Osborne’s attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity

Dave Prentis is the General Secretary of UNISON, Britain’s biggest public sector trade union with more than 1.3 million members

Andrew-Lansley UNISON’s campaign against the government’s plans for public sector workers got an unexpected boost this weekend, when it was revealed health secretary Andrew Lansley had written a five page letter to George Osborne’s Treasury, warning about the dangers of his own government’s proposals.

Even Tory ministers are waking up to how unjust, unreasonable and unworkable their plans are – plans to make public sector workers pay more, work longer and get less when they retire. Mr Lansley helpfully echoed UNISON’s concerns by pointing out the proposals were “inappropriate” and “unrealistic”, and would hit women particularly hard.

From the word go, UNISON has been warning people will leave the schemes if they are forced to pay more in contributions – another Mr that Lansley gave his backing to. Health workers and local government staff already pay between five and eight percent of their salary into their pension. Stuck on a pay freeze and with inflation high, it would be impossible for many to afford more.

The best deal for the taxpayer are decent schemes that allow workers to put some of their wages aside, together with a contribution from their employers – giving them enough money to stay out of poverty in their retirement. The alternative if workers opt out is a whopping means tested benefit for the taxpayer – placing a huge burden on the public purse.

And the taxpayer is already set to pay a heavy price to support those who haven’t saved, or have been locked out of saving for their retirement. Today, UNISON warns of a huge potential benefits bill to support up to 15 million private sector workers who are not in a workplace pension to which their employer contributes. This could mean they are forced to rely on benefit top ups paid for by the taxpayer when they retire – an average bill to the taxpayer of £15,000.

Thanks to our campaigning the facts are starting to cut through the fog of misinformation that has clouded much of the public sector pensions debate. The evidence shows the schemes are affordable and sustainable for the long term – a fact proved decisively by independent experts the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).

Thanks to a thorough renegotiation in 2008, £2 billion more comes in than goes out of the health scheme each year. This money goes directly to the Treasury coffers – not to pensions, so any contribution rise or cost saving plan is simply a money raising exercise to plug the deficit. And if the cost of the health workers scheme goes up, it will have to be picked up by health workers themselves – the employers’ contribution is already capped.

The local government scheme is in good shape too – it is a funded scheme that is cash rich, and could afford to pay all its liabilities for the next 20 years without one single penny more in contributions. It invests hugely in the economy – and has investments that are worth a whopping 12% of UK GDP – something its critics seem to conveniently forget.

People are waking up to the reality that public sector pensions are far from gold plated. The average pension in local government is around £4,000, for women £2,800 – or £56 a week. In the NHS the average is £7,500 – higher because of doctors and consultants pensions, and for women again about £3,000 - Mr Lansley is right to warn that women will be hit hardest, and many of them are relatively low paid.

Our campaign to get the facts across will keep running throughout the summer as the talks continue.

We are now in scheme-specific negotiations, and whilst we are hoping for the best, we are planning for the worst. If the talks fail, or the ‘offer’ that finally emerges is inadequate, we will ballot 1.2 million of our 1.4 million members for what will be sustained industrial action – a huge undertaking. We know that one day of action will not be enough – a march or a rally won’t cut it – our action will have to be for a longer period of time to get the government to change its damaging course.

Our position in fighting for these pensions is clear - the attacks are based on ideology, not necessity – let’s hope the government falls for the facts, not the fiction, and adds its weight to the campaign for decent pensions for all workers – whether they are in the public or the private sector.

http://twitter.com/andyfree/status/95528098665218049 Andrew Freeman

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
http://twitter.com/williamdewhurst/status/95528134983688192 William Dewhurst

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
http://twitter.com/therightarticle/status/95528536512790528 Michael

Osborne’s attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity l Dave Prentis l Left Foot Forward – http://tinyurl.com/4x4eccb
http://twitter.com/unisonleicspol/status/95529979739242499 Chris Hanrahan

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://t.co/cALBhZa writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
http://twitter.com/caer23/status/95530929774272512 Caer

RT @leftfootfwd Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://t.co/oVQA6vR writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis.
http://twitter.com/deardaveandnick/status/95532439023271936 Bern O’Donoghue

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://t.co/Vmzid4O writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
http://twitter.com/nhsspy/status/95533800477560833 Watching You

Osborne’s attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity l Dave Prentis l Left Foot Forward – http://tinyurl.com/4x4eccb
http://twitter.com/vcofknowsley/status/95537036810924032 Keith Hudson

