Strike sympathy , not me

[BGD]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 1:23 PM

 

BGD - 2011-07-01 12:03 PM

 

"CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

That is the minimum employers have to provide."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with two out of the three Clive -

 

Yes to the total of 28 days.

 

Yes to how it's arrived at, as 20, then another 8 a few years later.

 

No to the "as and when the(y) fall" bit.

The entitlement to the additional 8 days was in recognition of of the NUMBER of "Public Holidays", the regulations DO NOT give an entitlement to take all or indeed any of those 8 days on the specific DATES that those "Public Holidays" fall each year.

 

 

Yes quite right Bruce.

 

My actual thoughts re "as and when they fall" was more in line with as and when they fall within the individuals work patterns.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to be such a pedant Clive, but even that is NOT what the law says - as I explained earlier.

 

I know that Employment law is a complex area; that is why Donna has thrown her toys out of the pram and resorted to jibes rather than accepting my explanation of it for her; but the law says NOTHING about whether or not any employee is entitles to take an actual "Public Holiday" date as actual holiday, whether that date falls within their work pattern or not.

 

As per my earlier explanation, UK law recognised that there were a total of 8 Public Holidays per year, and thus, specifically in recognition of that number, increased the previous minimum 20 days by a further 8 days to arrive at the present total 28 days.

But that simply means that under enabling Statute Law and subsequent regulation an employee is entitled, in total to at least 28 days paid leave per year.

 

 

 

I must repeat, per my earlier post: there is NO Statute or Regulation which says that a person must, can or can't take as holiday any specific "Public Holiday" date, whether or not that employee was due because of their work pattern to work on that date or not.

As I said earlier, it is ONLY the employees individual contract of employment, together with any Collective Agreements specifically incorporated into it, which governs the employees rights and obligations is such a circumstance.

The Old Common Law principle that Master and Servant remain free to agree their own terms, applies in this regard.....they can agree what they want to; Statute Law and Regulation is silent on this point.

 

 

 

Thus, as Robinhood has mentioned (in an understanding-of-the-detailed EU and UK law sense I suspect he's not quite totally grasped all of the many legal principles involved, but in practice his example is right): it is perfectly possible for an employee to work on all the "public Holiday" dates in a given year, as his contract provided that he would work on all dates that his work pattern called for him to do so, unless he booked one of the 28 days of annual holiday at his disposal.

Note in this example that the employee is getting the extra 8 days of annual holiday entitlement, awarded under the regulations in recognition of the 8 Public Holidays that fall each year, but he is working on all of those ACTUAL dates and having the right to take those additional 8, just like the earlier 20, on any dates that her chooses, subject to Employer approval of that request.

 

 

 

 

For most laymen it matters not whether one regards the minimum as simply "28 days" or as the, (to be completely accurate) "20 days plus 8 more days in recognition of the number of Public Holidays in England and Wales".

But there are detailed employment/shift pattern/industrial relations circumstances where not understanding the accurate legal basis would lead an Employer down the wrong, and potentially a very expensive, path.

 

Employment law is just like any other branch of the Law.

It has become, over the centuries, Complex. Very complex indeed.

Most laymen know some bits of it, in general terms; some laymen believe they understand all of it; most laymen find out when they consult a specialist lawyer, or find themselves in a Court, that a lot of what they thought they understood, or had heard elsewhere, may not be the case.

 

 

 

[Big Momma]

postnote - 2011-07-01 9:04 AM

 

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING THIS POST...STRIKES..NOT PENSIONS

 

Next it will be the poor hard done by BA cabin staff... :-(

 

And they, are they not in the Private Sector. It was they, was it not, that went on Strike. So the Public Sector should not go on strike but should negotiate...........is this one rule for one and one rule for another. Or perhaps, this was only a small part of the Private Sector so it doesn't count. *-)

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 1:41 PM....................................I was saying that the FSA was tasked to protect consumers and it has a history of not doing that - Equitable Life - Parliamentary Ombudsman report clearly stated that the regulator was to blame in that they allowed fraud to take place. Her report was titled "Equitable Life a decade of regulatory failure.

 

The FSA is supposed to protect the consumer - it does not do this - what it does is cosy up with the banks and the likes of Equitable Life to protect the old boys network - and bugger the poor consumer......................................

