Pensions, protests and strikes
A bunch of my friends were on strike the other day; a bunch of other friends were gnashing teeth at them.
I think what's sad is that a real "us" vs "them" scenario is emerging, with private sector folk being whipped up against public sector folk. It's not helped by union bosses in 1997 welcoming the Gord's raid of private sector pensions through the removal of dividend tax relief; nor is it by legions of private sector professionals noting that if the council went on strike for a month, they'd miss their local outreach worker not one bit.
I think that there is a serious debate to be had here, away from the saber rattling of the unions, press and spin doctors. I think a lot of the old positions (Public Sector get paid orders of magnitude less, made up for in perks and pensions; Private sector get paid orders of magnitude more, but work in sweat shops etc) need to be examined in the cold light of reality. I don't think the comparison is as easy as people tend to want to make out - and its all so politicised that getting accurate data is impossible.
My own view is that the country can only afford what it can afford - I'd sooner pay for pensions for teachers than for trident and foreign wars - but there's a big media message for people like me to be hopping mad at teachers because their pay and conditions are far superior to my own AND they are all bitching because they're about to be a bit worse BUT still MUCH better than anything I can get. I don't want to be mad at teachers because I think they do an incredibly important job. I wouldn't be where I am today without some great teachers when I was growing up. That media message is so seductive - look at the ever rising council tax bill and the number of holes in the road and you'll get what I mean.
I don't think it makes sense to pay people's retirement out of general taxation, especially whilst lifespan is an unknown variable. Neither do I think it makes much sense to lock people's retirement prospects into stock market returns, when agents are creaming 1% off the top.
From next year all employers become obliged to put staff into schemes which are stock market linked; the only real winners being the financial firms that operate the pensions.
(how small businesses are going to find the money to pay for that is an interesting issue for next year but I digress)
It isn't right for one side in a contract to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions, but sadly it is a reality faced by many small suppliers of goods and services without so much as a whimper in the press. That's not a defence of the government, simply an observation that two wrongs don't make a right.
Sadly I don't think this will get resolved in a rational way, because no one seems to want to be rational about it. Ideology is stamped all over this. I find it particularly galling that the MPs are exempting themselves from the changes; they should at least have the decency to lie in the bed that they've made.
The only solutions I can think of are either get all employees regardless of where they work to be tied into a national scheme, or for all employers not to provide pensions and leave it up to the employee to fend for themselves. Neither of these feel like particularly satisfactory solutions. But then, none of the people making the debate are really affected. MPs and senior civil servants make a packet; union leaders make more. Why do I feel that if we're going to make it into "private" vs "public", we should get an everyman from both "sides" to work it out. Maybe a teacher sitting down with a small shopkeeper; let the discussion be had by the people most affected by the changes, rather than overpaid representatives with nothing to lose? (Yes, I am that naive).
Answers on a post card...
I think what's sad is that a real "us" vs "them" scenario is emerging, with private sector folk being whipped up against public sector folk. It's not helped by union bosses in 1997 welcoming the Gord's raid of private sector pensions through the removal of dividend tax relief; nor is it by legions of private sector professionals noting that if the council went on strike for a month, they'd miss their local outreach worker not one bit.
I think that there is a serious debate to be had here, away from the saber rattling of the unions, press and spin doctors. I think a lot of the old positions (Public Sector get paid orders of magnitude less, made up for in perks and pensions; Private sector get paid orders of magnitude more, but work in sweat shops etc) need to be examined in the cold light of reality. I don't think the comparison is as easy as people tend to want to make out - and its all so politicised that getting accurate data is impossible.
My own view is that the country can only afford what it can afford - I'd sooner pay for pensions for teachers than for trident and foreign wars - but there's a big media message for people like me to be hopping mad at teachers because their pay and conditions are far superior to my own AND they are all bitching because they're about to be a bit worse BUT still MUCH better than anything I can get. I don't want to be mad at teachers because I think they do an incredibly important job. I wouldn't be where I am today without some great teachers when I was growing up. That media message is so seductive - look at the ever rising council tax bill and the number of holes in the road and you'll get what I mean.
I don't think it makes sense to pay people's retirement out of general taxation, especially whilst lifespan is an unknown variable. Neither do I think it makes much sense to lock people's retirement prospects into stock market returns, when agents are creaming 1% off the top.
From next year all employers become obliged to put staff into schemes which are stock market linked; the only real winners being the financial firms that operate the pensions.
(how small businesses are going to find the money to pay for that is an interesting issue for next year but I digress)
It isn't right for one side in a contract to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions, but sadly it is a reality faced by many small suppliers of goods and services without so much as a whimper in the press. That's not a defence of the government, simply an observation that two wrongs don't make a right.
Sadly I don't think this will get resolved in a rational way, because no one seems to want to be rational about it. Ideology is stamped all over this. I find it particularly galling that the MPs are exempting themselves from the changes; they should at least have the decency to lie in the bed that they've made.
The only solutions I can think of are either get all employees regardless of where they work to be tied into a national scheme, or for all employers not to provide pensions and leave it up to the employee to fend for themselves. Neither of these feel like particularly satisfactory solutions. But then, none of the people making the debate are really affected. MPs and senior civil servants make a packet; union leaders make more. Why do I feel that if we're going to make it into "private" vs "public", we should get an everyman from both "sides" to work it out. Maybe a teacher sitting down with a small shopkeeper; let the discussion be had by the people most affected by the changes, rather than overpaid representatives with nothing to lose? (Yes, I am that naive).
Answers on a post card...