Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

UK Local Government & Public Sector Strikes

07:45 / 28.03.06

Given the industrial action taking place across Britain today, (1.4 million employees) what are your opinions on the 85 Rule (being able to retire at 60, if you have 25 years service) and how does this affect your view of Local Government.

I actually work for a local council, but as I'm not a union member I decided not to strike... crossing the 3-man picketline this morning amounted to nothing, no surprises considering everyone who's on strike is probably playing golf.

Tryphena Absent

09:35 / 28.03.06

Why aren't you a union member?

10:04 / 28.03.06

Initially it was due to poor communication from my line manager, I wasn't made aware which unions were available to me when I joined (I've only worked for local gov for 9 months).

But now that I've been exposed to the way local gov works and just how amazingly inept and backward it can be, I decided not to join the union because I believe that the entire organisational structure is due for some 'radical' change in order to make it more efficient. It badly needs a good shake up, and the middle management flab trimmed off.

Tryphena Absent

10:11 / 28.03.06

But you've also excluded yourself from strikes because you don't have the unions protection if you decide that people should be striking and you would like to join them.

11:13 / 28.03.06

I think their point is valid. The private sector should have to work longer and pay more taxes so that they can retire earlier on better pensions than private sector people.

The BBC1 economics editor last night:
Public sector workers = 20% of total workforce;
Public sector pensions total entitlements = 36% of all UK pensions by 2050.

Fair enough to the people who have completed their 25 years, but why should relatively new people joining the civil service be given the same 60 age retirement?

unheimlich manoeuvre

22:20 / 28.03.06

But now that I've been exposed to the way local gov works and just how amazingly inept and backward it can be, I decided not to join the union because I believe that the entire organisational structure is due for some 'radical' change in order to make it more efficient. It badly needs a good shake up, and the middle management flab trimmed off.

I've been working in Local Government for two and a half years. I belong to Unison and in theory crossed the picket, when I got to work at 3pm, although there was some discussion of a waiver being an essential worker.
I fully support the current pensions agreement and for Local Government to renege on the contract is awful. The shortfall in finances seems more as a result of mismanagement, the creation of pointless middle management posts and enormous consultants fees. For them to then turn around and say you're all going to have to work for another five years, is a bit steep.

06:36 / 29.03.06

I see your point, and agree it is a bit unfair to move the goal posts for those close tor retirment age because of basic bad management.

The overall point is though is bad management run with the publics money. The workers who have had careers in the civil service have more generous working conditions / pensions arrangements than their private sector cousins and as such are seen as part of this black hole where the money goes.

Case in point, I emailed my mate who works for the civil service at 4pm yesterday about the strike and got a bounceback saying he's left for the day. I don't know anyone who leaves at four in the private sector.

07:09 / 29.03.06

The shortfall in finances seems more as a result of mismanagement, the creation of pointless middle management posts and enormous consultants fees.

I'm glad it's not just me that think this. I've heard stories or consultation fee's upwards of £250,000 on a project which made no progress in 5 years, was then scrapped and restarted back to square one. In the private sector, heads would roll. In local gov? nothing... not even a disciplinary.

07:33 / 29.03.06

I'm glad it's not just me that think this. I've heard stories or consultation fee's upwards of £250,000 on a project which made no progress in 5 years, was then scrapped and restarted back to square one. In the private sector, heads would roll. In local gov? nothing... not even a disciplinary.

Quite frankly this is bollocks. In the Private Sector the rule of thumb appears to be the bigger your fuck up the more you will be paid to terminate you contract early - have you never heard of golden handshakes and golden parachutes?

08:30 / 29.03.06

I've heard stories or consultation fee's upwards of £250,000 on a project which made no progress in 5 years, was then scrapped and restarted back to square one. In the private sector, heads would roll. In local gov? nothing... not even a disciplinary

Given the Labour Party's passion for PFI, surely a big part of the blame for this can then be laid at their door? I don't see why low paid workers should have to compensate for mismanagement out of their pensions.

I also believe that a big part of the reason that there's no action when things screw up on this scale is the way that these contracts are negoiated - they are set up on basically very unfair terms to attract the investment in the first place, and the local authorities etc have very little bargaining power.

Not in the Face

10:32 / 29.03.06

I also believe that a big part of the reason that there's no action when things screw up on this scale is the way that these contracts are negoiated - they are set up on basically very unfair terms to attract the investment in the first place, and the local authorities etc have very little bargaining power.

Slightly thread-rotty to the issue of pensions, although not by much - this paper critiques statutory relationships with contractors etc within the PFI framework and especially reasons why statutory bodies are often severly constrained in how they work with private organisations.

Back to the topic, I think the unions have already lost the battle - most of those local authority staff will be transferred out of their jobs in the next few years courtesy of the Local Government Act 2000, as local authorities cease to run services and instead contract them out. Once in private sector hands they'll probably see their pension rights slashed in any case.

15:30 / 29.03.06

why should relatively new people joining the civil service be given the same 60 age retirement?

As I understand it, they can't. The rule of 85 is that you can retire when your age plus your years of service equal 85. If you started when you were 36 you'd have to wait until 61 and so on.
Whether or not you agree that the rule should exist, taking it away from those who already work under it is effectively breach of contract. Make it unavailable to new staff, by all means if it's absolutely essential to do so, but changing the rules for anyone else is stealing tens thousands of pounds from every worker.

