Is Trade Union legislation needed

Mike,

It shows as one solid block of text.

As BigH says, it was a single block of text. The font size was ok.

If the way in which I have broken the text into paragraphs has distorted the meaning of your post, then it would probably be worth your while logging on via a PC/Mac and setting it out the way you intended.

I have mixed views about what you are saying, but will wait until you are content with your post before commenting further.

Cheers

Don

Text aside Mike,  a reasoned take on the argument, thank you for that.

regards

HHD.

Perhaps the following abstract will put things in perspective............I appreciate the info is a year out of date, but I doubt whether things have changed massively. The 3rd paragraph has been highlighted by me and I have chopped out a few sentances and paragraphs in order to focus on earnings in the public and private sector. It seems to me to be a fallicy that public sector workers get paid less than private sector workers, although i'm sure that some do.

"Results from the 2010 ASHE (Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK grew by 2.1 per cent in the year to April 2010, to reach £499.

Ten per cent of full-time employees earned more than £984 per week, while 10 per cent earned less than £276.

The difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£554 per week) and the private sector (£473 per week) widened over the year to April 2010, following annual increases of 3.0 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively.

The full-time occupations with the highest earnings in 2010 were ‘Health professionals' (median pay of full-time employees of £1,067 a week); followed by ‘Corporate managers’ (£757); and ‘Science and technology professionals’ (£704). The lowest paid of all full-time employees were those in ‘Sales occupations’, at £287 a week."

I'd be happy for Jamie to provide an illustration of "average" pension prospects for a 40 year-served public servant (final salary scheme?) v a 40 year private sector worker (could be final salary scheme, or CARE scheme, or defined contribution scheme, or typical personal pension scheme)

Cheers

Don

Mike,

It all came out as a single paragraph again.

Looks like Hoopla need to develop a "fix"

Cheers

Don

Is Trade Union legislation needed?

Well, Hitler certainly though so, the Trade Unionists in Nazi Germany were actually the first get sent to the concentration camps, all shot and up the chimney by lunchtime.

Right now in the UK we have the Tory Fascist Party in Government who are busily engaged in the most outrageous example of union bashing since Adolf‘s.

So devious and determined are Osborne, Cameron and all the other Tory outfit-men to abolish the Trade Unions they have set out there final solution plan to force work council workers into their old age knowing full well the only reason people live longer these days is because they have been retiring at a reasonable/appropriate age with a reasonable/fair pension.

If these pension cuts go ahead, millions of hard working council employees who have worked hard and loyally for many decades will certainly die prematurely due to the hardship of working into their late 60’s in the new all modern stressful work environment, let us not forget that these days management is all about profits before people for the one reason of enormous great bumper salaries and bonuses for the top bosses and super-rich.

You can not have a super-rich without creating a super-poor, and the Nazi Tory Party is fully aware of their criminal intensions to commit genocide to millions of retiring age workers before they get to have any pension. The profits calculated on this criminal act is sending the City Bankers in a frenzy of excitement as they all want to buy into more stress inducing employment contracts for the new world order wage-slave working environment.

This includes lowering the minimum wage for disabled people, because at least one Tory Tosser MP believes disable people are inferior!

So it must be believed by all of them - they are all this this together after all.

Debs

All you Steaming Great Numpties who voted Tory in the General Election please form an orderly queue below and state you grovelling apologies:

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

Actually i said 'council workers' (but read public sector workers if you like), and the overwhelming majority do work hard, and i would never suggest that nobody in the private sector works hard, i'm sure they do but the difference is that a great many lesser paid private sector worker are now far too underpaid by unscrupulous fat cat bosses.

It’s completely pointless to over generalise on this ‘public workers pension’ issue, before someone can define exactly what profession, what rank, what file, and how much pay and pension they are getting, it only comes down to speculation or perhaps green eyed people with no company pension provision regardless of if they are public or private... vs ...people (regardless to if they are public or private) who have taken an opertunity to pay a percentage of wage money into a pension plan over a long period of time.

Executive management pay for a top Council Boss being often around £180k - £300 per annum which is far too much considering they may only work 2 days a week and play golf the rest but put that job in the private sector and that Council Boss gets £1,000,000 plus another million or 3 in bonuses.

They have to make themselves look good and save money so this is one big reason why the private sector is so interested in paying the measly basic wage to most, even though they do deserve far more.

But before we get too excited lets look at the ground troops, wouldn’t it be nice to have the option to retire at 60 on a company pension at a sensible amount one could just get by on until state pension age of 65 when ones finances will get easier...

Unfortunately the Tory Bastards don’t want this, the reason they are putting the retirement age up and up and up is simply because they know people will suffer and die younger as a result and that will save them loads of money (Blood Money) they can pay to their greedy capitalist masters, and to abuse ordinary workers pension pots to pay for the Bankers Greedy Finance Crisis which they caused lock stock and barrel.

