News

Dr Phillip Lee MP believes the public sector shouldn't have striked over pensions
advertisement

Phillip Lee MP: Public sector shouldn't have striked over pensions

By Dr Phillip Lee MP
May 16, 2012

Approximately 250,000 public sector workers were estimated to have participated in strike action across the United Kingdom on Thursday, May 10, in protest at Government proposals regarding pensions.

The 24-hour action saw an estimated 32,000 off-duty police officers take part in a protest march and roughly 5,000 NHS staff striking in Wales.

Furthermore, approximately 30,000 members of the Public and Commercial Services Union also went on strike in Scotland.

Other workers that participated included civil servants, lecturers and border force staff.

Strike action took place as public sector workers are angered by Government proposals to raise the retirement age in line with the state pension age and for employee pension contributions to be increased, which they consider to be unfair.

I am of the opinion that they shouldn’t be striking and I stand by this view for two reasons.

Firstly, to leave public sector pensions unchanged is simply unaffordable.

The economy is in an incredibly difficult situation and, despite the cuts, we have just tipped over £1 trillion worth of public debt.

This figure is expected to rise further to £1.5 trillion by the middle of this decade.

People are also living much longer.

When the pension age of 65 was introduced, the average life expectancy of a person was 68.

For a woman, it is now almost 84 and climbing.

In the current climate, do we really believe that the state can afford to pay for people to be retired for such a long period?

The fact is that it cannot, which is why these proposals are a necessity.

My second objection concerns the issue of intergenerational fairness.

At the moment, young people will have to work longer in order to pay for people to be retired for 25 years, with no prospect of being able to enjoy such a long retirement themselves.

Consequently, I believe it is grossly unfair that one generation should be expected to pay for the public sector pension liabilities debts of another.

This is why I am so opposed to the strike action.

Ultimately, the economic situation is tough and the decade ahead will be tough – it is my responsibility as your Member of Parliament to highlight this.

Whilst I can appreciate the feelings held by many public sector workers, it doesn’t change the fact that we are all going to have to work harder and longer for less.

It is not what any of us want to hear, but it is the reality that we all find ourselves in.

| View Comments (12)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 12 of 12

@Damiano_Tommassi - I guess it would completely depend on what part of the public service (perception of public or private having the higher wages).

I'm sure as a CEO in the private sector you'd look to the public sector and know you would be taking a tenfold decrease in pay if you would transfer. Similarly I understand that the senior civil service are paid approx 20% less than their private sector counterparts, as provision for a generally higher pension. I certainly feel for those whose wage is decreased in this way (and may have actually gone from one sector to the other) and are now being asked to give up the entitlement which has previously made up the shortfall in salary. On the other hand, I would imagine people in retail on minimum wage may look to similarly lower paid roles in the public sector which may have more generous overall packages and be more valued members of society. Or see the constant headlines of all the public servants on wages higher than the PM.

People will probably generally be misinformed by what is portrayed to them by the unions or the government - that everyone in the private sector is either a free-loading CEO / rinsing investment banker, or a retail assistant on minimum wage; and everyone in the public sector is either a council head with a massive gold plated pension / GP taking in a 6 figure salary, or a dinner lady on minimum wage. And everyone will make up their own mind usually wrongly on how hard done by they are in either sector. (I'm not saying this is you at all, I've fallen for this in the past)

alex_f, Wokingham
18/05/2012 at 15:53

The unions sometimes prove to be just as destructive as the government at pitting one against the other. Typical language used from those championing both sides is not helpful.

It is not just the public sector who are feeling the mistakes of the 'rich bankers' - the private sector is too (perhaps to a greater deal due to their pensions being squandered away over the past few years).

There are poorly paid people in huge numbers in both the public, and the private sector. There are poorly paid cleaners, dinner ladies etc in the public sector, just as there is a huge number of people in the private sector in retail and hospitality, all also on barely minimum wage, and with no access to a contributory pension.

I also agree that certain roles in the public sector aren't suited for retirement at 68 - prison wardens, front line police, armed forces. And there are equal numbers in the private sector too in similarly physically demanding roles - it's not fair for a tree surgeon, electrician, security guard, builder etc to have to retire close to 70.

The public sector should and does prove as a good template for the private sector. It has better pension provision, a better distribution or wealth, and a (arguably) more secure career path. Though I'm going to have to sit on the fence and say I don't know how we'd solve this. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, but it also needs to prove affordable to all.

alex_f, Wokingham
18/05/2012 at 15:41

So how does Lee square away his apparent loathing of the public sector with his fantasy vision for a Royal Thames Valley Hospital.

http://www.phillip-lee.com/wp-content/uploads/the-royal-thames-valley-hospital.pdf

How can he argue for all the cuts and austerity the coalition want to impose - at the expense of the vast majority of his constituents - and then argue for a state-of-the-art hospital on the M4?

Where's the money coming from Lee? How about a bit of consultation with your constituents about what their priorities are? Not just your priorities for enhancing a dual-role public sector career.

With thanks to Neal Evans for highlighting this:

http://nealsworld.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/the-royal-thames-valley-hospital-the-fantasy-of-dr-phillip-lee/

Winstanley, Bracknell
17/05/2012 at 12:58

In total agreement with Damiano - and what makes Lee's comments worse is his supine adherence to Tory dogma instead of having a brain of his own and finding out what his constituents experiences are.

