Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Well said that man!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
jondf
jondf  82475 forum posts
16 Jun 2011 - 12:28 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13772326

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Jun 2011 - 12:28 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cats_123
cats_123 e2 Member 104014 forum postscats_123 vcard Northern Ireland25 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 6:57 AM

Hear, Hear! Smile

I worked for the civil sevice for nearly 40 yrs and only ever took 2 days strike action but would support this wholeheartedly. Our pay was actuarily reduced to reflect the `better' pension rewards. Whether you believe that there are too many civil servants or not (and it's the Government that creates the policies that need implementing) this creates such a stigma against public service.

peted01
peted01  571 forum posts United Kingdom
16 Jun 2011 - 7:26 AM

whilst I support what they are doing and have sympathy for them (I have family who are civil servants) lets not forget it happens in the private sector as well.

I have not had a 'pay rise' for near 8 years and getting a 'bonus' which I assure you sounds good but is less than any pay rise!!! Now the cynic in me would say that they have done that so they dont have to increase pension contributions. I have also seen the value of my pension devalue by over a third in the last few years. I work in the telecoms industry and whilst I thought I would be able to retire at 55 I am now in a position where I cannot do that and will be working till 65.

I am not looking for sympathy but all I am saying is that it is happening all over the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, regardless of public or private sector.
pete

Photogeek
Photogeek  9605 forum posts Wales6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 8:02 AM

I'm in the Local Government Pension Scheme.

And our 'Gold Plated' pension works out at an average of 7,800 per annum, and can drop as low as 2500 for women . . . The Higher management . . . probably not in the LGPS . . .but get big bonuses for leaving . . . plus a golden handshake.

And don't forget that the 'public' pension schemes are actually cash rich . . .There is no black hole!!

The Public Accounts committee actually says the 'Public' pensions schemees are affordable, and don't need changing

the LGPS went through a 'reorganisation in 2008 . . .to make it affordable, why rape it now? Oh yeah to ensure the ConDems banking friends can keep their bonuses.

The one pension scheme that is definitely NOT affordable - The MP's one . . .the only way it can continue paying out for all the ex MP's is because there are 30 odd million Taxpayers topping it up on a regular basis. Sad

triumphv8
triumphv8  7450 forum posts United Kingdom
16 Jun 2011 - 8:04 AM

They're striking over their pensions being REDUCED to a 60th or 80ths final salary pension scheme with > 10% contribution by the employer.

They're lucky to still have a final pension salary scheme at all, hundreds of thousands of private sectors have not just had theirs reduced but lost them all together.

Work up to 8 years longer ? - so they are going to work up to the age of 73 then ? - Oh no, just 65 like the rest of us.

Photogeek
Photogeek  9605 forum posts Wales6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 8:23 AM

CPS is a 1/42nds and the LGPS/NHSPS is 1/60th and the proposal is to go to a 1/80th or 1/90th or even a 1/100ths

And they want to go to a career average scheme to further lower the benefit paid out . . . dropping members into the area where they become eligible to Means Tested Benefits (Now remind me again who pays for the benefits??)

And yes some people would like to (and have paid enough contributions) to be able to retire at 60 with a pension, the condems want to insist that they work until they are 68 (OK that is going to be to 66 for those over 42, 67 for those between 34 and 42 and to 68 for those under 34, lets not spread misinformation here).

They are talking about increasing employee contributions by 50% (not to 50%) which would make my contribution 13.8 % . . .FOR NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT!!! . . . Hmmmm! lets see if I took that 13.8% and all accrued benefits and moved into a Private Scheme I certainly wouldn't be worse off . . . and the more people that will leave the schemes the less viable the scheme is, where does the money come from to make up the shortfall . . .Yep you've guessed it council residents . . . as the council has the legal duty to make up the shortfall . . . Just like Warwickshire have had to do this year . . .5 million loan to be repaid at 1% interest over 6 months to make up for a cash flow problem in the scheme caused by the austerity measures . . . What services are going to be reduced to cover that?

They recently changed (2008) the 'rules' so that the pensions are linked to the CPI rather than the RPI which means an effective cut in Pensions of 84 Billion to members over the next 15 years

Ask yourself where the 101 Investment funds in the LGPS, put the money . . . Yep Good Old UK PLC . . . if that money dries up what of the recovery and reduced austerity measures then.

Lucky to have a Final Salary Scheme - That was part of the conditions of service, while I have no problem with it changing to Career average for new members, those that have been in the scheme for decades do not, and should not have the rules changed on a whim . . . when the scheme is still in the black and the government's own watch dog says the scheme is affordable and good value for money!!!

Last Modified By Photogeek at 16 Jun 2011 - 8:34 AM
triumphv8
triumphv8  7450 forum posts United Kingdom
16 Jun 2011 - 8:56 AM


Quote: CPS is a 1/42nds and the LGPS/NHSPS is 1/60th and the proposal is to go to a 1/80th or 1/90th or even a 1/100ths

But most have increased from 80ths schemes to 60ths in the last 5or 6 years ?


