Selfish Firefighters on Strike

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 12 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Pussay Patrol 24 Feb 15 6.56pm
Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 6.45pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 6.29pm Quote TUX at 24 Feb 2015 5.45pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 5.24pm Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 3.38pm Quote silvertop at 24 Feb 2015 2.25pm Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial shtstorm in the first place. Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense. Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it. Please tell me this is a joke? Not really. It's similar to people frothing at the mouth over benefits cheats. They cost the UK taxpayer 1.2 billion per year. Tax avoiders cost the taxpayer 120 billion. And of course people with more money hold more influence. But maybe there's more of a principle in that certain companies and / or individuals may not pay the full amount of tax that could possibly be levied but they are still ones who put into* the pot whereas benefit cheats are taking from the pot I would be comfortable dodging a few taxes here and there as I know I am a net contributor to the economy, not a drain on it. There's obviously no ''principle'' involved when both are cheating but one side is doing it spectacularly better than the other. You side with those who cost you/us more money. 2 minute hate? Wasn't taking sides I was just making the point that there are those that put into the pot and those that take from it. I think that should be as big a consideration as the values you mentioned It's a pointless distinction when what people neglect to pay is 100 times more than what those on benefits cost us. If corporations and wealthy individuals find or create ways to pay much less than they should they are for all intents and purposes 'taking out of the pot' and in a way that impacts us much more than those on welfare. The distinction I am making is that regardless of the amounts involved one can argue that as some individuals are not a drain on society and are still net contributors they have certain justification for being more efficient with their taxes. Alot people at the bottom may only take small amount out but where is the justification if they have contributed nothing? Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

24 Feb 15 6.56pm

Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 6.45pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 6.29pm

Quote TUX at 24 Feb 2015 5.45pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 5.24pm

Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 3.38pm

Quote silvertop at 24 Feb 2015 2.25pm

Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am

It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial sh*tstorm in the first place.

Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense.

Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it.

Please tell me this is a joke?

Not really. It's similar to people frothing at the mouth over benefits cheats. They cost the UK taxpayer 1.2 billion per year. Tax avoiders cost the taxpayer 120 billion. And of course people with more money hold more influence.

But maybe there's more of a principle in that certain companies and / or individuals may not pay the full amount of tax that could possibly be levied but they are still ones who put into the pot whereas benefit cheats are taking from the pot

I would be comfortable dodging a few taxes here and there as I know I am a net contributor to the economy, not a drain on it.

There's obviously no ''principle'' involved when both are cheating but one side is doing it spectacularly better than the other.
You side with those who cost you/us more money.

2 minute hate?

Wasn't taking sides I was just making the point that there are those that put into the pot and those that take from it.

I think that should be as big a consideration as the values you mentioned

It's a pointless distinction when what people neglect to pay is 100 times more than what those on benefits cost us. If corporations and wealthy individuals find or create ways to pay much less than they should they are for all intents and purposes 'taking out of the pot' and in a way that impacts us much more than those on welfare.

The distinction I am making is that regardless of the amounts involved one can argue that as some individuals are not a drain on society and are still net contributors they have certain justification for being more efficient with their taxes.

Alot people at the bottom may only take small amount out but where is the justification if they have contributed nothing?

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 24 Feb 15 6.58pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 6.29pm Quote TUX at 24 Feb 2015 5.45pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 5.24pm Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 3.38pm Quote silvertop at 24 Feb 2015 2.25pm Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial shtstorm in the first place. Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense. Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it. Please tell me this is a joke? Not really. It's similar to people frothing at the mouth over benefits cheats. They cost the UK taxpayer 1.2 billion per year. Tax avoiders cost the taxpayer 120 billion. And of course people with more money hold more influence. But maybe there's more of a principle in that certain companies and / or individuals may not pay the full amount of tax that could possibly be levied but they are still ones who put into* the pot whereas benefit cheats are taking from the pot I would be comfortable dodging a few taxes here and there as I know I am a net contributor to the economy, not a drain on it. There's obviously no ''principle'' involved when both are cheating but one side is doing it spectacularly better than the other. You side with those who cost you/us more money. 2 minute hate? Wasn't taking sides I was just making the point that there are those that put into the pot and those that take from it. I think that should be as big a consideration as the values you mentioned I didn't mention any ''values''. Those that just 'take from the pot' generally have nothing to put into the pot in the first place. Every society has them and always will regardless of the efforts of those in power. What they 'take' is minimal in the grand scheme of things but the press ramp it up to cause concern among the fickle. The real ''cheats'' are those that CAN PAY but don't. Throwing a few sheckles into the pot when they can throw many more doesn't make them better, it makes them worse than someone who has no sheckles in the first place.
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 24 Feb 15 6.58pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 6.29pm

Quote TUX at 24 Feb 2015 5.45pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Feb 2015 5.24pm

Quote imbored at 24 Feb 2015 3.38pm

Quote silvertop at 24 Feb 2015 2.25pm

Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am

Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it.

