Answering the original question, the public rarely support strikes, especially when they are themselves adversely affected. Most want to get to work and do what they are paid to do and have little if any connection or sympathy with those on strike. However, the agreement (whether you like it or not) for those entering the public sector was that for a reduced salary they would receive a pension based on final salary. When times were good in the private sector, the public sector was told that they had to take the lead in pay restraint to prevent inflation and in the downturn (such as now) they had to lead on pay restraint because of the recession. The public sector generally has accepted this but the government now wants to increase retirement age by 6 years, increase contributions and reduce benefits at the same time as imposing a three year pay freeze. No-one has ever sympathised with the public sector (except for nurses - for reasons which escape me as some of the worst conduct I have ever come across has been from NHS nurses) but at least try and understand why they feel as they do. What precisely is a 'gold plated' pension to quote Off-it? Just because he was badly treated hardly seems a reason to justify the same for others. This government wants endorsement for the policy of austerity that endorses the slogan: 'We will make the man next to you worse off than you'!!! (Think about it)
Except of course for the very wealthy who will remain rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Answering the original question, the public rarely support strikes, especially when they are themselves adversely affected. Most want to get to work and do what they are paid to do and have little if any connection or sympathy with those on strike. However, the agreement (whether you like it or not) for those entering the public sector was that for a reduced salary they would receive a pension based on final salary. When times were good in the private sector, the public sector was told that they had to take the lead in pay restraint to prevent inflation and in the downturn (such as now) they had to lead on pay restraint because of the recession. The public sector generally has accepted this but the government now wants to increase retirement age by 6 years, increase contributions and reduce benefits at the same time as imposing a three year pay freeze. No-one has ever sympathised with the public sector (except for nurses - for reasons which escape me as some of the worst conduct I have ever come across has been from NHS nurses) but at least try and understand why they feel as they do. What precisely is a 'gold plated' pension to quote Off-it? Just because he was badly treated hardly seems a reason to justify the same for others. This government wants endorsement for the policy of austerity that endorses the slogan: 'We will make the man next to you worse off than you'!!! (Think about it)
Except of course for the very wealthy who will remain rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
In fairness all political parties have been aware of the immense black hole in pensions for years!. The fact is they did not have the political balls to rectify the position.
No one is going to worry about the gold platted pensions of MP's and judges and there like.... when was the last time you heard a high court judge saying he no longer wishes to do the job because of the poor pension!.
I also do not buy into the idea that you have to have dozens of highly paid,public executives because of the 'market' . This was a chant by my 'boss' at the bbc the DG, on a staggering basic of £834,000 last year.
This was the same guy talking about "Jacuzzi of cash" when at channel 4.
The rush to balance the deficit is the issue!. Most commentators agree that the retirement age needs to be raised, but over a longer period of time, to give people the opportunity to prepare and plan for this!.
It is a bit like saying at half time the second half is 10 minutes long, and we are playing five a side second half..., interesting but essentially unfair, especially when you are three goals down!
The difference is that this is not a game, but peoples lives, future, and quality of life, or lack of it.
Still it has given me an idea!.... I will be a high court judge, and stuff the pension!.....
Answering the original question, the public rarely support strikes, especially when they are themselves adversely affected. Most want to get to work and do what they are paid to do and have little if any connection or sympathy with those on strike. However, the agreement (whether you like it or not) for those entering the public sector was that for a reduced salary they would receive a pension based on final salary. When times were good in the private sector, the public sector was told that they had to take the lead in pay restraint to prevent inflation and in the downturn (such as now) they had to lead on pay restraint because of the recession. The public sector generally has accepted this but the government now wants to increase retirement age by 6 years, increase contributions and reduce benefits at the same time as imposing a three year pay freeze. No-one has ever sympathised with the public sector (except for nurses - for reasons which escape me as some of the worst conduct I have ever come across has been from NHS nurses) but at least try and understand why they feel as they do. What precisely is a 'gold plated' pension to quote Off-it? Just because he was badly treated hardly seems a reason to justify the same for others. This government wants endorsement for the policy of austerity that endorses the slogan: 'We will make the man next to you worse off than you'!!! (Think about it)
Except of course for the very wealthy who will remain rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Just to put you straight on one thing, when I referred to "gold plated" pensions I was in fact quoting Valley McMoist's earlier post.
