Is Trade Union legislation needed

..of course you could argue that a large percentage failed to vote against striking...

Bruce

It's strange that such small percentages bothered to vote on something like this, but I can't see why the unions should be held to a higher standard of democratic accountability than we apply to general elections or legislative decisions in parliament. There has been such a reduction in trade union's powers in the last thirty years that it would hardly be worth having them if it went any further - and if we hadn't had them over the last 150 years or so, we'd still be living in a society that would make most of us shudder.

I don't think we can take the freedoms and rights the unions have won for granted by any means so I for one am completely opposed to any further attempts to disempower them. I don't suppose this'll surprise anyone.

I think Bruce makes a good point.

Most people failed to vote against a Con/Lib Dem Government

You get what you don't vote for!!!

Key issue is are they voting with an informed choice or voting for the rhetoric of those with the loudest voices? Do they have a valid point? Or, are they voting to strike becasue they can't continue to gain further benefits as cheaply in future years as what most of us in the private sector haven't had for years? If ever? Seeing as the key issue being brought up is the 'attack on pensions'.

GM and BA were/are often described as a couple of nice pensions funds that build cars/fly aeroplanes. GM now..?

For Govt. employees, 6% of salary (really 4.8% after basic rate tax relief) to buy you a fully indexed, guaranteed income equivalent to 1.67% p.a. of an ever increasing amount of your future retirement equivalent salary, payable every year in retirement, with 50% spouse pension and 25% children's pension for up to two kids and no investment risk and 4xsalary life cover, with an expected pension income over say 22 years given average life, probably longer when spouse income included, plus a year's income benefit on illness/accident, plus the ability to take early retirment from age 55 on ill health if needed is a bloody good deal (in fact unbelievably good) and frankly unaffordable for us (all taxpayers) to pay for. 

So you either take greater investment risk with the pension to try and improve growth which they wouldn't like. Get the tax payer to pay more, which no one likes. Or get the ultimate beneficiary to sub more for their own benefits, say 9% or 7.2% after relief, so a real net increase of about £50 a month for someone on £24,000. May seem a lot in isolation to some but in terms of value and what it buys you, it's still more than a bloody good deal. What else do folks waste a tenner a week on?

Some people don't know when they're well off because they look at cost, not value. Seems like many people will for ever want a lot of something for near nothing. Well life's not like that. Security costs.

If I applied for a job today, and they said, OK you can take home £1620 pm net and have none of those benefits, or £1500 and buy all the current and future financial security listed above, no doubt in my mind that I'd take the latter.

We seem to have a government we didn't vote for with a turn out of 40 ish %.

A Welsh vote with a turn out of 30 ish %.

Democracy works OK , but only if you agree with the result eh?

Hey it's the Unions so lets hold them to a different standard?

Let's ban them completely ?

Get them bloody kids back to work?

I don't belong to a union, but I consider the concept of collective-barganing/union-activity perfectly reasonable.

The rules of democracy, with all their limitations, would seem to be as appropriate in Union ballots as they are in general and local elections and referenda, ie the majority of those who (bother to) vote win and decide the course of future action that the group abides by - until the next vote.

The NUT, PCS, ATL have decided to strike. This brings pressure on their employers to negotiate. In this case their employers are the Govnmt. And the rest of us fund the Govnmt, and are also adversly affected by the strike action. I consider we have a right to express an opinion and to try to influence the strikers and the Govnmt.

I shall be asking my Govnmt rep (MP) to reject the Union demands. I hadn't realised that in these difficult times and in an economy where many private sector workers lost their final salary pension scheme years ago, that we, as tax-payers, were still paying into someone elses benefit funds to sustain the arrangement set out by Jamie.

The sooner that tax contibution is put to more appropriate use, the better. I am prepared to suffer the consequences of government employees going on strike. Their pensions should be in line with the rest of society.

I don't see this as a union/government argument, I see it as a worker/tax-payer argument

Cheers

Don

Can't say I recognise any of the benefits quoted, particularly the spouse and children bit nor the 4 x salary life cover - what is your source for this?

You seem to have fallen for the propaganda as have many others.

The argument should not be how quickly we can ensure that everyone is equally poorly off - the "race to the bottom" -  but how we can ensure that everyone is rewarded equally well.

"The argument should not be how quickly we can ensure that everyone is equally poorly off - the "race to the bottom" -  but how we can ensure that everyone is rewarded equally well."

Very nicely put.

"Can't say I recognise any of the benefits quoted, particularly the spouse and children bit nor the 4 x salary life cover - what is your source for this?"

That is the basis of the Government FS scheme, whether you be ona 1/60 or a 1/80 + 3/80 lump sum benefit

The benefit also buys a spouse 50% of your earned pension on your death and 25% for up to two children until 18/finishing education.

