Just want to say one thing about Sweden. The company I work for is one of three companies which together make up 50% of Sweden's GDP (the others are Volvo and ABB) if I'm not mistaken. As it is, the company has quite a bit of bargaining power with the Swedish government. A few years ago, the company threatened to leave Sweden until the government reduced its tax bill. It carried out its threat. Where did it move to? It moved to the UK. We rented a shiny office in central London, and that became the global HQ for tax purposes. I don't know what negotiations happened with the Swedish government (they didn't tell me! ) or what happened in the UK, but a couple of years later we got rid of it and moved back to Sweden.
How does the company cope with globalisation and remain competitive? By sacking a good number of people in Sweden and Western Europe, and setting up shop in India, Romania, Hungary and Poland. Many of my colleagues have fallen by the wayside (not the Weyside, as the River Wey runs through Guildford! ) over the years, but I've managed to be in the right place at the right time and have the right skills to hang on.
On a personal note, I'd like to stick around and do what's best for my country too, but there's only so much money I have to pay for British goods and services. It's far easier to find something that's been made in China these days than it is to find something that's been made in the UK. If we're talking about tax money, there's line to be drawn somewhere which optimises tax income for services, while still allowing people to have enough money left over to buy things which other people have perhaps grown or made. On the whole I'd prefer the tax money to be spent on services rather than politicians and paper pushers, and I'd rather buy something that someone's made rather than (via the government) just give them my money. I suppose that's more a financially right wing way of looking at things.
Interestingly, 3 of these are fairly close to home for Vince, one is about trains, one is IT support staff and on e is, literally, close to home, in Macclesfield.
4 examples of private sector staff striking over pension reforms.
Not sure the BBC hacks could be described as public sector but gpwm.
Ps: interesting link from last year showing number of private sector strikes almost the same as public sector. Bet the volume of striking staff is different though.
And rail workers, although private sector these days, are firmly stuck in the public sector mindset (browse any rail forum to be amazed at their detachment from economic reality and their sense of 'entitlement'). They work in a 'public sector' type environment where the British Rail culture is live and kicking, with captive customers and no competition; they can hold the public to ransom by striking (you can't get your train to work from another supplier), and their jobs remain secure when striking, again becuase their customers are captive.
Sent from my Bardic lamp held out of the window of a Churnet Valley signal box.
I see the goal posts have those little wheels on these days.
Large organisations are all prone to that 'mindset'. And don't forget all commercial organisations seek a monopoly. Thank goodness some public sector employees are there to keep an eye on that.
Office for National Statistics list of strikes from 1931!
Breaks down public and private sector days lost for later years too.
Looks like those pesky private sector employees have been using their right to withdraw their labour too. Who'd a thunk it. Selfish bar stewards. I bet they've been using the NHS on strike days too. I paid for that!
Are you sure you have linked the correct file??? That file shows the days lost to private and public sector strikes and almost 81% are public sector. Now I know the UK has a big public sector, but the public sector workers allowed to strike can't be more than 40% of the working economy (currently the government accounts for more than 50% of the UK economic spending, however, a significant amount goes to people who would never 'strike' - pensioners and benefit recipients would never logically refuse to collect their payments for a day in protest to a change). This makes a public sector worker about 8 x more likely to on strike than private sector worker.
Regarding the comment we can afford pensions just like the German's
It is worth noting that their income tax rates for almost everyone are lower than the UK's and their retirement age is 67 vs. the UK - So I am not really seeing how the Germans in particular show us that we can afford to keep the current system of pensions.
It seems very difficult for most people to do the math of how much needs to be put into the pot to get an index linked final salary pension back out the other end. It is a huge and growing number (although it could easily be addressed by increasing the mortality rates )
mm_flynn wrote:It seems very difficult for most people to do the math of how much needs to be put into the pot to get an index linked final salary pension back out the other end. It is a huge and growing number (although it could easily be addressed by increasing the mortality rates )
This really is what this thread boils down to. It has been realised by the private sector that that 'huge and growing number' is not achievable any more. It isn't in the public sector, either. That's what they have to grasp rather than expecting others to achieve it for them.
Sent from my Bardic lamp held out of the window of a Churnet Valley signal box.
Don't forget, public sector pensions were revised drastically only 2 years ago in the light of the maths bring done. Long negotiations took place and a solution found that corrected the balance and also created a pay freeze. How many renegotiations do you have before protesting? Many previously unfounded pensions are now in balance if you let them run for the time intended, several decades. This government want everything done by next year so they can claim a cure in time for the next election.