Please tell me this is a joke?

I would be comfortable dodging a few taxes here and there as I know I am a net contributor to the economy, not a drain on it.

There's obviously no ''principle'' involved when both are cheating but one side is doing it spectacularly better than the other.
You side with those who cost you/us more money.

2 minute hate?

Wasn't taking sides I was just making the point that there are those that put into the pot and those that take from it.

I think that should be as big a consideration as the values you mentioned

I didn't mention any ''values''.
Those that just 'take from the pot' generally have nothing to put into the pot in the first place. Every society has them and always will regardless of the efforts of those in power. What they 'take' is minimal in the grand scheme of things but the press ramp it up to cause concern among the fickle.
The real ''cheats'' are those that CAN PAY but don't. Throwing a few sheckles into the pot when they can throw many more doesn't make them better, it makes them worse than someone who has no sheckles in the first place.

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 7.25pm
Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 7.47pm
Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 24 Feb 15 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 24 Feb 15 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 7.53pm
Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 24 Feb 15 8.06pm
Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm) Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive. Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 24 Feb 15 8.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive.

Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though.

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 8.54pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes? Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick. Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over. They should go initially to TPAS if there is an issue with accrued rights, protocol, etc. [Link] I've done volunteer work for them in the past. The idea of a DB pension scheme where members are liable to be retired for longer than they work is a no brainer to even the most simple primary school kid, the piggy bank won't support it. To be honest no better than fat cats with their nose in the trough. The race to the bottom argument is a fallacy you would laugh if the same childish principle was applied to say bankers remuneration. Edited by pefwin (24 Feb 2015 8.54pm) "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 8.54pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm

Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family.

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes?

Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick.

Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over.

They should go initially to TPAS if there is an issue with accrued rights, protocol, etc.

[Link]

I've done volunteer work for them in the past.

The idea of a DB pension scheme where members are liable to be retired for longer than they work is a no brainer to even the most simple primary school kid, the piggy bank won't support it.

To be honest no better than fat cats with their nose in the trough.

The race to the bottom argument is a fallacy you would laugh if the same childish principle was applied to say bankers remuneration.

Edited by pefwin (24 Feb 2015 8.54pm)

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 8.58pm
Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm) Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive. Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though. Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company? "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 24 Feb 15 8.58pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive.

Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company?

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 24 Feb 15 9.15pm
Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm) Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive. Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though. Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company? I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point?
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 24 Feb 15 9.15pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive.

Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company?

I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point?

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 9.39pm
Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 9.15pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm) Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive. Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though. Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company? I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point? The FBU's gripe is that because the retirement age for them has been raised, they are being forced into early retirement because they won't be fit enough at the new age and are being penalised for being made to retire early. One would imagine that there was a reason why the retirement age was lower!
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 24 Feb 15 9.39pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 9.15pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive.

Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company?

I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point?

The FBU's gripe is that because the retirement age for them has been raised, they are being forced into early retirement because they won't be fit enough at the new age and are being penalised for being made to retire early.
One would imagine that there was a reason why the retirement age was lower!

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 24 Feb 15 9.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 9.39pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 9.15pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm . How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension? I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement. Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise. Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved? Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm) Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive. Neither scheme provides any accrued benefit for years you've not worked, whether that's through ill health or any other reason. I'd have been miles better off to still be in the defined benefit scheme though. Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company? I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point? The FBU's gripe is that because the retirement age for them has been raised, they are being forced into early retirement because they won't be fit enough at the new age and are being penalised for being made to retire early. One would imagine that there was a reason why the retirement age was lower! The same applies to all of us though doesn't it? Anyone born after 1978 will hasve to work until they are 68 before they get their state pension for the same reason - we're living longer!
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 24 Feb 15 9.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 9.39pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 9.15pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 8.58pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 8.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.53pm

Quote chris123 at 24 Feb 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 24 Feb 2015 7.47pm

Quote pefwin at 24 Feb 2015 7.25pm

Quote nickgusset at 23 Feb 2015 10.50pm

How many people have not been re-deployed and how many have not got an ill health pension?

I don't know to be fair. All I've heard is anecdotal from some Fire Brigade friends who say people they've worked with have had their pension payout reduced through enforced early retirement.

Every line of work I've ever had has had reduced pension rights if you retire early, enforced or otherwise.

Even if the goalposts (or pension ages) are moved?

Edited by nickgusset (24 Feb 2015 7.53pm)

Well I got made redundant from a firm that had provided a defined benefit scheme, and now I'm in a defined contribution scheme which of course is much more market sensitive.

Why would you expect deferred pay for a time when you did not work for a company?

I wouldn't, I never worked in an industry that provided that kind of benefit, so why would any other worker expect it, if they've retired early per Nick's point?

The same applies to all of us though doesn't it? Anyone born after 1978 will hasve to work until they are 68 before they get their state pension for the same reason - we're living longer!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 10 of 12 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors