PDA

View Full Version : French Unions cause chaos and force government to backtrack


boogie-nicey
11th Apr 2006, 10:54
At first I thought how humiliating that must be for the government but then I began to realise that the real humiliation is for France itself.

It's bad enough for Chirac to stab his own prime minister in the back but to send a signal that the unions have a scalp so early in the protest calendar/season will only fan the fire further.

This seems very much like the scenario of some hapless parents who are forced to buy things just to keep their screaming kids happy. A short term fix for sure but long term detriment. How can any further 'laws' be introduced if this one was defeated so publically as well, I feel the only viable option is for the country to suffer and realise that correction is desperarely needed for the numerous years of missed opportunites where little by little France could have become more market orientated. Ask the silly students, your youth unemployment is around 30% so how would YOU propose we bring that down or do you enjoy not being out of work, with lush social payments like that maybe it is.

Idunno
11th Apr 2006, 12:16
Mixed feelings on it really.
I have to admit to a sneaking admiration for them.:E

G-CPTN
11th Apr 2006, 12:16
On the one hand it seems outrageous that a section of the populace can dictate government policy, but isn't this true democracy?

Baron rouge
11th Apr 2006, 12:17
Victory for trade unions and students ? I don't think so... with CPE they had a 2 year contract which in any case was much better than the "stages gratuits" (non paid work) that most of the students are offered at the end of their studies.

Now we are back to that, as the mesure to replace the CPE is just a taxation dispensation for employers that employ "jeunes défavorisés", or in other terms, the immigrants from north africa living in suburbs. there is nothing for unions or students!

Grandpa
11th Apr 2006, 13:58
We are not children, these politicos are NOT our loving parents.

World isn't a nursery.

And if you like figures, try to use the correct ones: when you come with this % of 30% unemployed youth, you should be more precise:

70% of this class age are studying (universities, "grandes écoles" et al....) and the 30% you signal is calculated on the 30% left to work......which means flatly 9%.

I know you didn't invent this faulty %, you red it somewhere, it was used by right politician trying to push their slavery law, and it was printed in your magazine: you can't trust media owned by tycoons part in the conflict.

A good lesson for our leaders: we are not here to obey orders like in Mussolini's Italy.

They have lost any people support, and are going to be fired at next elections. (Only hope next won't be worse............)

BenThere
11th Apr 2006, 14:33
You won, Gramps. Congratulations!

I hope, but have reservations, that the victory doesn't turn out to be Pyrrhic.

Traditions are not all bad, and France's tradition of governance at the dictate of the mob in the streets has been upheld, along with the elected leadership's crumbling in the face of it.

boogie-nicey
11th Apr 2006, 15:04
Yes indeed I read that 30% figure in a number of places but we really need to look at getting more young people into work otherwise they will become increasingly work shy as the years pass. Young people are excellent potential employees with their prime health, mental ability and enthusiasm, etc but we can't let them go to waste. The universities are teaching them too much leftie clap trap and not preparing them for a practical work life. This is evident in the silly protests not against France but against the ethic of working in the Corporate world. Yes companies are nasty and so are gangsters, politicians and those 'delightful' celebs from the movie screen but if we don;t engage in a career where are we going to end up. Few people would want to voluntarily get up on a cold morning and go to work in order to be berated by your boss but what else am I to do. Self employed but then isn't that a change of clothes for me to wear that of my boss, yet as self employed I am still in the same corporate system.

These students seem to think that the train will wait indefinately for them at the station and the work place will teach them in a structured way just like university did. Not so these romantic notions are misplaced and if the students engaged in an alternative manner using those same energies of protest to further themselves. They could do this by taking to the streets again and asking the government to setup a fund to get budding entrepeneurs of the ground. Or to ask for a significant year of work experience during their degree course where the companies that take them on for a year pay nothing (good for the company and makes them want to take part) and the government pay a reasonable salary to the students during this time. Instead the students protest because they are students the same the world over no responsibilities and for many of them no studies neither just free time on their hands. They want to be heard even though are many other groups in society whose problems need more urgent attention that of the students.

airship
11th Apr 2006, 15:41
And merde alors! It is all one can say in reply to le Baron rouge. Well, perhaps not quite...

