howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all on for the 30th june, likely to involve many sectors incuding teachers, lecturers, immigration coves, even air traffic control bods.
of course nobody knows who will "down tools", approx 60% voted for strike action from a 25% turnout(approx).
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the tories summer of discontent.a big
if they do.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
That means that 75% showed no interest and of those that voted 40% are against a strike.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This could be very good for Cameron. After too many U-turns he needs a good win and to stand up to them. Be good if he were to break the hold of the public sector unions too.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Turkeys voting for Christmas.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i suspect that blue barry might be right on this one.
a few holiday flights cancelled would move public attention away from the weak u turns.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think cameron would be better trying to find solutions rather than having a big battle with the unions.
The headmasters union out for first time in 127 years tells its own story.
That said members of unions are less likely to strike over pensions than they are over working conditions, pay etc.
It looks like we have a long road ahead of discontent
And let's not please get into how many did/did not vote for a strike, unless of course we dismantle the govt, who also were elected on low turn outs
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Keith
The same people that are arguing about how many voted for this and that etc are the same people who backed the Peoples Port vote. Knocking anyone else who highlighted percentages.
So that can't have it both ways .If a low turn out is good enough to pass the Peoples Port plan then its good enough for Union leaders to act on their members behalf. There is no difference and it makes their cries as bad as Vics who continually tries to juggle the figures to fit his view point.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I can't see how final salary pensions are affordable any more and cost us ratepayers a fortune on local council tax for them.
They are protected from reality and should, through negotiation, work towards doing away with them.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
marek;
thank you marek, some sense at last.
ROGER;
I think i have already said exactly as you highlight, but by barryws views of taking on the unions will do little to settle any outstanding issues, far better to sit around a table to resolve such issues
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Civil servants currently receive 1 x 80th for each year of their service. So the maximum any civil servant can receive at present is 40 x 80th ie half pay after a lifetime of service (40 years).
An independent review of pensions by Lord Hutton put the average pension at between £5,600 and £7,800 a year. Hardly the amounts being floated around by the government and the media.
Compare that to what the MP's receive when they hang up their pens after a much shorter time in public service not including their resettlement sum before going on to make millions as a 'named' director or guest speaker. Most MP's do about 10 years so if they applied the civil service formula to their system they would qualify for only 10 x 80ths.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
bit like a THEM AND US still applies then
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
To correct you Marek - the 40 year limit no longer applies since age discrimination legislation and pension legislation no longer has a pension limit of two-thirds salary less commutation. The maximum is based on a lifetime allowance CETV of £1.8million (reducing to £1.5million soon). In addition to the 1/80th salary they get a tax-free pension commencement lump sum of 3/80ths this brings them up close to the old two-thrids level equiivilent to 1/60th scheme (under the latest legislation the lump sum from the Civil Service scheme can be increased further by commuting some income). The State Pension is on top of that pension. There is a change for new entrants to the Civil Service scheme to a lifetime salary rather than final salary, but this still represents a guaranteed defined benefit pension. The income is fully indexed (a major benefit).
Someone on £20k after 40 years service in the 'classic' scheme when you take into account the State Pension at 65, not paying National Insurance and the higher 'age allowance' they get (so they have £9,940 tax free), they are not much worse off than at work.
The simple fact is this.
Someone working in the private sector cannot afford to invest sufficent to obtain a pension that can match that provided to the public sector given the same period of work. It is difficult to calculate exactly what someone would need to invest but 40% of income is not an unreasonable estimate but it does depend on what factors for growth/inflation and interest rates are used. Many people do not invest at all, but that is more about their own priorities than anything else.
The 'average pension' figures you and the Unions provide are highly deceptive. They level they get is a set figure related to length of service and income. Short service/low income = low pension, but someone in the private sector with same service, same income would have to invest massively to match the public sector on the scale I suggest and that is not viable for people.
Whilst I can and do sympathise with individuals I have to say that they have to face the realities of life and cannot expect their highly privileged pension provision to continue. Oh, I include MPs in that.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - it is the Unions who are seek confrontation though strike action. They deserve to be crushed if they do. It will be Cameron's 'Maggie moment' that will secure his authority in the way the miners strike did for her.
Not sure why anyone needs to be crushed. I know, by the way, many decent union members and reps whoi are not happy with taking industrial action as they know which side their bread is buttered and are painfully aware of the free ride many (not all) public sector workers have had. My issue is not about pensions, but about management of an underperforming workforce. Reward performance, penalise poor performance or upskill it. Cut out the dead wood.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are correct Bern about the managers of course but the problem we have rigth now is with the Unions and, yes, many of their members are not happy about the situation.
Bern I couldnt have put it better , Thank you
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Agreed as well Sarah, but with all the 'discrimination' legislation that is increasingly harder to do. I've actually sat in on a meeting where it was said by HR that although someone was too thick to do a job we couldn't discriminate against him because he was thick.
I'm receiving a pension from a 1/80th per year of service scheme and it comes solely from a fund of contributions made by members, and is well managed by a board of trustees largely recruited from members. The employer and employee contributions totalled about 25% of salary, which hurt when I had a young family to raise but is paying off now. Shows it can be done without public funding provided pension contributions go into a scheme to pay out in future rather than current pensions being payed from current taxes.
That said, the trustees now realise that the financial world has changed and they can't guarantee that level of pension in future so they are looking at changing from a pensionable salary based on the last 3 years average to one based on a career average, part of what the current problems are about. It still leaves the employee the opportunity to put in some extra voluntary contributions when they can afford to.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BERN;
I don't disagree withg your views, and that does come down to poor management.
I agree lets get the workforce one to be proud of, no problems there.
RAy'
Sorry but im not sure where your view is comning from, if a person is not up to the job and thats the em,ployers decision then go with it,
all;
you will find that most unon members don't wish to go into any dispute, thats nothing new.
It's talk like barryw's that makes the situation even harder to resolve
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
this pension lark,it depends if the goverment has mis managed it or not.it makes me think that there is somthing wrong somewhere.if i had to cough up twise as much and get less back and have to work longer to get my pension i would go on strike as well.to be honest there seems to be a black hole in the pension scheme with a bit of mismanagement thrown in.