Just when you think things can’t get any worse the retirement age goes up to 66, but we may not have to work up to that age, many more redundancies are coming to a ghost town near you, all part of the great Tory Economic Plan, the creation of a poverty stricken underclass to stave to death while super-rich bosses kick the overworked and underpaid worker in the nuts with an ever decreasing measly basic wage.

Forget the private vs. pubic argument, it’s all Tory Tripe Propaganda Press bollocks and you’re a mug if you believe it, and it's not only about the UK it's all around the world now.

We are engaged in a Class War between the very greedy elitist uber wealthy vs. the rest of the human race… which is a war we should win, we easily outnumber them.

Up the Workers!

Debs

Mike, you have quoted what i said out of contex... and for what it's worth one of my neighbouring County Councils has a boss who earns £220k p.a. and works a 3 day week.

He's also knows nothing about the local area, is completely useless and only stays in the office long enough to brake wind before leaving for the golf course... i'm in the know  

Perhaps he's an exception to the rule...

But like i said, if he were a private contracter CC boss he would be on a million per annum + bonus

(and just as useless)

Debs

I sure hope you feel great having got all those vitriolic rants off your chest............It really does you good to be able to vent your feelings like that - seriouly.

Men aren't going to die younger simply because the retirement age is going up to 66 at some distant time in the future, and women aren't going to die younger simply because their retirement age is going to be increased in steps to bring it into line with men. Bear in mind that many people nearing retirement actually WANT the right to continue in work beyond retirement age (and have now got it) and are more than perfectly capable of doing so. 65 and 60 were pretty arbitrary anyway.

The one useful thing that you have reminded me about is that the sole architect of the current pensions crisis is Gordon Brown.

He single-handedly dis-incentivised private sector employers from sustaining their contributions into private-sector final salary pension schemes (or any other private sector pension schemes for that matter)  and has consequently led to this devicive system today in which public sector workers get better pensions than most of the private sector - primarily because their employer (the government) can draw on (virtually) unlimited taxes paid by the likes of me, to sustain public sector pension funds.

Perhaps the sooner the government shares this taxation out to give all workers (public and private) a decent pension, the better.

Cheers

Don

Mike,

It would be more helpful if you were to quote some actual "average" figures that we can all rely upon.

No real point in focusing on extremes at either end of the scale, either in private or public sector work forces.

BTW, there are "loads" of part-time private sector workers these days, and many, many people in both the public and private sectors will find themselves changing employers several times during their future careers - unlike expectations when I started work 45 years ago or so. Pension arrangements need to take that into account.

Cheers

Don

If it wasnt for the Nips being so good at building ships?

The yards would still be open on the Klyde.

Roger.

Every nation in the developed world is looking at the issue of an increased pension age and/or the future provision of pension to the ageing (and longer lived) post-war baby-boom generation. This is about demographics, and is inescapable.

The 'Tory bastards' caricature may be fun but the process has cross-party support in principle (if not at a detail level), and was inititiated by Labour. Flexible (and rising) retirement ages are here to stay. We might also bear in mind that the retirement age no longer reflect a workforce with large numbers significantly engaged in brutal physical occupations,

IMHO where government has singularly failed the last 25 years is to provide true incentives for individuals/companies to save for their future pension provision. I think one of the future tragedies of this recession is that the current younger generation cannot afford decent personal pension provision, and have also lost confident in the institutions and markets to provide it.

Perhaps a new paradigm is needed. Retirement may well become a more gradual and flexible process in the future, by choice as well as neccesity.

Bruce

Debs (and others). How do you feel about the equalising of pension ages for men and women?

Point taken about saving for a pension at the lowest end of the income range of course-however if those that do have the potential to provide for themselves do not do so then the State has to extend provision to them also.

Enticing the waged to save not proven to be effective? Di not know that. i guess it looks like a good idea, maybe the evidence does not back it up.

Maybe this is a bit off topic but I have always assumed that I will not get a state pension because it will be means-tested by that time and I will have a good occupational and personal pension already. I don't see a future state pension as my right in view of my comfortable financial status. I consider my NI contributions as contributing to central taxation.

Bruce

We can’t ignore the need for income provision in later-life. We either work till we drop, or we make “pension” provision. The subject is worthy of more detailed consideration than even this hallowed Forum can offer, but I chuck in my initial throw-away thoughts below anyway.

Whatever provision we make, the actual delivered pension will depend to a large extent on the economic and social conditions at the time the pension is paid.

I see three basic options:

1. Rely on family and friends – as in a primitive society
2. Rely on “personal” contributions to an investment in society’s future
3. Rely on taxation – this is probably no more than a widespread version of (2)

We currently have a mixture of all three

Option (2) comes in many shapes and sizes and includes Personal Pension Funds, CARE, Final Salary Schemes etc etc. The common features of these schemes are that the Employee makes a contribution and so does the Employer. Both elements IMHO can be considered as part of the Employee’s remuneration. He has more control over his level of contribution and less control over the Employer’s level of contribution. Gordon Brown successfully dis-incentivised the Employer’s level of contribution in option (2) and in consequence much of the Employee;s contribution. Many of us also consider that scheme “managers” take a generous chunk out of everyone’s contributions.