16:36 / 29.03.06

Jub: I don't know anyone who leaves at four in the private sector.

What time did he start?

Tryphena Absent

16:53 / 29.03.06

Does he always leave at four?

20:30 / 29.03.06

I worked in local government for about a year. The pay is appalling and for most of the people in my department a job of similar standing in the private sector would pay them almost double. As I understand it lots of people who work in local government consider the higher pension entitlement to be one of the few 'perks' of working in the public sector.

As a point of interest, we always finished at 4pm on Fridays.

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

05:35 / 30.03.06

I'm a civil servant and a PCS rep and it's always been my understanding the the fact we are often able to finish at 1600hrs (or - gasp - earlier) if we keep our total hours up is something of a bone thrown to us, because it's an awful lot cheaper than actually paying us a reasonable amount. In a lot of departments the flexible hours work to the advantage of the bosses and the public as well since it allows enquiry centres and the like to be held open for longer hours with those staff who like comng in early and leaving early doing that and those lazy bastards like me who find themselves still sitting at home posting stuff on the internet at 0830 can go in later and finish later. In theory the hours thing is good all round. With regards to the pay and pensions rights of public and civil servants I think it's the responsibility of low paid workers to not let anything that they have go without a fight, and I personaly felt a little ashamed that civil servants were not out as well with most of the rest of the public servants on Tuesday.

06:04 / 30.03.06

What time did he start?
He starts at 9.

Does he always leave at four?
No. He's on a kind of flexitime, but because he does his own time sheets he can turn up and leave whenever he likes as long as his work gets done. He crams this all in - easily - so he works about 30 hours a week.

Fair play to him that he's found a job where he can do it - as that's clearly waht he wants to do, but my point is, public sector workers should be more accountable since they are working for the public and they seem to have much more lax working conditions than private sector workers.

Not in the Face

08:26 / 30.03.06

Surely the public sector is always being castigated for being too process driven and not sufficiently focused on achieving the outputs efficiently enough?

And yet when we have an example of a worker who does their work in less than the set time allocated, a highly efficient person, he is criticised for not sitting around in the office making up work to appear busy. Perhaps Jub's private sector mates need to find out how this is achieved then they would be able to knock off at 4pm on a Friday as well, something I suspect they would all prefer

12:56 / 30.03.06

Whoa there. I'm not criticising him for making the most of his situation. Far from it.

I'm criticising the fact that a publically funded system exists that allows it's workers to get work done in 30 hours a week (and less!). If the public is going to pay for people to do the public service work I don't understand why the beaurocracy which allows 30 hour weeks should be allowed.

If me and my "private sector mates" finish a particular section of work, we move on and do more. It is very "public sector" to think of it in the way you descibed - and it's that attitude which irks the most. The kind of thinking that "well, I've finished my spreadsheet and completed x, y & z and therefore I deserve to get home and watch ballymorey". Barbelith notwithstanding I don't fart about on the net or anything else, and could not get the work done I do in 30 hours a week.

Not in the Face

14:36 / 30.03.06

Ok, and sorry if I came over quite harsh. However you seem to have hit the point when you say but because he does his own time sheets. What are the rules for the use of overtime in your friends department? Is he deliberately bending or breaking them or is he just poorly managed? It could be that the bureaucracy is fine and there is a proper procedure for the management of flexitime and the staff workload but that it has broken down in this particular case.

I know this is going slightly off track and I'm not really having a go at you Jub, but the comparison of public and private sectors' working methods is something of interest to me and I think an area that the public sector gets a hard deal over. One example is in the often more straight forward connection between effort and reward in the private sector - more work gets done or done faster and the greater the chances of being paid more either as salary or bonuses. The public sector doesn't have that link and in terms of motivational behaviour this is a biggie - want people to work more or harder then pay them more.

This is one reason why the pensions issue is a signficiant one for many public sector workers - lacking real control over their own salaries matching the workload they have identified the level of pension payment as a direct link to the effort they put in. Take that away and you demotivate them.

15:25 / 30.03.06

I'm a bit concerned about the fact that you've taken one piece of anecdotal evidence, Jub, and tried to make out that it's indicative of anything more than one person's situation.

17:13 / 30.03.06

Yes, maybe he works through his lunchbreak to make up his hours?

I work in the public sector (HE) and, although some of my colleagues do take the piss a little, the vast majority of them work more and sometimes far more than their statutory hours (for wages which are often pretty derisory in comparison to private sector jobs at similar levels, and given their qualifications).

18:17 / 30.03.06

Though NB HE workers still have their pension rights...

08:03 / 02.04.06

People are living longer and claiming pensions for longer so previous pension arrangements are going to cost more and more. Either you accept the cost or you make changes.

Someone has to make a good, tough management decision. Do you want to increase taxation, or cut other public services to fund the pensions of one group? For me reform is inevitable. I don't want to pay more tax to fund generous pension provisions for some arbitrary group of people.

The "breach of contract" thing is important. Is that true? Surely it would be illegal to do that.