Strike Action
- Thread starter Sara
- Start date
I might be able to help on that one Neil. It's about what they call the 85 year rule. Currently if your age and your continuous length of service comes to 85 years then you will be entitled to a full pension when reaching the age of 60. This is the part they are trying to abolish.
But the rules on state pension remain the same as everyone else.
But the rules on state pension remain the same as everyone else.
So you have to have been continuously employed in the same thingummy for 25 years minumum?
WillowTheWhisp said:
yep that sounds about right. I joined the scheme at the age of 31, I would only satisfy the 85 year rule after working to the age of 58. (58 years old + 27 years service). But it doesn't mean everyone can just retire when they reach that age and if they do they don't just get the pension paid out! unless they take a reduction.
I understand what people are saying about why should this pension be any different than others, but then why should we accept changes to something we signed up for!! And we do pay quite a large contribution, so no it's not paid for by the govt!
Strike was a last resort as this has been discussed back and forth for over a year. As I have mentioned before I am not on strike today as I am not part of a union, but I have taken leave to show my support as the pension issue does affect me!
I can see your point about why should you accept changes to something you signed up for. Are you saying this was part of a contract and that now one party to the contract has decided to move the goal posts?
WillowTheWhisp said:
thats it exactly willow. Its a bit like signing up for a fixed mortgage and then suddenly being told oh we're stopping that now before the term of the agreement ends. If they were to say anyone who now joins the scheme will not have this clause in their pension then thats fair enough as you have the choice to sign or not. But to make an agreement and then just accept any changes they feel like making.... why should anyone accept that???
It does appear rather unfair they want to make changes for people already in the scheme. I can understand changing it for new employees though.
Do you not think yourselves very lucky to have been employed by the same organisation for the rule 85 to apply to you? Maybe 20 or 30 years ago but not anymore. There is no such thing as job for life anymore.
Do you not think yourselves very lucky to have been employed by the same organisation for the rule 85 to apply to you? Maybe 20 or 30 years ago but not anymore. There is no such thing as job for life anymore.
Sara said:
Well, if you don't want to work until you're 65, then don't. Retire.But at the same time don't expect the taxpayer to cough up for your life of leisure. Everyone else has to retire at 65 - or even 68 - so why should an unproductive & overpaid public sector "worker" be any different? Here are a few home truths:
1) Average incomes among public sector workers are now higher than in the private sector.
2) Unlike in the private sector, public sector pensions are paid directly out of funds received from general taxation. Those pensions are indexed linked, unlike private sector pension funds whose value may fall depending on the income generated from investments.
3) In the last 9 years, the public sector FTA-equivalent payroll has increased by 600,000; public sector productivity, as defined by measurable outputs, has seen a year-on-year decline over the same period.
4) All these additional jobs need paying for; hence the tax burden has increased from 37% to 43%; but not only that, the government is borrowing billions each year to pay for it all.
5) What do we get in return? Not much is the simple answer. Apart from a few good Doctors & Nurses, we're lumped with policeman who can't police, teachers who can't teach, and a whole plethora of whinging, wastrel bureaucrats who are neither use nor ornament. Sack the bloody lot of 'em is the simple answer; we'll all be better off.
I was trying to stay out of this argument but couldnt. Public sector workers can if they want at 60 but where I am now you do retire at 60 which if I stay that long will have to do. A hypothetical question is "what does a 60 year old do until the state pension kicks in?" I cant see that many jobs being available and as my pension is not FS but a private pension and therefore succeptable to the whims of brokers on a stockmarket.
I am not knocking your rights but some of us have the opposite and are having to live with it.
I am not knocking your rights but some of us have the opposite and are having to live with it.
I would give my manager 30 mins to supply heating or I would go. In fact I did, At work the heating is turned off in the building I work at weekends to save energy(it seats approx 1500 people. I went in one weekend and it was 13 C. I rang my boss and told him if there wasn't heating supplied within 30 mins I would go home. He rang teh project manager who I was workimg for who went and brought an oil filled radiator for under my desk. The next weekend there were 6 waiting for anyone who was working.
There is nothing wrong with standing your ground. In fact most managers appreciate it as it means they know you won't let stuff go for an easy life.
There is nothing wrong with standing your ground. In fact most managers appreciate it as it means they know you won't let stuff go for an easy life.