And I don't want other peoples pensions to be worse just because mine will likely be. But at the same time I don't want to have to pay extra for their pensions because they don't want to shoulder some of the burden that I am shouldering.
Divide and conquer - convince people that there are these bunch of lazy greedy public servants nicking our money and you have popular policies that deflect attention from you. In the private sector, you get the executives and the workers, in the public sector you get the senior civil servants and the workers. The senior civil servants are lumped in with the others often in the press as it helps to paint a picture of lazy greedy people spunging off the state. The reality is, that senior civil servants work very hard with very responsible jobs and get paid less than their executive equivalents. The workers in the public sector on the whole get less for the skills and responsibility than the private sector, they might get more than cleaners but these are qualified and skilled people and the equivalent skills in the private sector attracts a loit more money than cleaners.
I have friends in the public sector and they confirm morale is low. They are slagged off by everybody, get no acknowledgement for the fact they work long hours -no tea breaks, lunch at desk as they work, significantly more than their contracted hours for no overtime or any remuneration for that matter. They have had to work harder for years as their numbers have been cut by both governments but their work has increased.
Now, I believe the strike is a mistake but unions are pretty stupid - they should work to rule - work their contracted hours and take breaks- from what I have been told, that would really scare the government. I'll knock the bankers who are to blame for the mess we are in - not all bankers and don't forget many of the innocent ones are fearing for or have lost their jobs. No the ones to blame are doing ok again and trying to find more ways to stuff their pockets at our expense.
Divide and conquer - the power of suggestion newspapers like the Mail and Sun have proves it is a very effective tactic. I make no apology for wishing the public servants well. They have had a 2 year pay freeze, agreements torn up and now their pension contributions will raise significantly for them to retire at least 8 years later for a smaller pension - I know private sector workers have taken pain too - not all but most of them - I don't expect them to be happy but I certainly dont expect public servants to be happy either and getting at each other deflects from the real people whop are to blame.
I wont go into a big rant over how I feel over some of the posts on here, only to say that if you are a public sector worker that has been in a final salary scheme for over 20 years then I'll give you an option if you don't think the recent Hutton/Government proposals are fair.................
leave your final salary scheme and open up a private pension paying in the same % that you are currenty paying & I'll pay in what your employer currently is...........in exchange I'll have your accrued pension pot.
I want to return to the point made earlier regarding politics. I get it that the country is in a financial mess. However if I were a newly elected condem government i would certainly lay the pain on very heavily in the early years in order to give away money just before the next election. Let us see shall we. if we still run a deficit and have massive debts just before the election will the condems seek to raise the retirement age higher, reduce pensions even more, announce pay freezes for longer, and cut spending more deeply? We know they won't. The condems will manipulate up one indicator, such as fuel prices going up slightly less than inflation, to justify a give away in order to get re-elected, and the chite will begin all over again once they get back in.
Let's all race to the bottom whilst others get richer and don't suffer at all. What are the proposals for MP's pensions- they are the most generous possible - you don't have to be an MP for long to get massive pension benefits.
All this bullshit about the inflated publIc sector and the waste by the last govt. People quote it as though its a fact - we are in the shit because of a worldwide banking crisis which started in America - not because of the last government. People in the public sector can rightly feel aggrieved. They are being victimised and i have to agree with the poster who said we don't have the boll*x of previous generations as the bankers continue to get huge bonuses as we all take the cuts. We don't have the manufacturing base we once had, our economy is reliant on the financial and service sector but lets not get all daily mail and confuse things. The recession was caused by a financial f''k up. not because we have free swimming sessions for kids in local pools.
