Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

You have no idea, that much is true.

Priceless.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

You have no idea, that much is true.

Priceless.

Better than worthless though.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Better than worthless though.

Who are you suggesting is worthless? My employer certainly doesn’t think that applies to me. But keep up with the insults, just don’t be surprised when you don’t get friendly responses.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

have you considered that you and many others MIGHT enjoy benefits not afforded to uni lecturers?

Give me an example, please.

[markcoznottz]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes, lecturers are likely. onsidered to be in. better position to gain better T&C including pension, than others in different industries. If you refer back to my fairness definition it might help you to recognise where you are failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the real World.
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.

The economics of the situation IS the real world, which the lecturers appear to feel they should be immune to.

The proposal is to adjust the model, not abandon it. That is what the lecturers are trying to resist.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:02

No the model is sought to be worsened, a lazy cop out by those that cannot find a better resolution.

Being as the original model was a ponzi, it might be difficult to find a 'better' solution . All the politicians/manderins who implemented it are deceased/retired. Calling people lazy is just silly. They aren't lazy, they are tired of paying for inflation proofed state largesse.

[sidicks]

markcoznottz said:

Being as the original model was a ponzi, it might be difficult to find a 'better' solution . All the politicians/manderins who implemented it are deceased/retired. Calling people lazy is just silly. They aren't lazy, they are tired of paying for inflation proofed state largesse.

A DB scheme doesn’t have to be a ‘Ponzi’ scheme.

However, to achieve a ‘sensible’ contribution rate you need a) a much longer paying-in period than paying-out period and b) relatively high rates of return and c) low/stable salary growth.

Things have moved on a lot in both cases, since these schemes were originally implemented. Hence the economics don’t really work any more (particularly where one side doesn’t want to increase their contributions accordingly).

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 19:09

[crankedup]

markcoznottz said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes, lecturers are likely. onsidered to be in. better position to gain better T&C including pension, than others in different industries. If you refer back to my fairness definition it might help you to recognise where you are failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the real World.
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.

The economics of the situation IS the real world, which the lecturers appear to feel they should be immune to.

The proposal is to adjust the model, not abandon it. That is what the lecturers are trying to resist.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:02

No the model is sought to be worsened, a lazy cop out by those that cannot find a better resolution.

Being as the original model was a ponzi, it might be difficult to find a 'better' solution . All the politicians/manderins who implemented it are deceased/retired. Calling people lazy is just silly. They aren't lazy, they are tired of paying for inflation proofed state largesse.

Uni lecturers hold a high value within Society, Medical professionals also have a high value. As such they need to be offered employment T&Cs that will attract and retain these people, part of that is a pension scheme. Because you and others may not like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It will not be easy to find a solution to the perceived current problems, but a solution needs to be found if the U.K. is to retain important professionals within the U.K.
Imo, the investment administration cost of pension funds needs to be investigated fully, Some Companies have recently reduced thier costs to the client by recognising that low management of some portfolio savings can be passed back to the client. More actively managed funds less so. But as virtually every industry has seen major efficiency methods introduced perhaps it’s time the focus was applied to the pensions industry.

Edited by crankedup on Friday 23 March 08:29

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

Maybe the nuance of the English language is lost on you. The use of the word ‘really’ in that sentence is very important. It means something different than when the word is omitted.

It's totally ok. You'll shortly have one of the groupies to agree with you. But I do enjoy your editing. The rather simple fact is that contrary to your claim, DB pensions do exist in the private sector.

Sorry you don’t understand the nuance of the language or the context of the discussion.

It's nothing to do with nuances, it's you doing the trademark sidicks dance. "really" in your original claim could be replaced with "for intents and purposes" or "essentially".

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Your obsession with the public sector, as demonstrated with your own quotes on different threads is for you to figure out why.

I do find constant whining about what others are getting rather sad. Not surprising, but sad.

You didn’t answer about your extensive experience of DB schemes.

I never claimed that I have extensive experience of DB schemes. Odd question.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Better than worthless though.

Who are you suggesting is worthless? My employer certainly doesn’t think that applies to me. But keep up with the insults, just don’t be surprised when you don’t get friendly responses.

