Lets have a flameout...

lacroupade · 10-03-2011, 16:20

...about public sector pensions.

So the news today is that the public sector is finally looking at canning final salary pensions, just like the private sector has already done - mainly because with life expectancy these days they are an unaffordable liability.

So no longer will 22% of my council tax go, not towards services, but towards some "job for life" cardigans greenhouse fund.

Bring it on I say.

(RIP) PLANK · 10-03-2011, 16:55

as an ex local government officer i have to agree. In the housing dept of the council i last worked for the Chief Executive officers post was only ever held for a year or two, by the longest serving officer. So they had a final year on £120k (plus) to beef up their 'final salary' pensions. I understand it is pretty standard practise, a wasteful manipulation of the rules. Time for a change

paulp · 10-03-2011, 17:58

i do agree to a certain degree

but coupled with the other hits the public sector has taken - such as a pay freeze for 3yrs and mass redundencies, i think timing could have been better.

I work in the public sector and the fat cats always cause a bad image for the rest of us who as the same as most people who earn enough to survive

paulp

ps stop the benefit scroungers/ cheats first that will save a fortune

10-03-2011, 18:08

people in jobs where they dont get punnished for there mistakes,have nice fat pensions and retire early,dont have to justify what they do need looking at!

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 19:45

Non contributory final salary pensions are not acceptable. Running away from a problem by retiring is unnaceptable (btw police can not do that contrary to popular myth)

Step back in various stages eg consider a contributory final salary and theres nothing wrong with them.

You must remember that when people like me bought into them over 30 plus ago at 11% of my pay packet they were the norm and sold as such.

Its almost a breach of contract. Its like selling you your car on hp then as youve about paid it off saying sorry but the govt have ****ed up so we are taking your car off you. No different at all.

There will always be people who are poor and those who are well off. That is life. I have been fortunate to be able to buy into the middle somewhere, i anticipated being comfy.

This government needs to stop hemorrhaging money rather than rolling over the accountable grafters.

Good place to start are the scroungers. Second stop ludicrous grants like the £280 million paid to India each year..........when they've indicated they're not bothered about the aid

It will be interesting to see how much of all the reports will be implimented. Winsor & Hutton were both proteges of the bliar/brown national/international screw up era and the reports were commissioned by the discredited has beens.

10-03-2011, 19:51

if your in a job on a pension then you should keep that deal,if you join from when change is made tough tity your on deal b! unfair to take some ones pension.

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jace

if your in a job on a pension then you should keep that deal,if you join from when change is made tough tity your on deal b! unfair to take some ones pension.

I agree and it should apply across the board. When i joined it was at a time when many allowances and perks were going. That meant less money for me than someone who signed on the week before was getting but i knew what i was letting myself into so no moans.

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 20:06

On the subject of the demise of the private sector final salary.........tough.

Private sector are bussiness, public service are services.

Private sector work on an efficiency generated profit basis. Public sector work on publicly funded fixed budget parameters.

Far too often in the good times the private sector recipients lorded it up against the public sector lower rewarded steady aways because the private sector had loads a dosh going spare. So when the bad times hit, no point whinging, it may go around again , it may not. Chance we take.

lacroupade · 10-03-2011, 20:15

I have to disagree....why should the public sector not be subject to the same budgetary constraints as the private sector? Sure there are public services involved but thats not an excuse for financial apathy - I mean why has our council tax regularly gone up by way more than inflation for example? Piss poor financial management would be one reason.

The fact is - and I know from many many years of working in or with government departments - that the average civil servant doesn't give a flying toss about tax payers money, its just numbers to them and budgets (no matter how amateurishly they were arrived at) are for spending not saving.

The private sector gets whacked both ways - not only have we never had significant job security, but we also lost our FS pensions and lots of other benefits a long time ago. And where in the public sector have there been base pay reductions such as I suffered in the private sector?

There has to be a trade-off in the public sector and historically its been job security - time to join us in the real world I'm afraid

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 20:55

At no time did I suggest budgetary constraints could be ignored.

What I said was that the private sector have lorded it up in the good times and whinged in the bad.

The public sector workers have occupied the middle ground throughout. Looking on in envy when my brother in law got a bonus big enough to pay for a new vw golf and bragging about how easily he afforded some avc's, then watching a few years later when he whinged about not getting a bonus feeling hard done by. He was far from the only one in my experience. Tough shit. I chose the average non bonus middle ground for security. I entered a contract with my employers which was moral lawful but apparently not legally binding.