 

Agreed, but to me, a somewhat different point. What I was responding to was your comment regarding the causes of the banking crash, rather than their role in consumer protection. I acknowledge that the FSA applied such light regulation of the banking sector that they failed to spot the rot. However, that seems to be what they were told to do, and it is for the charioteer, not the horses, to decide direction and speed. Just a bit like Henry II and Thomas à Becket. If the King speaks riddles, he can't really evade responsibility for the ensuing misunderstandings. Either Brown so directed the FSA, or he failed to correct their misinterpretation of his intentions. As you say, it went on long enough, so should have been noticed.

 

As to consumer protection, the FSA is entirely consistent with most, if not all, of the other regulators, and with the legal system, in how it deals with misconduct on the part of suppliers of goods and services. Most of the regulators seem to be toothless cyphers with no appetite to get their gums into their markets' sharp practitioners. We have voluminous consumer protection legislation filled with fine words, and a government steered legal system that biases the consumer's means of redress towards replacing a defective pair of shoes, but confronts him with progressively greater financial burdens and risks as the cost of his purchase rises, and won't even include house purchase under the same umbrella. This cannot all be accidental, and seems to me designed to lull the consumer into a false sense of security, while leaving him bereft of effective redress when it is most needed. However, I digress even further.

 

Back to the OP. Not generally in favour of strikes under any circumstances, but accept that, just like revolutions, a grossly put-upon population will, eventually, take to the streets. Think this particular set of strikes very ill judged, not least because talks were continuing at the time which, if nothing else, is rank bad politics. Agree with the government's general desire to reduce public expenditure back to manageable, affordable, levels. Have grave misgivings about much of the presentation on both sides, far too much spin, far too little fact. Am very unhappy with this public/private sector split where, depending mainly on political dogma, one or other sector is portrayed as the spawn of the Devil, and the other as sitting with the Angels. We are in something of a mess, so crude caricatures aren't much help.

 

BTW, have you noticed how much the stock market, and Sterling's value against the Euro, have fallen over the past couple of months? Seems to have gone very quiet on that score, while everyone follows the Arab Spring and Wimbledon. You'd think at least the Greek troubles would give Sterling a lift against the Euro. But, now I digress again! :-D

[Big Momma]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-01 3:31 PM

 

 

Back to the OP. Not generally in favour of strikes under any circumstances, but accept that, just like revolutions, a grossly put-upon population will, eventually, take to the streets. Think this particular set of strikes very ill judged, not least because talks were continuing at the time which, if nothing else, is rank bad politics.

 

But Brian, it appears that you too have been hoodwinked by some of the spin (Lies) from the Government in respect of talks being ongoing. I am an interested party in all of this and have been aware of it since the 'Hutton' report was published, in fact, before the official public release the Unions sent all members a copy (Official copy that they were in receipt of). The Unions have been trying to sit down and have talks since the original release but the Government initially would not sit down with the PCS Union. Recently the reteric from HMG has been "This is what's on the table and we are not budging on it", then whilst supposedly still negotiating they make the announcement that the Pensions would increase by 3%, the retirement age to which you can receive the pension has been raised from 60 to 66 and at that point even with increased payments you will get less. This is a major change to both an Employment Contract to which inclusion in the Pension Scheme was not 'Voluntary' but part of the T&C's. AND without any talks or negotiations with the Unions.

 

They are now on a divide and conquer campaign, they have anounced that they will treat the Council workers as a separate issue and the same with the medical profession. Without doubt they will come to some sort of an 'arrangement' behind closed doors.

 

Go back to the dispute with the fuel prices many years ago. The hauliers conducted rolling convoys on Motorways and blockades on Refineries and that was due to the threat of Diesel going up to 80p Ltr. Now that Diesel is getting close to Double that amount you would have expected the hauliers to have been spitting blood but they have been very, very quiet. Wonder why ? Another closed door arrangement maybe ?

 

The fact is, HMG have done so many 'U' turns recently which left them open to widespread criticism both from the opposition parties and the Media, they are not likely to do it again SO Public Sector workers get used to paying higher pension contributions, working longer and getting less and of course coming in to the real world that there is no such thing as a lawful contract !!

