The Non Xmas Xmas Film Is On...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
The Public Sector Strikes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Are the Public Sector workers selfish for going on strike which will do enormous harm to the country?
Are the Public Sector workers selfish for going on strike which will do enormous harm to the country?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suppose the simplest way to explain it is the cuts are a symptom and not a problem in themselves, and their actions are akin to trying to pee in a swimming pool and then get it back out. It's too late to react to the results of the crash, we've crashed and as the only profits were made by the bankers and speculators the rest of us are all now poorer, them included. What about all the poor sods with bank accounts not earning enough to pay their bills as the interest rates are so low. I don't see them demonstrating although that is the one thing what can be fixed. It always seems like the people who are motivated to fight in this country are the ones who don't have a valid reason.
-- answer removed --
No they have seen thier pensions plundered to support the banking industries, why should they. They twere promised the pension so why shouldn't they have it,
Remembere most public workers are not as well paid as those in the private sector but yet again the right wing press is the arbiter when a little research would show the truth.
No I don't work in the public sector.
Remembere most public workers are not as well paid as those in the private sector but yet again the right wing press is the arbiter when a little research would show the truth.
No I don't work in the public sector.
Public sector workers do work hard.
In terms of 'tearing up contracts' I think there is a misconception that terms offered when you start a job should be maintained for life, whereas anyone who works in the private sector knows that terms can change to meet the pressures the company or scheme faces. Company schemes have been scrapped or changed from final salary to career average or money puchase, contribution rates have gone up and retirement ages have gone up.
The proposed changes to the public sector schemes are quite modest in that
the schemei still attractive.
The changes only affect future contributions, and in fact the changes will be phased in. All accrued benefits are preserved. And the governemnt has said no changes will be made for those within 10 years of retirement.
I'm in the teachers' scheme but having worked in private companies and being in private schemes I know that these changes are more favourable than those that happened several years ago in private schemes.
People are living more than 25 years now on average after retirement -almost twice as long as was the case 30 years ago, so it was inevitable that the schemes had to be adjsuted
In terms of 'tearing up contracts' I think there is a misconception that terms offered when you start a job should be maintained for life, whereas anyone who works in the private sector knows that terms can change to meet the pressures the company or scheme faces. Company schemes have been scrapped or changed from final salary to career average or money puchase, contribution rates have gone up and retirement ages have gone up.
The proposed changes to the public sector schemes are quite modest in that
the schemei still attractive.
The changes only affect future contributions, and in fact the changes will be phased in. All accrued benefits are preserved. And the governemnt has said no changes will be made for those within 10 years of retirement.
I'm in the teachers' scheme but having worked in private companies and being in private schemes I know that these changes are more favourable than those that happened several years ago in private schemes.
People are living more than 25 years now on average after retirement -almost twice as long as was the case 30 years ago, so it was inevitable that the schemes had to be adjsuted
Yes, the public sector (the non job lot in townhalls and whitehall) believe their jobs exist for them to have a job, the actual job function is secondary. If they where any good they'd have a proper job in the private sector. They tend to be socialist, world owes us a living, types who get seduced by communist union leaders into this kind of pointless attitude. This sort of thing just demostrates how stupid they are. GET A PROPER JOB AND STOP MOANING, oh you can't of course because no private sector employer wants lazy talentless whinning liabilities.
"They were promised the pension so why shouldn't they have it,!
Nothing is being taken awy from them- accrued benfits will remain.
It's just the future contributions (from some later date, not immediately) and baisi of calculating future benefits that will change.
Things do change in life. Befits can't be guaranteed for ever. When I started in the private sector I expected a good salary for life, and for a while things went well. but then the company had to cut back, cut salaries, increase pension contributions, reduce pension benefits.... and eventually make redundancies.
I'm now in the Teachers Scheme and I can see how generous it is and how good it will still be after the changes. My wife works in the private sector and her scheme changes are much harsher- and they have a choice of take it or leave it.
Nothing is being taken awy from them- accrued benfits will remain.
It's just the future contributions (from some later date, not immediately) and baisi of calculating future benefits that will change.
Things do change in life. Befits can't be guaranteed for ever. When I started in the private sector I expected a good salary for life, and for a while things went well. but then the company had to cut back, cut salaries, increase pension contributions, reduce pension benefits.... and eventually make redundancies.
I'm now in the Teachers Scheme and I can see how generous it is and how good it will still be after the changes. My wife works in the private sector and her scheme changes are much harsher- and they have a choice of take it or leave it.
There is so much going on here, and no one is sorting out the strands. Much of the public sector work is necessary, and, having worked in both sectors, I can say that the levels of professionalism in the public sector far outweigh anything I found in the private. But the previous administration did encourage the creation of public jobs as a means of glossing over private job losses. Also, when the previous administration boasted of "investing" more money in health and education, this found its way into higher pay (not investment). Net result - large numbers of jobs carrying higher pension liabilities. And, because of the relatively higher pay among the largest group of employees, these liabilities will grow. However, rather than address the problem by doing a proper analysis of what jobs are required at what relative pay levels, the authorities are going for a blanket approach. This hurts most those who have had pay frozen for a couple of years already and no prospect of change for years, who now face increased contribution demands at the same time as reduced security. The Unions are not helping, taking the opportunity for simpistic confrontation rather than constructive engagement.
No you wouldn't Kayless, you think too much and clearly there is little argument against your comments if it comes to picking holes in your spelling !
These strikers deserve to loose their jobs. Although difficult to prove it will undoubtedly be those who are exactly how you descirbe who strike, those that do work will be the ones who understand the issues caused by labour bankrupting the country
These strikers deserve to loose their jobs. Although difficult to prove it will undoubtedly be those who are exactly how you descirbe who strike, those that do work will be the ones who understand the issues caused by labour bankrupting the country
The main gripe is that they're going to have to work longer and pay higher contributions than they originally thought for the same benefits.
On one hand I can understand why they're upset about that, but on the other hand -welcome to the real world. The low paid workers in the private sector can no longer afford to subsidise good deals for people in the public sector.
We're all in it together - (except those of use who aren't because they're wealthy enough to not be affected by any of this, like most politicians and most union leaders).
On one hand I can understand why they're upset about that, but on the other hand -welcome to the real world. The low paid workers in the private sector can no longer afford to subsidise good deals for people in the public sector.
We're all in it together - (except those of use who aren't because they're wealthy enough to not be affected by any of this, like most politicians and most union leaders).
Believe it or not I am fine at grammar and spelling but sometimes I quickly bash out a reply that, horror of horrors is not 100% grammatically correct. You seem Highly blinkered and dismissive over irrelevance and sadly lacking in any coherant views. I bet you were the kid in the Chemistry lesson pointing out the teacher's spelling errors wern't you? You have no contribution to make because you cannot get past the irrelevant detail. I note you have not contributed at all here, except to snipe at other's presentation. Tempting though it is I will refrain from pointing out your own errors.
