Cycling UK Forum

kwackers

I don't suppose anybody really has much idea how workers in the public sector really feel. Apart from anything else, they span such a range of society, from people doing quite humble things such as mopping up after the rest of us, to the KCMGs etc for whom the Civil Srvice is little more than a stepping-stone to the bunce. Within my own experience, the evidence that the public sector is not homogenous was the way many police officers disparage support staff AKA "civvies."

It seems to me that what you are observing is the effect of the pay and conditions of service of the public sector always lagging: not only rising more slowly, but also not dropping so quickly. Turning the tanker. A part of the reason for this - as I've tried to explain above - is that some public sector jobs benefit from a stable workforce and historically, public sector employers have tended to use pensions as a way of achieving that stability. When people are on short-term contracts the pay for the job can be reviewed up or down everytime somebody new is recruited. I know I keep harping on about Edmund Davis but those sort of lurches - tectonic shifts (?) - are how things eventually change.

There's been a fair bit on here about selfish attitudes but it seems to me naive to assume that turkeys will vote for Christmas if there's a chance of something else. In the end, this all may lead to a bit of disruption - a mini version of the infamous Winter of Discontent - but I doubt it will be more than that. The only potential for really holding anybody to ransom I've seen recently has been in the private sector: the Virgin pilots who I suspect have a lot more clout than any number of council workers. I fancy the big unions no longer have the influence they once did.

If there was going to be an episode of history repeating itself, I'd expect it to be some of the serious disorder which we've not seen for a while. I'm not talking about a bit of shouting and windows going through and it won't be organised by Unison or the NUT. I hope I'm wrong.

Kwackers the problem is most of the figures quoted on hear are either wrong or for the very few reasonably high up managers. Jonty is doing a very good job of misinformation about the pay and pension levels of those who actualy work in the public sector, as in the non managers.

I find the notion that people accept the supposedly low paid jobs in the public sector because of the possibilities of higher pensions a strange one.

Since when did a young person in (say) their early twenties give a rats nads about which job had the biggest pension? I know I certainly didn't.
The only youngster I ever came across that did was such a spectacularly stereotypical geek he was a caricature - and even he'd missed a trick by taking up employment in the private sector.

It seems to me the private sector is changing very quickly and the public sector is being dragged along behind it kicking and screaming. Give it a few more years and it might have made it out of the 70's.

Edwards wrote:Kwackers the problem is most of the figures quoted on hear are either wrong or for the very few reasonably high up managers. Jonty is doing a very good job of misinformation about the pay and pension levels of those who actualy work in the public sector, as in the non managers.

I'm quite capable of looking up the figures myself.

I can represent two sets of figures. Myself, who probably has an income equivalent to the mid level civil servants Jonty mentions and my ex who worked all her life on the shop floor as it were.

I can confidently say that my ex won't get even close to the 'poor' 4k a year that has been bandied about. I think I'd be lucky if I made double that - and that despite shovelling money at it.

As I said though, it's not the amounts that bother me, it's the opinion that me and others like me shouldn't only shoulder the burden of our own poorly performing pensions but that we should shoulder the burden of everyone else's too!

Edwards wrote:Kwackers the problem is most of the figures quoted on hear are either wrong or for the very few reasonably high up managers. Jonty is doing a very good job of misinformation about the pay and pension levels of those who actualy work in the public sector, as in the non managers.

Edwards
I have an honours degree in economics. What qualifications have you got which justifies you saying that I am peddling misinformation or that I am wrong? You are typical of people who have strong views on things you know little or nothing about.
Please don't take this personnally. You are not unusual.
jonty

Jonty you quoted figures for managers and attempted to imply they were for others. I only need to be able to compare numbers for the figures you gave for my wife's pension to her written statement and they did not match.
You can have any qualification you like and it still does not change what you have written.

kwackers wrote:I find the notion that people accept the supposedly low paid jobs in the public sector because of the possibilities of higher pensions.

There's an adjective missing but I think I can guess what it might be. I'm not suggesting that people do, but I think they are deterred if they don't like what I referred to above as the package.

