Just a thought for today's strikers.

[davywavy]

I fully understand and sympathise with your position. Might I just say that if you chaps had been out on the streets with your placards when Gordon Brown staged a raid on my pension back in 1997, I'd be behind you all the way.

As it is, I'm showing you all the support you showed me. These things work both ways.

Best of luck, though.

Comments

[chrisvenus]

Sadly from what I could gather from my wandering past people at lunch time what they were striking about is Cameron being prime minister. I was expecting people to be shouting about getting rid of the cuts, the pension changes or whatever else but instead they were shouting about how they wanted to get rid of cameron. And in one case how they should build a bonfire and burn the conservatives and lib dems.

Sadly as you can tell from above I am still a little unclear on what they were actually objecting to which means I think they very much missed the point.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I think what they're protesting about is the fact the pretend money fairy stopped waving her wand in 2008 and the aftereffects are just catching up with them.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I didn't realise you were in a union back in 1997 and thus had taken the most basic step towards defending your terms and conditions.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Ah, Joe, I feel you're being deliberately obtuse here to make a point. That's my job round here. Still, to put it in a way that the more politically engaged than I would understand try this one:

First they came for the private pensions, but the unions did nothing for they wre not private pension holders.

Then they came for the Public sector pensions, and the unions acted all surprised when we remembered and gave them no support whatsoever.

*(nb: given that the tuc described gordons raid on my pension as 'welcome', I'm not sure fighting my corner was on their agenda)

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

First they came for the private pensions, but the unions did nothing for they wre not private pension holders able to take industrial action on matters that do not directly affect their members' terms and conditions after the changes to trade union law under the last Tory Government.

Fixed that for you ;-)

The TUC back then was pathetically convinced that Gordon and the Labour party would honour their promises. Strange how that turned out, wasn't it?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Where did I say industrial action? A show of support, a few posters and placards, a statement condemning the move. They'd all have been welcome.

As it was we got a statement that the raid on my pension was 'a welcome move to boost investment'. Under those circumstances, I hardly think they can be all surprised that many of us view this latest raid as - ahem - a welcome mve to boost investment.

Like I say above - it really does go both ways.

[(Anonymous)]

Not re-electing Blair, that would've been a good one.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, Young Joe has always insisted that he doesn't do that and I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

For example, yesterday, brendan Barber, head of the TUC said: "Some commentators and cynical politicians try to divide public service workers from private sector workers. We shouldn't be divided and we won't be divided. Our battle in the trade union movement is for decent pensions for everyone."

Now, if you ask me this is at odds to what they were saying after the budget in 1997 when the TUC issued a statement reading: "The Chancellor also made a number of welcome changes to boost investment, including the phased release of nearly £1billion in capital receipts for social housing and an additional £1.3 billion schools repair programme paid for by the windfall tax, and reforms in corporation tax to encourage long term investment. The latter included the abolition of the tax credit on distributed dividends to pension funds"

However, it's possible that thier position has changed and they now think the attack on pension funds in '97 was in fact in some way wrong and not a welcome change as they said then. I'm hoping that Mr Barber will soon go on record to explain how his statement about fair pensions for all - not just union members, all - is in fact not incompatible with their support for the 1997 budgetary attack in private sector pensions.

Or possibly I'm wrong in my confidence in Mr. Barber and this is, in fact, a case of some animals being more equal than others. I'm sure Joe will be along any second now to make my obviously muddy thinking clear.

Joe? Over to you.

[(Anonymous)]

I do hope you have passed this on to the Eye

H

[(Anonymous)]

Nary a peep. I do hope he hasn't had an accident.

[matgb]

Wasn't to do with terms and conditions of employment though, it was a tax on the pension fund itself that was, frankly, stupid and wrong.

Bearing in mind it was done at the time I was still supporting the idiots (and voting for them in 20010, and I still said it was wrong then.

Public sector pensions are mostly not an investment, and current payments go to pay current pensioners with a guaranteed future settlement (I know there's some investment done, but nowhere near as much), private sector pensions are mostly your money is invested in something and you hope it pays off when you retire. Brown decided that pot of investment money was worth taxing, and pretty much killed final salary schemes in the private sector as a result.

Having switched from private sector to public sector, my current scheme, even if all the changes they say they're thinking of are implemented, will still be the most generous scheme I've ever had access to. Given that I'm not in the "earning less but looking forward to future benefits" bracket (that i know some are), the changes, to me, look fairly reasonable, even if they are being done in a cackhanded and stupid way.

Help me, I'm backing David up in an argument. That's Wrong, damnit!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

See? You LibDem fellows are very economically sound. Sort out the bits of your manifesto which read like they were written by someone who has been kicked in the head by a horse and you'll get my vote.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose it helps that our Local government scheme is actually in positive equity? I've found a lot of the media desperately unhelpful in refusing to differentiate between my pension and those of Civil servants and Chief executives.

By my estimation, I earn about £3k a year less than my private sector equivalents. If my pension contributions increase (effectively lowering my income) the choice between public and private sector starts to look a little more one sided.

Personally I'm a little upset by commenters who seem to think that I either don't contribute to the economy (because I neither pay taxes nor buy things) or am some kind of 'parasite' because my wages come from the taxpayer to provide the services that taxpayers pay taxes for.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Likewise I find it somewhat irritating when those on the other side of the fence don't differentiate between my pension and that of Fred Goodwin. Goes both ways.

At time of writing, the most up-to-date information (2010) I have shows the average salary in the public sector is £544p/w and the private sector £478p/w. The thing is, economics works on those margins - not on individual cases. I could merrily go on about my finances related to my pension, but that'd be meaningless because individual cases make for bad legislation.
Effectively, economic circumstances made private sector final salary schemes unaffordable ten or twelve years ago. Now those same economic circumstances have reached the public sector. Good for you for the ten-year buffer, but just because one small part of a greater whole shows a surplus doesn't offset the rest of the economy.

Much as I wish it did, btw.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

Ahh the evils of statistics..

The only measure I can give is through my personal experiences (which is probably just as bad a measure), which is that equivalent roles are better paid in the private sector - a Highways Engineer working for a private Contractor will be taking home more than one employed by the local council.

(In contrast, its worth noting that Chief Executives of Councils, who have huge salaries equivalent to their private sector equivalents do not have anywhere near the equivalent amount of work/responsibility)

This is a pay-off against job security, reasonable pension and some excellent work/life perks (I can take leave to look after a relative/dependant who is seriously ill without being fired for it). As a result, when these pay-offs are affected it hits the morale harder - if you no longer have job security and your pension becomes unaffordable, why work for less money?

[(Anonymous)]

My Dad (a builder) used to tell a story about a bricklayer applying to work for him because work for a private contractor offered better rates of pay than the Council Department of Works, where the man had previously been employed.

Applicant: ... and I want you to guarantee that you'll be paying me £X per week.

Father (laughing heartily): I can't guarantee I'll be able to pay myself next week, or any of us! I do my best to tender for jobs of course, none of us wants to go bust, but you're not in the Council now, you don't have a job for life.

Applicant (loses interest)

H

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

This is why I work a day-job instead of going full-time as a freelance illustrator ;)

That is of course assuming I still have my job next month.