Hear Hear from me too - it is important we know who the people we should be angry with are -ever read the sneeches by Dr Zeus? Picking on each other when they were really both the same.
Exactly - one of the gretest con tricks of all time is the right wing press somehow making the dimmer of the working class believe that the tories are the party for them whilst the labour party are the enemy.
I don't think it is that much of a trick - people are quite easy to manipulate on the whole as history shows. The liberals before the election made a big thing of the massive amounts they could raise by closing tax loop holes. Nobody seems too upset that there are multi millionaires paying less tax than they do (actual amounts, not percentages) but they don't like some poor hardworking sod on 25k a year (who has worked all his life) getting a half decent pension. Take out the senior civil service pensions and I think the civil service average is just under 4k a year.
the agreement (whether you like it or not) for those entering the public sector was that for a reduced salary they would receive a pension based on final salary.
Problem with this point is a) There are some high earners in the public sector b) Many in the private sector are not on high incomes
There is an assumption made it seems by many in the public sector that they have sacrificed high incomes compared to those in the private sector. There is more to it than that in my view. Public sector workers hitherto have also had more job security than those generally in the private sector. My wife has always worked in the public sector other than for a couple of years. She hated the vulnerablity of working in the private sector both as an employee and self-employed. Frankly she couldn't wait to get back there.
It strikes me - generalising of course, that those who work in the public sector are there because the type of job/organisation fits them best. I read about low morale in the public sector. I have worked for large private sector companies where morale has been lower than a snakes belly.
yes, they get paid less for a relatively decent pension and had greater security and for a lot of them the pleasure of public service for a comparable lower rate of pay. The high earners are the senior civil servants - these are the equivalent of the management trainees who become executives in the private sector. They are not the adminstrators, nurses etc... I was told that a manager of a large busy jobcentre gets under £30k a year.
Are you telling me Dan, that the Government of the day have absolutely no control or influence in restraining any excess of the financial sector?
That the Chancellor and First Lord of The Treasury just let "the bankers" get on with it? No say in the money supply? No control whatsoever of Interest Rates (ah yes of course, 'independance' of the BofE), no say in raising or setting up income streams through taxation?
I know the FSA are a toothless tiger, but the New Labour spin of "it's all The Americans fault" is just that - spin.
To be fair 'Call me Dave' Cameron really does understand empathise with the need for a financial squeeze. He has just imposed a three year pay freeze on his butler and under parlour-maid.
Mind you all of this could become small-fry if the Greeks decide 'can't pay won't pay' on their debts and the Portuguese etc follow suit. We may not be in the Euro but our economy will still be hammered. Time for another drink and watch Rory.......
the fact is that the tories manifesto was advocating exactly the same financial policies - they were advocating change in all sorts of other areas but the economy was not on the agenda
Just done some calculations. If a primary school teacher had 30 kids in front of them for 21 hours per week.The school year being 39 weeks, and each child paid £2.50 per hour of 'care' by that teacher directly to him or her. Said teacher would be getting £61,425 per year income. Leaving aside that the work done by such a person would be much more than 21 hours a week over 39 weeks, and at the same time the teacher would be teaching the children to read write and do sums, do you think it would be possible to get childminding for £2.50 per hour in the private sector? Public service (if my figures are right) is a bargain compared to paying for the same in the private sector. The salary for a teacher in the above position after about 4 or 5 years service would be about half the £61,425 I have quoted. Do we wish to pay for the public services? If we do, what is the going rate?
I'm afraid I don't know how to put quotes in, but to respond to some of the posts on here:
1. Yes the banking problem was partly to do with what happened in the US, however the last government failed to do anything to boost private enterprise because they were too busy creaming off the taxes they were raking in from the financial sector to pay for their over-spending. As I understand it, our debt is significantly higher per head of the population than many other countries.