If you're so much in favour of special job contracts for those aged upto 26 years old, then why not review the contracts for other special groups?! For example, why not review current provisions for women who become pregnant (even if they're not under 26)...?! If you take into account the numbers of pregnant French women who have no employment, I'm sure this figure would greatly exceed in percentage terms even the 20-30% of the unemployed under 26 year olds (whether or not they were pregnant or came from a North African background). After all, let's not start discriminating, otherwise where would it ever end?!

PS. If there really are so many young French who cannot find jobs with French employers because of their cost, inexperience or lack of qualifications, then let them all go and find work in the UK...?! :O

SXB
11th Apr 2006, 15:47
I'm not sure where that figure of 70% of under 26 year olds are in full time education but I'm fairly sure it isn't correct.

The Bac+1 year has a huge drop out rate, approaching 50% in some places so I have a hard time believing the 70% figure. I realise that a lot of French kids do initially go to university but this is due to two factors
(i) As long as you score 10.5 or above you have the right to attend university (albeit your local one) This is a fairly low academic requirement and it leads to huge class sizes
(ii) There are hardly any jobs and most of the ones available are paying minimum wage.

The word for Chiracs climbdown is capitulation and it's something that French presidents and prime ministers are well used to. Now it's back to square one with the added bonus of Chirac stabbing his prodigal son, de Villepin, in the back. It's finished for de Villepin and he now has no chance of winning the 'rights' nomination for next years presidential election, that will go to Sarkozy now.

As for the looney left students I remember that when I was at university I was left wing, then I left and arrived in the world real and had to fend for myself. As you become more mature your views become more right wing simply because you become realistic.

I have still to meet anyone here in France who is actually opposed to CPE. As I said in another thread the mood of most French people is now one of exasperation

airship
11th Apr 2006, 15:54
I have still to meet anyone here in France who is actually opposed to CPE. Perhaps you ought to get out onto the streets a little more often then, you realistic left-winger, you...?! :rolleyes:

SXB
11th Apr 2006, 15:56
Airship
PS. If there really are so many young French who cannot find jobs with French employers because of their cost, inexperience or lack of qualifications, then let them all go and find work in the UK...?! :O
Their language skills are not good enough. Unlike most european countries English is not widely understood or spoken in France. I've travelled to every single european country except Belarus and the only places worse than France for language skills are rural Russia, Albania and eastern Ukraine. The worst of all these countries is actually the United Kingdom but they are in the enviable position of having English as their mother tongue

airship
11th Apr 2006, 16:04
Oh, excuse me. I only assumed that just about all the new jobs in the UK were in the service industries these days. You know...posh restaurants (a French accent could come in handy then) and less posh restaurants (the items on the menus have numbers); office cleaners; washer-uppers etc...

I suppose they might even find employment with a French car-assembler in the UK, though I can understand your point that not speaking English would make it extremely unlikely they'd find employment in a UK car factory... :}

SXB
11th Apr 2006, 16:15
Airship
If you're making a point about some of the jobs in the UK being towards the lower end of the pay scale then you've got a point though the main problem with living and working in the UK is the cost of living.

airship
11th Apr 2006, 16:23
A lot of UK girls find Frenchmen sexy. A lot of UK men find Frenchwomen sexy. That is what I've heard. Ergo, cost of living isn't a decisive feature of living / working in the UK - they soon find partners! :ok:

Grandpa
11th Apr 2006, 19:58
Makes me wonder:

Either I'm not so old I believed (and my boss too who dropped me when he thought I was 60)...................or what kind of hard core revolutionnary I was as a teenager?

Justiciar
11th Apr 2006, 22:40
The rate of unemployment in France is around 10% of working population - much worse than almost anywhere else in europe. The reason is over generous unemployment provision and laws making it very difficult to sack employees. In the UK we have employment protection legislation but most of it only kicks in after 12 months employment. In France it is effective immediately, which means that employers are vary wary of taking people on.

The Frence government measure was a vain attempt to inject some flexibility in the labour market by allowing hiring and firing without the employer being liable to a claim by the employer. This has now been binned by the French presidency in the face of the mob. So, the people on the streets will stay unemployed and the frence tax payer will continue to pay for them. The worst of this is that bit by bit europe's answer to the more flexible labour market, such as that of the UK, is to try and tie it up in red tape and make it as uncompetative as the rest. This is what we have to resist.