Public sector pensions have needed reform for many years. Many of us have advocated the government getting on with it on many occasions in the past. However as it was contentious it found its way into the "this ll make me unpopular" or "too hard" cupboard, safely out of the way.

A few years ago it would have been uncomfortable but not impossible to find the cash from other funds (eg the Indian one or the money wasted on missiles for Iraq) to rectify the problem. But they didn't have the spine.

So it dragged on and now under the guise of international economic problems its being revisited. Unfortunately all spare cash has been sent to India or bombed the crap out of Iraq.

So thought Hutton, who can fund it? well the answer when you dig in the document is actually very simple. We will take more off those we can find and we will not pay out to those who we should. That ll make cash and save cash for US the govt. Bollox to wrecked lives and plans.

Nothing at all to do with the real world, all to do with murky politics, robbing peter to pay paul , breach of contract, lack of morals and a stunning misunderstanding that the words of Petronius Arbiter were ironic not a credible bussiness plan.

As far as no regard for public cash from Cservants, perhaps, from my neck of the words, not the case. I have a good cv s a fed rep and unfortunately at the moment a budget holder for being fiscally cautious with public and organisation cash

im not the only one.

Not just my industry thats getting hit badly either. An example of teachers pensions seem even worse than ours.

If our dear govt want no police to cover the streets and deal with illiterate children bunking off school theyre heading the right way because no one will go into those trades for a generation or more.

lacroupade · 10-03-2011, 21:41

But...the fact is its the private sector that pays for the vast bulk of the public sector, so why should it pay heavy taxes to maintain benefits and job security that it doesnt enjoy?

And so what if it lords it up sometimes? The risk it takes over job security has to have a payoff. The downside is pay cuts, constant fear of redundancy, and downgraded benefits and pensions...things that the public sector has only recently been significantly impacted by because it has become bloated and unaffordable.

10-03-2011, 21:43

i still say less copers will create more crims,normaly law abiding citizens wont suddenly breaking the law,people who do break the law and dont get caught still wont get caught,theres a higherarcy of older crims round here all run successfull buisnesess yet have barns stuffed full of hydroponics growing skunk,one had kittens about 6-7mths ago ol bill welliwopter chasing couple crims hovering all round his area,luckily for him hes got planning tickets for a sauna in the barbn lol! you should see his haughty taughty shops in town lol if only eh!

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacroupade

But...the fact is its the private sector that pays for the vast bulk of the public sector, so why should it pay heavy taxes to maintain benefits and job security that it doesnt enjoy?
And so what if it lords it up sometimes? The risk it takes over job security has to have a payoff. The downside is pay cuts, constant fear of redundancy, and downgraded benefits and pensions

errr you back up my argument completely

including the fact that there is no way the private sector and renumeration in it can be compared to the public sector

As far as paying their way, so they should. Everyone else (who is accountable at least) does

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacroupade

.things that the public sector has only recently been significantly impacted by because it has become bloated and unaffordable.

In some areas yes, in others no. Overall not by the hand of the majority who will have to pay for it.

See my last posting for a well researched summary of how repeated administrations have screwed it up but are now rectifying it under false pretences, too much too late

You will never shift me on this one. My principles are straightforward. Fair renumeration based on the route you chose through life. Take a chance, live with it. Dont work through choice, starve. Choose steady contracted work, be able to rely on what you signed up to.

We in the public sector are being shafted.

One very annoying phrase thats repeatedly emphasised in the Hutton report is that it aims to provide "adequate" this that and the other for folk in retirement.

Bollocks to that. I want and have worked towards a good to nice standard of living in retirement. I have given 11% of my earnings for a long time into the pot. I was PROMISED, not indicated subject to stocks and shares performance, PROMISED a return on that. They are now reneging. That is wrong. It is imoral and it is breach of contract.

I could have not worked then sponged to the same retirement level. I could have spent my 11% on a leased car and drinking expensive wine every month, i didnt. I worked, I contributed to society and the economy. Now im getting ****ed over.

