5 Sep
11:29am, 5 Sep 2024
4,453 posts
|
Cheg
Oh yeah lots more sense. I hate those people that find links and evidence to justify their position. It makes my head all sore trying to read and process it.
|
5 Sep
11:30am, 5 Sep 2024
11,583 posts
|
Fields
There is no justification for reducing workers pensions rights
|
5 Sep
11:36am, 5 Sep 2024
45,941 posts
|
SPR
This link has info on teacher's pensions: wesleyan.co.uk
|
|
5 Sep
11:36am, 5 Sep 2024
4,454 posts
|
Cheg
Cost. There is no magic moneytree. They can do it without much bother for new entrants. Please see previous final salary v average salary discussion. |
|
5 Sep
11:43am, 5 Sep 2024
11,584 posts
|
Fields
But there is a magic money tree for shareholder profits, and executive pay but not for exploited workers as they don’t own the means of production It seems you think public sector workers should get greatly reduced salaries (as they do currently) and reduced pensions. Do you really believe this rubbish you post? |
|
5 Sep
12:01pm, 5 Sep 2024
4,455 posts
|
Cheg
This is going to require more of my time. That is what I want a real deep dive into the public vs private total packages. Private school teachers v state school teachers and their total remuneration packages. Not sure what other roles we would have a close enough comparison for. I think what you would find is that the private school teachers would do slightly better on the salary and have the pension matched. They want to attact the best talent and so would need to match the public sector. In all of these things people from both sides fixate on the extremes they wish to. Private is bad - exec pay. When actually small self employed are a hugh driver of the economy and employment and they aren't all rolling in it, far from it. Public sector are all well paid with big pensions. That is the case in some examples, but there are those on lower pay with moderate pensions. What I want is huge volumes of data to play with to understand it more. |
5 Sep
12:06pm, 5 Sep 2024
25,514 posts
|
larkim
Fields wrote: larkim wrote:The key about all of these is that pension has a certainty to it. The benefit is defined. Yes, it has been eroded by the introduction of CARE and similar arrangements. But the certainty about future income is something most people would bite your hand off for. If only there was some way to apply for a public sector job to benefit from this pension. I have one. My wife has one. She works in the public sector, and I work in a more grey area between the two. 8 years ago I didn't. Part of the lure of the job I have is the improvement of my pension position, moving from a 6+6 defined contribution scheme to the LGPS defined benefit scheme. As an organisation, the benefit of the defined benefit scheme that we operate is one of our key marketing lures to draw in new staff; and we have to emphasise that because salaries that compete with private sector at a headline level aren't affordable to us (partly because we have to afford 20%+ contributions to the defined benefit pension pot). If my organisation could instead make pension arrangements at 6+6 rates, we could immediately increase the headline salary without changing our costs by at least 15%. As jda says, often these schemes are effectively deferred salary. Whilst the employer contributions are a nonsense in terms of people evaluating how beneficial the schemes are for individuals, it is a reality that these are very expensive schemes to operate for employers, and like it or not that places constraints on the available funds to pay staff higher basic salaries. You could argue that many public and quasi-public sector bodies are funded in the knowledge that the employer pension costs are high, and that would be a fair comment too; but it does often mean that when headline funding increases for a public sector body are distributed a larger than expected proportion may get sucked into pension costs. |
|
5 Sep
12:36pm, 5 Sep 2024
11,585 posts
|
Fields
If you think that reduced pensions would mean public sector salaries increase with the savings made you’re either naive, a fool or a troll I know you’re not a fool or naive larkim, and given calling cheg thick got me banned by the powers that be I shan’t be calling them one either |
5 Sep
12:40pm, 5 Sep 2024
22,975 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Barnier appointed as new French PM. Cue lots of conspiracy theories in Brexit circles (not that they were short of these anyway) |
|
5 Sep
12:55pm, 5 Sep 2024
11,586 posts
|
Fields
Why bother having an election in France if they just appoint someone from a party who lost
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Sep 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