[Bulletguy]

Wow.....a thread which has woken the sleeping dead! Surely can't ALL be striking teachers with nothing to fill their day.......can they? Well maybe.

 

I'll keep my post brief as there are already too many long and rambling posts on!

 

I have four friends in teaching, two university qualified, the other two held teaching certificates. All four are now retired. The two i'm closest to took retirement at 52 years old. Damn good pension, fat lump sum and incomes well above the national average.

 

Annual holiday period? A HUGELY sore point to touch on with ANY teacher!

 

It works out at a staggering FOURTEEN WEEKS a year.........yes FOURTEEN!

 

So to put into perspective, when I was working, what my friends got in just 12 months would take me the equivalent of THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.

 

Work hours? Another HUGELY sore point which will incur the wrath of any teacher you dare argue this point on......they simply do not like it and whatever you say, will never ever agree. They do 'work' which you and I cannot see and all this is unpaid. Charitable fellows you see........dedicated.

 

My mate used to leave home around 8.30am to be at School for 8.45 - 9.00am. Dinner break was one and a half hours and he was back in the house by 3.30 - 4.00pm.

 

Needless to say no weekend or shift working either.

 

The problem teachers have whenever they kick off is that because their conditions of employment have always been pretty damned good, they get little public sympathy........and that's something they just cannot seem to figure out.

 

[Mel B]

This thread WAS interesting ... now .... I just can't be bothered with it anymore! I'm off to stick pins in my eyes instead! 8-)

[Big Momma]

Bulletguy - 2011-07-01 5:21 PM

 

Wow.....a thread which has woken the sleeping dead! Surely can't ALL be striking teachers with nothing to fill their day.......can they? Well maybe.

 

I'll keep my post brief as there are already too many long and rambling posts on!

 

I have four friends in teaching, two university qualified, the other two held teaching certificates. All four are now retired. The two i'm closest to took retirement at 52 years old. Damn good pension, fat lump sum and incomes well above the national average.

 

Annual holiday period? A HUGELY sore point to touch on with ANY teacher!

 

It works out at a staggering FOURTEEN WEEKS a year.........yes FOURTEEN!

 

So to put into perspective, when I was working, what my friends got in just 12 months would take me the equivalent of THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.

 

Work hours? Another HUGELY sore point which will incur the wrath of any teacher you dare argue this point on......they simply do not like it and whatever you say, will never ever agree. They do 'work' which you and I cannot see and all this is unpaid. Charitable fellows you see........dedicated.

 

My mate used to leave home around 8.30am to be at School for 8.45 - 9.00am. Dinner break was one and a half hours and he was back in the house by 3.30 - 4.00pm.

 

Needless to say no weekend or shift working either.

 

The problem teachers have whenever they kick off is that because their conditions of employment have always been pretty damned good, they get little public sympathy........and that's something they just cannot seem to figure out.

 

They were the days eh ! You say they were retired so your examples are quite pointless when we are talking about the here and now. If you want to start comparisons on historical events then I am sure there are lots of choice examples when those in the Private Sector also had it good *-)

[Brian Kirby]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 4:52 PM..........................The Unions have been trying to sit down and have talks since the original release but the Government initially would not sit down with the PCS Union. Recently the reteric from HMG has been "This is what's on the table and we are not budging on it", then whilst supposedly still negotiating they make the announcement that the Pensions would increase by 3%, the retirement age to which you can receive the pension has been raised from 60 to 66 and at that point even with increased payments you will get less. .....................

 

But some of the unions are apparently still in talks? The PCS decided to call a strike. IMO foolish. If they wish to do that, stay in the talks, put forward their points for discussion, and stay in with the other unions. Divide and rule only works if the division is created. PCS, and seemingly no-one else, has handed them the division.

 

It is normal, in a negotiation, for both sides to state their starting points, they play hardball. If the others are still there, they must either have made offers on their requirements, been made offers on their demands, or are just more politically astute.

 

If the retirement age is being raised to 66, why do so many of the teachers who were on strike keep saying it is 68? Where is that coming from? The pension contribution is before tax, so the actual increase will be less than 3%. Salary £24,000, monthly increase £60, less tax, so just under £50 net. Not good, but, under the circumstances?

