I write from a uk based knowledge, In the milliatry, teachers, firemen, goverment police they get a pension of reasonable amount from 55 from the contributions payed into from them and the goverment backed. they get a reasonable wage during there working life, but manual workers or private employers have systems in place but usualy payed a lower wage yet they are told work to 65 and if the goverment get there way will be 70 but not for them is it time that all pensions are only payed from the 65 men and women
I am prepared to make exceptions for those civil servants whose job entails intentionally putting their life at risk for the public, e.g. Firemen.
Maybe with some sort of proviso though.
Basic retirement age is still 65, but for every 2 years served on the "frontline" you get to retire 1 year earlier.
A bit simplistic maybe...
Originally posted by stokerFrom experience, a lot of the civil service salary schemes are considerably lower than a comperable outside alternative, the pension plans (which are worsening) are one of the benefits of these posts, along with the flexi hours and other holidays. The retirement age for many civil servants is 60.
I write from a uk based knowledge, In the milliatry, teachers, firemen, goverment police they get a pension of reasonable amount from 55 from the contributions payed into from them and the goverment backed. they get a reasonable wage during there working life, but manual workers or private employers have systems in place but usualy payed a lower wage yet they ...[text shortened]... ill be 70 but not for them is it time that all pensions are only payed from the 65 men and women
Assuming that the individual looks for an alternate outside workplace then they should be able to arrange a salary sacrifice pension plan that provides a reasonable retirement provision.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by Redmikeso you wouldn't have a problem with pension terms being different for new hires?
What's the problem with any of this?
It is supposed to be a free market, so this is the contract these groups of workers have agreeed with their employers.
Should unions be fighting for the rights of people who are not yet employees? (ref. Ineos and Grangemouth)
Originally posted by RedmikeThe problem is that it is not a free market. Government workers aren't competing with anyone and yet they're organized into a labor union making demands and putting a larger burden upon taxpayers and budgets.
What's the problem with any of this?
It is supposed to be a free market, so this is the contract these groups of workers have agreeed with their employers.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBoo hoo.
The problem is that it is not a free market. Government workers aren't competing with anyone and yet they're organized into a labor union making demands and putting a larger burden upon taxpayers and budgets.
At least you're acknowledging that being in a union gets you better pay and conditions. Progress.
Yawn.....
Another thread where someone complains that someone else is getting something that they are not?
You don't see public servants complaining that the private sector workers get to write off their home expenses, car expenses, get car allowances from their companies which are then used as tax reductions for the company. You don't see public servants complaining about all the free lunches/dinners private sector workers get that aren't used as taxable deductions on the private sector workers paycheques, nor about the tax reductions claimed by private sector workers for the food receipts while on "business".
FFS, every job has its set of benefits. Deal with it.
Originally posted by uzlessAs governments cave to the high demands of big labor, there is less money available for states to operate, maintain current projects, and fix or repair failing infrastructure.
Yawn.....
Another thread where someone complains that someone else is getting something that they are not?
You don't see public servants complaining that the private sector workers get to write off their home expenses, car expenses, get car allowances from their companies which are then used as tax reductions for the company. You don't see public ser ...[text shortened]... od receipts while on "business".
FFS, every job has its set of benefits. Deal with it.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNon-members, by definition, don't pay union dues. Not sure what you're getting at here.
If union life is so great, why do union organizers need to coerce everyone into joining or force non-members to pay union dues?
People aren't coerced into unions - people are recruited. In the same way as any other organisation would do, potential members are approached and the advantages of membership explained. Some join, some don't.
Union members are no more coerced than members of political parties, religious organisations, chess clubs or any such body.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat you describe as 'the high demands of big labour' is simply working class people organising themselves together to improve their working life.
As governments cave to the high demands of big labor, there is less money available for states to operate, maintain current projects, and fix or repair failing infrastructure.
Would you rather there were no unions then?