British Public Sector Strikes

[Ross]

On Wednesday 30th of November, 29~ unions are going on strike in the UK because of the coalition government imposing up to 3% tax on public sector workers which is going to pay off the deficit, not as the Government claims because the pension schemes are unaffordable. Lord Hutton's (Labour Lord) report into the public sector pension schemes said that they were affordable due to the changes already made in 2007 and that there should not be a race to the bottom. He also said that public sector pensions were not gold plated - something the coalition is still maintaining despite the fact that the average public sector pension is £5600 a year, less than the Government's own poverty line, and £300 per year worse than the average private sector pension. It's not our fault the private sector pension fund was raided which meant that private final salary scheme pensions have all but disappeared in the UK. The UK Government has changed it's reasoning for the changes they want to make to the pension schemes as each reason is proved to be false and have refused to negotiate with the unions. Please show your support for the UK public sector workers who are only trying to maintain a reasonablelevel of pension in their old age, rather than trying to survive on a significantly reduced salary and pension.

This was typed by my Mum and reviewed to make sure it was AUP worthy by me.

 

[Tom]

It's bad for sure, but..

Day off school!

 

[Danoff]

Is this a reduction in pension benefits for people who are retired? Or just for people who will retire in the future? Because if it's the latter I have significantly less sympathy.

 

[E28]

Is this a reduction in pension benefits for people who are retired? Or just for people who will retire in the future? Because if it's the latter I have significantly less sympathy.

People who will retire in the future.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I don't know enough about it either way, so I'm not sure if I'm sympathetic to the unions issues anyway... however broadly speaking I do not support strike action.

 

[Brend]

I hope the strike is successful but I hope my local Bus drivers don't strike.

 

[dhandeh]

They want their cake and eat it. Public sector workers have it too easy, anything that may affect the 'do as little as possible but take as much as possible' attitude they have, results in acting like spoilt brats and going on strike.

 

[Ross]

Is this a reduction in pension benefits for people who are retired? Or just for people who will retire in the future? Because if it's the latter I have significantly less sympathy.

People who will retire in the future.

👍

I don't know enough about it either way, so I'm not sure if I'm sympathetic to the unions issues anyway... however broadly speaking I do not support strike action.

Well I'm afraid strike action is the only way.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Okay, having read some of what the BBC News site has to say I don't support the strike actions for the reasons stated by the unions. I do however disagree with a number of the other spending decisions made by the government.

 

[dhandeh]

Well I'm afraid strike action is the only way.

Working for 50 years like the private sector and paying in to your own pension plan isn't an option then? Nothing is fair, strike action will quickly turn public backing against what the unions are trying to get, and the only people that come out better are the union leaders.

 

[Keef]

These couple words have confused me when talking to Brits before so I want to get it straight...

What is the difference between your private and public?

 

[Ross]

These couple words have confused me when talking to Brits before so I want to get it straight...

What is the difference between your private and public?

Our private sector the salaries are higher and pensions lower and vice versa, but with the new schemes the public sector pension will be the same as private sector but salaries the same. Also without the public sector there would be no salaries and no-one running the country and teaching the children like me.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Public is paid for by the government using revenue it receives from the public.

Private is an entity essentially run by/for private individuals.

 

[TankAss95]

I can predict Britain's future! You ready?
Protest, protest, Olympics fail, riot, clean up, depression, exhaustion, electric cars.

 

[Famine]

These couple words have confused me when talking to Brits before so I want to get it straight...

What is the difference between your private and public?

The only time the two are used interchangeably is with certain schools in the private sector - which are variously termed as both private schools and "public schools". Public schools are "state schools".

Which reminds me, teachers have another day off tomorrow (to add to their 174 other days off each year). Meanwhile ambulances will only be sent to category A (emergency blue light response, 8 minutes) and B (emergency response, 19 minutes) calls and not category C (non life-threatening) calls (quick note on this - any 999 ambulance call results in an immediate dispatch of an ambulance; as the call progresses, the response requirement is recategorised. Tomorrow, any call resulting in a category C response will have the ambulance cancelled due to staffing), though A&E departments will be fully staffed as it is now illegal for nurses (along with the police and army) to strike. However, all non-emergency operations will be cancelled as auxilliary theatre staff are on strike.


A large public sector strike is an excellent argument for privatisation. Only the unions don't seem to have noticed this

 

[Danoff]

In this case, strikers are demanding more money from taxpayers. so everyone in the country who isn't on strike should consider themselves the employer.

