The Video Ref wrote:
Very much the same thing is about to happen to the armed forces. Pensions will be based on career average rather than final salary. Unsurprisingly, no-one is planning to strike, partly because they are Crown servants and can't.
A brilliant article in The Independent today. It basically said that some in the public sector have completely unrealistic expectations. The make up around 1/5 of the workforce and are generally paid better than people with similar qualifications in the private sector.
If anybody really wrote that in the Indy, they deserve sacking for incompetence. Average salary across the public sector is higher than average salary across the private sector, true.
But …
this is because the private sector contains many jobs on minimum wage alone, the public sector doesn't; many low paid jobs (such as cleaning) have been moved from the public sector to the private sector, with obvious effects on the two averages; public services include a higher proportion of gruduate and professional-qualification jobs than the private sector.
But, if compare like for like (ie people with similar qualifications) private sector employment invariably pays more.
The Video Ref wrote:
They get better terms and conditions and a pension that those in the private sector would have to pay around 37% of their salary to match. If we are all in this together, then so is the public sector.
Ah … I see what you've done: collective pension schemes are more cost effective than personal defined contribution pension plans, where a larger proportion of your money goes to the fund managers in fees and your pension is not paid by any pension scheme, but relies on buying an annuity at the time you retire - which is the more expensive option.
So you've compared apples and chair legs and are pretending you can draw some sort of valid conclusion.
Essentially, as with your OP, your talkng b*llks again.