 

What I haven't seen is the combined effect on pay or pensions of CPI vs RPI, career average (or how it is to be calculated) vs best of last three years, and the effect of working those extra years. One might imagine someone would have produced worked examples at various pay levels, if it is really worth causing so much disruption over. I haven't been looking, but I haven't seen anything presented either. Why does the PCS not do this, to prove its point? In the meantime, whose spin do I believe? I thought Serwotka beat Maude hands down on "Today" on Wednesday morning, so he seems to have his ducks in a row. Frankly, after Maude's performance, I'm a little surprised he's still a minister. However, none of that will change the fundamentals.

 

There will be deals, because there will have to be. PCS members will get shafted, because they have declared hostility, and can easily be claimed to be politically motivated. IMO, they are also the wrong house for teachers.

[Big Momma]

Brian, Unison called the strike (on behalf of the teachers not PCS who are the civil servants union), PCS and a number of other Unions are supporting Unison in their call for Public Sector unification. HMG do not like PCS because the Union took them to Court around July last year over another one of their proposed changes to Employee Rights, PCS won and HMG were told that they had acted unlawfully. Whuch prompted David Cameron to announce that he would simply change the law 8-) It will not surprise you, or perhaps it will. At the negotiations at that time were with 5 Unions, the other 4 accepted the Government stance, PCS were he only Union to oppose it, and they won. In this latest 'battle' of words, The Government has declined to continue discussions with the PCS Union not the other way around. PCS declared hostility towards the Government you say , it appears that their 'spin' works

 

The Age 68 thing - The Government are changing the retirement age to 66 by 2020, they then propose to increase it to age 68 by 2025 (Think I've got my dates right).

 

Now I am not an academic Brian so you will have to be gentle with me when it comes to maths but if they take an additional 3% of the salary you quote e.g. £24,000 then yes that is £60 a month. What is all this about before tax, they still take £60 a month more than they are curently taking *-) So the wage £24,000 p.a. after the increase is £23,280 and lets not forget, that this comes after a 3 year wage freeze which actually started last year and not this April as the Government keep stating, then the rise in the National Insurance contributions now a 3% hike in pension contributions. They then say that people are living longer and have to save towards their own retirement, which I totally agree with. However, the problem is this, as the wages get reduced with all these increases, any savings that a person could manage will also have to be reduced to pay for the loss of earnings. *-) *-) :'(

[Guest pelmetman]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM

They then say that people are living longer and have to save towards their own retirement, which I totally agree with.(

 

No point in doing that in the private sector, as all most of us will achieve is make sure we're the wrong side of any benefit threshold *-)

[MandyAndy]

Ohhh Donna come to Northants so I can hug you, really not interested in the thread as it has just filled it self with bores but just love your ability to stick to your guns and make many look just what they are, go girl !!! lots of us behind much of what you say but just don't have your amazing abilities. :-D :-D

Mandy

[Big Momma]

pelmetman - 2011-07-01 7:32 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM

They then say that people are living longer and have to save towards their own retirement, which I totally agree with.(

 

No point in doing that in the private sector, as all most of us will achieve is make sure we're the wrong side of any benefit threshold *-)

 

Hey shipmate :D If your gonna be running off into the wilderness, wot about me looking after the Pelmet Business whilst you are away :D

[Guest pelmetman]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:38 PM

Hey shipmate :D If your gonna be running off into the wilderness, wot about me looking after the Pelmet Business whilst you are away :D

 

I might be looking for a home for them sometime soon :D...................which do you prefer pelmets or pouffes? :D

[francisgraham]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM  What is all this about before tax, they still take £60 a month more than they are curently taking *-) So the wage £24,000 p.a. after the increase is £23,280 (

Pension contributions are, if memory serves, not subject to tax and N.I. If an extra £60 a month is taken from your salary the net cost will be more like £40 a month, which seems a small price to pay to eventually collect a pension that will still be better than the average in the private sector. It's a good deal as £60 a month goes into your pension pot but it's only costing you £40 per month.

