Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[sidicks]

ucb said:

Yes, that is a wider issue. Pay more tax, have the state hold your hand through life or pay no tax and do it all yourself. I am in favour of the latter FWIW but prejudiced posters on this thread seem to want to lump me in with the hard left of politics.

But it is not the reason for industrial action. The reason for IA is poorer working conditions/pay/imposition of contract, not pensions.

Will the employees be suggesting reduced pensions to compensate for poorer pay as part of their 'negotiations'?

[jjlynn27]

BigMon said:

sidicks said:

The wider issue is about how the NHS is funded - doctors are comparing about changes to their terms precisely because they think they will be paid less in some circumstances. Yo can't discuss pay and ignore other benefits which have huge cost implications for the NHS.

Can you please show us the following:

1. The proposed alterations to the NHS pension scheme by the government
2. The parts of the proposed changes the medical profession are arguing against

We must be reading different threads because I don't see many people arguing that pension reform isn't required.

However, and this is the salient point, pension reform is not part of this proposed raft of changes!

Feel free to ignore the above however. I feel strangely confident you will.

Tried that already in an attempt to bring this thread somewhat back on topic. Whatever you post, it'll always be 'yes, but what about public sector pensions'. You can look at it the other way, if juniors didn't pay pension contributions, taxpayer would be 'on hook' to pay existing pensions. The fact that successive governments didn't see prudent (bless lil scot for 'prudency') to invest money when payments exceeded payouts, into a fund, is somehow jd's fault.

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

Will the employees be suggesting reduced pensions to compensate for poorer pay as part of their 'negotiations'?

Do you take active pleasure in being so obtuse? I hope for your employers sake your day-to-day job does not involve any form of negotiation.

[wc98]

sidicks said:

Will the employees be suggesting reduced pensions to compensate for poorer pay as part of their 'negotiations'?

what would your suggestion be they do with nhs/doctors pensions ? ask them to fund their own, so more of the blood sucking leech conmen running the countries various private finances/pension schemes have a new group of people to rip off ? pension fund managers, would not piss on any of them if they were on fire.

ps, yes , a bit off topic, but seeing as off topic appears de rigueur on this thread

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

And if they 'propose' terms and you don't like them, then what?

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 08:41

You negotiate, Nurse, this patient needs spoon feeding.

You could even bring pensions in to the mix then, but of course if all NHS staff stopped paying in to the states ponsi scheme then they would be totally fked.

[crankedup]

Dixy said:

This is not about pensions or about politics. This is about an employer saying they intend to change terms and will impose them if not accepted. Hunt took out a knife and the Doctors have shown him a gun. When he puts his Knife away they can talk.

Agreed, it really is a simple case of arrogance displayed by a Tory Government making assumptions that they are able to bully and hoodwink employee's. Seems that the intelligence of these employee's was overlooked!

[London424]

BigMon said:

sidicks said:

Will the employees be suggesting reduced pensions to compensate for poorer pay as part of their 'negotiations'?

Do you take active pleasure in being so obtuse? I hope for your employers sake your day-to-day job does not involve any form of negotiation.

Do we know what Junior Doctors are willing to negotiate on?

It just seems that whatever the proposition on offer the answer is always 'no'.

[Rovinghawk]

jjlynn27 said:

if juniors didn't pay pension contributions, taxpayer would be 'on hook' to pay existing pensions.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the vast majority anyway. Value out is massively higher than payments in.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

You negotiate, Nurse, this patient needs spoon feeding.

You could even bring pensions in to the mix then, but of course if all NHS staff stopped paying in to the states ponsi scheme then they would be totally fked.

Quite wrong, as ever.

You coud maintain contribution rates but reduce the accrual rate to be vaguely sustainable.

[sidicks]

wc98 said:

what would your suggestion be they do with nhs/doctors pensions ? ask them to fund their own,

Asking them to find their own (or a higher percentage) rather than the taxpayer would seemingly be fairer ...,

wc98 said:

so more of the blood sucking leech conmen running the countries various private finances/pension schemes have a new group of people to rip off ? pension fund managers, would not piss on any of them if they were on fire.

