Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dude wheres my house

Public Sector Crap On The Young

Recommended Posts

Guest absolutezero
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6907969.stm

What ever happened to unions looking after a group of workers.. Not just the current group of workers

I always love the way people think we're living longer. That article says as such in the last sentence

We're not. We're living just as long as we always have.

The reason there weren't more old people about 10-20 years ago is because 60 years or so ago there was a big war which wiped out many from the 90s "elderly" generation.

People from ten years later weren't wiped out in such big numbers so it look as though we're living longer because we now see more "elderly" people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This means may mate who is three years older, will retire a good 10 years before I do. 60 for him, and 67 for me. Not only that, his contributions are half of mine, yet his eventual pension will probably be worth much more. Christ, I'll probably be fortunate to even retire at 67 if I'm still renting :angry:

Edited by Turnbull2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a scandal though old news as far as I knew this was already a done deal in many civil service departments.

How this stands up to equality legislation I don't know.

Clearly you are getting people being paid different benefits for doing the same job. That can't be right?

The early retirement and a good pension was one of the few things attracting people to the civil service where wages do not on the whole reflect those found in the private sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a scandal though old news as far as I knew this was already a done deal in many civil service departments.

How this stands up to equality legislation I don't know.

Clearly you are getting people being paid different benefits for doing the same job. That can't be right?

The early retirement and a good pension was one of the few things attracting people to the civil service where wages do not on the whole reflect those found in the private sector.

I thought public sector wages were now above the private sector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
This is a scandal though old news as far as I knew this was already a done deal in many civil service departments.

How this stands up to equality legislation I don't know.

Clearly you are getting people being paid different benefits for doing the same job. That can't be right?

The early retirement and a good pension was one of the few things attracting people to the civil service where wages do not on the whole reflect those found in the private sector.

This has already happened in teaching.

Old entrants can retire at 60 and they build up their pensions in 1/80ths per year of service (of best year of ten in lead up to retirement).

New entrants (as far as I remember) can retire at 65 and they build up their pensions in 1/60ths per year of service (of average index linked salary over their whole career).

If you ask me, it's just waiting for someone to challenge it on equality rulings and then everyone will be treated as a new entrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has already happened in teaching.

Old entrants can retire at 60 and they build up their pensions in 1/80ths per year of service (of best year of ten in lead up to retirement).

New entrants (as far as I remember) can retire at 65 and they build up their pensions in 1/60ths per year of service (of average index linked salary over their whole career).

If you ask me, it's just waiting for someone to challenge it on equality rulings and then everyone will be treated as a new entrant.

Presumably if someone challenges it it will be another good payday for the govenment's lawyers. Then pay rises for the already over-paid civil servants and better pensions. Champagne and caviar all round. The private sector can retire at 80 to pay for it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the younger workforce should create their own splinter Union and ballot to refuse to pay into this pension scheme. It does seem a bit of a raw deal if the contributions are the same, but the final pension payments aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Presumably if someone challenges it it will be another good payday for the govenment's lawyers. Then pay rises for the already over-paid civil servants and better pensions. Champagne and caviar all round. The private sector can retire at 80 to pay for it all?

Or worse pensions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a scandal though old news as far as I knew this was already a done deal in many civil service departments.

How this stands up to equality legislation I don't know.

Clearly you are getting people being paid different benefits for doing the same job. That can't be right?

The early retirement and a good pension was one of the few things attracting people to the civil service where wages do not on the whole reflect those found in the private sector.

The thing is in much of the private sector two or more different pension schemes will exist with membership based on when you joined.

The existing civil service scheme is your standard 1/60 final salary deal with each employee making a personal contribution of 3.5% per annum, 40 years service = 2/3rd of final salary. The new system would require only 29 years service to reach 2/3rd of average salary, the notional lifer doing 40 years with promotions granted early in their career will probably do better out of the new scheme. The later the promotion the smaller the effect on final pension, much like a money purchase scheme really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6907969.stm

What ever happened to unions looking after a group of workers.. Not just the current group of workers

If the govt had any spine they would have changed the retirement ages for former and existing members as well as future members. All scheme rules allow the trustees to vary the entitlements. Public sector snouts in the trough once again, paid for by the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vicmac64

Their pensions should be re-evaluated in accordance with publc sector performance. That should reduce them by about 80%.

I say bring Ron Paul to the UK - we need small government and freedom from bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is in much of the private sector two or more different pension schemes will exist with membership based on when you joined.

The existing civil service scheme is your standard 1/60 final salary deal with each employee making a personal contribution of 3.5% per annum, 40 years service = 2/3rd of final salary. The new system would require only 29 years service to reach 2/3rd of average salary, the notional lifer doing 40 years with promotions granted early in their career will probably do better out of the new scheme. The later the promotion the smaller the effect on final pension, much like a money purchase scheme really.

I thought the original PCSPS was 1/80 with 40 years service leading to a pension based on 1/2 final salary.

