Quarter of a million civil and public servants to strike

Public sector workers pay tax and contribute to their pensions.

Ultimately it's about trust. Setting a precedent where the government can change contracted conditions is surely a bad thing. Imagine if they implement Mark's suggestion, what's to stop them reneging on the deal in thirty years time because the financial environment may well be vastly different again then?

I know it's another debate, but why don't they close down all the specialist tax avoidance accountants? Collecting what's due should shore up some of the defeceit.

Quite right Barry and yet I do feel some small sympathy for public sector workers as they've inherited an unfair pension system brought in decades ago to buy loyalty. They don't want it to change because it is a perk but it has to change. If you do your 40 years you get your full pension, if you can go early then that's your golden handshake. Its unfair because the rest of the country who fund the Public sector have to subsidise these early retirements while it works on; increasingly for many beyond 65.

Long term there has to be a standardised and compulsory national pension scheme that spans all sectors. Why do we still need a state pension funded through NI if we still need to pay into public and private pensions too?

@Mark

The 5 years early retirement is the gold plating, 5 years extra pension at whatever rate is not to be sniffed at.

Barry L

I agree with you there David. We can't carry on along the same track. We've been haemorrhaging cash as a nation and of course it's true that finding efficiencies in the public-sector is a sensible place to start patching the wound.

It's just frustrating when people who work in private-sector organisations somehow imagine that there is a gravy-train happening for everyone on the public-sector payroll. It's just not the case.

The UK needs some serious external, impartial, management consultancy for all central and local government to find the real efficiencies.

It's unreasonable to change conditions (such as pension terms) and not expect a backlash. People have made lifelong compromises, looking forward to possibly the only real benefit of working in the public sector - a decent pension. It just seems ultimately dishonourable.

Further again to Graham Hall

Graham, I obviously have not expressed myself very well. I do not consider my views utterly naive and insulting, only commonsense. I value public services and the value they bring to people’s lives and for what they bring to society. But just as an individual must balance their finances, so must a country. Since the last government maxed out the country’s credit card and employed an extra million public employees; borrowing the money to pay for them, as a country we cannot at the moment afford these levels of public service, however desirable it might be. In that sense, public services are a cost and need to be reduced to a level that the country can afford.

As to “You'll have to boost their pay or see the country grind to a halt. Simple.” Yes it really is simple. As simple as Public Sector costs have to be reduced in whatever way is necessary; reduce numbers employed, reduce employment costs (including pension costs), efficiency measures; so that the books are balanced for future generations. Surely you are not suggesting that our way of life must be protected at whatever cost and at the expense of our great grandchildren?

I hear what you're saying Andy and its a shame that after 40 years of service you can't wait to get out.
But by the age of 59 most people will have put in 40+ years of work in whatever sector. As a public service employee do you think it fair that you get the chance to retire on a final salary pension at 59 when the retirement age for everyone else is 65?

What an interesting thread and so full of misconceptions as ever in discussions on this subject, so ably responded to by Sheena.
Civil Service pay is 'reduced', abated if you like, by roughly 12% because that effectively pays for the pension . This has always been the case.
Pensions are effectively part of your contract and could be compared to an insurance policy. What would anyone think if you sign up to certain benefits, you put in 40 years service only to be told , oh hang on, we've changed our mind.?
I'm in a similar position to the person in Sheena's example. I have 40 years in this September when I'm 59. My reading of the proposals is that I will have that preserved, but from April I will have to start making actual payments for future pension entitlement - only till September, because there's no way I'm staying longer than I have to.
My understanding is that the Pension Scheme retirement age will increase to 66 by the time everyone's State Pension age will be 66 in 2020 and that it won't be a sudden increase as Sheena says.

I don't know how they can afford to pay 11%, the gentleman in question time looked far too young to be seriously contributing such a large percentage of his salary anyway.

I can't believe many private sector workers can afford to pay anything like 11% into a private pension scheme, most probably pay in half.
I'm not bashing the fire service for a minute but maybe someone can confirm if this is service wide or just the individual paying AVC's?

Oh I forgot to say the average civil service pension not including the mandarins is £4200 per year and many receive less than £2000 per year.

Just watched Question Time and again I learnt something new the firebrigade staff pay 11% into their scheme how many of the private sector schemes expect an 11% contribution.

Hello Sally

I beg to differ in the civil service we do not have a choice it is mandatory to be in the scheme and we cannot add to it either.

As stated earlier in my post when my ex had to pay across a large sum to me because my pension compared to his private sector pension is so bad for same years of service I could not pay this into my civil service pension it is not allowed and I had to find a suitable private pension to invest in.