Deleted account DD · 10-03-2011, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by jace

i still say less copers will create more crims,normaly law abiding citizens wont suddenly breaking the law,people who do break the law and dont get caught still wont get caught,theres a higherarcy of older crims round here all run successfull buisnesess yet have barns stuffed full of hydroponics growing skunk,one had kittens about 6-7mths ago ol bill welliwopter chasing couple crims hovering all round his area,luckily for him hes got planning tickets for a sauna in the barbn lol! you should see his haughty taughty shops in town lol if only eh!

Cant comment on your local situation

but i can assure you all decent cops ( and there are lazy crap ones out there..........bin them) carry a massive work load. Less of them means theres no capacity to take up the jobs left over. That includes prevention as well as response.

You are correct

I can only conclude that the impact on Joe & Jo Public will be more impact from crime

One thing this govt are also overlooking is the broken window syndrome.

Its based on a well observed hypothesis that once an empty building gets a broken window and it doesnt get fixed it will attract more damage and soon become trashed. It attracts it.

The same applies to areas of crime and crime patterns. It also applies to everything else in public life from the state of the parks to the number of times your wheelie bin gets emptied.

Its a slippery slope.

10-03-2011, 22:21

must feel like a swift kick to nuts being shafted by your employer especialy when that employers your government,whod have exspected that eh! it is wrong that what youve worked towards is yanked away from you at last minute,can you do anything about it though will police have to police striking policemen/women?

10-03-2011, 16:20	#1
lacroupade Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: All hail to the Glove of Love... Posts: 9,212	Lets have a flameout... ...about public sector pensions. So the news today is that the public sector is finally looking at canning final salary pensions, just like the private sector has already done - mainly because with life expectancy these days they are an unaffordable liability. So no longer will 22% of my council tax go, not towards services, but towards some "job for life" cardigans greenhouse fund. Bring it on I say.

10-03-2011, 17:58	#3
paulp Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: essex Vehicle: nissan mistral 27td Posts: 1,043	pension i do agree to a certain degree but coupled with the other hits the public sector has taken - such as a pay freeze for 3yrs and mass redundencies, i think timing could have been better. I work in the public sector and the fat cats always cause a bad image for the rest of us who as the same as most people who earn enough to survive paulp ps stop the benefit scroungers/ cheats first that will save a fortune

10-03-2011, 16:55	#2
(RIP) PLANK Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Central England, in the Heart of the Black Country Vehicle: T2 2004 TDI SE LWB Posts: 7,740	as an ex local government officer i have to agree. In the housing dept of the council i last worked for the Chief Executive officers post was only ever held for a year or two, by the longest serving officer. So they had a final year on £120k (plus) to beef up their 'final salary' pensions. I understand it is pretty standard practise, a wasteful manipulation of the rules. Time for a change

10-03-2011, 18:08	#4
jace Guest Posts: n/a	people in jobs where they dont get punnished for there mistakes,have nice fat pensions and retire early,dont have to justify what they do need looking at!

10-03-2011, 19:45	#5
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	Non contributory final salary pensions are not acceptable. Running away from a problem by retiring is unnaceptable (btw police can not do that contrary to popular myth) Step back in various stages eg consider a contributory final salary and theres nothing wrong with them. You must remember that when people like me bought into them over 30 plus ago at 11% of my pay packet they were the norm and sold as such. Its almost a breach of contract. Its like selling you your car on hp then as youve about paid it off saying sorry but the govt have ****ed up so we are taking your car off you. No different at all. There will always be people who are poor and those who are well off. That is life. I have been fortunate to be able to buy into the middle somewhere, i anticipated being comfy. This government needs to stop hemorrhaging money rather than rolling over the accountable grafters. Good place to start are the scroungers. Second stop ludicrous grants like the £280 million paid to India each year..........when they've indicated they're not bothered about the aid It will be interesting to see how much of all the reports will be implimented. Winsor & Hutton were both proteges of the bliar/brown national/international screw up era and the reports were commissioned by the discredited has beens.

10-03-2011, 19:51	#6
jace Guest Posts: n/a	if your in a job on a pension then you should keep that deal,if you join from when change is made tough tity your on deal b! unfair to take some ones pension.

10-03-2011, 20:06	#8
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	On the subject of the demise of the private sector final salary.........tough. Private sector are bussiness, public service are services. Private sector work on an efficiency generated profit basis. Public sector work on publicly funded fixed budget parameters. Far too often in the good times the private sector recipients lorded it up against the public sector lower rewarded steady aways because the private sector had loads a dosh going spare. So when the bad times hit, no point whinging, it may go around again , it may not. Chance we take.