Those who earn more, pay in more. Those who pay in more get more out. If we work for 40 years and retire for 20 years, we need to invest something like 50% to 66% of our earnings to enjoy retirement on a pension similar in worth to our final salary.

Based on typical pension payments, the returns from private investment funds, including many AVCs, seems to be about £6k per £100k investment, whereas the return from Government, CARE and many Final Salary Schemes seems to be more like £8k per £100k investment. I’m not sure why this is, but it makes me lean towards some form of compulsory pension scheme, run either by the government (eg SERPS) or along the lines of CARE or Final Salary Schemes.

If contributions are not compulsory, then those who elect to opt out, should sign up to compulsory euthanasia on retirement, or made to work till they drop.

Cheers

Don

 It looks acceptable in theory but in practise it’s complicated by the different circumstances women have lived out their working lives.

Many stayed at home to look after the children so may not qualify for a full state pension, and not having a full career job usually means a limited or no company pension option.

It’s of no surprise the state has chosen the most cost effective saving way for themselves to equalise the state pension ~ leaving men’s age the same and raising women’s up 5 years.

Poorer women will lose out the most, only the wealthy won’t mind much.

At 19 years old I was lucky to find a new job with an equal opportunities employer. It had a pension plan which started by auto-enrolment, and that was an excellent thing… given the option as a 19 year old I probably would not have paid into it.

I mean, is there really any 19 year olds who can actually imagine themselves turning 60 one day… I’m in my 50’s now, and I still don’t believe it ; )

But here’s where the luck runs out… 1990, (i think is was Norman Lamont) the tax chancellor under the Tory Regime of John Major, who decided to help himself to Royal Mail’s employers contribution to the employees pension pot. This over time netted that Tory Government a few billion pounds of revenue.

In 1997, when Fatty Arbuckle Brown sat in as Tax Chancellor under the all New Blue Labour leadership of Tony B. Liar, he looked to see what his predecessor had done with the Royal Mail pension fund and after thinking what a wonderful idea it was… he proceeded to take a few billion himself.

So now, Royal Mail finds itself with a pension deficit caused by political fingers in the till, and to our shock-horror we only found out in 2007 our Royal Mail pension is not crown guaranteed (underwritten by the tax-payer).

Royal Mail’s answer to this problem was quite simply to rip up the contract to our 40 year pension plan (if a contract ever actually existed) and change the full maturity to 45 years, so in effect we are expected to work the final 5 years for nothing. In other words, instead of being retired with a pension we have to go into work to get paid a wage… for 5 years!

With half the Royal Mail Sorting Offices earmarked for closure, expected redundancy for 40,000 + will come within a couple of years anyway, so something has to give.

I find myself in this dilemma of having my company pension put back 5 years due to Government mishandling and Employer discrepancy, and my state pension put back 5 years due to gender equality.

A rough calculation suggests I will lose out on around £78,000 to include both Company and State pension payments for the 5 years period of ages 60 - 65 …compared with a woman colleague presently 10 years my elder in similar career circumstance.

But that’s not all…

meanwhile the MP’s (Millionaires Party) in the House of Commons recently voted to put back the state pension by another year.

So now my state pension age is 66

Thursday before last: a very recent vote in the House of Horrors was the Privatisation Bill of Royal Mail, which went though like a steam train with a rocket up it’s back side… the government have taken on the Royal Mail pension deficient which golden paved it all the way for investors to rip-off another great public asset.

The fiddling diddling tax chancellor Osborne could not wait to get his itchy hands on our remaining £28 billion in the pot... and probably already passed it all to his Banker friends in the City to play pass the parcel with it, each banker striping away a % handling fee when the music briefly stops.

But that’s not all…

The Tyrannical Tory’s are now wielding the poison pen over our unwritten pension plan contracts…

Do you think we’ll get a good deal?

Debs

The present elderly generation has grown old because they have had a much better working history (unlike modern stressful conditions), for them houses were easier to afford on smaller mortgages, rents cheaper. They’ve had better social structure and work/life balance.

But the main reason is they have been able to retire at age 60 - 65 on a living pension!

Also, the war-time and post-war diet was very healthy, few people knew what diabetes was before the 1970’s

It’s only an assumption that the baby-boom generation will grow to be as old as the last, and this will remain an assumption until we do actually grow old in great numbers, which may not be so likely…

We’ve got wide spread McDonalds, huge problem with obesity, diabetes, lots of alcoholics, plenty of drug addicts, loads of mental health.

The NHS is getting stealthily privatised by Tory’s R Us Ltd so we won’t have free health care in the near future.

So, after we’ve been force-worked well into our late 60’s within a stressful modern working environment, and retire in poverty with inadequate health care, we will die younger.

This is what ‘they’ have planed all along.

First they came for the communists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me