Since when did a young person in (say) their early twenties give a rats nads about which job had the biggest pension? I know I certainly didn't.

That's why I'm suggesting it's a bit disingenuous of you now to grumble about those who had different priorities to you in in their youth.

The only youngster I ever came across that did was such a spectacularly stereotypical geek he was a caricature - and even he'd missed a trick by taking up employment in the private sector.

You've not met me. I remember very clearly the moment when I got the idea of joining the police. I was standing at a bus stop just opposite what is now Bob Jacksons. After the initial attraction of a job that appealed to me, I did a lot of checking on pay and conditions and with a thinner hide, I'd be ashamed to admit that the pension was a substantial factor. (The strange thing is that a little more than a year later I had a supervisory "visit" on nights. The inspector gave me the usual snarl about something he didn't like and I had the suppressed joy of being able to tell him the front reg plate was missing off his panda car. He disappeared as fast as he had come, snarling at his accompanying sergeant for not checking the car. Anyway, I had a strange panic attack - entirely based on the realisation that in 29 years I'd be retiring. happily, I had no qualms about going when the time came.)

It seems to me the private sector is changing very quickly and the public sector is being dragged along behind it kicking and screaming. Give it a few more years and it might have made it out of the 70's.

That's more or less what I've been saying - turning the tanker round. It's just that you seem to see it as a character defect of the individual people involved, rather than a result of the way our society is organised.

kwackers wrote:

Edwards wrote:Kwackers the problem is most of the figures quoted on hear are either wrong or for the very few reasonably high up managers. Jonty is doing a very good job of misinformation about the pay and pension levels of those who actualy work in the public sector, as in the non managers.

I'm quite capable of looking up the figures myself.

I can represent two sets of figures. Myself, who probably has an income equivalent to the mid level civil servants Jonty mentions and my ex who worked all her life on the shop floor as it were.

I can confidently say that my ex won't get even close to the 'poor' 4k a year that has been bandied about. I think I'd be lucky if I made double that - and that despite shovelling money at it.

As I said though, it's not the amounts that bother me, it's the opinion that me and others like me shouldn't only shoulder the burden of our own poorly performing pensions but that we should shoulder the burden of everyone else's too!

kwackers
Will your pension or your wife's pension be index-linked? Will half of your pension go to your wife if you die first? Will half of your wife's pension go to you if she unfortunately dies first?
The annuity rate for a man at 65 is roughly 6%. So a £100k pot would give a private pension of about £6k a year. However a private pension with index-linking and half pension to surviving sponse only gives a rate of about 3%. This is not surprising as the assurance company has to pay index-linking even if inflation were to rise dramatically and the surviving spouse could live for many years after you.
You don't have to take my word for it. Ring up your assurance company and ask them what size of annual pension you would get for a £100k pension pot assuming it's index linked and half pension goes to surviving spouse.
Or go to the back of one of the Daily Papers or the Financial Times and look up the best annuity rate for a male aged 65, double life, index linked.
A typical public sector pension scheme pays one eightieth of final salary up to a maximum of 40 years plus a tax free lump sum of 1.5 times final salary. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the BBC website which gives information on several public sector pension schemes in some detail including the Local Government, Civil Service and Teachers' schemes.
Obviously to get the full pension you have to work 40 years and the bigger your salary the bigger the pension.
Some schemes are even more generous such as those for the police, fire service and MPs.
But normally it's based on eightieths up to a maximum of 40 eightieths with a lump sum of 1.5 times final salary if you work for 40 years. This of course is additional to the State Pension.
Half pension and tax free lump sum equates to about two thirds of final salary.
Someone therefore earning £30k a year in the public sector- which isn't an exceptionally high salary - would retire on benefits equal to £20k per year taking pension and lump sum into account, assuming they have a full employment record.
To obtain the same benefits from a private sector pension you would need a pension pot of about £700k.
Don't take my word for it. Ring up Lansdown Hargreaves or any other financial advisor and ask them what size of pension pot would you need to get benefits of £20k per year at 65 assuming index-linking and half going to your partner if you were to die before her.
Of course you don't have to take my word for it, or that of Lansdown Hargreaves or any other financial adviser or any assurance company.
You can take Edward's advice on this matter instead.
The choice is yours.
jonty

thirdcrank wrote:That's more or less what I've been saying - turning the tanker round. It's just that you seem to see it as a character defect of the individual people involved, rather than a result of the way our society is organised.

