The Strikes Thread

KUMB's 24-hour rolling news channel. The Forum in which to discuss non sport-related news and current affairs, including politics.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

Clacton-ammer wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm I can't see on that link on what they currently earn and what the conditions are that they want improving?
That's the thing regardless of what people earn when cost of living rises if you are used to a set wage it needs to keep up with inflation or it's just being eroded away. I've always said I'd take CPI pay rises for life of my career (even tho the union pushes for RPI plus 0.1%) etc just to keep affordably

With the amount of profit they have recorded aswell returning a % to the workers when you will still pay out masses to the shareholders is the least you can do
User avatar
Hummer_I_mean_Hammer
Posts: 11573
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:45 pm
Has liked: 939 likes
Total likes: 479 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by Hummer_I_mean_Hammer »

Clacton-ammer wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm I can't see on that link on what they currently earn and what the conditions are that they want improving?
It doesn't.

Be interesting to see what happens, most likely increases in fuel costs at the pumps.
Online
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21689
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1020 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

Clacton-ammer wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:51 pm I can't see on that link on what they currently earn and what the conditions are that they want improving?
Another company settled a 20% rise earlier in the year That was a cash equivalent of £18k.
User avatar
Clacton-ammer
Sultan of Swing
Posts: 15767
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:28 am
Has liked: 342 likes
Total likes: 362 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by Clacton-ammer »

See, I have a problem with "everyone" should get more just because of inflation. Some sectors/people deserve it, no argument there, some need to earn it, or certainly at least come to the table of how they are going to help pay for it through better practices.

One argument (inflation) does not fit all for a pay rise. I feel we are heading that way, and that will not end well for EVERYONE if it happens. It seems we are heading that being profitable is becoming a dirty word. levels of profitability against workers rights/pay is another argument altogether, which I maybe could agree with, again, dependent on sector/personal/individual company circumstances.

What are peoples earnings that maybe should not just get a pay increase due to inflation? At least £50k, £60k, £80k, £100k per annum?
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

Clacton-ammer wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:25 pm See, I have a problem with "everyone" should get more just because of inflation. Some sectors/people deserve it, no argument there, some need to earn it, or certainly at least come to the table of how they are going to help pay for it through better practices.

One argument (inflation) does not fit all for a pay rise. I feel we are heading that way, and that will not end well for EVERYONE if it happens. It seems we are heading that being profitable is becoming a dirty word. levels of profitability against workers rights/pay is another argument altogether, which I maybe could agree with, again, dependent on sector/personal/individual company circumstances.

What are peoples earnings that maybe should not just get a pay increase due to inflation? At least £50k, £60k, £80k, £100k per annum?
But then you go down the route of how long does that 80k become worth less than 50k over say 10 years of rises were the 50 has crept up but the 80 has stood still.. where the 50 Is now 65 but the 80 is still 80 but less well off than they were

It's not profit is a dangerous word but if profit is there then it should be shared a bit

Take bt price rises. Rpi plus 3.99% was it? Something like that. Did they get rpi rises? The extra comes in to cover it..
Online
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21689
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1020 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

mumbles87 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:35 pm Take bt price rises. Rpi plus 3.99% was it? Something like that. Did they get rpi rises? The extra comes in to cover it..
15% rise for the lowest paid over the last year. Minimum 4% for everyone up to £50,000.

The extra money doesn't necessarily equate to pure profit. Their costs will go up probably more than RPI if they are a high energy user. Taxes go up. Employee costs go up. Etc etc.
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

We are going to be formally writing to TFL and informing them that we are now heading towards dispute as they have removed the the No change option.

The Mayors office will be contacted and asked them were they stand especially as Khan said in November he felt there should be no change.

It is excepted this will take quite few years to implement.

Some of things the letter implies

• Current 5% flat rate contribution would be replaced by a ‘tiered’ rate linked to salary, potentially doubling contribution rates and reducing take-home pay
• Scheme Retirement Age would rise by seven years, to age 67 – and potentially higher still, keeping lock-step with State Retirement Age
• Retiring before age 67 would trigger reductions in pension of 4%-5% for each year retired before 67
• ‘Career average’ pensions would replace ‘final salary’ pensions and lead to massive reductions in member pension pots, up to 37% depending on career path
• Regular review mechanisms would allow the Employer to increase member contributions still further
• TfL would seek to cap indexation of pensions in payment to artificially low CPI rate (this will happen in 2030 as RPI is removed), potentially devaluing pensions year-on-year with catastrophic outcomes.
Overall, TSSA members stand to pay much more money for a vastly inferior end-product. Pensions would build up much more slowly under a ‘career average’ model. Requiring more years of work. Retirement would be reduced, especially for shift-worker colleagues. And as final kick in the teeth, pension increases during a reduced period of retirement would be aggressively capped to allow the Employer to avoid compensating retirees during periods of elevated inflation.