Grandpa
12th Apr 2006, 20:06
What we have to resist is the trend to consider workers have to work more to earn less, to be obedient to any order from the boss from fear of being sacked WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION..............while the rich pay less taxes and are free to transfer their money where they can ask more from people without any legal protection (like China and a lot of countries where it's a crime to organise workers).

Justiciar
12th Apr 2006, 20:10
I'm not against workers' rights Grandpa, but make it too difficult to dismiss employees and employers simply wont hire. You can create as much protection as you like but it doesn't help those who cannot get a job because the employers are too scared to hire people. I don't quite see the connection between more or less employee rights and who pays what tax!

Grandpa
12th Apr 2006, 20:19
.............and you don't see connections.....

If you open your eyes, you could see that more and more weigh is put on workers, and this aborted contract was only the last blow in their face.

Glad they punched it back in Villepin's face!

tilewood
12th Apr 2006, 20:42
Dear old France......... welcome to the 20th Century! :rolleyes:

Justiciar
12th Apr 2006, 20:55
From what I can see, the burden of new laws on employers grows weekly, much of it from the EU. I regularly act for employers and employees, so I do get to see both sides. What I do know is that employers spend alot of time dealing with procedures in dealing with their employees. This is time they can't spend dealing with their customers, running their business and making a decent profit (some of which then goes in tax).

I see very little evidence on more weight being put on employees, but then France has much stricter employment protection than the UK. In France, as I understand it, you can't sack anyone without a very good reason and by using very rigid procedures. It is hardly surprising that employers are slow to take people on and foreign firms locate their factories in EU countries where the rules are not so strict. It seems the youth of France would prefer to be "free" and unemployed than allow some flexibility in a ludicrously inflexible labour market.

Anyway, no time for much more: demain je pars pour la france:ok:

Grandpa
13th Apr 2006, 06:20
In France we have got something called INSEE, an official institute liable for any kind of statistics about anything worth counting.

Try to find it and get the figures about parting national income between finance and salary: you will get a decent idea of the evolution since 30 years, workers losing year by year.

I guess you have got same institution in UK, USA, try them too.

Got any idea about the reasons for this transfer of wealth from working segment of population and profit takers?

boogie-nicey
13th Apr 2006, 09:01
Clearly the problem in France is one of denial. If France has got it right does that mean the rest of the world is wrong :) I think not.

It's obvious as some people state that France is the last strongpoint of Communist in mainland Europe, oh dear. As a consumer I am tired having to wait for services when everyone is at lunch whihc seems to go on all afternoon and is only intermmitently broken up by bouts of actual work. The manner in which catalogues productivity is deeply flawed and is probably closer to the way in which Enron do their accounts (or should I say did).

Reality always supersedes political rhetoric and statistics, open your eyes and you'll see how well or bad your economy is doing. Look at how many people seem to be unemployed and the best test of all, if you were unemployed where, when and how quickly do you think you could get a job, go ahead and try it (be realistic).

Grandpa
13th Apr 2006, 12:56
At the end of the day/week/month/year, he counts the money he has made on your work.

If he can get more in another country, with other workers......he doesn't hesitate.

He is a member of an Association, lobbying by all means to have law passed which help him make more money.

You prefer to rely on your own illusions than check informations which prove and explain society has changed, how it changed, and who is having the best of it.

That's your choice, and has nothing to do with your nationality.
(but if you want relly the truth, try INSEE!

airship
13th Apr 2006, 15:07
Justiciar, have you heard of trial periods?! Trial periods allow both the employer and employee to get to know each other. During this period, which is often 1 to 3 months long here, either party can simply "walk away" without any direct consequences. Yes, trial periods are not illegal here in France! The CPE would basically have allowed the employer a trial period of upto 2 years... :}

One would hope any respectable employer anywhere would have a demonstrably viable reason for 'laying people' off. French laws make it clear that there has to be one. Only, perhaps more here than elsewhere, ordinary people are increasingly suspect of bigger companies which at the same time as declaring large profits, decide to simply shutdown activities which may still be quite profitable on a stand-alone basis, even if they no longer fit into the company's wider objectives etc. :} Even smaller companies like my own may take on 'at a whim' extra people in order to accommodate an often forseeable short-term increase in demand instead of hiring temps or others on short-term contracts: because it's often cheaper that way provided you don't get dragged in front of the dreaded conseil de prud'hommes. Though I have to admit that even with all the rules, sometimes employers and employees will come to their own private arrangement: The employee is simply tired, or perhaps needs a long break, but if he resigns, won't get paid any unemployment benefits for awhile. Ergo, the employee is 'fired' for whatever reason...well, it keeps the workforce happy?! :uhoh:

By the way, if I were to be laid off here in France, I could expect the following by way of indemnities:

After 2 years in the company: 10% of monthly salary per year of service (ie) for someone earning €4,000 per month = €400 x 2 = €800.

After 5 years in the company: 20% of monthly salary per year of service (ie) for someone on €4,000 per month = €800 x 5 years = €4,000

In case anyone missed the point, after 5 years in the company, the government only requires that you receive a month's salary...that's quite generous innit?! :=

After 20 years in the company: 20% of monthly salary per year of service (ie) €800 x 20 years = € 16,000 but wait for it, plus an extra 10% of monthly salary for each year over 15 years. So add another €2,000. Wow?! Getting €18,000 taxfree after 20 years with the same company?! And by this time you're what, 45-50 years old...so you can look forwards to being on the dole until 65 too?!

I've heard of people being awarded that much after merely 6 months in some companies after they were asked to go, having simply intoned that their boss was a prick. Obviously, I don't work for such a marvellous company...?! :{

I remember being made redundunt in the UK back in the early '80s and I even got 3 months salary after less than a year with the company. So, France is really truly very generous when it comes to protecting employees huh?! :zzz: And just imagine all the labour specialists earning megabucks simply advising your clients to stay away from France because it's difficult to fire people or that it's especially expensive to do so or that everyone is on a 35h week...?! :rolleyes:

And it has absolutely nothing at all to do with French employers' NI contributions being 38-45% on top of salary in addition to the employees' contribution of 21-24% already deducted from his salary...

For all of French employees' virtues or defaults, what makes them really expensive is because every centime they pay in income taxes today goes merely to finance the interest on France's public debt. There should be a lesson in this for some people: WATCH WHAT YOUR CHANCELLOR OF THE ECHEQUER'S DOING...?! :8 :* :ok:

boogie-nicey
13th Apr 2006, 15:12
I disagree I am not an employee but a supplier. I supply my professional services and hypothetically invoice the company who then pay that invoice in the form of a salary. Just like my employer when I no longer require him/her I will also leave and go onto pastures new and hopefully better. At the same time I can go off and setup my company but the risks are still there so for the time being I stay. However the point I am trying to make is that we are all just part of the overall economy whichever side of the fence it may be.

This forms a loose and dynamic fabric where a system is in place that all peoples can engage in and make a better life for themselves. If you want the most bucks then you have to make the most sacrifices and risks. Otherwise you can opt for te sure, steady but slower method of working for someone. It's all there for the choosing but what I note is that France is struggling to generate any real options for many of it's citizens such as boss or worker, in fact all there seems to be is life-long student :D

Romans, Moguls, Chinese, American even pirates were/are all traders and the trick which I believe both of us are trying to define is that middle ground between economic prowess and decadence.

airship
13th Apr 2006, 15:41
Well, by the looks of things, 21st century America's idea of trading, is the exchange of an ever-increasing volume of goods inwards in exchange for ever-increasing amounts of paper dollars outwards. Held by foreign governments for their own short-term interests. The question is: who will the loser be...?! :ok:

boogie-nicey, some people will take every detour in order evade taxes. Or maybe just to avoid them. But at some stage, it might begin to feel like one's merely emptying some poor old biddy's purse. One might as well rob a bank at gun-point - that would be quicker, if somewhat more risky. But morally perhaps somewhat less offensive do you think...?! :}

Baron rouge
14th Apr 2006, 19:54
All this France bashing thread is a bit too much... Our English friends should look at what is happening in their great country.
When I lived there 25 years ago, the cost of living was cheaper than in France; now you pay in £ the same price we pay in France in €, Which means 50% more. And the salaries are not as good as they are in France, I mean for the standard worker, not for the fat cats that seem to haunt PPrune.
You are laughing at our strikes but you had more than one million OAP demonstrating in London a few days ago. Your economy which you are so proud of is built on sand, I mean credit. 95% of all british homes are owned by the building societies; mortgages and remorgages is the only way to keep England afloat;
Old age people have very little pension, most of them need to work until their death...just to survive.Young kids are in the street at 5 o'clock in the morning to deliver papers just to feed their parents, england is back to victorian times.
France is certainly not perfect, but England and the USA should be ashamed to count so many homeless when the GDP is so high.
Workers ha

Unwell_Raptor
14th Apr 2006, 20:11
You are laughing at our strikes but you had more than one million OAP demonstrating in London a few days ago. Your economy which you are so proud of is built on sand, I mean credit. 95% of all british homes are owned by the building societies; mortgages and remorgages is the only way to keep England afloat;
Old age people have very little pension, most of them need to work until their death...just to survive.Young kids are in the street at 5 o'clock in the morning to deliver papers just to feed their parents, england is back to victorian times.

I don't know where you got your information, mon brave, but every fact that you quote is utterly wrong.

IB4138
14th Apr 2006, 21:04
This year it is noticable that more French registered cars are appearing on the roads of Southern Spain.
Perhaps some French people have taken a leaf from the British and those who can afford to are abandoning ship.

Grandpa
14th Apr 2006, 21:38
Spring is coming for true.

Flowers all around, but my almond tree is to younf.

We find tiny strawberries "guariguettes" in the market.
They are not so cheap as spanish ones, but so much better.
It' asparagus season too, prices are going down to 3,5€/Kg (for the best variety).
Fresh goat cheese, I just finished those I bought last week, have to go back to the market tomorrow, very crowdy with many Northerners (from France, Belgium, UK, Holland, Germany.....) many Italian too and even Westerners from across the Atlantic and Asian from Japan or China.

But you are right IB, I don't see many Spaniards here, save those who fled Franco 60 years ago and their family (I still remember these brave Republican soldiers who fought in French Resistance, and even enlisted in FFL.......The first tanks entering Paris in 1944 had Spanish crews and had names like "Teruel"...........).
Now...............Aznar's parents were more on the phalangist side, were not they?

SXB
14th Apr 2006, 22:40
Baron rouge
When I lived there 25 years ago, the cost of living was cheaper than in France; now you pay in £ the same price we pay in France in €, Which means 50% more
Agree 100%. Everytime I go back to the UK I'm amazed at how expensive it's become.

And the salaries are not as good as they are in France
Complete rubbish. Salaries in France are extremely low. Private sector salaries are much higher in the UK of course and a lot more people work in this sector than in France. There are 5 million 'Fonctionnaire' in France and this group are also earning much lower salaries than their equivelents in the UK (though in France the Police, Armed forces, teachers etc are all classed as civil servants). For example a full Colonel in the RAF (in fact a Group Captain) may be earning about £70000 per year whereas his French counterpart is earning slightly less than that but in euros. My nest door neighbour is a fairly experienced teacher and takes home €1500 per month. I could go on.

You are laughing at our strikes but you had more than one million OAP demonstrating in London a few days ago I must have missed that, did anyone else see that ?

Young kids are in the street at 5 o'clock in the morning to deliver papers just to feed their parents, england is back to victorian times. You must have got this piece of information from the same source that told you salaries in France are higher than in the UK.

France is certainly not perfect, but England and the USA should be ashamed to count so many homeless when the GDP is so high
So who are those people sleeping in cardboard boxes I see in the centre of Strasbourg everyday ? Each winter some of them freeze to death. The locals don't seem to like them and I hear comments directed towards them prefixed or suffixed with the word 'noir' Thankfully that isn't a problem, to the same extent, in the UK. Remind me, who came second in your last presidential elections ?

Baron rouge
15th Apr 2006, 07:23
I must have missed that, did anyone else see that ?
You must have got this piece of information from the same source that told you salaries in France are higher than in the UK.