2. The so-called super-rich that ought to be bailling us out will most certainly just go live somewhere else if their taxes are too high. Like it or not, we as a country have to remain competitive in order to retain their tax revenue
3. If public sector employees are so poorly paid then how come they've not all left and joined the private sector? The public/private sector are still in competition with each other for the best people.
4. When I was a public sector worker we used to get TWO pay rises per year. One for 'cost of living' and one for when we advanced to the next scale point within our grade -which happened every year. If this is still the case, and I stand to be corrected, then the 'pay freeze' thing is a bit of a porky.
5. Perhaps the government IS looking to make more cuts now in order to be in a better position to please the voters come the next general election, HOWEVER, every Labour government, with its history of over-spending, gets to do exactly this ALL the time that they're in power without having to face the consequence of where the money is going to come from.
4. When I was a public sector worker we used to get TWO pay rises per year. One for 'cost of living' and one for when we advanced to the next scale point within our grade -which happened every year. If this is still the case, and I stand to be corrected, then the 'pay freeze' thing is a bit of a porky.
How many decades ago was that? When I joined the civil service in the 80s you had increments up the grade scale and a pay rise but that ended about 20 years ago.
I dont know if it still the case but it isn't a pay rise in the sense Harry describes - rather than pay people the wage for the job the civil service used to pay people less and they had to work for x years to get the full pay for the grade. Probably is still in place as it's a means to pay people less rather than more.
Yes the super rich always have that one about leaving the country - still we shouldn't be cross with them, better to pick on poor civil servants like nurses. Maybe if they left others could have their jobs.
Some civil servants have left for better paid jobs as some private sector workers have joined the civil servic for better security -what is your point?
In my Department there is incremental progression every year until you reach the maximum, usually within about 5 years. Under the pay freeze there is an argument that the increments are contractual and therefore staff shoud receive them. What normally happens is that the increments are revalorised annually in line with inflation, but they are not being increased due to the pay freeze.
A lot of the super rich stay this country but have their income declared in some tax haven like the Bahamas like that bloke from Topshop who advised the ConDems on public sector cuts
Comments
Except of course for the very wealthy who will remain rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
I have friends in the public sector and they confirm morale is low. They are slagged off by everybody, get no acknowledgement for the fact they work long hours -no tea breaks, lunch at desk as they work, significantly more than their contracted hours for no overtime or any remuneration for that matter. They have had to work harder for years as their numbers have been cut by both governments but their work has increased.
Now, I believe the strike is a mistake but unions are pretty stupid - they should work to rule - work their contracted hours and take breaks- from what I have been told, that would really scare the government. I'll knock the bankers who are to blame for the mess we are in - not all bankers and don't forget many of the innocent ones are fearing for or have lost their jobs. No the ones to blame are doing ok again and trying to find more ways to stuff their pockets at our expense.
Divide and conquer - the power of suggestion newspapers like the Mail and Sun have proves it is a very effective tactic. I make no apology for wishing the public servants well. They have had a 2 year pay freeze, agreements torn up and now their pension contributions will raise significantly for them to retire at least 8 years later for a smaller pension - I know private sector workers have taken pain too - not all but most of them - I don't expect them to be happy but I certainly dont expect public servants to be happy either and getting at each other deflects from the real people whop are to blame.
Off the soapbox now.
I wont go into a big rant over how I feel over some of the posts on here, only to say that if you are a public sector worker that has been in a final salary scheme for over 20 years then I'll give you an option if you don't think the recent Hutton/Government proposals are fair.................
leave your final salary scheme and open up a private pension paying in the same % that you are currenty paying & I'll pay in what your employer currently is...........in exchange I'll have your accrued pension pot.
Any takers ???????
We know they won't. The condems will manipulate up one indicator, such as fuel prices going up slightly less than inflation, to justify a give away in order to get re-elected, and the chite will begin all over again once they get back in.
