Bloody cheek!

[brocklanders023]

I have never understood why the government don't try to negotiate for staggered changes: ie set a change date in the future for new employees to get new style contracts and leave the ones already in the job as they are. Maybe it is too difficult to manage although I don't see why as it is just like another tax code. I think there would be much less strike action then.

Agree 100%. As I mentioned we expect to be out on strike by the end of the year. Talking to people at work the feeling is that if they changed the pension for new recruits but ring fenced those already in it there would be no action. All we want is what they promised us.

The fire fighters pension has already been through radical change in the last few years with all new members going on to a scheme that requires you to work longer for less. I have to ask myself if they demand change again how many more times before I retire will the scheme be messed with and will the pension I end up with (at what ever age) actually be worth it? If these changes are forced through many will simply leave the pension which in turn will wipe out any short term savings they make now.

The teachers face the same issues as us and the rest of the public services. Don't expect us to just stand by and watch and don't expect us to accept ten's of thousands of pounds being stolen from our future just to bring us in line with other industries that did not or could not fight to protect their conditions of service. :evil:

 

[brocklanders023]

Anyway what possible impact would a strike have if it did not impact on peoples lives like yours. The fact its causing so much annoyance to some of you already shows its effectiveness as a tactic.

But it's not; it's just another day off being taken by teachers in addition to their 13 weeks annual holiday.

Well it seemed to get a fair amount of news coverage, had Cameron out desperately trying to appeal about it.

And plenty seem to be discussing it, including us, here.

Although, if it weren't for the teachers striking, I doubt anyone would notice there was a strike at all...

Well where that is concerned, you have to concede, they have a strong imperative to their withdrawal of labour.

But like other disputes many accept their protest (even if not agreeing with it) right up to the point it starts to affect them. Then - like with the fuel protests - nimby-ism kicks in.

But it isn't causing any annoyance here. I'm resigned to the fact that teachers seem to take a day off whenever it suits them, for whatever reason, and the rest of us, and the economy as a whole, suffer.
Certainly , they have a grievance, but their present contract was negotiated with the previous government, whose purse holder (dropper?) would later need these very Unions' support to make him prime minister. No wonder he was over generous. :roll:

I can assure you that the last Government were no friends of the Unions. They started the whole pension robbery ball rolling. What's 'generous' about forcing worse pension schemes on people?

 

[Neil]

But it isn't causing any annoyance here.

Righto.

You just disguise it well...

I'm resigned to the fact that teachers seem to take a day off whenever it suits them, for whatever reason, and the rest of us, and the economy as a whole, suffer.

Nope - not reading any annoyance, there.

And as to days off, I'm not about to defend them - the inset days irritate - no scratch that - annoy me.

Certainly , they have a grievance, but their present contract was negotiated with the previous government,

Contract? Negotiated?

People were employed - over various decades in public service - with terms and conditions. There's probably several governments that have a hand in this - let's not make it party political, where the problem isn't.

I'm far from convinced that if Labour were still in power, they wouldn't have attempted a similar thing, at some point.

whose purse holder (dropper?) would later need these very Unions' support to make him prime minister. No wonder he was over generous. :roll:

I'm really not getting why you seem to be trying to suggest that the presumption of overly (supposedly) generous pensions for public sector workers is either a recent invention, or attributable to recent prime ministers - you'll have to do more than hint, or it just won't fly.

 

[brocklanders023]

While I'm on one......

I found out yesterday that the increase in contributions (with the extra cash it brings in) will not be used to pay for pensions at all, it will be gobbled up by the Treasury to spend as they want. Class it as a wage decrease or tax increase if you wish.

The grand plan is to set up a whole new pension scheme for public service workers that will be brought in before the next election and we will all be forced on to it. :evil:

 

[Neil]

Listened to Radio 4, this morning - they had an interview with Francis Maude, and some union guy.

Maude got mugged and hoist with his own petard, when the Hutton report was used to invalidate his position (unaffordable), and strongly suggest the counter claim (undesirable / unfair).

Maybe this would be more easily resolved, if both sides could put their game faces aside, and start to properly negotiate. Misrepresenting the governments argument, does make it political, and weakens their stance - even if most of the public don't realise it.

 

[Easy_Rider]

Speaking as someone who is employed in the private sector with zero employer contributions I must say that I am a little aggrieved that there are people employed in the public sector who receive a greater contribution from their employer than the employee pays in, this contribution is coming from all our taxes, including mine. At the very least employers could match employees contributions up to whatever agreed amount. The disparity is like a slap in the face for me and then to strike is like a kick in the balls.

 

[Neil]

Speaking as someone who is employed in the private sector with zero employer contributions I must say that I am a little aggrieved that there are people employed in the public sector who receive a greater contribution from their employer than the employee pays in, this contribution is coming from all our taxes, including mine. At the very least employers could match employees contributions up to whatever agreed amount. The disparity is like a slap in the face for me and then to strike is like a kick in the balls.

I've worked in the private sector since 96, and all my private sector employers have contributed more to the various pension schemes than I have (so more than simply like-for-like).

But that's a misplaced argument. If we're going to play the "fair" argument, then how "fair" is it to try and pull the rug from under people, who were employed with certain terms and conditions, but because the government now don't like them, they'd prefer them not to be.

This is not about affordability, it's about desirability - and I'm far from convinced that playing the "fair" card is valid. I suspect people arguing against the public sector pensions being "fair" aren't so motivated as to try and harmonise other terms and conditions.

 

[brocklanders023]

Not having that Easy. You, like me agreed your conditions when you started the job. You knew the score with your pension when you signed up to it. I agreed to pay 11% of my wage in to my pension and my employer agreed to pay in their share when I started the scheme so why should I accept this just being chucked in the bin because the Government and the Daily Mail say so?

I'm sure you have certain conditions in your contract that I might not think are fair. Would you just roll over and give them up?
I don't think it's fair that Bankers are awarding themselves huge bonuses again while still poncing off the bail out WE paid for. Do you think the Government would be so worried about our pensions if they hadn't dished out so much to these people?

Public service workers have accepted changes to their conditions (a vast majority, if not all of which have been worse then the previous conditions) over the last 10 years including changes to pensions. This issue is just the straw that broke the camels back.

In the bigger picture the money required to honour the contract they signed with us is small fry compared to the amount they waste on other things. Don't believe the hype and ask yourself what you would do if someone tried to rob tens of thousands of pounds off you.

 

[Easy_Rider]

There aren't many private sector employers offering decent pensions unless you are at director level. The situation is so dire that I've heard that new legislation is coming in next year to force employers to offer contributions but the level is something like 2% minimum which is poor. A good scheme in the private sector is probably about 8%, nice if you can get it but really there is no choice out there. Employees contracts regularly change too, just happening now in my company, shop floor staff are moving to shifts from regular days, lots don't want to but it's tough luck, do it or go. I honestly believe there are many people who are employed in public sector who have no idea what it's like in the private sector, it can be ruthless.

 

[brocklanders023]

I know exactly how hard it can be in the private sector and the sh*t that gets chucked at you makes me glad I'm in a trade union. Contract changes have to be agreed so for yours to change someone has to sign it off. When the workers stand together and stand up for themselves they have a chance, when they don't they get what ever the boss wants.