I was wrong, I must admit it was not a demonstration but a STRIKE, would you believe it a strike in UK, probably some lazy bastards or is it the people starting at last to see the light you the fat cats want to deprive them of.

Britain: More than one million strike over cuts in pension provision, but unions limit protest
By Julie Hyland - From wsws.net, 29 March 2006
Thousands of schools, local government facilities and transport services across the United Kingdom were closed or partially closed Tuesday as almost 1.5 million local government workers took strike action to defend their pension rights.
But from the outset, the leadership of the 11 unions involved in the dispute sought to demobilize any active participation by workers. In the main, pickets were at a minimum and any visible signs of protest were patchy and kept limited. In Manchester, England’s third largest city, the regional trade unions called off a lunchtime rally at the eleventh hour.
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government wants to overturn the provision under the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) whereby local council employees can retire at the age of 60 on a full pension if their age and years of service total 85. The change means that some of the poorest paid workers in the public sector, many of whom have contributed to the retirement plan for years, have been issued with an ultimatum—work many more years or face a one-third cut in pensions.
The government had initially wanted to impose its attack on all public sector workers. But in a move clearly aimed at dividing workers so as to pick off their rights one section at a time, it agreed that existing firefighters, teachers, National Health Service staff and some civil service employees could keep their full entitlements, whilst the conditions of those working in the local government sector would be cut.
The public sector unions, which include some of the largest unions in the UK, such as Unison, the GMB and the Transport and General Workers Union, played a crucial role in facilitating the government’s manoeuvre. A planned strike in protest at the cuts was called off by the union bureaucracy last May so as to avoid a potential conflict between the Labour government and a significant section of workers in the run-up to the 2005 General Election.
The union bureaucracy has accepted that the retirement age for new local government employees will rise to 65, and have sought to confine the protest solely to retaining the so-called 85-year rule for existing staff, i.e., the same deal that was agreed with regards to central government employees.
A three-month consultation between the government, the unions and local government employers ended without agreement on February 28. Subsequently the unions have scaled back protests and worked to ensure that yesterday’s one-day strike was of purely a token character.
Nonetheless, membership ballots by the unions involved returned overwhelming support for industrial action. Amongst those participating in the 24-hour dispute were leisure centre workers, school caretakers, cooks, cleaners and classroom assistants, housing officers, nursery nurses, youth and community staff and tourism officials. Traffic wardens, the Probation Service, occupational therapy and other social services joined the strike, as did workers in public services that have been privatized, including bus drivers and refuse collectors.
In Northern Ireland, all bus and rail services were cancelled and in Scotland hundreds of schools and nurseries were closed whilst Glasgow’s subway system was shut, and Edinburgh’s council-run bus service was off the road.
In Wales, almost 800 schools were shut as were many libraries and council-run facilities. In the north of England, in addition to extensive school closures, both Liverpool’s Mersey tunnels were closed as were its ferry service, and Newcastle’s Metro system did not open.
In London, some 70 percent of all schools were shut as more than 100,000 workers struck, including workers in the capital’s Fire Brigade control room. The Tower of London was closed and the Thames Barrier reduced to emergency staffing levels.
Pension provision in the public sector is one of the few areas of employment rights still retained in the UK after decades of cuts in social services and the deregulation of working conditions. An official government study by the Financial Services Authority and Bristol University reported Tuesday that almost half the working population have no pension outside the paltry state retirement benefit and 70 percent have no means of saving for their old age.
Throughout the day, spokesmen for the government reiterated that there would be no retreat from its plans, and the media and big business leaders are demanding even tougher cuts and have denounced the striking workers as “selfish.”
Rupert Murdoch’s Sun complained that local government workers were attempting to defend a right not shared by millions of others workers, many of whom, it admitted, “will retire in poverty.”

ORAC
15th Apr 2006, 08:38
wsws.net = World Socialist Web Site. :rolleyes: :hmm:

SXB
15th Apr 2006, 11:03
Baron Rouge
You said
You are laughing at our strikes but you had more than one million OAP demonstrating in London a few days ago This is hardly the same as public sector workers taking a 1 day strike because the govt. wants to reduce their pensions entitlement is it ? The question of public sector pensions and their future funding is a current question throughout Europe, even the French are trying to force their own workers to work longer as they can no longer afford to subsidise the pension fund. If the governments of europe keep current public sector pensions as they are then it means that the bill will be met by all the other taxpayers, would it be fair for you or I to subsidise such pensions through increased taxation ?