Most Govt employees used to get 'only' 2xDIS benefit but in recent years this has been increased for many or all to 4 x and some 3 x. I don't pretend to know why the spread, perhaps based on which exact scheme you're in

Of course, you could just look it up...

http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/scheme/scheme1.htm

"You seem to have fallen for the propaganda as have many others."

It's not propaganda, it's basic maths and nothing to do with the recession or politics.

By a quick reckon up, the benefits of F/S scheme would cost me about 30-35% of my income ordinarily and only the pension contributions would attract tax relief. More if I was not in full good health. It's a bloody good deal at 5-8%..

David, Derry,

Very nicely put indeed. I would like to be rewarded equally well.

Please, in very simple terms, show me how I arrange to collect my final salary pension.........i'm all ears.

No doubt, for the long-term future, legislation could be introduced to force employees and employers to contribute to a government managed scheme for 30 years which is somehow guaranteed to pay out 2/3 final plus government pension for the next 30 years (or whatever)

Personally, i'm not optomistic in this regard.

Cheers

Don

Don,

Equally well may end up being less well than the outline Jamie gave.

What I liked about Derry's post is the aspiration. If public sector workers have better conditions than those in the private sector why should we aspire only to make the former worse off?

'cos no one wants to pay for it.

I've never grudged a penny of the tax I've paid that went towards making people's lives better. The bits that went towards invading other countries and killing people I was less thrilled about, but that's another subject and this one's big enough already.

Yes, imagine if we could escape paying for the armed forces (and their pensions) too. And the police. And judges. Politicians. And legal services.

Maybe we could afford more medicines and health & social care for our own population as well as others (which is a good thing IMO BTW)

Jamie, 

It's better not to guess what other people think and confine yourself to what they actually say. I don't want to abolish the armed forces, the police or any of the other things you mention. I don't expect to be able to choose what my taxes are spent on. I'm an adult and I think I understand the workings of a parliamentary democracy as well as most people. That being said, I'm sorry I added that second sentence to my last post as it's quite unrelated to this discussion. My mistake. Please ignore it.

The aspiration, long term is fine and I suggested a way forward. 40 years ago, many of us thought we were there.

Short term..............unrealistic. And we are in danger of creating a two-tier population of pensioners. Devisive

Cheers

Don

David, i don't want to abolish those things either, but I would genuinely prefer we were able to scale back to pay far less for them

Many other 'progressive'  nations do manage to pay less than we do.

Someone might ask what the pension deals are for MPs? 

As with most of the "we are all in this together" crap will , mean it don't affect the people running the show.

I suspect they will still be able to send their kids to school, hospital etc.

The difficulty at the moment is to distinguish between the need to cut back because of the economic downturn etc. and the ideologically driven cuts this Government is thrilled to have an excuse to push through. A difficulty the Government is more than happy to exploit of course.

Jamie,

I read the first bit of your post beginning "Yes, imagine if we could escape paying for the armed forces" as sarcastic. It's just occurred to me that it quite possibly wasn't. Sorry if I misunderstood and replied inappropriately rudely.

Re BigH47 question on MP's pensions

MP pension is final salary & provides a pension income of £37,240 p.a. after 20 years service -  calculated as a portion of current £65,738 salary.

Its a contributory scheme requiring the MP & employer to build a fund & is broadly similar to all private sector final salary schemes.  But unlike private sector the "employers" contribution (the tax payer)  is currently set at aprx 20% thereby building the fund faster & contributed to significantly more by the employer.  Private sector employees contribution would typically be 6 to 10%

The commons pension review committee has recommended that the employer contributions are bought into line with the private sector & the accrual rate set at a 60th of salary for every year of service. This would give an MP with 20 years a third of salary on retirement. 

A private sector employee to achieve a pension income equal to MP's would require fund of aprx £625,000 & would typically take 30+ years to achieve for Mr Average middle manager.

I guess the difficulty in such comparisons is that an MP may have employment for a very variable number of years. Using the 20 year figure is therefore going to apply only to a portion of MP's I would imagine.

Mind you, job insecurity is not unique to their trade.

Thanks for that Mike-B. 

How long is it before the US system of I think 2 terms as Senator or Congressperson gets you a lifelong pension, 1/2 salary IMS, is implemented.

I originally typed "lielong" pension, Fruedian slip or what?  

Rather than focusing on MPs, who are somewhat unique, the situation regarding teachers and other civil servants might be more relevant when compared to the private sector.

My understanding (which could be entirely wrong) is that teachers and civil servants enjoy far more pension security and far more generous pension arrangements than the average private sector worker (only some of whom enjoy a 2/3 final salary pension arrangement).

Cheers

Don