But then this is the failure of party politics - people like Lee get in with all the chat about doing their bit for the community of Bracknell prior to election, then once in they quickly revert to a mindset where they only espouse policies that represent their core vote.

Dr Lee - you don't just represent Tory voters now, you represent all of us. That includes the public sector workers in your constituency.

Come on - where are the Independent candidates lining up to fight for ALL of Bracknell?

Winstanley, Bracknell
17/05/2012 at 11:42

Thanks AlTell, interesting... It doesn't stack-up with my experience though. I know the salaries of four current public sector workers, and how poorly they're paid; and when I was made redundant from my job in that sector, I was immediately offered a job that paid me an extra 50% a year. There are a number of disclaimers in the report - in particular, 'it's very hard to compare jobs like for like' - and this is from a government website, so it's possible they've weighted the argument in one direction over the other.

It really doesn't seem fair to take away from people what they've worked so many years to earn, that's been agreed by their employer. Isn't it akin to waiting until payday and finding out you're only getting paid 60% of what you were expecting?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
17/05/2012 at 10:34

The average worker in the public sector is paid 8.2% more per hour than the average private sector worker. The figure for April 2011 compares with a gap of 7.8% in 2010 and 5.3% in 2007.

In the private sector the top 5% of earners are paid 5.7 times more than the bottom 5%, compared with 4.5 times in the public sector.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17521020

With people living longer, and the country mired in the debt left behind by Gordon Brown, asking state employees to work a little longer and in some cases pay a little more towards their retirement is not only fair but unavoidable. Even with the proposed reforms, public sector pensions will still be be far more generous than those in the private sector.

AlTell, Bracknell
16/05/2012 at 18:30

"I am of the opinion that they shouldn’t be striking"

But then your an MP determined not to reform your own pension scheme. Then there's the remuneration you receive as a GP whilst also asking for the taxpayer to fund 3 (non constituency) employees in Westminster and a flat in London. As has been debated before, you live less than an hour form the centre of London. A cab would be cheaper for the rare occasions when you have to work late in the commons.

The reason people strike is not because they want a day off but because they have had all other forms of protest at their treatment exhausted. The government isn't listening to them and just wants to demonise them.

A capitalist society relies on the trade between labour for wages - when conditions of employment become abusive or unfair then the withdrawal of labour is the only bargaining power workers have.

But you wouldn't understand that because you take two taxpayer funded wages for a weeks work plus expenses- and in the case of at least one of them you are not doing that to satisfaction. You're a public sector worker who's figured out how to make the system work while condemning anyone who stands up for decent treatment.

Winstanley, Bracknell
16/05/2012 at 16:27

AlTell, do you have any information on the average salaries in and outside of the public sector? And proportionally, how many highly-paid employees are in each sector?

You can't really debate pension fairness without also comparing salaries. And the occasional oddity - like the fact that prison officers/soldiers etc, surely, can't be expected to retire at 68.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
16/05/2012 at 15:42

AlTell - if 88% of public sector workers are still entitled to final salary-linked pensions and the average pension is £7,000 (not sure about this figure - the average local govt 'gold-plated'pension is just about £4000pa), then it shows just how poorly paid they are!

LarryS
16/05/2012 at 15:21

Gordon Brown's tax raid on pension funds snatched £17,000 from every worker's retirement pot. Brown's plundering forced companies to make up massive shortfalls and began the decline of final salary schemes.

The average public sector pension is about £7,000 p.a., compared to an average of £3,700 among retired private sector workers with private pensions. 88% of public sector workers are currently entitled to pensions related to their final salaries, compared to less than 10% of workers in the private sector.

Longer life expectancy and inadequate contributions, plus an ever-increasing subsidy from the taxpayer, make them the current public sector pension system unaffordable, especially now that those is the public sector can expect to be earing more than those in the privte sector.

The country is facing a £1.2 trillion pound liability for pensions – equivalent of £45,000 per household – which is unaffordable for younger generations struggling with high housing costs, unemployment and students debts, to pay for.

http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Are_Government_Pensions_Unfair_On_Younger_Generations.pdf

AlTell, Bracknell
16/05/2012 at 14:24

Interesting article in the Daily Mail earlier this week -

'After many of them condemned civil servants for a 24-hour walk-out last week in protest at changes to their pensions, you would expect MPs to be equally principled when it comes to their own retirement pay.

But, oh no! MPs are disgracefully delaying reform of their gold-plated pensions. MPs enjoy the type of pay in retirement the majority of people can only dream of.

Thanks to huge taxpayer subsidies, they can build a £24,000-a-year pension in just 15 years.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143896/MPs-stall-bid-pension-gold-plated-perk.html#ixzz1v26jAHSs

LarryS
16/05/2012 at 12:57

"At the moment, young people will have to work longer in order to pay for people to be retired for 25 years, with no prospect of being able to enjoy such a long retirement themselves." - because you're changing the rules on pensions. If they weren't changed, then we would get the same deal as currently exists (that people paid for all their lives).

" I believe it is grossly unfair that one generation should be expected to pay for the public sector pension liabilities debts of another." - I believe it is grossly unfair that one generation should have to pay for the debts of unscrupulous bankers, who knew exactly what they were doing.

"to leave public sector pensions unchanged is simply unaffordable."... " the fact that we are all going to have to work harder and longer for less." - please stop presenting things as facts. These are points of conjecture that asre repeated in the hope that people will buy it. And they do.