 

[Ross]

In this case, strikers are demanding more money from taxpayers. so everyone in the country who isn't on strike should consider themselves the employer.

The more disruption the better because the Government are getting scared about this strike and even the Chancellor made a speech on Friday that people could go outside for 15 minutes just to prove your point. This just made the Unions even more 🤬 off

 

[MatskiMonk]

Our private sector the salaries are higher and pensions lower and vice versa, but with the new schemes the public sector pension will be the same as private sector but salaries the same. Also without the public sector there would be no salaries and no-one running the country and teaching the children like me.

I don't want to get into an argument, but just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm 32, I pay into two pensions, one since I was 18, and one since I was 30, I also pay for private healthcare. For the majority of the last 15 years I've worked 6 days a week. I currently don't, and have never, claimed any benefits from the government (child, disability, unemployment etc.), my average wage for the past 10 years is about £16,000p/a. I do not get to expect any inflation related pay rises, capped or not, and in a recession I will always fear that one day I may not have a job at all.

I don't therefore agree with having services removed from me, by people who are refusing to work, that want a bigger slice of my income tax.

(edit: also for the record, of my friends, the highest paid is a primary school teacher in Hampshire, who earns several thousand a year more than me.)

Having said all that, it doesn't really bug me that much at all, I'm not angry that people are striking....

... I do however get angry when It comes to the subject of benefits, I'd rather they were cut to help support the public sector, than keep paying money to lazy people who believed they are owed a living without having to earn it.

 

[Keef]

The only time the two are used interchangeably is with certain schools in the private sector - which are variously termed as both private schools and "public schools". Public schools are "state schools".

Alright, I think this school system terminology is what had be confused before.

 

[Ross]

I don't want to get into an argument, but just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm 32, I pay into two pensions, one since I was 18, and one since I was 30, I also pay for private healthcare. For the majority of the last 15 years I've worked 6 days a week. I currently don't, and have never, claimed any benefits from the government (child, disability, unemployment etc.), my average wage for the past 10 years is about £16,000p/a. I do not get to expect any inflation related pay rises, capped or not, and in a recession I will always fear that one day I may not have a job at all.

I don't therefore agree with having services removed from me, by people who are refusing to work, that want a bigger slice of my income tax.

(edit: also for the record, of my friends, the highest paid is a primary school teacher in Hampshire, who earns several thousand a year more than me.)

Having said all that, it doesn't really bug me that much at all, I'm not angry that people are striking....

... I do however get angry when It comes to the subject of benefits, I'd rather they were cut to help support the public sector, than keep paying money to lazy people who believed they are owed a living without having to earn it.

I understand and respect that you know more than I do about this stuff but I do know a bit, I understand where you are coming from in the first part of your post and you have every right to feel that way. I also kind of agree with you but the second part about the benefits, I totally agree on.
These people are just sitting at home all day and getting paid for it. At least find some jobs for them to do. But the thing that is funny is that the government put up a pensions calculator earlier this week to show how the pensions would be better, then they put in some figures and disproved there own theory because it showed that they would lose money out of there pension pot.

 

[Sureboss]

In this case, strikers are demanding more money from taxpayers.

Not quite, the deal offered by government would involve employee's affected paying more in, getting less out and working for a few more years. Though whether they'd agree on a slightly less severe cut is another matter!

The whole pension system is 🤬, completely and utterly.

To quote a friend, so as to not take credit for sounding more intelligent than I am:

Most public sector pensions in the UK are not funded. There isn't a seperate investment pool which employees and the government of the day top up to make sure future liabilities are funded. The government basically collects the pension contributions, pays out to the scheme beneficiaries and either tops up with government funds or pockets the difference. There is nothing put aside for future liabilities which become an obligation for future governments when they vest.

Doesn't take a genius to work out the risk of that. I believe in Canada the Teacher's Pension pot has to support the next 70 years and any shortfall must be met, seems sensible enough doesn't it? They also pay a higher % of income to the pot. I believe it's about 5% higher, although that is a very rough figure, as you're not taking in to account the difference in wages, living costs, etc.

By law pension changes in public sector must be negotiated, government came with this offer, wouldn't budge (unsurprisingly) to what the various unions said and we're now here.

Thing is, less and less people are working in the public sector, they're cutting 700,000 jobs from the sector by 2017, so the future shortfalls can only get worse.