Friendly!! from you ? I won’t lose any sleep over your threat. You need to get out more mate.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Friendly!! from you ? I won’t lose any sleep over your threat. You need to get out more mate.

Friendly questions receive friendly responses, deliberately antagonistic posts receive a less friendly response. That doesn’t seem unreasonable, despite what you might think.

I made no threat.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Uni lecturers hold a high value within Society, Medical professionals also have a high value. As such they need to be offered employment T&Cs that will attract and retain these people, part of that is a pension scheme. Because you and others may not like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

There comes a point where the benefit isn't worth the cost. With increasing longevity comes increasing cost.

Many people are starting to think that the cost needs to be reduced to keep the benefit worthwhile.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

It's nothing to do with nuances, it's you doing the trademark sidicks dance. "really" in your original claim could be replaced with "for intents and purposes" or "essentially".

Do you mean ‘for all intents and purposes’?
I agree that I could have used that expression or ‘essentially - both would have meant the same thing as that which I originally said. Sorry you didn’t fully understand the meaning. Never mind.’

jjlynn27 said:

I never claimed that I have extensive experience of DB schemes. Odd question.

It’s funny how quickly you dismiss and mock the anecdotal evidence of other people on other threads but deem your own anecdotal evidence to be so much more relevant.

Regardless, if you’re going to continue to try and score points rather than address the thread topic, then hopefully you’ll be banned again very soon.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Uni lecturers hold a high value within Society, Medical professionals also have a high value. As such they need to be offered employment T&Cs that will attract and retain these people, part of that is a pension scheme. Because you and others may not like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

There comes a point where the benefit isn't worth the cost. With increasing longevity comes increasing cost.

Many people are starting to think that the cost needs to be reduced to keep the benefit worthwhile.

It’s a complex web, costs could be reduced to clients using the services of investment companies. Do they need to have big shiny glass towers that cost a fortune. Are clients getting the best value for thier money?
Lowering T&Cs for some sectors of ‘industry’ will have a negative effect upon the U.K. in the longer term, I have given two examples already and we have seen the NHS service staff leaving in droves owing to the Governments heavy handed use of penalties in the form of pay restrictions during the past seven years. We have a wide choice of areas that can be investigated for cost reduction efforts.
Our higher education facilities attract students World wide, without the high calibre of those that educate we have nothing to offer.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

It's nothing to do with nuances, it's you doing the trademark sidicks dance. "really" in your original claim could be replaced with "for intents and purposes" or "essentially".

Do you mean ‘for all intents and purposes’?
I agree that I could have used that expression or ‘essentially - both would have meant the same thing as that which I originally said. Sorry you didn’t fully understand the meaning. Never mind.’

Yes, thanks. I meant to put all. For 'all intents and purposes' inlcluding my initial paraphrasing from memory that triggered you. You keep repeating things hoping that they'll become true. In the meantime, you make up things as you go, as demonstrated, relying on echo chamber to provide cover. What I don't get, is why are mods allowing you to derail every single thread, even mildly related to public sector, with endless rants about pensions and how unfair they are. But their house, their rules.

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

I never claimed that I have extensive experience of DB schemes. Odd question.

It’s funny how quickly you dismiss and mock the anecdotal evidence of other people on other threads but deem your own anecdotal evidence to be so much more relevant.

Regardless, if you’re going to continue to try and score points rather than address the thread topic, then hopefully you’ll be banned again very soon.

Another dodge. Who said that I have extensive experience of DB schemes? Did you make that up?

I did address the question. Just like everyone else they want to get what they think that they are worth it. Given the effort needed to become one, as well as responsibilities, I don't think that they are being unreasonable at all. Unlike you, I don't have ideological blinkers firmly on. For people bhing about how unfair it is, the answer is exactly the same as for every other job. if you think it's that easy become lecturer.
Or lawyer.

