NHS pension anxieties...any thoughts?

Dr_Wu

Thanks for all the replies. Even the replies antagonistic to those in the public sector scheme. It's a valid opinion and who knows, if my career had taken a different path my own viewpoint would inevitably be different too.

This topic stirs up strong emotions on both sides so lets not turn it into a slagging match!

Cheers

Steve

bendix

Wishful thinking from marklv. A drastic reform of public sector pension structures will likely form part of both the Conservative and Liberal party manifestos.

I was told by a parnter in a leading Big Four firm with an actuarial practice that they have been briefed by one of the parties (I don't know which) to run models on various reforms, including stopping final salary schemes for new members converting ALL employees rights into money transfer schemes based on actuarial value of current cash value, and a variety of steps in between, including - sorry marklv - keeping all those who have worked more than five years as they are now, and converting more recent joiners to less beneficial arrangements.

oh dear oh dear oh dear . .

marklv

I'm sure lots of models are being studied, but politicians are not accountants or actuaries, they are politicians. And they know full well that drastic changes carry a heavy political cost. We shall see, but my bet is that the most likely change will be to keep existing staff on existing schemes and new joiners on average salary schemes.

bendix

Yes, politicians are politicians. I would imagine they know precisely the political risks (as you call them) are, and will see that more people want reform than don't. They will likely keep the less drastic proposals away from politically sensitive areas like active police or nurses, but the faceless mandarins and pen-pushers will come under severe scrutiny.

1jim

Lets not forget thar one of the reasons public sector pensions are so good is to make puublic sector jobs attractive, most public sector employees would get more pay/benefits working in private companies using same skills....and yes if any government tries to take these pensions away from existing members expect a huge revolt from public sector workers

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Yes, politicians are politicians. I would imagine they know precisely the political risks (as you call them) are, and will see that more people want reform than don't. They will likely keep the less drastic proposals away from politically sensitive areas like active police or nurses, but the faceless mandarins and pen-pushers will come under severe scrutiny.

You keep forgetting the risks of industrial action. All governments hate strikes in the public sector because they impact directly on the public (e.g. student grants and social security benefits not arriving). And when the public gets !!!!ed off the government suffers - remember the 3 day week in 1973 and Ted Heath's defeat the following year. Cameron isn't Thatcher - he is too canny to risk everything on a showdown with the public sector unions.

There are lots and lots of ways to cut public sector spending - pensions is just one area and a really bad area to start imposing changes on. One good idea would be to get rid of overtime in all public sector jobs. Overtime was originally designed to boost the pay of staff on very low salaries - usually manual workers - it is not meant to create nurses and police constables on £100k a year incomes. Time off in lieu should be given instead.

bumpoowee

1jim wrote: »

Lets not forget thar one of the reasons public sector pensions are so good is to make puublic sector jobs attractive, most public sector employees would get more pay/benefits working in private companies using same skills....and yes if any government tries to take these pensions away from existing members expect a huge revolt from public sector workers

Ignoring the other 'fairness' debate.. unfortunately since invariably some part of the public sector is on or threatening strike at any given time there won't be much public sympathy when the 'revolt' inevitably happens.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

You keep forgetting the risks of industrial action. All governments hate strikes in the public sector because they impact directly on the public (e.g. student grants and social security benefits not arriving). And when the public gets !!!!ed off the government suffers - remember the 3 day week in 1973 and Ted Heath's defeat the following year. Cameron isn't Thatcher - he is too canny to risk everything on a showdown with the public sector unions.

There are lots and lots of ways to cut public sector spending - pensions is just one area and a really bad area to start imposing changes on. One good idea would be to get rid of overtime in all public sector jobs. Overtime was originally designed to boost the pay of staff on very low salaries - usually manual workers - it is not meant to create nurses and police constables on £100k a year incomes. Time off in lieu should be given instead.

Normally I'd agree but I think you are totally misjudging the public mood on this type of thing. Most people still work in the private sector and people are getting increasingly annoyed to see private sector wages adn benefits falling and public sector ones increasing.

There will be little sympathy for public sector industrial action. Will it happen? Yes. Will it get wider spread support - hell, no.

You also assume the unions are relevant today. They are not. They are a shadow of what they were in the 1970s. Indeed, they are a public sector throwback - union representation in the private sector is next to negligible.

There is absolutely no chance that union power and public sector strikes will worry Cameron. In fact, I reckon he'd welcome them in the same way Thatcher did. They held a grip over private sector England until the mid-80s, and were destroyed as a result. They will similarly lose their grip over the public sector.

bendix

bumpoowee wrote: »

Ignoring the other 'fairness' debate.. unfortunately since invariably some part of the public sector is on or threatening strike at any given time there won't be much public sympathy when the 'revolt' inevitably happens.

Precisely what I said. The mood of the country is very different these days.

Public sector strikes? Who cares? The days of the public loving teachers and the PR treatment of nurses as 'Angels' has waned. This is no longer 1970s England.

Someone told me the other day the Royal Mail staff had been on strike for several weeks? Really? Noone informed me. I wondered why my Economist subscription was late two weeks ago. By comparison, can you imagine the uproar had the postal service gone on strike ten years ago?

Who cares? Let them strike.

bendix

1jim wrote: »

Lets not forget thar one of the reasons public sector pensions are so good is to make puublic sector jobs attractive, most public sector employees would get more pay/benefits working in private companies using same skills....and yes if any government tries to take these pensions away from existing members expect a huge revolt from public sector workers

We keep hearing this refrain, but it's never backed up with figures. The Office of National Statistics, however, shows the average salaries in the public sector are something like £60-£80 a week than those in the private sector, and the gap is increasing.