[Big Momma]

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 7:51 PM

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM  What is all this about before tax, they still take £60 a month more than they are curently taking *-) So the wage £24,000 p.a. after the increase is £23,280 (

Pension contributions are, if memory serves, not subject to tax and N.I. If an extra £60 a month is taken from your salary the net cost will be more like £40 a month, which seems a small price to pay to eventually collect a pension that will still be better than the average in the private sector. It's a good deal as £60 a month goes into your pension pot but it's only costing you £40 per month.

1. Sorry, still do not understand. If 3% of £24,000 is £720 / 12 = £60 pm then they are surely going to take £720 from the £24,000 ie. £60 a month ????2. The £24,000 is for the purpose of the example a hypothetical figure. I can assure you, there are ordinary people, not fat cats who will lose much more than this, and no I will not stand and hold my breath until I see you shed a tear ;-)

[francisgraham]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 8:01 PM

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 7:51 PM

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM  What is all this about before tax, they still take £60 a month more than they are curently taking *-) So the wage £24,000 p.a. after the increase is £23,280 (

Pension contributions are, if memory serves, not subject to tax and N.I. If an extra £60 a month is taken from your salary the net cost will be more like £40 a month, which seems a small price to pay to eventually collect a pension that will still be better than the average in the private sector. It's a good deal as £60 a month goes into your pension pot but it's only costing you £40 per month.

1. Sorry, still do not understand. If 3% of £24,000 is £720 / 12 = £60 pm then they are surely going to take £720 from the £24,000 ie. £60 a month ????2. The £24,000 is for the purpose of the example a hypothetical figure. I can assure you, there are ordinary people, not fat cats who will lose much more than this, and no I will not stand and hold my breath until I see you shed a tear ;-)

Let's assume that your taxable income after your allowances etc. is £20,000 p.a.  On that you will pay 20% income tax (£4000) and employees' National Insurance contribution of 12% or £2400. Thus your total deductions are £6400 leaving you with a net salary of £13600.

So you now decide to pay a further £60 a month or £720 a year in pension contributions. These are deducted before tax and N.I. so your taxable income is now based not on £20,000 p.a. but on £19280 per annum. On this you pay 20% tax and 12% N.I. a total of £6169.60.

You will see that, despite £720 being taken from your salary, your tax bill is now £230.40 less.

So instead of taking home a net salary of £13600, you are taking home £20,000 minus your extra £720 pension contribution, which is £19280, from which you have tax and N.I. of £6169.60 leaving you £13110.40. Your take home pay has been reduced from £13600 to £13110.40 which is £489.60 or £40.80 per month.

So as I said, £60 a month is being added to your pension pot but because it is deducted before tax it is only actually costing you £40.80 per month in real money!

I have purposefully kept this simple and omitted personal allowances etc. as they make no difference to my calculations, which is why I have talked about your taxable income. Of course if your taxable income is £20,000, your actual income would be a lot more because of the several thousand pounds personal allowance.

[Robinhood]

BGD - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

For pities sake mate -

 

Is it that you did not read my explanation, or that you did not grasp it?

 

I certainly did; and both of the above (though as usual you were inclined to go around the houses) ;-)

 

What's more, despite your condescending (and thus demeaning) comments in your later post, viz:

 

BGD - 2011-07-01 2:03 PM

Thus, as Robinhood has mentioned (in an understanding-of-the-detailed EU and UK law sense I suspect he's not quite totally grasped all of the many legal principles involved, but in practice his example is right):

[/Quote]

 

……I understand far more of this subject than you give me credit for (maybe that's why my summary was both succinct and correct?). The alternative view, of course, is that I simply cobbled a few phrases together and got lucky! :-)

 

BGD - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

That is EXACTLY what I said, and how the Working Time Regulations, the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations and the Common Law of contract operates.

 

Jeez.

 

Well it's certainly approximately what you said this time (which is why I gave you credit for getting there)…….(lol)

 

In your earlier posts, however, (and along with Clive) your stated view was rather different, e.g:

 

BGD - 2011-06-30 4:10 PM

Please look back at my post Donna - that reference backs up exactly what I said.

I said in my post that the minimum is 20 days plus the 8 bank holidays

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

You try to make out that Bruce and I are wrong when it is clear that the minimum entitlement of 28 days INCLUDES the 8 days of Bank holidays.