Most private sector companies have closed their schemes to new workers so I am not sure that the new Civil Service arrangements are that bad for younger workers. Contrary to what many people think the average civil servant does not stay in post for more than 5 years so the amount of pension most of them accumulate is small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is in much of the private sector two or more different pension schemes will exist with membership based on when you joined.

The existing civil service scheme is your standard 1/60 final salary deal with each employee making a personal contribution of 3.5% per annum, 40 years service = 2/3rd of final salary. The new system would require only 29 years service to reach 2/3rd of average salary, the notional lifer doing 40 years with promotions granted early in their career will probably do better out of the new scheme. The later the promotion the smaller the effect on final pension, much like a money purchase scheme really.

Hmm I can't recall the actual details now but IIRC the old lags had had the benefit of a standard incremental rise each year to take account of inflation plus a performance increase each year on top. This had been sufficient to put them at the top of the payscale within 10-15 years. On the lowest grade this could mean a difference of £10k pa - quite a bit to somebody starting on say £12kpa.

New entrants have a single "performance" increase only. This made it almost impossible to advance to the top of the grade. Indeed when a former colleague did the maths somebody receiving an average performance assessment would NEVER reach the top of their pay scale indeed they would just barely keep pace with inflation.

So new entrants were shafted by the new pay structure AND the pension. While the old lags who had risen to the top of their payscale and would be kept there by continuing to receive average performance assessments.

The idea of course was to use the existing budget to reward high performance staff. Unfortunately the only people to receive "top marks" were the "Yes men" and office favourites. Often those who were shouldering most of the work got average reports seeing no prospect of ever increasing their salary.

The unions were worse than useless. There was not a single paid up union member where I worked and still the official union "negotiated" on our behalf. Basically they wanted to ring fence the position of the old lags and f@ck the new entrants.

I shouldn't have cared as I myself was an "old lag" but the whole thing stank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the original PCSPS was 1/80 with 40 years service leading to a pension based on 1/2 final salary.

Most private sector companies have closed their schemes to new workers so I am not sure that the new Civil Service arrangements are that bad for younger workers.

I was thinking about classic plus, on the basis that current employees are more likely to opt for the more generous scheme, 3.5% is an absolute steal for the benefit offered. Even 1.5% for a 1/80th scheme is a bargain.

http://www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk/sc...assic_plus.aspx

The new scheme does IMHO actually look quite attractive it is in reality a 20% scheme costing the employee only 3.5%. Even the most generous "open" private sector final salary schemes would cost the employee at least twice if not two and half times that. Then again the money purchase scheme also looks to be very generous in comparison to the private sector, with unmatched age based contributions plus a capped matched top-up.

Hmm I can't recall the actual details now but IIRC the old lags had had the benefit of a standard incremental rise each year to take account of inflation plus a performance increase each year on top. This had been sufficient to put them at the top of the payscale within 10-15 years. On the lowest grade this could mean a difference of £10k pa - quite a bit to somebody starting on say £12kpa.

Ah an annual pay escalator, a rather generous system in comparison to the private sector. Admittedly when wages are ultra low it can and does serve a useful purpose in rewarding loyalty.

The unions were worse than useless. There was not a single paid up union member where I worked and still the official union "negotiated" on our behalf. Basically they wanted to ring fence the position of the old lags and f@ck the new entrants.

That is in my experience exactly what most unions look at doing so long as they are fine everything is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, there are those of us out here that would kill for a pension.

I've never worked for an employer that provided one.

And in the public sector wages are now higher on average than the private sector. And the benefits are better (holidays)

My sister has been continuously employed by the local authority for the last 20 years. She's on big money, she has about 35 days' annual leave + flexi-time + bank holidays and extra bank holidays. Pension they pay into. There are opportunities to actually be trained in stuff - and promotions/transfers to apply for.

I've spent the last 20 years in/out of work in the private sector. Promised the earth at interview, then salary promises and advancement never materialise, instead they sell up, go bankrupt, downsize, get taken over or simply give up. And the older I get the harder it is as the gaps between jobs get larger and the next salary gets smaller and smaller....

I figure when my sister and I are both retired, her pension will be more than I earnt working full-time.

And I can't even get into that gravy train because it's a closed shop. If you don't have family working for that authority, if you haven't ever worked in that sector before, you've got about 150 applicants ahead of you for the job ... and the job is probably already spoken for anyway (but they had to advertise for some legal requirements or other).

So why worry about a few more years?

I've got more years to sit alone in probably one room, claiming the minimum income guarantee and getting £119/week. Which in all fairness is more than I've had for years coming in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am a UNISON member and went on strike for a day last year over attempts to cut the local government

pension scheme. The final agreement has only just been balloted on, so dont know the outcome yet.

But it is obviously a compromise, and does result in a two tier pension.

So new entrants pensions wont be as good.

Union members are not selfish, but they are justifiably resentful for having to take action to protect our pensions

while non-members are crossing picket lines to go to work, when they stand to gain or lose as we do.

