NHS Pension

atush

They seem to believe the unions are telling people to leave public sector pensions scheme. Evidence please?

But then again many of these posters struggle with evidence of Hutton.

What the unions are telling their members is the impact of the proposed changes are dramatically reducing their benefits. A fact.

The evidnece is in the posts of workers who have been told and I quote "your pension will be worth nothing, your pension will be rubbish".

we/I have no printed evidence of this, as we aren't memebers of the schemes nor do we have acess to the break rooms where there are posters. What we do have here are members of a still very good FS scheme (like the OP) considering Leaving due to the verbal spoutings of their unions during breatk times etc at work. It is crazy to do this, but the unions want industrial action, they don't really care a whole lot that some might opt out of a still good (if not fantastic) scheme.

This upsets me greatly as when I voted in the USA I was/am a registered Democrat and they are like labour- tied to the unions. I am really beginning to think that the unions don't really care about their members, just their own power.

Loughton_Monkey

Ironically, I have just returned from a "Pensioners' Lunch" for a company I once worked for. All of us - by definition - enjoying our Final Salary pensions by now. But new entrants don't get it!

Having a large Gin & Tonic once home, I found myself watching ITV's 'Tonight' about 'working' but it was primarily about pensions. Jonathan Maitland asked a youngish girl what she thought State Pensions pay per week. She estimated £2,000 a week, but admitted she really doesn't know!

And here we have yet another post from someone in a Final Salary Scheme not only believeing that the contributions would be better spend elsewhere, but that pensions are not worth it because it will deny benefits!!!!

Goats and Monkeys!

I get more exasperated about this general situation, than I should - because I guess I will be long gone by the time most of the 20's to 40's retire. But I do feel sorry for the general mass of honest and prudent working people who do accept intelligent responsibility for their lives. Those younger ones are rapidly going to bear a burden like we have never seen before.

I'm thinking of a responsible 30-ish couple who, let's be fair, are struggling to keep their own pension provision up, but meanwhile are taxed heavily for the increasing proportion of those who don't work. That's bad enough. Move on a few years, and this burden continues, plus having to shell out additional benefits for those who did work, but saved nothing, and scream blue murder because they can't live on £130 a week!

I get stronger in my view that each year, everyone should receive a very clear message with their P60's giving, perhaps, a headline state pension forecast, together with a 'lifetime earnings to date' and a 'guideline' estimate of what amount their private pension 'should' be by now. At least upon retirement on basic state pensions, there would be adequate paperwork to prove that they have been warned about 40 times!

jackyann

Although I do think that the OP is probably one of the last in the Final Salary Scheme, it is has stopped. Average earning are what applies now.
Won't make much differences to nurses like myself who got to the position of responsibility that suited them within 5 years of qualifying and stayed there for 35 years because they liked working with people instead of paper-pushing & attending meetings.

jamesd

You're probably one of those who will benefit from the change to average earnings. The biggest potential losers are those who finish at incomes well above their average income. The change switches some of the money that would be paid to them to the more average earners instead.

atush

I agree with James. It was my understanding that the new system was brought in to stop those few who rise to the top and higher pay levels (many over 100K) getting a hugh boost to their pension just because they spent the last 5-10 years as a bureaucrat. Taking those high salaries out of the equation will make the PS pensions more affordable for a longer period.

It should not have such an effect on workers like Jackie who rose quickly then stayed in post for 35 years.

hugheskevi

It is a bit partial to discuss the change from final-salary to career average in isolation, when multiple other changes are being undertaken at the same.

In general, a career average structure would favour those with a flat earnings profile as has been said.

But without knowing more about NRA (seems to be State Pension age, so detrimental compared to current scheme), uprating (accruals might be uprated to earnings to retirement, and indexed by CPI in retirement), accrual rate (no serious discussion of this yet) and employee contribution rate (also unclear) it is very difficult to make comparisons about how people may be affected relative to the current system.

paparossco

Lack of info from union? Yes! Why? Still in negotiations with the government. Only wee Danny likes to make pronouncements before they are concluded. Once we now the detail I would expect more info to be made available.

atush

Only wee Danny likes to make pronouncements before they are concluded.

Oh please, dont' be stupid. We have already had one strike while negotiations were still ongoing with one union. Dont' try that one on.

i swear, some of you guys are living in a bubble.

Spirit_2

jackyann wrote: »

Although I do think that the OP is probably one of the last in the Final Salary Scheme, it is has stopped. Average earning are what applies now.
Won't make much differences to nurses like myself who got to the position of responsibility that suited them within 5 years of qualifying and stayed there for 35 years because they liked working with people instead of paper-pushing & attending meetings.

Longstanding NHS staff could opt to retain the final salary scheme. Based on best of last 3 years. The newer scheme is not career average but an average of (3 consecutive..i think) best years in the last 10 years.

jamesd

Spirit, then that's something that members may wish to discuss with their unions. I don't see a lot of value in most members having to pay large subsidies to those who earn high pay for only a few years. Within limits, the longer the averaging system gets, the more fair it is to the average employee. The limits bit means to give some reasonable chance to benefit from a promotion that lasts a long time - say the last 15 or so years, no great harm in using the last 15 years instead of say all of a 45 year career. The biggest harm to the average employees comes from promotions that greatly boost pay but for only a few years.