Protests in London following Conservative victory

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Protests in London following Conservative victory

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 16 of 19 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 13 May 15 7.56am
Quote nickgusset at 12 May 2015 10.49pm Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me. On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs. It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere. It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it. Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm) Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer? Because it's you plebs that use it ? "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 13 May 15 7.56am

Quote nickgusset at 12 May 2015 10.49pm

Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am

To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me.

On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs.

It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere.

It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it.

Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm)

Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer?

Because it's you plebs that use it ?

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 May 15 10.38am
Quote legaleagle at 12 May 2015 11.51pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 May 2015 10.45am Quote Hoof Hearted at 12 May 2015 10.35am Exactly. All this furore over pensions from the police, firebrigade, teachers etc when necessary changes to cope with demographics were implemented says it all. Lloyds Bank made a massive change to their pension scheme last year by freezing pensionable salary. This means that all future pay increases don't qualify for your final salary to calculate entitlement. The staff had to accept it, because it was necessary and the company needed to do it to clear the deficit between assets and liabilities. It's going to cost my Mrs about £2K a year on her retirement income and for a lot of her younger colleagues, a hell of a lot more. They didn't strike, but many will move elsewhere to achieve better working conditions/pay/benefits. What your saying essentially is that LloydsTSB offered pension schemes it could not cover, because it couldn't balance assets and liabilities. Its a bank, you'd think someone there would understand accountancy. What galls me is the incompetence in offering unsustainable contracted offers, that are then withdrawn because the first party can't afford it. Especially given the profits and bonuses that the good times brought those industries. They failed in their commitment and responsibility to deliver on their side of the agreement. You'd think financial companies would understand profit and loss, assets and liabilities. People should be angry. Even if the changes have to be made. Lloyds reported a profit in 2014 before tax of £1,762 million compared to £415 million in 2013... Edited by legaleagle (12 May 2015 11.52pm) What's that got to do with an actuarial guided decision by the Trustees of the pension scheme to amend benefits due to increased present and future liabilities caused by significant longevity of pensioners in the scheme? You need to look at the latest triennial review of the pension fund rather than quoting Lloyds general accounting result. There is a fcuking huge deficit!
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 13 May 15 10.38am

Quote legaleagle at 12 May 2015 11.51pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 May 2015 10.45am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 12 May 2015 10.35am

Exactly.

All this furore over pensions from the police, firebrigade, teachers etc when necessary changes to cope with demographics were implemented says it all.

Lloyds Bank made a massive change to their pension scheme last year by freezing pensionable salary. This means that all future pay increases don't qualify for your final salary to calculate entitlement.

The staff had to accept it, because it was necessary and the company needed to do it to clear the deficit between assets and liabilities.

It's going to cost my Mrs about £2K a year on her retirement income and for a lot of her younger colleagues, a hell of a lot more.

They didn't strike, but many will move elsewhere to achieve better working conditions/pay/benefits.

What your saying essentially is that LloydsTSB offered pension schemes it could not cover, because it couldn't balance assets and liabilities.

Its a bank, you'd think someone there would understand accountancy.

What galls me is the incompetence in offering unsustainable contracted offers, that are then withdrawn because the first party can't afford it. Especially given the profits and bonuses that the good times brought those industries.

They failed in their commitment and responsibility to deliver on their side of the agreement. You'd think financial companies would understand profit and loss, assets and liabilities.

People should be angry. Even if the changes have to be made.

Lloyds reported a profit in 2014 before tax of £1,762 million compared to £415 million in 2013...

Edited by legaleagle (12 May 2015 11.52pm)

What's that got to do with an actuarial guided decision by the Trustees of the pension scheme to amend benefits due to increased present and future liabilities caused by significant longevity of pensioners in the scheme?

You need to look at the latest triennial review of the pension fund rather than quoting Lloyds general accounting result. There is a fcuking huge deficit!

Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles berlin 13 May 15 11.14am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 May 2015 10.38am Quote legaleagle at 12 May 2015 11.51pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 May 2015 10.45am Quote Hoof Hearted at 12 May 2015 10.35am Exactly. All this furore over pensions from the police, firebrigade, teachers etc when necessary changes to cope with demographics were implemented says it all. Lloyds Bank made a massive change to their pension scheme last year by freezing pensionable salary. This means that all future pay increases don't qualify for your final salary to calculate entitlement. The staff had to accept it, because it was necessary and the company needed to do it to clear the deficit between assets and liabilities. It's going to cost my Mrs about £2K a year on her retirement income and for a lot of her younger colleagues, a hell of a lot more. They didn't strike, but many will move elsewhere to achieve better working conditions/pay/benefits. What your saying essentially is that LloydsTSB offered pension schemes it could not cover, because it couldn't balance assets and liabilities. Its a bank, you'd think someone there would understand accountancy. What galls me is the incompetence in offering unsustainable contracted offers, that are then withdrawn because the first party can't afford it. Especially given the profits and bonuses that the good times brought those industries. They failed in their commitment and responsibility to deliver on their side of the agreement. You'd think financial companies would understand profit and loss, assets and liabilities. People should be angry. Even if the changes have to be made. Lloyds reported a profit in 2014 before tax of £1,762 million compared to £415 million in 2013... Edited by legaleagle (12 May 2015 11.52pm) What's that got to do with an actuarial guided decision by the Trustees of the pension scheme to amend benefits due to increased present and future liabilities caused by significant longevity of pensioners in the scheme? You need to look at the latest triennial review of the pension fund rather than quoting Lloyds general accounting result. There is a fcuking huge deficit! OWNED ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 13 May 15 11.14am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 May 2015 10.38am