In my ex's scheme you could pay in more and buy added years not with the civil service pension scheme. Also since 2005 any new members of staff or those returning could only join a newer scheme which gave roughly what the government want us to accept now.

In 2005 PCS members agreed to all the changes on the understanding that existing staff did not lose that which they had built up over years of service and this is the problem if our current pensions were frozen and we had to join this new scheme from now on I think you would find most would agree however this is not on offer.

In the past another scheme was offered which meant we would have to pay more but instead of only the spouse being eligible for benefits a partner would be eligible we were given 6 weeks to decide and as I was married at the time I stayed in the old scheme however when my circumstances changed I could not change schemes.

One of my staff is 58 and was expecting to be eligible for retirement in just over a year however will now have to work until 66 and get a much reduced pension at this time to what she would have got if retiring now. Is this fair 40 years of service no chance to make up this loss and all her plans demolished. She would have continued working if allowed despite the fact that the government would have made no further contributions as you can only have max 40 years service for pension purposes. Shewould then have provided continuing good service to customers as the older staff believe in customer service unlike the newer style management.

One of my colleagues retired a couple of years ago and is living in poverty despite all his hard work as his pension means he is not eligible to benefits but it is not sufficient to pay his rent and bills and then leave him money to live a life. He woulkd have been better off without the wonderful pension as at least he could have got benefits

Mark, joining the public service pension scheme is not mandatory. We do have a choice. And having opted to be in it rather than pay into some other scheme, we would like the outcome we were promised when we joined.

We know about the pressures on the funds and some changes are necessary to keep the whole thing viable, but maybe not so much so fast, eh?

While i do agree with some of the things you said Sheena there was one point where I think you hit the nail on the head.
Those people working in the Public sector are Public Servants, i.e. serving the public, not seeming like they are doing you a favour which it seems to me happens any time i make a simple request to our local council.
Going on strike will only inconvenience the people that Public Servants are supposed to be looking after.
Just a small point to Kevin Skinner about the following quote "Why not pay a pension equivelant to the country of origin of the people entering this Country who have not contributed anything, and do the same with other benefits". My partner is from a different EU country and we together receive NO benefits apart from child benefit for one child. We both work full time and both pay up our full national insurance and taxes. Does that mean when my partner reaches retirement age in just over 30 years she should receive a lower pension than a british national because she was born in another country?

Spot on Sheena.

Again David's comment - "If everybody worked for the public sector we would be down the swanee as it produces little wealth, only cost."

Dave! It's ridiculous and divisive. Yes, if we all worked for the public sector effectively we'd be in a communist society. Which, due to some of the less attractive attributes of mankind (greed, self interest, nepotism), we know doesn't work.

No-ones suggesting that (unless I missed something). But the idea that the public sector only contributes cost... utterly nieve and insulting.

Tell that to the fast-response paramedic who's strapping you to a spinal injury board in the middle of the M1 at 11:30 at night on a windy December night. Or the environmental health officer that has to deep clean a property after someone has decomposed in their living room. You know privatisation doesn't work. Look at America's desperately unfair health service, that's what you want is it?

Society is not just about maintaining an environment to generate unreasonable and unimaginable numbers for merchant bankers to cash in. It's about human rights, education, development and cooperation. Buying and selling debt, exploiting misery and lack of opportunity. It's pretty lowlife behaviour that history will mark with the same "dark satanic mill" inference that the industrial North was tarred with before the philanthropists reformed rights, conditions etc.

We were for a brief period heading towards being an enlightened society, where work and life were becoming balanced. This ideal seems to have been shrugged off as we relive the eighties.

I don't mean to patronise, it's everybody's right to work hard if they want to. But a lot of people work hard for the wider society, not purely for themselves.

Public sector staff should be held in high regard and renumerated - not unreasonably, but at least fairly. The pensions have historically been a compensation for the poor pay/perks/kudos that being "council" has always attracted. Take that pension away? You'll have to boost their pay or see the counrty grind to a halt. Simple.

By the way, I work for a limited company.

Further to this I would like to add that even I was shocked when talking to fellow Public Servants in the Prison Service that they earn £15000 per year.
Would you do that job dealing with the sort of people they deal with the 24 hour shifts for £15000 per year?
No well neither would I and unlike many others I do not begrudge them a penny of it. The same as firefighters, soldiers, ambulance staff and Care staff etc who all face horrendous duties for little or no thanks for rubbish pay and little in the way of recognition for what they do.
I would also like to point out that in most departments of the Civil Service the Departments have been cut by massive amounts in the last decade and the I million extra staff where are they because I see no sign of them or are we talking about the Fixed Term Appointment staff who all left long ago.
All I hear at work is the public moaning about the diabolical service and being unable to get through on the phone. This is caused by the massive cuts in staff we have had and the terrible service we receive from our privatised sectors such as IT and Facilities Management. How can we provide Services when the computers are down or we have no paper to print things on. We also get distressed people ringing us because the privatised debt collection is causing serious concerns.

Why are we and other Public Servants being treated this way we did not cause the crisis the banks and the Government did.

It should also be noted that if these workers end up unemployed they will get more in benefit than they were earning as I understand it the best way to deal with this is to keep people in work and paying taxes rather than living on benefits and getting figures like £37,000 by time you take into account all the reliefs etc. You can pay 2 or 3 Civil Servants with this and yes I am remembering the to include all costs.

As I said before this is not about pensions this is only part of the bigger issue of terms and conditions being ripped up and flushed away.

I can assure you all that you will miss us when we are no longer there. Passports, Driving Licences, Stamp Duty Offices, Child Benefit, Tax Credits, Police Officers, Firefighters, Drs, Nurses, Social Workers, Street Cleaners, Dustmen, Environmental Healrh Officers, Border Agency Staff.

All necessary and all under threat.

To Graham Hall, “Working from 8 til 6 everyday... except when you're posting on web-forums eh Dave? “, not sure if you mean me but I have few posts to my name, I only did this one because it make me hot under the collar.

“And please don't forget that public servants are tax payers”, agreed but this means they are merely returning a proportion of their income to the treasury, from whence it came. The point is the public sector can only be afforded if the country earns enough to support them. If everybody worked for the public sector we would be down the swanee as it produces little wealth, only cost. The public sector is needed but at a level that can be afforded by the country.

I understand that pension contributions are taken from Public sector staff as part of their salary agreement, you pay into a pension whether you like it or not. Private sector is often optional although some employers do pay a percentage into a scheme as a benefit. Employer provision in either sector is a benefit and should not be relied upon, nice if/while you can get it but it should not be a right. We should all take responsibility for our own pension provision.

I'm sure there are plans to introduce forced pension provison to any employee who is not a member of a pension scheme and I'm not against a national compulsory pension scheme that's the same for both private and public sector workers, based on a percentage of earnings, with an option to pay additional voluntary increases.

But to send 3/4 of a million public sector workers on strike helps no one, it only burdens the general public further and creates resentment. Just from the NUT action how many parents will that inconvenience who have to make alternative childcare arrangements? But it won't affect the public sector parents will it because they'll all be off work anyway - very divisive, and tantamount to blackmail.

And Sheila, I have every respect for teachers having considered going into that profession myself, so i'll stand your corner and say the 14 weeks that school is shut arent all holidays but your not the only ones who train, qualify and constantly seek to attain your annual CPD points and develop your skills. My job certainly doesn't stop when I 'shut the door and go home' which by the way isn't 4:00pm or even 5:00pm, its usually dark!

Working from 8 til 6 everyday... except when you're posting on web-forums eh Dave?

We're a society, a complex lattice of supporting skills from entertainers to surgeons. Prison guards to management consultants. We all rely on each other. Some of us work for the state because there was no business (traditionally) in providing those services.

Things are changing but it's been proved that privatisation is not always the best direction - British Gas (unless you like being shouted at by a 21 year old graduate based in Delhi when you try to resolve a billing problem), British Rail (unaffordable fares and a disjointed service provision)etc etc.

Public sector workers do a job, often with "normal" holiday entitlement, often for less money than their private sector counterparts and certainly with few or no benefits... EXCEPT for the pension scheme. But the pension scheme didn't used to be particularly unusual. Only since Maxwell destroyed the trust in private sector pensions and various funds have been mismanaged and money unnaccountably lost, has the private sector employee eyed the public servant with envy.

What's the point in bringing us all down to the lowest common denominator?

And please don't forget that public servants are tax payers.

Hello

It is probably worth noting that part of the gold plated pension is that it can be taken at 60 and not having to wait till 65 so 5 years extra payments.

Barry L

It seems we all have misconseptions of each other being private or public, but one misconception that does need to be removed is this golden example of working in the private sector, I have had numerous jobs in the private sector over the last 20 years because I have had to endure numerous reorganisaitons or companies going bust in the private sector.

Throughout this time only one company has had a contributory pension all the rest have 'its up to you what you do with your money', no share schemes, no private Healthcare, no Christmas hamper nothing, these seem to be a thing of the past or for a select few. When I did work for the company that had good benefits they also went through rationalisation of these benefits, and gave just one months notice of the changes - like it or lump it.


