Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Emma Boon

GET UPDATES FROM Emma Boon
 

These Strikes Are a Disproportionate Reaction to Moderate Changes to Make Public Sector Pensions Sustainable

Posted: 30/11/11 08:09

Today's strikes have been a long time coming and trade unions have had ample opportunity to call them off, but a small number of hardliners are determined to cause disruption to millions of people.

Union leaders have called out their members on strike with between a quarter and a third of them actually voting in favour of industrial action.

Worse still, they are striking over reforms that, even if they go ahead, leave public sector workers with pensions far more generous than can be expected by most private sector workers - the people who will pick up the bill.

Big public sector unions like Unite and Unison would like you to believe that this mass downing of tools is about solidarity and standing shoulder to shoulder against the big mean government who want to work them all into an early grave; it isn't. The strikes are a hugely disproportionate over-reaction to what are moderate and reasonable reforms to make public sector pensions more affordable.

The coalition's most recent pensions offer was incredibly generous compared to what most taxpayers working in the private sector can afford to save for their own retirement. That is completely unfair given that those private sector workers earn less as well. Union leaders are dreaming if they think that they can get a better deal that will last. These strikes will see deficit-denying union dinosaurs, who refuse to accept the painful truth about public sector pensions, leading thousands of public sector employees out onto the streets, needlessly losing a day's earnings, despite the fact that negotiations are still ongoing.

The concessions the unions want, combined with an ageing population and no increase in the retirement age, would lead to an army of retirees drawing public sector pensions from an ever-diminishing pool of money. Change has to happen at some point; otherwise we will simply end up in a position that both unions and the government would find equally undesirable: that of having promised pensions that we can no longer afford to pay.

We cannot kick the can down the road any longer. It's time for reform. Do not underestimate the scale of the problem that is already facing unfunded public sector pensions. Our recent research shows that, excluding the NHS, there are more public sector workers drawing a pension than there are working and paying in.

Over at Unison's website the front page shows a woman holding a sign declaring "I'm taking action" with the tagline "fighting for decent pensions". But what is it that these nurses, bin men and dinner ladies are taking action against? They are acting against the interests of taxpayers now and in the future, asking the next generation to promise to pay for expensive retirement arrangements. And they're doing it with a healthy wedge of taxpayers' money in the union warchest.

As our Trade Union Rich List revealed, union leaders like Dave Prentis have pay and benefits running into six figures that no doubt mean a prosperous retirement is secure. We can't let them line up a financial disaster for the rest of us.

 

Follow Emma Boon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/emmaboon

Today's strikes have been a long time coming and trade unions have had ample opportunity to call them off, but a small number of hardliners are determined to cause disruption to millions of people. ...
Today's strikes have been a long time coming and trade unions have had ample opportunity to call them off, but a small number of hardliners are determined to cause disruption to millions of people. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
13:53 on 20/12/2011
Ha!! The unions don't go far enough

"But what is it that these nurses, bin men and dinner ladies are taking action against? They are acting against the interests of taxpayers now and in the future, asking the next generation to promise to pay for expensive retirement arrangements"

So we are acting against ourselves?!? We are the taxpayer, Get a grip. We are fighting for our and the next generations future.

"that of having promised pensions that we can no longer afford to pay."

Yet our countries war budget carries on becoming bloated and a heavier burden than our pensions.

