http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14346734 So, nine million people facing poverty in old age due to a "complex, costly and inefficient" pension system and public sector workers have the cheek to complain about their taxpayer funded pensions. The review also has a pop at people for not saving for the future but how exactly are we supposed to save for tomorrow when the majority barely get paid enough to put food on the table and pay the household bills. Another review of an issue affecting normal people by someone out of touch with the working man.
Why bring public workers into it? Just because you're getting ****ed over by your greedy company doesn't mean everyone else should too.
You want to retire with a lovely big pension then you need to contribute more. There are some really good ISA's doing the rounds just now. EDIT: Which look like a better bet than your ****ty pension.
I think it's very relevant to bring public sector workers into the debate following the recent strikes - one of the key reasons for which were the changes to pensions and retirement age. The public sector cannot remain immune to the gradual alteration of private sector pensions which has been happening over the last 20 years. Public sector pensions should 'move with the times' - even though in this instance it leads to a poorer deal. When life expectancy breaches 90 in around 30 years, do public sector workers really believe they should STILL be on final salary pensions when the average retirement time period has increased roughly 3-fold from when this set-up was introduced?
They aren't immune to changes in pensions hence the strike action. We're all being ****ed over by rich ****s who are lining their pockets with your pension. Instead of having a go at public workers for trying to protect their pensions people should direct their attention to the ones who are really ****ing them over.
So, go without food, clothing or heating then so that people can have a pittance more in old age? That makes sense
Pure Socialist bullshite. **** off to Cuba then you prick. OR better still, donate some of your "£80k salary" to some public sector worker.
**** you bum fluff. I work in the private sector and I'm no socialist. More a slightly left of centre fuddy duddy
I don't think most public sector workers would dispute the need for change. What i think we object to (well certainly I do) is being used as a punchbag everytime the issue of Government spending is raised. It's also a little unefdifying to see the way this issue is being bought into the public arena - I half expect them to have a referendum on whether we should get anything at al FFS!
We have the biggest budget deficit amongst the "rich" nations. We have a larger "loss making" public sector than the "wealth creating" private sector. We need the economy to undertake a correction.
All I want to see is more equality between the Public and Private sectors in terms of pensions and it is unfair that Civil Servants especially earn their big salaries and pensions while front line services are being cut. As usual the Government cutbacks start at the wrong end of the spectrum
The strike action was so that they DID remain immune to pensions changes. I've no problem with people sticking up for themselves as a collective and trying to barter a better deal. But trying to defend final salary pensions for example is completely ludicrous taking into account the simple maths that if we are living twice as long after retirement, people just CANNOT get the same deal that we used to without paying for it elsewhere. Have the public sector workers considered that if they allowed alteration to their Ts & Cs, perhaps not as many cuts, job losses, and 'restructuring' would be required at the moment or in the future? Private sector workers should not have to subsidise the public sector simply because it is easier for you to defend changes to pensions as a collective (with implications from strike action for millions of people in the UK as oppose to a few hundred), rather than trying to fight the battle with each individual company who move the goalposts to reflect reality.
Glaswegian Holloay If you say so. Do you think public servants haven't already made huge sacrifices? Many of them are on temporary contracts. Many of them are part-time. One of the reasons people commited themselves to the public sector is that they knew they would get a good pension at the end of it having earned less on average than a person doing their job in the private sector. Now the government wants to have them work for less money while cutting their pensions! This isn't about some induced reality. This is about the gap between the rich and the poor growing wider on an annual basis and instead of people like you blaming the real culprits you fall for their spin and start blaming people in the public sector for the follies of the rich.
all this **** about the public sector earlning less is bollocks, atleast in my line of work a senior technician in the private sector gets 17K while a temp in a council gets 30K. Hardly fair.
Shut it tiny dick. ps Your top advert doesn't even say what the job is and your second advert just proves what I was saying about most new Public Sector jobs being temporary.
the top advert was for a senior architectural technician. who gives a **** if the job is temporary. In the current market you will be lucky to find a job which isnt temporary. I would rather take a 6 month contract on 30K than work for a full year on 13K. I have a friend who works for Falkirk council and has done for 6 years on a succession of 6 month contracts.
