Boxed in

It is difficult at the moment to listen to the news without some comment on unions, strikes, pensions or public sector.  I listen with interest at the various reports and am amazed by some of the figures that are bandied about.  The amount paid into the pension scheme was mentioned as being 3.5% to 6%.  The focus seemed mainly to be on those paying 3.5% and noting that in the end they would receive a great deal less money.  Before retiring, I worked for over 26 years for the local Government, part of the recognised public sector.  In all my years there, I paid 5% at the beginning but rising to 6%, which I paid until I retired.  I don't know where reporters get the final amount of pension from but my total works pension after paying for a quarter of a century is about half of the amount of loss talked about.  Thinking of this incredible amount of loss, I wonder what their actual pension will be and just who has this sort of pension deal?

Photo taken on the day of the strike this week

It is not my intention to debate the rights or wrongs of the situation or play the blame game but it irritates me when all public sector workers are lumped together as being the same, when I know that home helps, dinner ladies, refuse collectors, sheltered housing workers, cleaners and many more get no way near the figures that are mentioned in the news items.  Many are on very low rates of pay.


Sadly we seem to hear a word or phrase and have a preconceived idea of those we connect with such words.  We talk about bankers in derogatory terms but not everyone who works in the banking system is in receipt of huge wage increases or bonuses.  Those working in High Street branches don't actually receive an increase in pay or a bonus if their targets have not been met.  Those are set of course by others at higher management level.  We need to recognise that the part of banking that led to the current financial situation has more to do with investment banking and private equity firms (those faceless, untouchable, unreachable people in the upper echelons of the financial world) and not those in the local High Street branch.

We have a similar reaction to investigative journalism.  Sadly those connected to a few newspapers have tainted our perception of all investigative journalists.  But many important discoveries of malpractice or bad laws have only been uncovered because of those who have spent time looking into things like sex trafficking, bad treatment of the elderly or vulnerable, unscrupulous moneylenders, cruelty to children or animals ... ... and so we could go on.

Not all unemployed people are lazy and not all those receiving benefits are scroungers ... ... and we could go on ... ...  So why is it that we want to categorise people - everyone must be put in a box - public servant, banker, journalist etc?  


This ranting post is really to say - let's stop prejudging with uninformed, preconceived criticism and recognise that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush.  Usually those reported on are only a few and the rest of said group are largely innocent of the complaints made against them. In the end, modern living in the 21st century would be very difficult, even impossible, without those working in public services, the High Street Bank or media reporting.  Whilst we need to address wrong situations and practices that arise and recognise the guilty ones, not all working in these fields are bad so don't let's put them all together in a big box labelled 'unsavoury characters'  We need maturity in distinguishing one from the other.


Rant over!!!