Find it hard to be objective do we? I despair sometimes I really do
13:27 on 20/12/2011
Still think we are getting shafted. I started in the NHS when I was 18, I am now in the service for 23 years and as I’m a mental health worker, I was due to retire when I turn 55, In our service when you hit 20years, every year after counts as two years service, till you reach 30 working years which will count as 40 this will stop in 2015. I will reach full pension contributi­ons (40 years that’s 30 + 10) when I’m 48, but I have to keep working till my retirement age of 55. Under these new proposals even with the ten years being protected, I will miss out by two years and will have to pay more in pension even if I have paid my full 40years and will have to work another 12 years till I’m 66 on top this will mean I will have paid 58 years pension. How is it the fare that under the same proposals if someone started working for the NHS when they were 35 and reaches the retirement age of 55 before the next ten years and have 20 years service they can retire on full pension. I miss it by two years and will have fully paid 40years into my pension but will end up with half the pension and work 12 years longer, compared to the person with only 20years paid in the pension pot.
10:28 on 04/12/2011
Yes Boon, you and others like you would say that. You gather your wealth picking what little meat is left
on the bones of others suffering in this finanial crisis.a crisis brought on by greedy bankers, people like you and wealthy politicians who have no intention of enforceing bankers to curb the money grabbing.
That apart the he ha Henry Cameron missed the point. For every one of those on strike is one less vote at an election and that is only a known fraction of the people who will vote against the tory clan.
12:33 on 01/12/2011
Glad to see the UK version of The Huffington Post is not as kneejerk leftist as its US sister site.
10:01 on 01/12/2011
Well they would say that would not they ! but then if i could claim for my house /food /gas /electric /car/child care /clothes /holidays /entertainment ,and then have a job where i got payed every day just for signing in followed a massive salary ,only having to work for 20 years for a full inflation proof pension
i might say that [not]:
00:22 on 01/12/2011
Pension benefits which arise from already completed pensionable service should be sacrosanct. The ECJ ruled in 1990 that pensions were deferred pay. If the government proceeds with its proposals to extend normal pension age and move from final salary to career average salary for benefits ALREADY ACCRUED, this IS a retrospective pay cut as the access to public sector pensions was always the biggest club in public sector management's arsenal at pay claim negotiations and the agreements reached in the past should be honoured. The government may wish to implement changes but they should restrict such pension changes to future benefits accruable - just as the ECJ did in its equalisation judgement in 1990. As a former corporate pension scheme administrator I know that the government are underplaying the financial impact of the retrospective changes. This was the reason the ECJ could not backdate its judgement on equalisation - the cost to funded schemes would have been horrendous. I have no love for the unions but I simply can't accept the hypocrisy and deceit of government ministers with regard to this issue. Do not believe the propaganda from wherever it emanates. Would we in the private sector accept a demand from our employers to repay a percentage of all our earnings from recruitment to the current date - not bloody likely. That is precisly what the government are attempting to do with public sector employees.
21:26 on 30/11/2011
Emma, you know you work for the baddies, right?
19:52 on 30/11/2011
Swap jobs with me and teach for a month and then comment!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
16:24 on 30/11/2011
Tax Payer's Alliance? Does that mean 99% of the country are automatically members?
15:41 on 30/11/2011
This would be the one and only Emma Boon who is happy to attack and smear sick and disabled people (as well as other vulnerable members of society), arguing they should receive less support while at the same time arguing the rich should have major tax cuts. Isn't it always those who are comfortable who want those with much, much less to suffer more?!

Another I'm-alright-Jack Tory we could do without. Go away, Taxpayers' Alliance: there are human beings who care for one another in this country. Your selfishness is not welcome.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
14:04 on 30/11/2011
FROM THE MIRROR PAPER
David Cameron and pals' pension boost as they savage the low paid - Exclusive
By Jason Beattie 17/06/2010


David Cameron was accused of double standards yesterday for hanging on to his "gold-plated" pension perks.

The Prime Minister has also agreed bumper retirement packages worth a total of £4million for the ConDem team of spin doctors and advisers.

The revelation comes just days after Mr Cameron and his sidekick Nick Clegg launched an attack on pensions paid to millions of public sector workers, many on low pay.

The PM took a pay cut when entering No10 but his retirement fund is still being treated as if he was earning £196,000 a year rather than the actual level of £142,000.

Advertisement - article continues below »


Mr Cameron nearly doubles the amount going into his pension pot from £9,000 a year to £17,000.

The money is on top of his MP's pension which could be worth as much as £40,000 depending on how long he stays in the Commons.

He also has the option of taking the Prime Ministerial pension worth £66,461 a year.

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This is hypocrisy of the worst order. The Government reward themselves huge pensions and deny low-paid public sector workers a few pounds a week in retirement."

Tory Mp Philip Davies attacked Government plans to save £2.2billion by a "reduction in the numbers sent to jail".
lastpost
see biography
13:09 on 30/11/2011
"Tax Payers' Alliance"
Vote in a politician. Then watch as he does the complete opposite, of that which he expressly promised in order to secure his seat. Be ruled by a government that does not possess a majority mandate to govern. Be refused referendums on policies that affect every citizen in the country. Have elected representative cowed into supporting motions, which their constituents would never agree to.
Some say that taxation without representation is tyranny. Others say that big society is not characterised by the many being disenfranchised then disadvantaged by the few.
12:20 on 30/11/2011
Maude and Alexander have been totally disingenuous throughout these so called "negotiations" leaking take it or leave it "offers" time and again. They are the catalyst for this action. It is not just a question of increased pension subscriptions - there is, in effec,t an additional levy (a tax) involved which does NOT represent pension contributions. These people are being discriminated against whilst your friends, the tax avoiding bankers and finance institutions will continue to "cream it". - We'll be hearing about the bonuses soon, based on their funny money transactions which add nothing to the national wealth whilst their snouts are firmly in the trough, funded by the massive bail-outs made possible by the real taxpayers in the private and public sectors.
10:59 on 30/11/2011
How is a 'small number of hardliners' getting millions out on strike? These strikes are part of a wider resistance to Tory cuts in the UK and the Tax Payers' Alliance represent nothing but a small number of wealthy people who are happy to see the rest of us ground into the dirt. They claim to represent ordinary British people but believe me, they have nothing to do with the rest of us and no understanding of the lives we lead.
10:21 on 30/11/2011
When the government decides we can have a day off for the royal wedding it doesn't damage the economy. But when public workers decide to strike for a day it costs the UK economy half a billion pounds!
Keep things in perspective here, it sounds like you are in the governments pocket.
And, how much did the bankers cost the country? Are they paying for it? NO.