PDA

View Full Version : Strikers are stealing from their own children



Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 09:10
BBC News - Public sector strike set to be largest for a generation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15953806)

We've known for more than 40 years that the postwar baby boom would make the state pension systems of European countries unsustainable. Governments have procrastinated, prevaricated and kicked the can down the road, and now, with a worldwide financial crisis caused partly by governments continually overspending, the tulip is hitting the fan and all governments in the western world need to make savings.

One way I feel they could make large, immediate and permanent savings is to raise pension age as of tomorrow morning, not in 5 or 15 years' time, but tomorrow morning. I've always argued that that would allow the pension age to be raised by a small amount of time, perhaps 6 or 9 months. But now things have changed and public finances are not much good, so I feel that pension age in most European countries should actually rise by two years with immediate effect. Anything else is stealing from younger people who cannot be confident they'll ever get a pension. I feel George Osborne is acting too softly on state and public sector pensions and needs to man up and tackle this head on. An immediate rise in pension age would also give a signal to the world that European countries are getting their house in order.

The strikers know that their pensions are unsustainable, but still they demand to retire while they're still young and healthy enough to work and contribute. Who's going to pay if they get what they want? That's right; their own children, who'lll never be able to get a pension, won't be able to study without building up huge debts, won't be able to take healthcare for granted and will have to pay ever higher social contributions to finance an unsustainable system.

The strikers are attempting to literally steal from their own children and grandchildren and they disgust me.

administrator
30th November 2011, 09:12
:yay:

At least the roads were clear on the way into the office this morning...

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 09:24
From the facebook page of a guy I know in Glasgow (through playing rugby) who doesn't have a top job at all; he's a crane operative (arguably a 'top' job though on second thoughts). In fact he's the epitome of what most people would call 'working class';


As I head out in the pish weather at tulip o clock I hope all my public sector strikers have a nice long lie this morning whilst i'm up and about trying to earn money to pay into my pension that won't provide me any guarantee's or security of a final salary pension but an income that is completely unkown and open to the vagaries of the stockmarket and numerous other factors outwith my control.

Says it all really.

OwlHoot
30th November 2011, 09:31
This daft strike gave the Government a great opportunity to lay on the doom with a trowel in Osborne's speech yesterday, and get this honestly into the open in a way that is a standing reproach to the strikers and will make the Government look good if things improve slightly better than the new forecasts.

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 09:32
Yep indeed, often depicted as a "class struggle" or poor vs wealthy the political debate isn't; it is between one group of average earners vs another group of average earners, usually public sector or possibly strongly unionised vs private sector. The wealthy bankers is a red herring, no-one minds if they pay a one off bonus tax, problem is the wealthy bankers are used as an excuse to put taxes up for everyone.

If you actually look how much a pension in the publice sector is worth, it is probably the equivalent of several hundred grand, I reckon somewhere between half a million and a million, depending on when they retire.

minestrone
30th November 2011, 09:40
I found out that the Scottish teachers pension pot is 24 billion in the red, about 20% of the Scottish GDP and about 500,000 for each teacher, I would assume that is pretty much the same across the country, scary figures.

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 09:51
Governments have procrastinated, prevaricated and kicked the can down the road, and now, with a worldwide financial crisis caused partly by governments continually overspending, but mainly by a financial sector gambling on sub-prime derivatives that nobody really understood in the search for ever larger bonuses, the tulip is hitting the fan and all governments in the western world need to make savings to ensure that their corporate director friends can carry on paying themselves double-digit pay rises, while cutting pay for employees, reducing job security, slashing benefits and pensions for the low paid, owning 99% of everything (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/28/big-farmer/) , and paying FA in tax (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/21/the-corporate-welfare-state/)

FTFY. Forget the children, we are being robbed now.

The current crisis in most Euiropean countries with the exception of Ireland isn't caused by derivatives or overpaid bankers it's caused by governments overspending since the 1970's plain and simple.Greek banks may go bankrupt because they hold Greek public debt. Italy's deficit has been over 100% of GDP since the early 1990's. Japan doesn't even allow derivatives trading and also went into the sh*te.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 09:58
The current crisis in most Euiropean countries with the exception of Ireland isn't caused by derivatives or overpaid bankers it's caused by governments overspending since the 1970's plain and simple.Greek banks may go bankrupt because they hold Greek public debt. Italy's deficit has been over 100% of GDP since the early 1990's. Japan doesn't even allow derivatives trading and also went into the sh*te.