Of course the reality is something has to give, the deficits are real and huge, some of the funding that has been put out to these new academy's hasn't helped the feeling of the public sector. As with many cases, both sides need to meet in the middle.

Whilst in the past I've been a bit pro-public sector and whilst I have no issue with them striking in this instance (though not knowing the facts of what they actually wanted, not sure they've been made public), I'm leaning away from it, I can sympathise with both sides, I certainly have no (and never have) an interest working in public sector and all sides need to make changes for the better, or the problem will get considerably worse. Consecutive governments have lacked the balls to do owt about it and have only let the situation get to this point.

We need to privatise many areas and keep some more critical ones as public. That will help to control the stupid spending in some areas, such as IT within the NHS, which is beyond a joke.

TL;DR - It's all completely 🤬

 

[PeterJB]

I get the day off school and work, so I'm happy.

 

[Danoff]

Not quite, the deal offered by government would involve employee's affected paying more in, getting less out and working for a few more years. Though whether they'd agree on a slightly less severe cut is another matter!

Clearly there is a budget shortfall with that system (who could have guessed?!). They strike for the money anyway - which means they're asking taxpayers to pick up the slack. If they were willing to take the necessary pay cut to make the change, then I doubt there would be any problem with accommodating that.

 

[Sureboss]

David Cameron has urged workers not to strike today because 'most did not vote for them'. A bit like your coalition then.

Not someone I normally like, but his point is valid.

 

[F1GTR]

Here are some shots from the action at my university today.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So, did everyone enjoy doing their Xmas shop?


My personal observations, from working in a supermarket in an area where 35.4% of the workforce work in the public sector, were that most did minimal protesting and otherwise spent the day doing shopping.

For example my mother, niece of several miners during the great strikes, met the demonstrators at the end of their march, stuck around for an hour and then carried on her Xmas shopping. A team-mate of mine, who works in SOCA, spent the morning protesting and then the afternoon watching films. Approx 2000 people were marching in Swansea.

 

[Omnis]

Here are some shots from the action at my university today.

Heh. Silly socialists.

 

[Seismica]

I've never understood how pensions work. Do you get all the money back that you pay in, or does it depend on how long you live/when you retire? Surely pension contributions should cover 100% of the pension pot (i.e. not having to be supplemented by the government) and if they don't, there is something fundamentally wrong in that system.

I've always though that it would be better to set money aside myself in a savings account instead of paying into a pension pot, or are pension contributions compulsory?

I would like to support the strike action, in principle as they are being royally screwed by these reforms. But my lack of understanding of pensions means i'm really just sitting on the fence, as I've only heard one half of the story.

Anyways, a quote that somebody posted on facebook:

Are you sick of highly paid teachers? Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them £5.93 an hour and only the hours they work; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be £ 41.51 a day (8.30 am to 3:30 PM with 60 min. off for lunch and play -- that equals 7 1/2 hours). Each parent could pay £ 41.51 a day for these teachers to babysit their children. Now how many children do they teach in a day...32? So that's £ 41.51 x 32 = £ 1328.32 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any holidays . LET'S SEE.... That's £1328.32 X 180= £239,097.60 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries). What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage (£ 6.90), and just to be fair, round it off to £ 7.00 an hour. That would be £ 7.00 X 71/2 hours X 32 children X 180 days = £ 302,400.00 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is! The average teacher's salary (nationwide) is £ 25,000.00/180 days = £ 138.90 per day/ 32 children = £ 4.34 / 7 1/2 hours = £ 0.58 per hour per student--a very inexpensive babysitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!"

I think this taps into much deeper problems within a free market economy, pay is disproportionate to the work people do. Anyone who questions this is accused of being a hypocrit for wanting something for nothing, or a communist who wants to destroy democracy and civilisation as we know it.

Back to pensions, everybody should get out what they pay in. But because it's based on earnings, those in lower income brackets i'm guessing have to be supplemented as they do not earn enough for a decent living standard even when they work, never mind when they retire.

 

[Famine]

I've never understood how pensions work.

They don't. That's pretty much the problem.

Say you have a cushy public sector pension. You'll be paying in about 7% of your salary and, when you retire, you'll get two thirds of your finishing salary. Inflation makes this calculation a bit awkward, but let's assume you retire today, aged 55, on £60k with a full public sector pension.

