onto the next stage then the public sector spends their wages (or I am sure you would prefer to call it their handout from the private sector) on goods which keeps the shop assistant in work and the business owner in profit. Round and round we go.

Looking at it a different way. I am sure you would prefer that your tax (presuming you are employed) did not fund public sector pensions. Equally I would prefer that my tax did not fund many other things. There are various benefits I object to. I feel a bit peeved that I am paying for some very wealthy higher tax rate pensioners to get bus passes and the winter fuel allowance. I feel peeved that there are some very ill people who are not getting enough in benefits. Peeved at some of the amounts of child benefits being paid. I suppose you would think it irrelevant as in your opinion I don't pay any tax so I have no right to an opinion.

The example was quoted of the 12k pa shop assistant contributing to my pension but are they not bothered about contributing to say winter fuel allowance?

Did any the people who are obviously so very unhappy about public sector workers getting pensions not think to join the public sector?
 
paddy555 said:
The example was quoted of the 12k pa shop assistant contributing to my pension but are they not bothered about contributing to say winter fuel allowance?
Click to expand...

You actually think the two compare? I am stunned.

The shop worker will get winter fuel allowance when it is their turn. They will never, ever, have a defined benefit pension like yours even after the reductions your Union asked you to strike about.

Can you really not see what is unfair about that?
 
Santa Paws said:
Your tax funds NOTHING.

Absolutely NOTHING.

Read the thread if you do not understand that.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the thread again. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree with your interpretation. Please don't feel the need to repeat your comments for my benefit.
 
paddy555 said:
I don't need to read the thread again. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree with your interpretation. Please don't feel the need to repeat your comments for my benefit.
Click to expand...

It is not "my interpretation". It is fact. Tax paid by a public sector employee does not fund the public sector.

I will repeat it while you keep repeating that you do pay towards the public sector and your own pension. Because you don't.
 
Santa Paws said:
You actually think the two compare? I am stunned.

The shop worker will get winter fuel allowance when it is their turn. They will never, ever, have a defined benefit pension like yours even after the reductions your Union asked you to strike about.

Can you really not see what is unfair about that?
Click to expand...

the shop worker will certainly get winter fuel allowance. However do YOU really think it fair that YOU (obviously not me) are funding winter fuel etc for higher rate taxpayers? If you are happy to do that then I cannot see why you are unhappy about funding public sector pensions.

Please also get your facts correct. "my union" is incorrect. Don't assume my union as I did not belong to the union. The reason for that was that I was not prepared to strike.
If you read some of my earlier comments you will see that I agree reductions/changes are required, although I am probably one of the few who does.
Actually, I am almost starting to change my mind on that when I read some of the vitriol which seems to be levelled at public sector workers.
 
Santa Paws said:
It is not "my interpretation". It is fact. Tax paid by a public sector employee does not fund the public sector.

I will repeat it while you keep repeating that you do pay towards the public sector and your own pension. Because you don't.
Click to expand...

I don't intend to keep repeating anything as I simply see no need to. However as it is obviously terribly important to you please do so (but just not for my benefit). :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top