Jim Jones wrote: Many previously unfounded pensions are now in balance if you let them run for the time intended, several decades.
Sadly Jim, that is just not true. If we let the current rules run we will have a situation where the government defaults on the pensions in payment (i.e. stiffs people who are retired).
I am not involved in the issue directly, however, everything I have read says the government plan is to
A - Protect all pension commitments earned to date (so no one looses anything they have already earned) B- Require higher contributions for future pension earnings (eg accruals) C -Have a phased increase in retirement age to collect these additional pension rights (but no change to what has been earned to date) D - To change from final salary to average salary (Note - average salary I believe is uplifted by earnings growth each year, so normal workers will see minimal change - This clobbers people promoted into high pay jobs near the end of their career (i.e. the fat cats), and people who game the system by dramatically increasing their hours in their final year of work).
It still provides the Public Sector with a pension guaranteed by the government, index linked to minimise inflation risk, and with no investment risk carried by the employees - In summary still a very good pension relative to the rest of the country.
(Obviously with the number of different negotiations going on the summary above is general, but AFAIAA it is an accurate summary)
Are you sure you have linked the correct file??? That file shows the days lost to private and public sector strikes and almost 81% are public sector. Now I know the UK has a big public sector, but the public sector workers allowed to strike can't be more than 40% of the working economy (currently the government accounts for more than 50% of the UK economic spending, however, a significant amount goes to people who would never 'strike' - pensioners and benefit recipients would never logically refuse to collect their payments for a day in protest to a change). This makes a public sector worker about 8 x more likely to on strike than private sector worker.
I sincerely hope the reposte to this will stick to economics and not be dragged into politics.
But I doubt it.
Is there a difference? Money itself is a political device.
The figures can be/have been spun different ways by varying time scales, predicted growth rates, retirement rates , mortality rates and phases of the moon. It depends who's crystal ball youve paid to use.
Anyway, I've just got today left here in Barcelona to dump some Euros into the local economy.
The figures can be/have been spun different ways by varying time scales, predicted growth rates, retirement rates , mortality rates and phases of the moon. It depends who's crystal ball youve paid to use.
Ok, so you are saying that there isn't a pensions crisis, and that everyone saying that there is are only spinning the numbers so they can make people retire later and pay them less? Both public and private pensions. And all political parties are playing the same game, or are Labour saying there isn't a pensions crisis?
Wow, no wonder you support the public sector pension strikes. It is just a right wing political ruse, being used to beat down the poor unions and the common man, obviously.
Everything bad was either started by the tories, implemented by the tories or when it was labour doing it, it was because they have been brainwashed (or brianwashed) by the tories? And that justifies striking regardless.
Wow, no wonder you hate the tories so much. They are a pure evil and their cancer must be fought against with every breath.
This was the reason I asked that politics be kept out of the reply, trying to have an objective debate on this is like trying to have an objective debate with a jihadist/conspiracist - it keeps getting dragged back to ridiculous "truths" which no amount of rationalising can get you to ignore.
What does 'retirement age' mean to you? How did they arrive at that figure, and why?
mm_flynn wrote:Sadly Jim, that is just not true. If we let the current rules run we will have a situation where the government defaults on the pensions in payment (i.e. stiffs people who are retired).
I am not involved in the issue directly, however, everything I have read says the government plan is to
A - Protect all pension commitments earned to date (so no one looses anything they have already earned) B- Require higher contributions for future pension earnings (eg accruals) C -Have a phased increase in retirement age to collect these additional pension rights (but no change to what has been earned to date) D - To change from final salary to average salary (Note - average salary I believe is uplifted by earnings growth each year, so normal workers will see minimal change - This clobbers people promoted into high pay jobs near the end of their career (i.e. the fat cats), and people who game the system by dramatically increasing their hours in their final year of work).
It still provides the Public Sector with a pension guaranteed by the government, index linked to minimise inflation risk, and with no investment risk carried by the employees - In summary still a very good pension relative to the rest of the country.
(Obviously with the number of different negotiations going on the summary above is general, but AFAIAA it is an accurate summary)
This post encapsulates the situation perfectly. It's why I find it incomprehensible that there ae strikes over it.
Sent from my Bardic lamp held out of the window of a Churnet Valley signal box.
FLYER Exhibitions
) or what happened in the UK, but a couple of years later we got rid of it and moved back to Sweden.
Login / Register