If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If local government wasn’t such a waste of space people would have more sympathy but it’s dominated by lazy, incompetent and inefficient bureaucrats in cushy jobs. While its unfair to characterise all of local government in this way the waste and overstaffing is undeniable.
It’s quite unfair that hardworking people in the private sector who will be lucky to retire at 65 will if some people get their way end up paying even more in taxes to support greedy trade unionists.
Anyway if it wasn’t for your wife working in local government you wouldn’t have an ounce of sympathy for those on strike.
Most of the people who are affected are low-paid, menial workers. Why should teachers and civil servants get a better deal with their pensions than dinner ladies and binmen?
For a start Rule 85 is illegal. European legislation banning age discrimination prohibits it – for instance the BBC gives the example of someone who is 61 with 24 yrs service being able to retire but someone aged 60 with 24 yrs service wouldn’t be able to.
People are living longer and there isn’t an unlimited amount of money.
And why should local govt workers get a better detail than those in retail or catering? Since people in the private sector will be lucky to retire at 65 – in many cases 66 or 67 being more realistic why should they pay more taxes so local govt workers can retire at 60?
The military budget? :chin: A lot of money spent there
Tell me, why are they on strike then?
I'd rather Britain stopped paying billions a year to the EU..
The teachers aren't on strike.
I think you- probably intentionally- misunderstand what's going on.
The workers affected paid into their employers pension on the basis that they can retire under the rule 85. They paid their money in for many years, only to be told that the payout wasn't going to be when promised.
They aren't getting a "better deal" than any other person who has paid into a final salary pension scheme through their employers.
For new recruits rule 85 has been abolished anyway. This strike is about making an employer honour promises made. What's wrong with that?
So why are some schools closed today then? :rolleyes:
Non-teaching staff are, however. Some schools cannot open without non-teaching staff, so they are closed.
If the caretaker's on strike, there's no heating, and that means the school stays shut.
But with increasing life expectancy how is the future multi billion pound shortfall paid for? In the private sector when people have been let down by their pension the government hasn’t raised taxes to cover it. So when the same happens in the public sector why should everybody have to pay more taxes to cover it? – Or if not tax rises why should everybody have to suffer NHS or education cuts to pay for workers who refuse to compromise? 65 is reasonable, it might not be exactly what’s promised – and sure it’d be nice if everybody could retire at 60 but there has to be some compromise. I haven’t been following this closely but if say the unions had said they’d give some concession – and say 62 or 63 I’d have a bit more sympathy. You’re probably right – but being pragmatic I don’t think giving in is a sensible option.
If you have made a contract with someone, taken their money off them to provide a service at a particular time and place you should do it.
The fact that the government has splashed all the cash on desert warfare and wallpaper for it's mates and is about to go bankrupt is neither here nor there.
They promised, they should provide.
The rules have been changed for a number of years for new applicants- my wife's pension isn't covered by rule 85. The lines have been deliberately blurred by a government that wants to pick on what it sees as a weak target.
The most unfair thing is that the rules have only been changed for local government employees. Those employed directly by central government- the NHS, teaching staff, uniformed fire and police staff, civil servants- are not having their pension entitlements cut.
If there really is no money, why on earth can teachers and police officers keep their pensions? It wouldn't be because they're a stronger target, who will fight back, surely?
As Unison point out, the Govenment is attacking low-paid female workers- the average local government pension is about £3500pa. It has nothing to do with being unable to pay, as it can pay for every other public sector employee.
This strike is about making an employer pay for what it promised and took money for. And its about stopping the employer robbing some sectors it considers to be weak. The employer thought it could bully its lowest-paid workers, and it thought wrong.
Thank God the transport around here isn't government run, though.
I can understand why those employed under the promise of the rule 85 thing are striking.
A joy to see.
Yeah, I read about the Metro not running.
Because we stood up to the Govt who wanted to do exactly what the Councils want to do to their workers.
Must admit I'm chuffed to see you supporting this strike Kermit, will be interesting what you say when the BA strike on Pensions happens in the summer...
And why is that? Anything to do with fat greedy bosses perchance?
There's shed loads of money about.
So we should bring everyone down to the same level rather than bring everyone up?
He really hasn't a clue, has he?
How would taxing everybody more across the board – so including low paid people in the private sector – people in shops, people working in fast food, cleaning, etc ‘bring everyone up.’
If you tax person A who works in a shop more to pay for person B’s pension and so person B can retire earlier how the hell does person A benefit?
So, because the private sector bosses rip off their staff, so should the public sector? I think you have your thinking the wrong way around mate.
Whio mentioned "taxing everybody more across the board" apart from you?
How else are you going to pay for it? With people living longer down the line the money simply won’t be there – it’s unsustainable. The fact is if people want to retire at 60 on a generous pension it has to be paid for – either through higher taxes or cuts in public services.
I said earlier - another tax band. There could be more money from central government, we could stop wasting money in Iraq, cut back on MP's privileges, stop subsidising nuclear power etc. There's loads of things that could pay for it.
What a fuckwit.
It depends.
I wasn't in favour of the British Gas strike for the simple fact it was about demanding that new members have the same rights, when they were not practicable. It was about greed, not protecting rights. Which isn't really on, IMHO.
I don't know about BA's issue, but if its about making an employer honour its promises then I certainly will be in favour of it.
I'm just chuckling at the thought that a pension of £30 a week is "generous".
Pretty much the same issue about retirement age.
Depends on wha tyou originally planned to give I suppose