Or banker.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 23 March 09:37

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

It’s a complex web, costs could be reduced to clients using the services of investment companies. Do they need to have big shiny glass towers that cost a fortune. Are clients getting the best value for thier money?
Lowering T&Cs for some sectors of ‘industry’ will have a negative effect upon the U.K. in the longer term, I have given two examples already and we have seen the NHS service staff leaving in droves owing to the Governments heavy handed use of penalties in the form of pay restrictions during the past seven years. We have a wide choice of areas that can be investigated for cost reduction efforts.
Our higher education facilities attract students World wide, without the high calibre of those that educate we have nothing to offer.

The scale of the problem with DB schemes isn’t going to be materially affected by changing the investment management costs by a few basis points here or there - to suggest that is a gross misjudgement as to the scale of the issue.

There are good reasons that most private sector schemes closed to new accrual 10-20 years ago, and it wasn’t to do with fund management costs.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that they are being unreasonable at all. Unlike you, I don't have ideological blinkers firmly on. For people bhing about how unfair it is, the answer is exactly the same as for every other job. if you think it's that easy become lecturer.
Or lawyer.

Or banker.

1. Please sort out your quotes

2. Let’s post the same argument to the lecturers - if they don’t like what is on offer, why don’t they do your job or my job instead?

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Yes, thanks. I meant to put all. For 'all intents and purposes' inlcluding my initial paraphrasing from memory that triggered you. You keep repeating things hoping that they'll become true. In the meantime, you make up things as you go, as demonstrated, relying on echo chamber to provide cover.

I’ve made up nothing. Meanwhile you’ve mis-quoted me twice to try and pretend I said something different to what I actually said. It’s all clear in this thread.

Jjlynn27 said:

What I don't get, is why are mods allowing you to derail every single thread, even mildly related to public sector, with endless rants about pensions and how unfair they are. But their house, their rules.

What I don’t get is how mods allow you to derail threads by resorting to personal attacks when you have nothing to add to the topic in question.

If you don’t want to learn about pensions or don’t have anything to add on a pensions thread then probably best if you keep away from threads that are about pensions.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

1. Please sort out your quotes

2. Let’s post the same argument to the lecturers - if they don’t like what is on offer, why don’t they do your job or my job instead?

1. Sorted. Still waiting to hear who said that I had extensive experience with DB pensions.

2. That's not the same argument at all. I'll use any means necessary to get as much as I can. Don't you?

I don't want them to leave their job. Given the number of UK universities at the top of league tables, I think that they are doing a pretty good job.

I want UK universities to attract top talent, people who'll come up with graphene.

I think that it's a waste that a good friend left NHS to work for a consultancy company, for significantly more money, fewer hours and less responsibility.

[BuzzBravado]

This isn't just about Lecturers, its everyone under the USS Scheme, myself included.... A Systems Administrator. In the Education sector wages are behind the private sector but that's ok because the whole package evens us out.

For those saying we are just bhing about realities and need to suck it up, maybe that is the case...... but would you go from a projected £20k pension to £7k pension just because someone said so? That's the figures i'm personally looking at. If that happens i would have no choice but to go the private sector along with a whole raft of other talent people just to get back to an even keel. If you apply that to other talented members who can get other jobs no problem then where does that leave HE? One of the biggest industries in the UK just now.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

1. Sorted. Still waiting to hear who said that I had extensive experience with DB pensions.

2. That's not the same argument at all. I'll use any means necessary to get as much as I can. Don't you?

So it’s a one-way thing - as far as you are concerned, if people like lecturer’s benefits so much they should shut up or become a lecturer, but if lecturers do not like the benefits they are being offered then it’s totally unreasonable to suggest they should put up or look elsewhere?

(And that’s before the evidence that shows that they don’t fully understand the value of what is at stake in the first place).

jjlynn27 said:

I don't want them to leave their job. Given the number of UK universities at the top of league tables, I think that they are doing a pretty good job.

I want UK universities to attract top talent, people who'll come up with graphene.

If Universities are attracting people on the basis of having a DB pension rather than an extremely generous DC scheme, then are they targeting the right people for the right reasons?!

jjlynn27 said:

I think that it's a waste that a good friend left NHS to work for a consultancy company, for significantly more money, fewer hours and less responsibility.

And no DB pension...