What is certain is I would still prefer to work in the private sector have experienced the public sector for over 6 years and the difference in attitude to whose money is paying their salary.

However through all of this there was never a consideration to go on strike because that just affects the customers you are working for, striking serves no purpose other than leaving resentment for those who are striking.

David is absolutely spot on when he said that the previous Government had caused this whole problem by taking on more public service staff. There is a straigt forward calculation that without the private sector being in the right place then there is no public sector, so the Government should be looking to drive the private sector forward and the public sector will naturally come along with it as well - as long as the right investments are put in the right place.

I have worked both in the private and public sector and can assure you that working in the Civil Service is no holiday and much harder than the private sector.

I do not understand where people get the idea that Civil Service pension is so wonderful. During my divorce my husband fell foul of this misconception when he went after my "gold plated pension" only to find that he had to pay me a lot of money as my pension is so poor.

However that is not what the issue is the issue is that staff have worked under agreed terms and conditions and they are being abolished without negoitiation. No leeway at all. Why should someone have everything taken away from them after 30years loyal service?

The average Civil Servant does not earn staggering amounts of money and does not have a wonderful pension.

Despite media hype they do not earn more than their private sector equals and on the whole do not take more sick.

Up until now it has been recognised that the Civil Service had a high percentage of disabled staff who were treated reasonably unlike many private sector firms who sack people when diagnosed with chronic health issues including cancer. Alas this is also changing and disabled staff are being hounded out of the job.

I wish people in the private sector would realise that we do not get any Benefits in Kind like they do. We do not get time off for Christmas Parties or get contributions toward the cost we do not get Christmas Hampers or Turkey's as many do, we do not get Private Healthcare or company cars/mobile phones, we do not get reduced priced goods or mortgages or share schemes and we can not even partake of the bicycle scheme.

Having worked in the private sector and public sector in one way or another I find it amazing that there is such a wide differance in pensions.

I would love to have a final salary pension, that I only have to contribute a minimal amount to.

Its about time that people contribute a fair amount into their pensions, why should my pension subsidise those that do not contribute.

You read about teachers moaning about the fact that their pension is going to be reduced, that they have to train hard to become a teacher, so they deserve a high pension, well so do I and many others had to train hard to get to where we are, and continue to train and develop as our industry and technology changes.

At the end of the day, we all want something for nothing, but this is now the real world, As David said these measures are necessary, I may not agree with the rest of his comments, And I do have ideas which may be offensive to some people, so i think they are best kept off this blog. But one I will offer up for comment, Why not pay a pension equivelant to the country of origin of the people entering this Country who have not contributed anything, and do the same with other benefits. just a thought

These measures are necessary because the previous government calculatingly wasted tax payer's money on taking on 1 million extra public sector employees for little apparent benefit. That is why we have such a massive deficit, exacerbated by costly unsustainable pension arrangements paid for by a diminishing productive private sector whose own pension arrangements are much worse, and non-existent in many cases. The unions do their members no favours by organising these strikes as balance has to be restored.

As for Ed Miliband coments he is part of the cause along with his Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, so what he says is worthless.

Pensions issue is strange - actively discourage people from joining a pension system by making it unattractive, as in the private sector, and who picks up the bill later the government and us through taxes

Instead of encouraging worse pension provision the government should be looking to making private schemes better.

The gilt edge pensions talk also makes me laugh my mother a public secor worker for 25 years won't be hiring any peruvian dancing boys on her £200 a month....

......you see more of the 'real world' working with real people and real problems in teaching and other social careers. In private sector jobs the job ends when you close the door and go home. ........

Really? In one of my roles, that of trainer/course director, I ask people to 'Take off the blinkers'.

As Kevin succinctly points out :
Why take retrograde steps?
There would be no progress if we all took this stance.
'happy to have a job' speaks volumes....and is used by bullies in the workplace.
Employees should be valued and treated with dignity and respect.

Cutting pensions is not an answer to the long term economical state of the country. It creates more potential hardship and more people having to apply for benefits.

I have taught and have worked in the 'private sector' and believe me you see more of the 'real world' working with real people and real problems in teaching and other social careers. In private sector jobs the job ends when you close the door and go home.
Teaching is a competitive environment, and it takes a lot of study and ongoing professional development to keep ahead of the game. The starting salary is low and is not a reason graduates give for choosing this career.
I do not think that any reasonable person would embark on a career with a prediction of worse pay and conditions of service.

A lot of people do leave the teaching profession, to the detriment of our children. That is why there are often shortages in subject areas. There was when I was at school and it affected my career choices.
We all have the option of voting with our feet. Who is going to suffer?
Look at what is best for all and think it through.