Yeah this tfl strike won't be going anywhere for a while. If tssa start being involved it just means it's really serious as we take a lot longer to enter dispute than the rmt

Have to admit I'm in talks with a few reps now as I don't see the removal of no change in the paper work myself , they say it's not mentioned but I have found least 2 mentions already lol
User avatar
bubbles1966
Posts: 66965
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
Has liked: 2436 likes
Total likes: 4292 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by bubbles1966 »

All those reforms sound like a fairly standard pension elsewhere in the public sector.

Nurses already do all of that.
Last edited by bubbles1966 on Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

bubbles1966 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:52 pm All those reforms sounds like a fairly standard pension elsewhere in the public sector.

Nurses already do all of that.
Whilst they sound fairly standard there is the fact you sign up for a pension it shouldn't be changed without good reason

The fact that the pension fund is in profit and the £100 million a year saving (that's what they wanted) has been met because the loan the scheme lent tfl has been repaid so that's £100 million a year now not being paid out

If it is fully funded and affordable it doesnt need to be changed.

I support CARE but then it wouldn't affect me because I got into my grade young, however I have always been against getting promoted later in career just for pension purposes

I support the need to work later in life

However paying more for it when it becomes a lesser product (when it's not needed to change) I don't agree with

If it was pay double what you pay now but keep exact benefits then that I could agree

If it was pay the same with CARE and retire later , that is agreeable

But pay more and get less when change isn't actually required as the fund is in good financial health then no I disagree with it
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32128
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1785 likes
Total likes: 2071 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

I know nothing about the rail pension scheme, but I do know a tiny bit about pensions in general. The scheme may well be able to afford everything right now, but it's possible the trustees have done their job and could be seeing trouble further down the line which they're trying to deal with now, rather than being faced with a massive hole in the scheme as more people on higher final salaries retire within a short while.

As I said, I don't know the rail scheme but hopefully its trustees are looking ahead and prescribing medecine A now, rather than much much worse medecine B in the future.
User avatar
bubbles1966
Posts: 66965
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
Has liked: 2436 likes
Total likes: 4292 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by bubbles1966 »

TFL has needed billions to keep it afloat. I imagine that money is indirectly bailing out the pension scheme.

Without the bailout - fewer jobs, fewer employees, fewer contributors to the pension scheme.

It's amazing how quickly some of these schemes and things can run out of money.
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:18 pm I know nothing about the rail pension scheme, but I do know a tiny bit about pensions in general. The scheme may well be able to afford everything right now, but it's possible the trustees have done their job and could be seeing trouble further down the line which they're trying to deal with now, rather than being faced with a massive hole in the scheme as more people on higher final salaries retire within a short while.

As I said, I don't know the rail scheme but hopefully its trustees are looking ahead and prescribing medecine A now, rather than much much worse medecine B in the future.
Thing is JBB the trustees don't support the move
The members dont
Tfl don't support it
The mayor doesn't support it

Only the government want it changed , it was a bail out condition that it was reviewed, so whilst peoples life's were being risked working the gov decided it's time to review pensions ..

They wanted a KPMG review of tfl finances to highlight how bad they are. That review was suppressed because it said COVID caused the issue of money not the way tfl managed it's money

The pension review came back from sir Brendon Barbra (think his name) saying it's a well funded scheme that provides for members and no other scheme on offer would provide tfl (not lul as such) the ability to encourage people to join as it's a good benefit to have

The mayor then says he sees no need for the pension scheme to change

Yet it's still being pushed from above the company
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

bubbles1966 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:21 pm TFL has needed billions to keep it afloat. I imagine that money is indirectly bailing out the pension scheme.

Without the bailout - fewer jobs, fewer employees, fewer contributors to the pension scheme.

It's amazing how quickly some of these schemes and things can run out of money.
As I've pointed out to you many times the scheme never ran out of money

The bail out money replaced the central government grant that was removed under Boris .. so it's money tfl should have as a public transport provider it's the only one in the world that doesn't get government funding

Plus the gov bailed out the rail franchises with no conditions and covered their loses during strikes so they would still make money

But bail out tfl lump a load of conditions

Party politics.

Also should note tfl income is now pre pandemic levels
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32128
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1785 likes
Total likes: 2071 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

Thing is JBB the trustees don't support the move

I did say I don't know the rail scheme :grin:
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:28 pm Thing is JBB the trustees don't support the move

I did say I don't know the rail scheme :grin:
To be fair the message I shared earlier from the rep is also on the pension board lol
User avatar
stu1
Posts: 12525
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:57 pm
Has liked: 658 likes
Total likes: 1024 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by stu1 »

Coming back to doctors pay, spoke to my sister last night who is a registrar and been a doctor for 6 years.