Quote: And yes some people would like to (and have paid enough contributions) to be able to retire at 60 with a pension, the condems want to insist that they work until they are 68 (OK that is going to be to 66 for those over 42, 67 for those between 34 and 42 and to 68 for those under 34, lets not spread misinformation here).

That applies to everyone doesn't public or private ?


Quote: They are talking about increasing employee contributions by 50% (not to 50%) which would make my contribution 13.8 % . . .FOR NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT!!! . . . Hmmmm! lets see if I took that 13.8% and all accrued benefits and moved into a Private Scheme I certainly wouldn't be worse off . . . and the more people that will leave the schemes the less viable the scheme is, where does the money come from to make up the shortfall . . .Yep you've guessed it council residents . . . as the council has the legal duty to make up the shortfall . . . Just like Warwickshire have had to do this year . . .5 million loan to be repaid at 1% interest over 6 months to make up for a cash flow problem in the scheme caused by the austerity measures . . . What services are going to be reduced to cover that?

Rates up to 13.8% is only for new employees, presumably to discourage them from joining an unaffordable scheme - Isn't the rest of that that just proving how unaffordable/unsustainable they are ?


Quote: They recently changed (2008) the 'rules' so that the pensions are linked to the CPI rather than the RPI which means an effective cut in Pensions of 84 Billion to members over the next 15 years

Same as our pay rise if we actually get one - bugger isn't it !


Quote: Ask yourself where the 101 Investment funds in the LGPS, put the money . . . Yep Good Old UK PLC . . . if that money dries up what of the recovery and reduced austerity measures then

If I wasn't paying so much tax, I would be similarly invested in 'Good old UK PLC' by spending it through the hands of hard working people in the local shops/community - instead of the bankers.

One day strike, say 1 million families paying childcare at 30 a day - 30million - who's paying for that then ?


Quote: when the scheme is still in the black and the government's own watch dog says the scheme is affordable and good value for money!!!

In 2009, the state paid 14.9bn towards the 19.3bn cost of the UK's four largest civil service schemes

Last Modified By triumphv8 at 16 Jun 2011 - 9:00 AM
mikehit
mikehit  56309 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 9:03 AM

I agree that twenty years ago public sector workers accepted below-market pay for a better pension. The problem is that for years now the unions have been asking for and getting, pay in line with the market. But they still want to keep their final-salary pensions.
The ony thing I have real sympathy with is that the 'career average' calculation will negatively impact those who started in the public sector twenty or more years go.


I accept all your comments, Photogeek, but if you can explain why that is any different to what happens in the private sector I will be happy to listen. Remember when Gordon Brown raided the profits for pension funds and took in excess of 5 billion out of the pension finds? I don't recall that affecting the public sector. Neither did the change in accounting rules that led to nearly everyone closing their final-salary schemes. And the change to CPI/RPI affects private sector pensions as well.

It may sound cold but 'welcome to the real world'.

Last Modified By mikehit at 16 Jun 2011 - 9:04 AM
mikehit
mikehit  56309 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 9:06 AM

And the ultimate irony is of course that the public service unions who are screaming so hard about the pensions for their union members are...cutting the pensions of their own employees. Tongue

jondf
jondf  82475 forum posts
16 Jun 2011 - 2:08 PM


Quote: the LGPS went through a 'reorganisation in 2008 . . .to make it affordable, why rape it now? Oh yeah to ensure the ConDems banking friends can keep their bonuses.

This is nothing new from the Tories. The nice new smiley face of concern that Cameron presents to the world has to be balanced against the deep seated Tory Party view that they do not acheive power, nor do they have power thrust upon them, but that they are BORN to be in power. The public school/Oxbridge system has reinforced this notion since time immemorial.

collywobles
16 Jun 2011 - 3:07 PM

Interesting. Of course everyone wants a big fat pension but please tell me where you think the money is going to come from when you consider that there first of all IS NO MONEY, the investment market has seen to that, secondly when pension schemes were introduced the life expectancy was about 64 years of age, and finally there was a time when you could rely on the investing in the stocks & shares market would certainly produce a return on your investment. All this has changed and we all have to get used to it.

Its ridiculous for anyone now working to think that they can continue as currently with current contributions and then expet pension payments into their 80's but then not expect to contribute more along the way. The ever changing economy over recent years has proved that things cannot go on as before -- as hard as this may be to accept!

Its got nothing to do with politics and policies and whoever is in government or wether you have a government pension, a private pension or a company pension, or even the greedy banks --- the status quo is UNAFORDABLE! Pensions are expensive and someone has to pay for them, and its got to be the person who is going to receive the pension in the end.