You sound like someone else who doesn't understand pensions schemes or scheme funding but who still feels compelled to demonstrate that ignorance to the rest of us..!!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 26th November 12:18

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

if juniors didn't pay pension contributions, taxpayer would be 'on hook' to pay existing pensions.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the vast majority anyway. Value out is massively higher than payments in.

shame the figures say otherwise

the NHS pension scheme has consistently returned funds to the treasury in year becasue past governments chose to make the scheme 'pay as you go '


you seem to share the mis apprehension that sidicks does that employers contributions do not exist in these schemes , where the fundamental difference is at the back end in that surplus contributions instead of being kept and invested are returned to the exchequer ...

[anonymous-user]

mph1977 said:

shame the figures say otherwise

the NHS pension scheme has consistently returned funds to the treasury in year becasue past governments chose to make the scheme 'pay as you go '


you seem to share the mis apprehension that sidicks does that employers contributions do not exist in these schemes , where the fundamental difference is at the back end in that surplus contributions instead of being kept and invested are returned to the exchequer ...

Dear god I hope you're not actually involved I making life and death decisions.

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

shame the figures say otherwise

the NHS pension scheme has consistently returned funds to the treasury in year becasue past governments chose to make the scheme 'pay as you go '


you seem to share the mis apprehension that sidicks does that employers contributions do not exist in these schemes , where the fundamental difference is at the back end in that surplus contributions instead of being kept and invested are returned to the exchequer ...

You continue to claim I've said something that I have not and you continue to fail to understand the basics about DB pension schemes.

Is it due to ignorance on your behalf or just deliberate lies?

[barryrs]

I wonder if the BMA will triumphantly exit talks at ACAS today having agreed a 15% pay rise

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

You continue to claim I've said something that I have not and you continue to fail to understand the basics about DB pension schemes.

Is it due to ignorance on your behalf or just deliberate lies?

It's just the usual drivel of someone who doesn't know what a scheme that uses new funds to pay existing liabilities is called and how they inevitably end.

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

if juniors didn't pay pension contributions, taxpayer would be 'on hook' to pay existing pensions.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the vast majority anyway. Value out is massively higher than payments in.

Do you even understand how this particular ponzi scheme works? Or are you going to wheel another 'architects' moment. Again, completely irrelevant to this thread as changes to pensions are not even proposed. It's sidicks' pavlovian reflex with pensions.

[mph1977]

fblm said:

Dear god I hope you're not actually involved I making life and death decisions.

on what basis or is that just yet another slur becasue someone doesn;t share your biased and inaccurate preconceptions.

[jjlynn27]

fblm said:

sidicks said:

You continue to claim I've said something that I have not and you continue to fail to understand the basics about DB pension schemes.

Is it due to ignorance on your behalf or just deliberate lies?

It's just the usual drivel of someone who doesn't know what a scheme that uses new funds to pay existing liabilities is called and how they inevitably end.

Or posting something on a thread that has, to use your clever 'fvck', all to do with it.

[jjlynn27]

barryrs said:

I wonder if the BMA will triumphantly exit talks at ACAS today having agreed a 15% pay rise

The 15% was what was initially recommended by DDRB, as you should know as you linked the table. Even 15% was not cost neutral, not even close. And that was the reason that 98% backed strike.

[mph1977]

fblm said:

It's just the usual drivel of someone who doesn't know what a scheme that uses new funds to pay existing liabilities is called and how they inevitably end.

yes it;s called 'pay as you go ' in terms of pensions and in the case of schemes operating within the public sector it;s conscious decision my government to be able to spend the surplus again in year rather than using it to fund the future liabilities ( cue chicken little figures being banded about by the envious rolling up liabilities occuring between the next month and up to 60 or 70 years hence into one massive figure of 300+ billion )

section 4.6 "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of -£1.196 billion against
the voted estimate of -£1.021 billion, this is surplus cash due to income exceeding pension
benefit payments, and the £1.196 billion will be returned to HM Treasury during 2014-15. "

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/Resour...