Two things here. First, you'll get a salary of £40k for the rest of your life, adjusted for inflation (but not deflation). That's £3.3k a month gross (remember that your tax band will change at 65 too, so net will be variable). The second and more important thing is that your last pension payment will have been £350 in your last month of employment before retirement. You should already be seeing that there's a problem with the figures here... Paying in £350pcm on your top salary but getting out £3.3k pcm for life? A private pension at the same level of contribution would pay out just £6k per annum for life...

So let's look at the entire term of your employment. You'll have been employed for about 30 years and, in 2011 pounds (because inflation screws with you again), you'll have started on about £16k. With increments and promotions you're looking at a lifetime earnings of about £750k (an average salary of £25k over your career). At 7% contributions you'll have paid into your pension a grand total of... £52,500. You will get that back inside fifteen months of retirement, but they keep on paying you as long as you live. Say you live, like an average Joe, until you're 78 - the taxpayer will give you £920,000 (less tax - which drops like a rock at 65) in 2011 money (rising with inflation) when you've only paid in £52,500 in 2011 money! No wonder they want to keep it!

Now that's just one average guy starting on an average civil servant entry wage today - he results in a net loss to the Exchequer of just over £850k. Half of the people employed in Britain today - which is 35m people - are employed in the public sector. 17m people each taking £850k out of the pot adds up to a lively £14.5 trillion in 2011 money! No wonder they want to get rid of it!

Public sector pensions have been unsustainable for a decade. They just weren't touched until now...

Surely pension contributions should cover 100% of the pension and if they don't, there is something fundamentally wrong in that system.

By my math, your public sector pension contributions form about 4% of the pension you receive (an average lifetime contribution of £145pcm compared to an average monthly receipt of £3.3k). If you live for 15 months or less after retirement you will not get out all that you put in. If you live for more you will get out many times over what you put in - 16 times on average, making your contribution just 6% of your pension. The rest comes from the taxpayer.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I've never understood how pensions work. Do you get all the money back that you pay in, or does it depend on how long you live/when you retire? Surely pension contributions should cover 100% of the pension pot (i.e. not having to be supplemented by the government) and if they don't, there is something fundamentally wrong in that system.

I've always though that it would be better to set money aside myself in a savings account instead of paying into a pension pot, or are pension contributions compulsory?

I would like to support the strike action, in principle as they are being royally screwed by these reforms. But my lack of understanding of pensions means i'm really just sitting on the fence, as I've only heard one half of the story.

Anyways, a quote that somebody posted on facebook:


Back to pensions, everybody should get out what they pay in. But because it's based on earnings, those in lower income brackets i'm guessing have to be supplemented as they do not earn enough for a decent living standard even when they work, never mind when they retire.

It depends how long you live for. That's the gamble of a pension.

You can save your money, yes. But how long will you live for? 20 years after? 30 years? If you just have a savings account then you will either be spending too little or get to a point where you have no money left.

A savings pot is designed to grow with investment, ensuring that you have an income from that investment for however long you live for after retirement. But currently people are living longer than expected, the economy is worse than expected and so there's a demand for greater money but less of a return on investments to meet that demand.

It's all hell.

I think this taps into much deeper problems within a free market economy, pay is disproportionate to the work people do. Anyone who questions this is accused of being a hypocrit for wanting something for nothing, or a communist who wants to destroy democracy and civilisation as we know it.

Except teachers aren't child minders. Parents are legally obliged to send their children to school, if they weren't then there'd be a free market and teachers still wouldn't be earning any more than they do now, and you want to know why...

... Teachers don't progress.

I recently had a rather heated discussion with my girlfriend about this. She's very clever and wants to be a teacher, and she's very good at it (loads of experience before she even got on her PGCE). But when I asked her where she found the challenge or the progression in teaching she thought I was being insulting. Teachers see the challenge in every child, every year and in every class. To become a better teacher they simply achieve better results from a fairly consistent pool of students.

As an engineering grad I couldn't understand this, it'd be like designing the same bridge again and again with just a different colour. No increase in responsibility, no promotion.

And that's the thing with teachers, many don't even want to progress to higher pay grades because the higher they go, generally, the less teaching they do. Even as a deputy they will have seniority over relatively few staff compared to similar paid staff in any number of other jobs.

And this isn't to belittle teaching, I hope I will be a teacher one day, but while I think there should be far greater respect for teachers I don't believe that credits better pay.