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity |… http://lnkd.in/jHUqrq
http://twitter.com/nataliedavids66/status/95551416512421888 Natalie Davids

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: Thanks to our campaigning the facts are star… http://bit.ly/r6JSVw
http://twitter.com/frdragonspouse/status/95556272983781376 Jill Hayward

Osborne’s attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity l Dave Prentis l Left Foot Forward – http://tinyurl.com/4x4eccb
http://twitter.com/unitonehifi/status/95575767227957249 chris star

Osborne’s attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity
http://j.mp/oaDv5D
http://twitter.com/pinkhumanist/status/95588082878906368 Pink Humanist

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://t.co/Vmzid4O writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
http://twitter.com/tabacaria/status/95605432814534656 Jose Aguiar

RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/fgSQlvA
http://twitter.com/cllrkrichards/status/95608224597811200 Kevin Richards

RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/sgKoq38
Mr. Sensible

Fully agree Dave; the government has to this point made a mess of nigociations on this issue. Lets see if Lansley forces a listening exercise on it…
http://twitter.com/benfolley/status/95781794615525376 Ben Folley

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/HGIh4re via @leftfootfwd @unisontweets
http://twitter.com/joyless60/status/95784088702681088 Joy Johnson

RT @benfolley: Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/HGIh4re via @leftfootfwd @unisontweets
http://twitter.com/unisontweets/status/95800286911803392 UNISON – the union

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/unisontweets/status/95800646661439488 UNISON – the union

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
http://twitter.com/unisoncommvol/status/95800725988315136 UNISONCommVolSector

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/cretinate/status/95801157343117312 Aaron Chandra

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
http://twitter.com/mr_pukeko/status/95804766738845696 Matt Jeffs

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/mitchfootball/status/95805979542822912 michelle England

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/thetallygraph/status/95806635590688768 The Edditer

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
http://twitter.com/tillio2/status/95807793692540928 Phillip Tilley

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/nextgenlab/status/95811443261313024 NextGenerationLabour

Dave Prentis: "Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity" http://bit.ly/puxc8q via @leftfootfwd @unisontweets
http://twitter.com/lsamms/status/95812359741898752 Lenny Samms

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
Neil Mc

Just about everything the Tories do is based on a particularly nasty form of ideology, which the vast majority of the electorate rejected but which a grossly unfair 19th century electoral system allows them to get away with.
http://twitter.com/sophiemadden/status/95826074142908416 Sophie Madden

RT @leftfootfwd: Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/5DNUStl
http://twitter.com/steroper/status/95831036222644224 ste roper

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/coventryunison/status/95845718329278465 Coventry Unison

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
http://twitter.com/mentorandsons/status/95854252123099137 Mentor&Sons

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/PBKMsBv #work #graduate #online #news #jobs
http://twitter.com/uk_graduatejobs/status/95856280727588864 Graduate Jobs UK

RT @mentorandsons Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity http://t.co/PBKMsBv #work #graduate #online #news #jobs
http://twitter.com/staffsunison/status/95874155848798208 Staffordshire UNISON

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://bit.ly/q5GwdH writes Gen Sec Dave Prentis via @leftfootfwd
http://twitter.com/nobiggovduh/status/95899347895590912 NoBigGovDuh

Osborne's attacks on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity: http://t.co/Vmzid4O writes @UNISONtweets Gen Sec Dave Prentis
simon richards

I hope we are serious about sustained industrial action to fight this unjustified attack on public servants. Targeted action by a small number of colleagues in a few key services, who can be compensated from the Fighting Fund, will quickly paralyse councils and make this government sit up and take notice.
http://twitter.com/twttimestop/status/96166402133729281 Tweeted Times Top

Osborne's attacks on pensions are bas…: http://goo.gl/umU03 most discussed on @danhurlbut/politics (http://goo.gl/HrPWt)
http://twitter.com/boffchops/status/96364096575909889 Jay Thompson

Osborne's attack on pensions are based on ideology, not necessity, writes Dave Prentis. http://fb.me/O1cQrJkq
Andy

One change that could be made to the LGPS which would NOT affect any currently defined benefit but could save millions and millions is… merge ALL the LGPS funds together, so instead of having around 100 independant LGPS funds just have 4 – one for each country. We could get rid of the private actuaries that are employed to administer all those individual funds and employ directly employed people to run our fund, and this would have a dramatic effect on the running costs involved in running the LGPS. Has that been mentioned in negotiations at all? If not it should be introduced ASAP. Anything to protect our scheme.