Problem with this point is
a) There are some high earners in the public sector
b) Many in the private sector are not on high incomes
There is an assumption made it seems by many in the public sector that they have sacrificed high incomes compared to those in the private sector. There is more to it than that in my view. Public sector workers hitherto have also had more job security than those generally in the private sector. My wife has always worked in the public sector other than for a couple of years. She hated the vulnerablity of working in the private sector both as an employee and self-employed. Frankly she couldn't wait to get back there.
It strikes me - generalising of course, that those who work in the public sector are there because the type of job/organisation fits them best. I read about low morale in the public sector. I have worked for large private sector companies where morale has been lower than a snakes belly.
Are you telling me Dan, that the Government of the day have absolutely no control or influence in restraining any excess of the financial sector?
That the Chancellor and First Lord of The Treasury just let "the bankers" get on with it? No say in the money supply? No control whatsoever of Interest Rates (ah yes of course, 'independance' of the BofE), no say in raising or setting up income streams through taxation?
I know the FSA are a toothless tiger, but the New Labour spin of "it's all The Americans fault" is just that - spin.
Mind you all of this could become small-fry if the Greeks decide 'can't pay won't pay' on their debts and the Portuguese etc follow suit. We may not be in the Euro but our economy will still be hammered.
Time for another drink and watch Rory.......
the fact is that the tories manifesto was advocating exactly the same financial policies - they were advocating change in all sorts of other areas but the economy was not on the agenda
If a primary school teacher had 30 kids in front of them for 21 hours per week.The school year being 39 weeks, and each child paid £2.50 per hour of 'care' by that teacher directly to him or her. Said teacher would be getting £61,425 per year income.
Leaving aside that the work done by such a person would be much more than 21 hours a week over 39 weeks, and at the same time the teacher would be teaching the children to read write and do sums, do you think it would be possible to get childminding for £2.50 per hour in the private sector?
Public service (if my figures are right) is a bargain compared to paying for the same in the private sector.
The salary for a teacher in the above position after about 4 or 5 years service would be about half the £61,425 I have quoted.
Do we wish to pay for the public services? If we do, what is the going rate?
I'm afraid I don't know how to put quotes in, but to respond to some of the posts on here:
1. Yes the banking problem was partly to do with what happened in the US, however the last government failed to do anything to boost private enterprise because they were too busy creaming off the taxes they were raking in from the financial sector to pay for their over-spending. As I understand it, our debt is significantly higher per head of the population than many other countries.
2. The so-called super-rich that ought to be bailling us out will most certainly just go live somewhere else if their taxes are too high. Like it or not, we as a country have to remain competitive in order to retain their tax revenue
3. If public sector employees are so poorly paid then how come they've not all left and joined the private sector? The public/private sector are still in competition with each other for the best people.
4. When I was a public sector worker we used to get TWO pay rises per year. One for 'cost of living' and one for when we advanced to the next scale point within our grade -which happened every year. If this is still the case, and I stand to be corrected, then the 'pay freeze' thing is a bit of a porky.
5. Perhaps the government IS looking to make more cuts now in order to be in a better position to please the voters come the next general election, HOWEVER, every Labour government, with its history of over-spending, gets to do exactly this ALL the time that they're in power without having to face the consequence of where the money is going to come from.
year. One for 'cost of living' and one for when we advanced to the next
scale point within our grade -which happened every year. If this is
still the case, and I stand to be corrected, then the 'pay freeze' thing
is a bit of a porky.
How many decades ago was that? When I joined the civil service in the 80s you had increments up the grade scale and a pay rise but that ended about 20 years ago.
Yes the super rich always have that one about leaving the country - still we shouldn't be cross with them, better to pick on poor civil servants like nurses. Maybe if they left others could have their jobs.
Some civil servants have left for better paid jobs as some private sector workers have joined the civil servic for better security -what is your point?
Do you work for the Daily Mail Harry?
In my Department there is incremental progression every year until you reach the maximum, usually within about 5 years. Under the pay freeze there is an argument that the increments are contractual and therefore staff shoud receive them. What normally happens is that the increments are revalorised annually in line with inflation, but they are not being increased due to the pay freeze.