And also the young non-union members who then expect the older members to negotiate deals and to take action

on their behalf. No they will have to fight their own battles and learn the hard way if thats their attitude.

Also it is a myth pay in the public sector has got better, its just that pay in a lot of the private sector has been driven

down over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, there are those of us out here that would kill for a pension.

I've never worked for an employer that provided one.

Hey at least you'll get the state pension.

Whilst often bemoaned due to the apparently low amount it pays, a private pension would need to build a fund worth approximately £107,000 to pay £87 per week. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey at least you'll get the state pension.

Whilst often bemoaned due to the apparently low amount it pays, a private pension would need to build a fund worth approximately £107,000 to pay £87 per week. :blink:

Well, we were always told we'd have a pension .... they started saying "you should get your own" when I was nearly 30 and started being in/out of work as companies folded around me. to be fair I did start one back then... and promptly had to stop it as I was out of work ... then when I found another job in order to start it again I'd have had to repay every missed payment.... which was impossible. So that was that and I believe the amount I had saved got gobbled up in admin fees.

Doesn't "everybody" get the pension though? If you have a private pension you get both?

Although over the years the rules have changed often and a lot. One thing about getting your own pension is: there's no point because if you try to, they'll change the rules in some way so there's no benefit in it.

Doing the calculations: http://www.pensioncalculator.org.uk/

If I now pay in £10/week every week for the next 21 years, I'd get back £10/week in pension payments (for life)... but if I shove £10 in a shoebox each week, then retire and take £10 out of the box each week I'd be 87 before I ran out - so there's no point.

I know those £10s won't buy what they will today, but I think you get the picture that it's not looking worth it at all.... and if I shove the money into an ISA/similar I'd probably be better off.

Edited by ScaredEitherWay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This means may mate who is three years older, will retire a good 10 years before I do. 60 for him, and 67 for me. Not only that, his contributions are half of mine, yet his eventual pension will probably be worth much more. Christ, I'll probably be fortunate to even retire at 67 if I'm still renting :angry:

That's only what it says on paper. The reality is very different.

There is no savings pot, the entire system is based on paying the pensioners with taxes appropriated from the productive sector. What this means is that the promises made by government are worth nothing if there is no more capacity to tax (whether it is directly or using inflation) The supply of capital goods is finite and therefore ditto for the supply consumer goods and services. The government can create paper, but it cannot create wealth and they're painfully close to the limit of how much of that wealth they can transfer.

You will grateful that you're ten years younger and able to work when the times comes and this guys pension will barely buy him dog food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always love the way people think we're living longer. That article says as such in the last sentence

We're not. We're living just as long as we always have.

The reason there weren't more old people about 10-20 years ago is because 60 years or so ago there was a big war which wiped out many from the 90s "elderly" generation.

People from ten years later weren't wiped out in such big numbers so it look as though we're living longer because we now see more "elderly" people.

I'm sick of hearing that I'm going to live and work for a zillion years from the government and media then having to hear that another 40 or 50 something I know has cancer or some other serious condition. It's more PR crap.

Modern science may be able to keep a heart gently beating for longer than ever before but it's crap at making the population generally healthy and vital.

I wouldn't be surprised if the future doesn't consist of a load of 100 year olds on life support and loads of middle aged people genuinely unfit for work.

Edited by CrashedOutAndBurned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern science may be able to keep a heart gently beating for longer than ever before but it's crap at making the population generally healthy and vital.

99% of people simply have to eat sensibly and do a moderate amount of exercise to stay healthy.

Unfortunatly, the vast majority do neither and expect the state to help through bouts of ill-health and long-term ill health when they are old. Feckem I say. Get off your lardy-arses, turn the telly off and go out for a walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
The thing is in much of the private sector two or more different pension schemes will exist with membership based on when you joined.

The existing civil service scheme is your standard 1/60 final salary deal with each employee making a personal contribution of 3.5% per annum, 40 years service = 2/3rd of final salary. The new system would require only 29 years service to reach 2/3rd of average salary, the notional lifer doing 40 years with promotions granted early in their career will probably do better out of the new scheme. The later the promotion the smaller the effect on final pension, much like a money purchase scheme really.

Bloody hell! Only 3.5%?!?!

Teachers pay 6.4%.

I'm getting ripped off....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99% of people simply have to eat sensibly and do a moderate amount of exercise to stay healthy.

Unfortunatly, the vast majority do neither and expect the state to help through bouts of ill-health and long-term ill health when they are old. Feckem I say. Get off your lardy-arses, turn the telly off and go out for a walk.

You only get noticed by the NHS if you abuse your body and put on weight.The lardies get rewarded with statins ,which will probably keep the heart attack at bay until they are in their nineties.Since I walk ten miles a day and have virtually zero body fat I've got zero chance of getting the smarties.Trouble is a lot of my family were in the same shape and dropped dead at fifty.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.