The changes proposed in the UK will only affect those people at least 10 to 15 years from retirement which gives them an opportunity to make other arrangements to fund any shortfall.

Local government pensions in the UK are quite good, for example a friend of my fathers retired last year with an indexed linked pension of £65000 per year and a one time, tax free lump sum of more than £100,000, though this guy is close to the top of the tree as far as local government officers are concerned. I'm not sure the general public in the UK are aware that they enjoy such good pensions and I'd be surprised if a private pension fund given the same amounts of money over the same periods of time could produce the same amounts of renumeration. Opinions on this would be based on whether you think central govt. should subsidise pensions and if you think they should then why should it only be for state employees ? After all, taxpayers money belongs to all of us.

airship
15th Apr 2006, 11:49
If only everyone's MPs went to such extremes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4909796.stm) in order to save the jobs of their constituents...?! :ok:

Baron rouge
15th Apr 2006, 12:44
The changes proposed in the UK will only affect those people at least 10 to 15 years from retirement which gives them an opportunity to make other arrangements to fund any shortfall.

Local government pensions in the UK are quite good, for example a friend of my fathers retired last year with an indexed linked pension of £65000 per year and a one time, tax free lump sum of more than £100,000, though this guy is close to the top of the tree as far as local government officers are concerned. I'm not sure the general public in the UK are aware that they enjoy such good pensions and I'd be surprised if a private pension fund given the same amounts of money over the same periods of time could produce the same amounts of renumeration. Opinions on this would be based on whether you think central govt. should subsidise pensions and if you think they should then why should it only be for state employees ? After all, taxpayers money belongs to all of us.

You are really obnoxious SXB, pretending to ignore the true reallity of things and only speaking of your rich friends... like that Colonel (posted abroad, in NATO assignment probably) or that high ranking civil servant...

The truth is my collegues in the RAF were not earning half as much as I did and their wives were claiming that they had to run the household and the daily expenses plus clothing on 100£ generously given to them by their husband.

The reality of England is that:An official government study by the Financial Services Authority and Bristol University reported Tuesday that almost half the working population have no pension outside the paltry state retirement benefit and 70 percent have no means of saving for their old age.

SXB
15th Apr 2006, 13:22
Baron Rouge
Simply because you disagree with someone there is no need to become insulting, hopefully the moderator will prevent you from posting further on this thread. I suspect that if you didn't post such utter rubbish you wouldn't become so upset when someone points this out.

Also
The truth is my collegues in the RAF were not earning half as much as I did and their wives were claiming that they had to run the household and the daily expenses plus clothing on 100£ generously given to them by their husband.
I quick search on the internet will put that further untruth to bed
Starting salary for a Lieutenant Colonel is the British Army without allowances is £59583. Starting salary for a Lieutenant Colonel in the French Army is €37232. That is one hell of a difference. RAF salaries are slightly higher than those in the Army.

Figures taken from the respective official websites.

Baron rouge
15th Apr 2006, 20:59
Baron Rouge
Simply because you disagree with someone there is no need to become insulting, hopefully the moderator will prevent you from posting further on this thread.

SXB, faint hearted are we ? or a rigid military man;)

By the way, you didn't answer about the 70% of Brits who cannot save for their old age.

BlueWolf
16th Apr 2006, 05:37
Come on you naysayers, never mind the politics, remember the Poll Tax?

The Great Unwashed tells the Government to shove it, and they mean it. At the end of the day, all that the Government can do, really, is to shove it.

Good on those French persons.
:p

Grandpa
16th Apr 2006, 07:15
.............tes vaches avec les miennes Blue Wolf............

BlueWolf
16th Apr 2006, 10:25
Je ne comprends pas Grandpa, but instinct leads me to believe we have just agreed on something, thus proving anything is possible in JB ;) :ok:

Grandpa
16th Apr 2006, 13:19
...........popular here in below 10 Years old class, and it means exactly what you pointed!