Yep, and the derivatives are only really made possible by debt. However, pjclarke has a point; but, his point, however valid, doesn't change the situation, and doesn't change the fact that changes to pensions and pension age need to be made now.

Ignis Fatuus
30th November 2011, 09:58
BBC News - Public sector strike set to be largest for a generation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15953806)

We've known for more than 40 years that the postwar baby boom would make the state pension systems of European countries unsustainable.....

.....

The strikers know that their pensions are unsustainable, but still they demand to retire while they're still young and healthy enough to work and contribute. Who's going to pay if they get what they want? That's right; their own children, who'lll never be able to get a pension, .....

.....Excuse me, but I don't see the relevance. All that you quote is about state pensions. The public sector workers are striking about their occupational pensions.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 10:00
Excuse me, but I don't see the relevance. All that you quote is about state pensions. The public sector workers are striking about their occupational pensions.

In the end it's the same; both need a rise in pension age right now.

RobertRice
30th November 2011, 10:17
I was hassled by some kind of public servant picket trying to give me a leafet at the train station. I explained I fund my own pension and my day's work was funding there's whilst they have a jollie.

doodab
30th November 2011, 10:21
Yep, and the derivatives are only really made possible by debt.

Actually there are a lot of derivatives contracts related to FX, commodities and equities.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 10:22
Actually there are a lot of derivatives contracts related to FX, commodities and equities.
But are they the problem?

doodab
30th November 2011, 10:37
But are they the problem?

No. The problem is a lack of moral fibre.

lukemg
30th November 2011, 10:42
2 million out = ~300 mill in saved wages ? Not bad for a pretty minimal impact.
Loads of people have hols saved up to go xmas shopping so makes no great difference all round.
Yeah, I wish everyone could get a great pension, UK just cant afford it, sorry...

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 10:53
Governments will have to cut spending no two ways round it, and the public sector can squeal all they like, there's no money, plain and simple.

Greece's debt was well over 100% before the crisis, and ther Euro criteria is to hold the debt levels to 60%. That means Greece was overspending even before the crisis in 2008. An official retirement age of 61 is quite ridiculous, even the most incompetent economist would have known that was unsustainable; just one example of mismanagement in Greece. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy have no debt caused by banks invested in the US subprime. That was the UK, Ireland, Iceland and bit in Germany.

Italy' debt was also over 100% which is plain irresponsible because recessions do happen.

Let us not forget that the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was it ran out of money.That was what Perestroika was all about, i.e. stimulate their economy. Does anyone remember the default on Soviet bonds?. Capitalism isn't the cause of overspending, governments are.

russell
30th November 2011, 10:54
Sick of these footballers and their scandals, so now Rooney, Drogba Van Persie etc are stealing from their own children!! Shocking!

:igmc:
:igmc:
:igmc:

xoggoth
30th November 2011, 11:05
Agree with MTT.

There are a lot of crap defences by the public sector of this indefensible situation. One is that they were paid less and pension is deferred salary but even if they were once (and that hasn't been true for some years) they were paying the price for job security the rest of us didn't have. The competent ones were picking up the bill for the useless in a salary system, enforced by their own unions, of largely set salary scales with little merit element. They should also be the ones picking up the bill for their own high sickness and strike rates.

original PM
30th November 2011, 11:05
I was watching the news last night and one thing which i did wonder was why the Public Sector workers seem to think they have a job for life and should have a great pension?

I mean I work in private sector and if any changes to my remuneration/benfits package take place I asses what has happened and either accept it and forget about it or vote with my feet by moving to another company which gives the benefits I want. (I also accept that no job will be for life)

It seems that the public sector believe they should be immune from this and as soon as they get a job in the public sector that is where they will stay until they retire.

