AFTER rightly deploring "some blinkered radicals who will support Labour because their parents did," M. Ovett (Letters, December 16) proves to be just as politically tribal with blanket comments on the last government, public sector pensions and the Unison membership.

Complex issues like politics, the business of government and, in the present case, the pension problem require more unravelling than the kneejerk blaming of everything on the last government.

First, there are several public sector pension funds, some more than adequate, some insufficient unless changes are made to contractual arrangements.

Second, many unions are involved in defending their members pension rights, covering diverse occupations including refuse collection, medicine, forensic science, teaching, librarianship and many more.

Third, salary and pension comparisons between the public and private sectors are meaningless unless done on a credible like-for-like basis. Some private companies provide very good salaries and pension schemes (I speak from experience) – many do not. But remember that company contributions to private pensions are also paid in part by us all, through prices rather than taxes.

Fourth, public sector workers pay taxes too and so contribute twice to their pensions.

Rather than resentful attempts to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers we should be thinking: what jobs are necessary; within which sector they are most appropriately done; whether the wages and salaries are fair; and instead of envying some public sector pension schemes, pressing for better private sector pensions in areas where the present ones are wretched or non-existent.

It is true that adjustments must be made to some public sector arrangements; unions do in fact recognise this. But it is also true that unions exist to stand up for their members and to negotiate for them. That's why members pay their dues and why many gave up a day's pay to protest at some of the features of the present proposals, at misrepresentations by some Ministers, and at the Government's apparent intent to use any savings achieved by pension changes to reduce an increasing deficit rather than focus resources on getting young people into work.

One rather obvious way of providing job opportunities for young people is not to force those heading for retirement age to work longer!

– David Norman, Longhope.