10-03-2011, 20:15	#9
lacroupade Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: All hail to the Glove of Love... Posts: 9,212	I have to disagree....why should the public sector not be subject to the same budgetary constraints as the private sector? Sure there are public services involved but thats not an excuse for financial apathy - I mean why has our council tax regularly gone up by way more than inflation for example? Piss poor financial management would be one reason. The fact is - and I know from many many years of working in or with government departments - that the average civil servant doesn't give a flying toss about tax payers money, its just numbers to them and budgets (no matter how amateurishly they were arrived at) are for spending not saving. The private sector gets whacked both ways - not only have we never had significant job security, but we also lost our FS pensions and lots of other benefits a long time ago. And where in the public sector have there been base pay reductions such as I suffered in the private sector? There has to be a trade-off in the public sector and historically its been job security - time to join us in the real world I'm afraid

10-03-2011, 20:55	#10
Deleted account DD Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 4,705	At no time did I suggest budgetary constraints could be ignored. What I said was that the private sector have lorded it up in the good times and whinged in the bad. The public sector workers have occupied the middle ground throughout. Looking on in envy when my brother in law got a bonus big enough to pay for a new vw golf and bragging about how easily he afforded some avc's, then watching a few years later when he whinged about not getting a bonus feeling hard done by. He was far from the only one in my experience. Tough shit. I chose the average non bonus middle ground for security. I entered a contract with my employers which was moral lawful but apparently not legally binding. Public sector pensions have needed reform for many years. Many of us have advocated the government getting on with it on many occasions in the past. However as it was contentious it found its way into the "this ll make me unpopular" or "too hard" cupboard, safely out of the way. A few years ago it would have been uncomfortable but not impossible to find the cash from other funds (eg the Indian one or the money wasted on missiles for Iraq) to rectify the problem. But they didn't have the spine. So it dragged on and now under the guise of international economic problems its being revisited. Unfortunately all spare cash has been sent to India or bombed the crap out of Iraq. So thought Hutton, who can fund it? well the answer when you dig in the document is actually very simple. We will take more off those we can find and we will not pay out to those who we should. That ll make cash and save cash for US the govt. Bollox to wrecked lives and plans. Nothing at all to do with the real world, all to do with murky politics, robbing peter to pay paul , breach of contract, lack of morals and a stunning misunderstanding that the words of Petronius Arbiter were ironic not a credible bussiness plan. As far as no regard for public cash from Cservants, perhaps, from my neck of the words, not the case. I have a good cv s a fed rep and unfortunately at the moment a budget holder for being fiscally cautious with public and organisation cash im not the only one. Not just my industry thats getting hit badly either. An example of teachers pensions seem even worse than ours. If our dear govt want no police to cover the streets and deal with illiterate children bunking off school theyre heading the right way because no one will go into those trades for a generation or more.

10-03-2011, 21:41	#11
lacroupade Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: All hail to the Glove of Love... Posts: 9,212	But...the fact is its the private sector that pays for the vast bulk of the public sector, so why should it pay heavy taxes to maintain benefits and job security that it doesnt enjoy? And so what if it lords it up sometimes? The risk it takes over job security has to have a payoff. The downside is pay cuts, constant fear of redundancy, and downgraded benefits and pensions...things that the public sector has only recently been significantly impacted by because it has become bloated and unaffordable.

10-03-2011, 21:43	#12
jace Guest Posts: n/a	i still say less copers will create more crims,normaly law abiding citizens wont suddenly breaking the law,people who do break the law and dont get caught still wont get caught,theres a higherarcy of older crims round here all run successfull buisnesess yet have barns stuffed full of hydroponics growing skunk,one had kittens about 6-7mths ago ol bill welliwopter chasing couple crims hovering all round his area,luckily for him hes got planning tickets for a sauna in the barbn lol! you should see his haughty taughty shops in town lol if only eh!

10-03-2011, 22:21	#15
jace Guest Posts: n/a	must feel like a swift kick to nuts being shafted by your employer especialy when that employers your government,whod have exspected that eh! it is wrong that what youve worked towards is yanked away from you at last minute,can you do anything about it though will police have to police striking policemen/women?