The people I really feel for are the younger generation who move about jobsfrequently who, when it comes to retirement will have a big fat zero for a pension - then whoever is in government will have a problem!


Colin

Last Modified By collywobles at 16 Jun 2011 - 3:20 PM
strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jun 2011 - 5:50 PM


Quote: They are talking about increasing employee contributions by 50% (not to 50%) which would make my contribution 13.8 % . . .FOR NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT!!! . . .

I wish I got that good an offer. Go out into the open market and see if you can get an equivalent pension payment for less than 18% input. Sorry as someone who has had to go through the pain of loosing the final salary pension with no compensation at all and lost other side benefits I wish I had been given the option of keeping my final salary scheme with only putting in 13,8%. I would love to have received such a generous offer. That is far better than market average.

I am having to pay my own way and I honestly you go out and get some quotes for an independent pension to equal what you are being offered. You may find its a cracking deal take it quick. And are you certain the pension pot is OK. Fact is people are living longer so the pension funds are needing an even bigger pot of money per person to give the same pension. So who is putting in the extra money. Should the tax payer foot this ??? Are you certain there is no funding shortfall now and projecting forwards. Local government groups often make up the shortfall from cash.

I know it is painful, but I have been there and I have looked at the broad open economic situation. And while the average public sector pension of 4,000 sounds poor the average private sector figure I found was even lower at 1,700.

So all I ask is benchmark your salary and pension against the market. Fact is we have been living on borrowed money for too long. Something has to give. And the best thing to do is if you can make more somewhere else then go do it because that will push up the wages for those who are left. If not then accept what is on offer.

Sorry but Public service pensions need to fall in line with the market. It may sound naff, but you sound to have been better protected than people like me. And you look to be looking a gift horse in the mouth from my perspective. If you can keep a final salary or average salary scheme for only 13.8% going forwards grab it before they realise how generous they are being and cut it.

Last Modified By strawman at 16 Jun 2011 - 5:51 PM
strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jun 2011 - 12:46 PM

Some further data that should make people stop and think before they protest too hard on this one.


Quote: workers, on average, will have to pay 3.2% more in annual pension contributions but the increase will be phased in between 2012 and 2014.

An excellent offering far better than you will get on the open market.

Quote: He will also guarantee that low-paid public sector workers on less than 15,000 will not face any increase in pension contributions and those earning less than 18,000 will have their contributions capped at 1.5%

Most low paid employees would love a scheme like that.

Quote: All pension benefits that were earned before any reforms are introduced - including retirement ages and final salary benefits - will be protected, the government insists.

a good offer, not many of us in the outside world have that.

Quote: Mr Alexander will say public sector pensions must be reformed to ensure they are "affordable and sustainable but still amongst the very best available" at a time when people are living longer. "It is unjustifiable to ask the taxpayer to work longer and pay more so that public sector workers can retire earlier and receive more themselves," he will say.
"The fundamental point is that if people are going to work longer, contribute a bit more - we can also ensure people's pensions in future at retirement are broadly similar to those at the moment. And I think that is a very fair and balanced offer in the context of the enormous demographic and economic changes taking place in our country."


So it may sound painful, but compared to the situation I have (and many outside state employment) where the pension scheme was closed with no compensation etc offered it is brilliant. Being offered to go forwards paying a small 3.2% extra looks like a very good offer, especially when you see how low the contribution rates are. I am paying 18% for a much lower return. As an example civil servants only pay 1.5% or 3.5%, to be honest I think they should be paying the market rate not a tax payer subsidised rate (especially that they now have or exceed the outside market pay rates). So of a civil servant pension we the tax payer will be paying over 2/3 of the pension contribution even after this change. Is that fair???

Last Modified By strawman at 17 Jun 2011 - 12:53 PM
edsephiroth
17 Jun 2011 - 2:10 PM


Quote: They're striking over their pensions being REDUCED to a 60th or 80ths final salary pension scheme with > 10% contribution by the employer.

They're lucky to still have a final pension salary scheme at all, hundreds of thousands of private sectors have not just had theirs reduced but lost them all together.

Work up to 8 years longer ? - so they are going to work up to the age of 73 then ? - Oh no, just 65 like the rest of us.

Yeah - perhaps those in the private sector should have come together and done something about it too eh? Just because your conditions are rubbish and someone else has managed to hang onto a few slim pickings a little longer doesn't mean you should be against them protecting what little they have. It's exactly that kind of selfish attitude which has divided workers so much that the kind of changes you are complaining about have been so easy for employers to implement.

The employers have all the power now because whiny selfish people like you are too busy thinking purely about themselves.

edsephiroth
17 Jun 2011 - 2:11 PM

Oh, and they're not "lucky" (as you and others here keep alluding to) to have a final pension salary - its something they SHOULD have anyway, and they have fought to keep it.

Last Modified By edsephiroth at 17 Jun 2011 - 2:15 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.