The only character defect I see in the people is their wish for me to pay for their pension deficits. Is the public sector having a whip round to pay for mine?

But I most definitely do see it as a fault in the way society is organised and I think it's time for a change. Public and private jobs should where possible compete on the same terms.
Pensions should be bought out your wages, they should buy units in the same way private pensions do. If you want to retire early - buy more.

IMO the system as it stands is crumbling and I fear it'll fail completely sometime in the future. It seems to me its a system based on the idea of your retirement being paid for by your descendants who haven't been born yet and who's future wealth hasn't been ascertained.
Unless you're absolutely certain growth will continue forever then that's got to be a daft scenario.

I was so busy formatting my last post I forgot to mention this:

The police pension set-up has actually been revised in the last few years. I know very little about it but I understand that first it's voluntary and then, the normal qualifying period is now 35 years. I don't expect be around to see how this works in practice as I'd be due for the royal telegram by then (but my mother is still going strong at 91 so perhaps I'll be drawing mine for a while yet )

I suspect that a lot of recent recruits might decide to sling their 'ook long before pension age. Who knows?

Thirdcrank
If I were you I wouldn't be ashamed to admit that the pension on offer was a factor in joining Her Majesty's Constabulary.
If your employer was daft enough to offer it, you should be gracious enought to accept.
At least you had the insight to realise that you were getting a good deal with is more than can be said for many.
jonty

All pension schemes are really just savings accounts.

If the government opened a bank and offered a long term savings account with a superb guaranteed rate of return, but restricted the account to people who could show they were employed in the public sector, there'd be an outcry.

But essentially that's just what the government is already doing with its generous public sector pension schemes.

blackbike wrote:All pension schemes are really just savings accounts.
If the government opened a bank and offered a long term savings account with a superb guaranteed rate of return, but restricted the account to people who could show they were employed in the public sector, there'd be an outcry.

But essentially that's just what the government is already doing with its generous public sector pension schemes.

If the bit I've underlined were true, it's amazing that everybody took so long to protest. Perhaps you did, in which case, fair enough, but you were in a small minority if you did. I'd stick by my earlier description of deferred pay. It's just that it's harder for the govt to renege. There are all sorts of reasons for the current pension mess and I don't think many are the fault of people like me. One is that some years ago, one Alastair Ross Goobey moved the huge Boots (the Chemist) pension fund from the traditional gilts and similar boring but relatively safe investments into the stock market and ejoyed a lot of success. Other pension managers piled in like lemmings / sheep depending on POV. The result of all that money buying shares was that they inevitably increased in value so that the market was overvalued, and when the inevitable fall came, the ordinary pension holders felt the draught. The FTSE 100 is stll something like 20% below its peak at the end of 1999. There are others, of course. eg, in order revive the stock market and to drag us out of the mess created by a gang of complete and utter bankers, the Bank Rate rate has been artifically low for a long time and at virtually zero for a couple of years. Annuities - the basis of many pensions - depend on a decent rate of interest.

It seems to me that most of the outrcy is pretty recent and largely incited by spin.

Console yourself with this thought: when it comes to inflation, you ain't seen nothing yet. When we are going shopping with wheelbarrows full of bank notes overprinted with zillions, none of this will make a ha'porth of difference (although to stave off that day, a big chunk of my own life savings is in Index Linked National Savings Certificates, the nearest thing I could find to "a long term savings account with a superb guaranteed rate of return." )

I think you're both wrong.

"All pension schemes are really just savings accounts."

Is true for private pensions, but public pensions are just promises.
That's the real reason there's so much fuss, a promise is only any good if there's something to back it up with.

kwackers wrote:.... a promise is only any good if there's something to back it up with.

And I'm sure that an honourable chap like you will keep the promises made on your behalf to me.