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the (sic) fall.

 

…which is why I did my summary, and quoted Clive’s continuing erroneous statement (simply because they were continuing).

 

You both appear to me to be attempting to rewrite history, (difficult when the thread provides an audit trail) but at least you, Bruce, have caught up with the facts in that re-write - (as your somewhat better phrased later statement evidenced): viz:

 

BGD - 2011-06-30 11:39 AM

“20 days plus 8 additional days to recognise Public Holidays"

 

As you’ve noticed, and taken up with him, Clive’s revision of history hasn’t quite reached factual status yet! ;-)

 

In her last post before this all kicked off, Donna stated:

 

donna miller - 2011-06-30 12:34 PM

As stated above, you are entitled to a minimum 28 days paid annual leave, it is at the employers discretion as to whether bank holidays are included in this allowance or paid extra.

 

So, after a protracted exchange, and a rather superfluous tour around employment law history, are we all agreed that, in fact, Donna was correct? :-)

 

 

 

[BGD]

Enough.

 

I simply cannot be arsed to keep explaining the actual law yet again.

 

Read my earlier post. That is in fact the law in the UK, regardless of what Donna or Robinhood would have you believe.

Sorry if it's boringly complex. But Employment Law is very, very complex. It is not simple. It is not at all easy.

 

 

 

Donna is wrong on this.

 

Robinhood has quoted handbooks/other sources rather than demonstrating any core understanding of the underlying Statute and Regulations, and their effects on Common Law employment contract terms.

 

 

To anyone else who employs people in the UK I can only say: choose which explanation of the law to follow with great care.

Because despite what Robinhood asserts, it really does matter that the 28 days is made up of the original 20 days, plus 8 further days in recognition of there being 8 Bank holidays.

He would have you believe that it is simply "28 days" without any further qualifying detailed definition. I can only say again, that this is wrong in law.

 

Goodnight.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2011-07-02 12:59 AM

Sorry if it's boringly complex. But Employment Law is very, very complex. It is not simple. It is not at all easy

 

 

Off topic :D.............but could not agree more.........The public sector has made employing staff so complicated *-).......simple fellows like me, can not be bothered......although I did try for a while *-)

[Big Momma]

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 9:15 PM

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 8:01 PM

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 7:51 PM

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 7:12 PM  What is all this about before tax, they still take £60 a month more than they are curently taking *-) So the wage £24,000 p.a. after the increase is £23,280 (

Pension contributions are, if memory serves, not subject to tax and N.I. If an extra £60 a month is taken from your salary the net cost will be more like £40 a month, which seems a small price to pay to eventually collect a pension that will still be better than the average in the private sector. It's a good deal as £60 a month goes into your pension pot but it's only costing you £40 per month.

1. Sorry, still do not understand. If 3% of £24,000 is £720 / 12 = £60 pm then they are surely going to take £720 from the £24,000 ie. £60 a month ????2. The £24,000 is for the purpose of the example a hypothetical figure. I can assure you, there are ordinary people, not fat cats who will lose much more than this, and no I will not stand and hold my breath until I see you shed a tear ;-)

Let's assume that your taxable income after your allowances etc. is £20,000 p.a.  On that you will pay 20% income tax (£4000) and employees' National Insurance contribution of 12% or £2400. Thus your total deductions are £6400 leaving you with a net salary of £13600.

So you now decide to pay a further £60 a month or £720 a year in pension contributions. These are deducted before tax and N.I. so your taxable income is now based not on £20,000 p.a. but on £19280 per annum. On this you pay 20% tax and 12% N.I. a total of £6169.60.

You will see that, despite £720 being taken from your salary, your tax bill is now £230.40 less.

So instead of taking home a net salary of £13600, you are taking home £20,000 minus your extra £720 pension contribution, which is £19280, from which you have tax and N.I. of £6169.60 leaving you £13110.40. Your take home pay has been reduced from £13600 to £13110.40 which is £489.60 or £40.80 per month.

So as I said, £60 a month is being added to your pension pot but because it is deducted before tax it is only actually costing you £40.80 per month in real money!