I would not mind so much if they (and I specifically exclude teachers, nurses and other members of the public sector who actually DO things from this next statement) were not complete incompetent jobsworth with an overblown sense of importance and a complete lack of interest in solving the problem. I also get the impression that many people get the jobs because their mate has a job and can find them an opening - which seems to be in some ways completely eliteist and discriminatory.

But then what do I know.

:confused:

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 11:11
The NHS pension was renegotiated 3 years ago, is in credit, and is being forecast to be in credit for another 25 years when it will break even.

NHS pensions average £7k a year (IIRC), which when you factor in the high pensions that doctors and surgeons will get, means that some of them are pretty crap any way.

Which could be why the NHS workers are more than a little annoyed at a cynical cash grab from a conservative government.

xoggoth
30th November 2011, 11:15
True enough, we should perhaps not bracket all PS together. Some jobs contribute very significantly to the economy, others do not. Recall reading an article on the then Department of Trade and Industry about 20 years ago, basically it served no purpose that justified the number in it. One might seriously question some roles of DEFRA today for example. The private sector mostly has a crude check, you make a profit or go under. In the public sector all assessment of worth is subjective and empire builders can flourish.

doodab
30th November 2011, 11:30
All Bran.

That's the answer.

Tough on piles. Tough on the causes of piles.

minestrone
30th November 2011, 11:34
When they say "hands of our pensions" I think we should take them at face value and stop any contributions.

BrilloPad
30th November 2011, 11:52
Easier to defend rises in pension age if you are not throwing billions at bankers.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 11:58
The Autumn Statement made cear that the Nasty Party is back. The poorest bear 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%, with the richest 10% untouched.

£1bn cut in child tax credits
£275m cut in working tax credits

£310 to be taken from the banks


We're all in this together.

But some are more in it together than others.

BrilloPad
30th November 2011, 12:01
But some are more in it together than others.

True. But labour would have done very little different.

BrilloPad
30th November 2011, 12:02
But then what do I know.

:confused:

The beauty of posting on CUK. One needs no knowledge to spout endless opinions.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 12:07
True. But labour would have done very little different.

Borrowing is expected to be £79billion in 2014/15 after bringing in deep cuts.

Darling's borrowing for 2014/15 was expected to be £75billion.

So we're talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Too much, too deep, too quick = recession

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 12:20
Yes but how do you pay?

It's all very well to say it's unfair, but health, benefits and pensions is exactly where all the money goes. You don't cut them, you go bankrupt, and then they get nothing; just like happened in Argentina.

Yes of course you can raise punitive taxes like they did in the 1960's and 1970's (98% top rate of tax) and the government still had to go with a begging bowl to the IMF.

Why? because when you charge huge amounts of tax people don't go to work anymore because there's no point, so your only option is to print money, that causes inflation, just like it did in the 1970's.

So if you raise more taxes on "the rich" the net result will probably be less in the tax take and therefore even more cuts. It's very much accepted that tax rates beyond 50% (probably less than that) are counterproductive. So perhaps people might feel less envious but in the end they'll be poorer, and if you go for inheritance you''ll just demolish family businesses. I think you'll find tax rates pretty similar across most OECD countries, and there is a reason. Sure you can tweak here and there, stick a couple of percentage points on this or that tax, but there's no magic wand that will pay off the debt.

DimPrawn
30th November 2011, 12:23
Why? because when you charge huge amounts of tax people don't go to work anymore because there's no point, so your only option is to print money, that causes inflation, just like it did in the 1970's.

Or (and it's even easier now than it was in the 1970's) if you are a high earner, you emigrate to any number of countries where the overall tax take is lower and the quality of life is higher and then the govt are getting 100% of **** all, and that hits the overall tax revenues very hard indeed.

TimberWolf
30th November 2011, 12:27
Bank of England boosts Mervyn King's pension by £1.4m - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8294253/Bank-of-England-boosts-Mervyn-Kings-pension-by-1.4m.html)

We're all in this <snort, belch> together <fart>

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 12:36
If HMRC were as vigorous with large corporations as they are with small business, then there would be significantly more money available.

£5bn from Vodafone as a starting point.