She earns £54k a year because she went down to 80% on her hours after previously being expected to work up to 60-65 hours a week. She has also been forced to move 100 miles away, so spends a huge amount of time travelling between two locations. To top things off she has about £2k of expenses a year just to be a doctor.

It’s hardly surprising most her colleagues are apparently considering moving abroad or changing careers. As mentioned in my previous posts, even aside from how demanding the job is, the lack of control you have over your life pre consultant, the career just isn’t worth it.

I’m pretty sure the only reason she’s still going is because she’s invested so much time and effort into the career, she can’t admit to herself that she hates it and would be far better off doing something else.

If she went to work in the City up London I’d be shocked if within 2 years she couldn’t earn more money than she does now, working similar hours, with much better perks.

Tbh it wouldn’t surprise me if she couldn’t find something offering all of the above straight away.
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

stu1 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:24 pm Coming back to doctors pay, spoke to my sister last night who is a registrar and been a doctor for 6 years.

She earns £54k a year because she went down to 80% on her hours after previously being expected to work up to 60-65 hours a week. She has also been forced to move 100 miles away, so spends a huge amount of time travelling between two locations. To top things off she has about £2k of expenses a year just to be a doctor.

It’s hardly surprising most her colleagues are apparently considering moving abroad or changing careers. As mentioned in my previous posts, even aside from how demanding the job is, the lack of control you have over your life pre consultant, the career just isn’t worth it.

I’m pretty sure the only reason she’s still going is because she’s invested so much time and effort into the career, she can’t admit to herself that she hates it and would be far better off doing something else.

If she went to work in the City up London I’d be shocked if within 2 years she couldn’t earn more money than she does now, working similar hours, with much better perks.

Tbh it wouldn’t surprise me if she couldn’t find something offering all of the above straight away.
Someone will be along shortly to explain how that should be a good wage and she should be grateful..

Awful treatment of our drs , yet we wonder why they leave the NHS
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27172
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 698 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by delbert »

mumbles87 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:18 pm
• Scheme Retirement Age would rise by seven years, to age 67 – and potentially higher still, keeping lock-step with State Retirement Age
• Retiring before age 67 would trigger reductions in pension of 4%-5% for each year retired before 67
They changed the pensions at my place a few years ago (currently being reviewed in light of the firefighters pension court case). One of the things they changed was you only got an immediate pension at 60 (our normal retirement age) if you are still in post, if you leave earlier it's deferred until 67, bizarrely there's no change of pension amount.
People were not made aware of this and have left expecting their pensions to kick in at 60 only to be told to do one.

Are these changes being made to existing pension scheme members or new entrants only?
User avatar
mumbles87
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:35 am
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 935 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by mumbles87 »

delbert wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:37 pm They changed the pensions at my place a few years ago (currently being reviewed in light of the firefighters pension court case). One of the things they changed was you only got an immediate pension at 60 (our normal retirement age) if you are still in post, if you leave earlier it's deferred until 67, bizarrely there's no change of pension amount.
People were not made aware of this and have left expecting their pensions to kick in at 60 only to be told to do one.

Are these changes being made to existing pension scheme members or new entrants only?
Existing members , which is the key

There is going to be a mass exodus of people retiring with these changes, we have people staying to help the company until they can fully staff lines before retiring to not leave us so short but these changes will force them to leave

I don't think the government realise just how many will leave and that they lost last time round with the firefighters when trying similar as they appealed it as age discrimination as they set it to something like people 8 years until retirement so anyone 9 and above took them to court they were forced to put it back at the cost of billions (sorry just re read your reply and saw you already mentioned firefighters)

If it ain't broke
User avatar
delbert
Posts: 27172
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:27 pm
Location: Barking, home of the slowly meandering Prius
Has liked: 698 likes
Total likes: 697 likes

Re: The Strikes Thread

Post by delbert »

mumbles87 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 3:30 pm Existing members , which is the key

There is going to be a mass exodus of people retiring with these changes, we have people staying to help the company until they can fully staff lines before retiring to not leave us so short but these changes will force them to leave

I don't think the government realise just how many will leave and that they lost last time round with the firefighters when trying similar as they appealed it as age discrimination as they set it to something like people 8 years until retirement so anyone 9 and above took them to court they were forced to put it back at the cost of billions

If it ain't broke
I've always found that morally abhorrent. People make long term life changing decisions based on their pensions, to have that ****ed about with is simply wrong.......
Post Reply