I have purposefully kept this simple and omitted personal allowances etc. as they make no difference to my calculations, which is why I have talked about your taxable income. Of course if your taxable income is £20,000, your actual income would be a lot more because of the several thousand pounds personal allowance.

By Jove, I think Iv'e got it !! :D Many thanks for the explanation Francis

[postnote]

Let's get back to the Victorian days when workers had no rights, they were lucky and privileged just to employed.

How can a company owner make money these days? *-)

[Brian Kirby]

Big Momma - 2011-07-02 11:02 AM...............................................By Jove, I think I've got it !! :D Many thanks for the explanation Francis

 

So, because Eric is a nice guy, and Francis took the time to explain what I was trying to get at, without getting on his high horse, or going all didactic, an issue is resolved in peace.

 

Now, if only the protagonists over minimum paid leave could have conducted their discussion in the same vein. If, (without favour, or implied criticism, of any of the individuals involved) instead of resorting to needless assertions of expertise and experience, they had politely and gently asked, probed, and suggested, no-one need have been made to look embarrassingly uninformed, no-one need have got ratty, and the rest of us need not have been treated to quite such a protracted discussion as to whether the minimum entitlement to paid leave for full time UK employees is 28 days, 20 days + 8 days, or 8 days + 20 days. The subject under discussion was, after all, strike sympathy (guilty of OT as charged! :-)), and not days paid leave and, as days paid leave was not part of the reason for the strikes, it wasn't even remotely connected to the subject in hand.

 

OK, I know, I'm not the bleedin' forum policeman! But still..........................................:-D

[Bulletguy]

Big Momma - 2011-07-01 6:21 PM

They were the days eh ! You say they were retired so your examples are quite pointless when we are talking about the here and now. If you want to start comparisons on historical events then I am sure there are lots of choice examples when those in the Private Sector also had it good *-)

Then if you want the reality of the "here and now" as you put it, EVERYONE is having to work longer, suffer pay freezes and see their pension dwindling to subsistence level.

 

Or do you believe Teachers qualify for some special kind of exemption from these horrors of everyday reality suffered by people on a fraction of their income and benefits?

[Mel B]

Well, I've just got a letter today about my pension scheme, with the following changes coming into force from 1 October 2011:

 

1. the scheme will retain pensions based on final salaries

2. the payments are going to be raised from 6.35% to 7.5%

3. the age at which members can draw their pension, without it being reduced for early payment, will rise from 63.5 to 65 for pensions built up from service after 1/10/11

4. increases on pensions built up from service after 1/10/11 will be linked to CPI inflation (rather than RPI inflation) and subject to a maximum yearly increase of 2.5%.

 

Existing pension amounts accrued before 1/10/11 have the following yearly increase:

- amounts accrued before 6/4/97 increase by a fixed 3% per year

- amounts accured since 5/4/97 up to 1/2/05 receive increases in line with RPI up to a max of 5% per year and a min of 3% per year

- amounts accrued after 31/1/05 to 30/9/11 receive increases in line with RPI.

 

Age at which members can draw their pension without it being reduced for early payment is:

- 60 for benefits accrued before 31/1/05 (thank goodness!)

- 63.5 for benefits accured from 1/2/05 to 30/9/11

- 65 for benefits from 1/10/11 (fortunately not an issue)

 

So, I'm going to be worse off, not by much admittedly, but I ain't gonna go on strike about it!

[Big Momma]

Bulletguy - 2011-07-02 1:46 PM

 

Oooooh taken to shouting now have we *-) I just pointed out that you were using examples that were hardly relevant as your 'freinds', now retired, were obviously not part of the modern education regime so you, and I take it that you have no first hand knowledge of today's education environment, were, in my opinion, making irrelevant comparisons on the way things are in schools today based on the way things were in your freinds time. This was not about how much they got in their pension pot but more generally their hours of work and long lunches, they must have been the good old days when teachers were generally well respected, or feared :D

 

I do not see the point of getting all hot and bothered about any of this, why worry about something that you have no power to influence the outcome (not even strikes will do that). We all have a view, an opinion, and it is good to have a lively discussion but let's be honest, what is the point of falling out with each other when at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what we say as what will be will be.

 

Hope the sun is shining wherever you are and enjoy the rest of what is left of the weekend :D