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 12:46
£5bn is a tiny amount in terms of the debt, and I can assure you Vodaphone don't have £5bn in the bank you would have 1000's of job losses. Thats why they don't push. Economic reality I'm afraid.

UBS announced 2000 job losses to save £2bn.

OwlHoot
30th November 2011, 12:48
Doubtless there are efficiencies to be made, but surely we are beyond the caricature of the feather-bedded public sector incompetent in this day and age. 73% of the public sector workforce are women, doing mostly low-paid, essential work. The Autumn Statement made cear that the Nasty Party is back. The poorest bear 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%, with the richest 10% untouched.

We're all in this together.

Changes to tax and benefits will drive 100,000 children back into poverty, joining the 300,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/13/cuts-child-poverty-levels-increase) from previous Osbourne cuts.

No doubt this is only the 'incompetent' children.

When will you socialist thickos ever get the message - THERE'S. NO. MORE. MONEY. !

TimberWolf
30th November 2011, 12:50
THERE'S. NO. MORE. MONEY. !

Somewhat less than none I gather.

doodab
30th November 2011, 12:57
When will you socialist thickos ever get the message - THERE'S. NO. MORE. MONEY. !

There's loads of it ,it's just in the wrong places.

minestrone
30th November 2011, 12:59
I love the way Labour are now claiming that Darling would have borrowed less as if Labour were some wise financial sages who got every prediction right.

Bunk
30th November 2011, 13:00
Borrowing is expected to be £79billion in 2014/15 after bringing in deep cuts.

Darling's borrowing for 2014/15 was expected to be £75billion.


Well, yes, but I could have said I expect to borrow £20 and a packet of chewing gum in 2014/15 and nobody can prove me wrong because I didn't get elected. If you honestly believe Labour would have stuck to their figure any more that the current lot then you're having a laugh.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 13:02
£5bn is a tiny amount in terms of the debt

So, we shouldn't pursue it then, is that what you are saying?


, and I can assure you Vodaphone don't have £5bn in the bank

Well according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.

Even if we ignore that, Vodafone had put over £2bn aside to deal with the liability, so let's start with that.

If you're going to make £7bn of welfare cuts, at the same time you let one company off £5bn of tax that is owed, it makes you look a tad hypocritical.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 13:06
When will you socialist thickos ever get the message - THERE'S. NO. MORE. MONEY. !

If there's no more money, how can the government cut fuel tax?

How can you introduce a tax cut that only benefits Danny Alexander's constituency?

sasguru
30th November 2011, 13:11
So, we shouldn't pursue it then, is that what you are saying?



Well according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.

Even if we ignore that, Vodafone had put over £2bn aside to deal with the liability, so let's start with that.

If you're going to make £7bn of welfare cuts, at the same time you let one company off £5bn of tax that is owed, it makes you look a tad hypocritical.

Blaster's strong point isn't basic maths. Or logic. But he's in a band. Bet that's mediocre too.

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 13:17
Well according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.


Did you check their Accounts payable?

If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 13:27
Did you check their Accounts payable?

If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.

After they lost of Court of Appeal ruling, Vodafone set aside £2.2bn as a liability to pay for the deal, which was widely regarded as not being enough for the full liability. This does not appear in their cash on hand, because it's no longer cash - it's a liability in the accounts.

They then got a deal from Dave Hartnett which means that they pay £800million, plus £400million over time, plus a guarantee that they won't be prosecuted / chased for any more overseas dodgy tax deal.

At the very, very least, they were let off £1bn by a civil servant without reference to HMRC lawyers. That's comparing the maximum they will pay to the value that they set aside to pay for it.

Of course, £1bn isn't very much, so it's not worth chasing for, really, in the grand scheme of things :rolleyes:

Ignis Fatuus
30th November 2011, 13:35
I was watching the news last night and one thing which i did wonder was why the Public Sector workers seem to think they have a job for life and should have a great pension?
.....Because that's the deal that was made with them?

If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 13:38
Because that's the deal that was made with them?

If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.

Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.

TheFaQQer
30th November 2011, 13:49
Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.

Actually, they didn't.

No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 13:56
Actually, they didn't.

No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.

They voted for their representatives who then formed a government. If they wanted something else, they should have voted for other representatives. They could have had Gordon again.

Arturo Bassick
30th November 2011, 14:06
Actually, they didn't.Actually they did, or nobody ever does. The system in the UK is that the Monarch (HM QE2) asks one of the party leaders to form a Government from those elected. It is normally the leader of the party with a majority, but it could be anybody who thinks they can form and keep a Government.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 14:27
Proposed increase in pension contributions that triggered the strike: 2.8bn

Amount of tax Tamara Ecclestone's dad saves by using an offshore trust controlled by his wife : £2bn (as opposed to Philip Green, whio gains around £300m/year by the same dodge)

Cost of proposed top-down NHS re-organisation: £2bn.

Cost of Afghanistan campaign: £4.5bn / year

2 x aircraft carriers (aircraft optional): £6.2bn

Amount raised by a 'Tobin' tax at 0.05%: c £20bn

Cost to Government of planned cuts to corporation tax: £1bn / year by 2014.

Amount retrieved from Swiss tax evader amnesty (all offences waived) £5bn, Estimated amount still illegally sheltered: £20bn

No money :freaky:?

We know it's unfair. It's all unfair. But it has to be done. Agree that the other injustices should be tackled too.

Ignis Fatuus
30th November 2011, 14:50
Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.Changing the board of directors of an employer does not allow it to invalidate all employment contracts.

This government is free to offer what contracts it pleases to potential new employees; it is not morally free to break existing contracts.

Mich the Tester
30th November 2011, 14:52
Changing the board of directors of an employer does not allow it to invalidate all employment contracts.

This government is free to offer what contracts it pleases to potential new employees; it is not morally free to break existing contracts.

No, but going bust and setting up a new business would. Yes, it's unfair, and unpleasant, but it's the result of successive governments failing to tackle the issue. It has to be done.

BlasterBates
30th November 2011, 15:21
Proposed increase in pension contributions that triggered the strike: 2.8bn

Amount of tax Tamara Ecclestone's dad saves by using an offshore trust controlled by his wife : £2bn (as opposed to Philip Green, whio gains around £300m/year by the same dodge)

Cost of proposed top-down NHS re-organisation: £2bn.

Cost of Afghanistan campaign: £4.5bn / year

2 x aircraft carriers (aircraft optional): £6.2bn

Amount raised by a 'Tobin' tax at 0.05%: c £20bn

Cost to Government of planned cuts to corporation tax: £1bn / year by 2014.

Amount retrieved from Swiss tax evader amnesty (all offences waived) £5bn, Estimated amount still illegally sheltered: £20bn

No money :freaky:?

That's good but there's 1.1 trillion debt, and growing at 130 billion a year. If we add up your suggestions and they were to work, which some wouldn't, it still wouldn't make much difference. One thing I can guarantee you is that if Labour get in there won't be any change. It's the socialists in Greece and Spain who put through eye watering austerity budgets, far far more exrteme than anything you've seen in the UK.

Scrag Meister
30th November 2011, 16:48
THUNDERDOME, BARTER TOWN Here we come.

Maybe Mad Max was future fact not fiction.

TimberWolf
30th November 2011, 19:11
Is that it then? Are they back to work for a bit now?

You can bet whoever's needed for the Olympics next year will be showered with cash and bribes and gongs. And I bet they are sitting smug in this knowledge too.

Moscow Mule
30th November 2011, 20:42
No cuts = NO JOBS.

I have no wish to live in a slightly wetter, colder, uglier Argentina thank you very much.

aussielong
30th November 2011, 23:50
I found out that the Scottish teachers pension pot is 24 billion in the red, about 20% of the Scottish GDP and about 500,000 for each teacher, I would assume that is pretty much the same across the country, scary figures.

How many years do you have to do to get a full salary pension? Surely you'd have to have done a full career for a decent pension? Otherwise everybody would be getting into it near retirement age.

Mich the Tester
1st December 2011, 09:17
The subsidy is to the private sector here – paid for by state sector employees.
Surely any 'subsidy to the private sector' is provided from money raised in taxes or NI contributions from income generated by the private sector, and is therefore nothing other than what the Dutch would call a 'cigar out of your own box'.

BlasterBates
1st December 2011, 09:36
Low paid public sector workers won't be disadvantaged (under £15000), they will not have to pay increased contributions. The argument that the reforms hit the low paid is total nonsense.

The fact is the average salary in the public sector is higher than in the private sector, and in the end if the pensions aren't cut it's not the wealthy bankers that will fund their pensions, it's average earning workers in the private sector and young people who'll foot the bill.

Those most affected and hence vocal are the above average earners. The public sector "well to do". Of course after the cuts they could go into the private sector, but they won't because they won't want to give up their privileges.

SueEllen
1st December 2011, 09:52
Changing the board of directors of an employer does not allow it to invalidate all employment contracts.

This government is free to offer what contracts it pleases to potential new employees; it is not morally free to break existing contracts.

That's a stupid argument and you know it.

Private sector companies have been changing their pension agreements, other benefits and contractual terms for years.

The public sector can do the same and in fact they have done. I have talked in the past to two of my sister-in-laws, both nurses, and they have had changes in the way they can take time off implemented.

The public sector strikers are simply striking to prevent changes to their contracts just like tube workers have done and firefighters in the past.

Ignis Fatuus
1st December 2011, 10:04
That's a stupid argument and you know it.

Private sector companies have been changing their pension agreements, other benefits and contractual terms for years.

The public sector can do the same and in fact they have done. I have talked in the past to two of my sister-in-laws, both nurses, and they have had changes in the way they can take time off implemented.

The public sector strikers are simply striking to prevent changes to their contracts just like tube workers have done and firefighters in the past.It is not a stupid argument. You may disagree with it; that IMHO does not make it stupid.

I did not say that they weren't legally or practically free to change the contract, I said not morally free.

The same might be said for private companies, whether they have done so or not.

TheFaQQer
1st December 2011, 10:20
They voted for their representatives who then formed a government. If they wanted something else, they should have voted for other representatives. They could have had Gordon again.

The electorate voted for a given politician on the basis of the policies advocated in their manifesto. For example, some voted Lib Dem because there was a solemn promise that they would vote against any plans to increase tuition fees for students.

In the end, since no-one won the election, the coalition agreement was forged, making a set of policies that no-one actually voted for. No-one voted for the set of policies which this government is implementing - not even the members of the government themselves.

TheFaQQer
1st December 2011, 10:23
The average public sector pensioner gets a pension of £5,600 (median). In the half of people below that median, for example the average pension of a woman who worked for local authority is £2,600 pa

Average public sector pension is £5600.

If Danny Alexander MP (age 39) gets voted out at the next election and never works again, his MPs pension (first elected 2005) will be £23k

TinTrump
1st December 2011, 10:56
Surely any 'subsidy to the private sector' is provided from money raised in taxes or NI contributions from income generated by the private sector, and is therefore nothing other than what the Dutch would call a 'cigar out of your own box'.

Well put. This is what friends of mine in the public sector fail to recognise.

BlasterBates
1st December 2011, 11:12
The average figure of £5000 for public pensions is a ridiculous figure, it includes everyone including anyone working for a few months or part time. No point negotiating with a Union that makes nonsenical statements.

The fact is you will find no-one who has worked 40 years fulltime in the public sector with a pension of £5000.

I worked 2 years for the first co I got and I estimate to get no more than £100 pension per year for my service. The figure of £5000 including everyone however little they contributed just demonstrates how high a full pension must be.

Just gives an idea of how divorced from reality Union leaders are.

Good article here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100120819/strikes-aint-what-they-used-to-be/

I like this


At Birmingham Women's Hospital, theatre nurse and Unison president, Eleanor Smith has offered a classic self-defeating defence of her strike action. "I came into the public sector not for great wages…" she said. Now what would you expect to follow that opening: "…but to serve the community", or "…to provide care that is free at the point of use"?

No, what Ms Smith said was that she did not enter the public sector for great wages "…but for a pension." And


My sister is a theatre nurse so I know what pension they can get, and believe me it's generous.