Government U-Turn or Pragmatism?

IronWolf

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

If you dont like it, either leave the UK or get the qualifications to get a job with a final salary scheme. Until then,

SUCK IT UP! :rotfl:

Im happy with my pension, I didn't state otherwise. I'm not happy about people doing the same job as me getting a much better pension just because they joined a few years earlier.

And I don't want to be a teacher, or a nurse/doctor

Going4TheDream

IronWolf wrote: »

Everyone entering the public sector now is put on the average salary scheme. Yet there are plenty remaining on final salary purely by the luck of when they were born.

How is this fair? I think its grossly unfair to the younger people in the public sector (like me) and the reason I left my union who were fighting this particular change.

Unless I am being dim I fail to see how this is unfair.

This kind of thing or worse has been happening for the past 10 odd years or more in the private sector. It happened in the Company I worked for and recently have they even closed their FSP for existing members.

My understanding is that when you accept a job you accept it based on the terms and conditions being offered and not on what might have been the case a number of years ago.

J_i_m

I think you'll find that those of us who work in nursing will find it difficult to strike, I haven't voted, but that's more down to a personal Cockup with my union membership.

Yet it'd be very difficult for me to strike from my work place weather I wanted to or not.

IronWolf

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Unless I am being dim I fail to see how this is unfair.

This kind of thing or worse has been happening for the past 10 odd years or more in the private sector. It happened in the Company I worked for and recently have they even closed their FSP for existing members.

My understanding is that when you accept a job you accept it based on the terms and conditions being offered and not on what might have been the case a number of years ago.

By that logic we should never have tackled the gender pay gap, because women accepted the terms of the job even though they were paid less than men.

Going4TheDream

IronWolf wrote: »

By that logic we should never have tackled the gender pay gap, because women accepted the terms of the job even though they were paid less than men.

Unlike the right to equal pay the right to have an FSP was never a legal requirement, merely a 'benefit' companies offered to make them more attractive to potential employees.

Companies are obliged to offer the same pay across gender but not the same 'benefits' and it is clear that the unsustainable cost of maintaining such benefits is that they have now all but disappeared to new employees

Turnbull2000

I warned earlier this year that cowardly Cameron and his government of bottlers would back down.

Wookster

These pea-brained unions need to come back to planet earth.

Either that, or a dose of Thatcherite union smashing.

Joe_Bloggs

This may be an aside to a potential pension contribution settlement.

Pension funds and their trustees must be in change of trillions worth of assets. Is there evidence that they do anything constructive for their future pensioners and the economy in which these future pensioners will earn their pension contributions ?

In the past certain companies were described as a pension fund that has the main business as a sideline. It is not uncommon for foreign owned pension firms to take over businesses.

J_B.

IronWolf

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Unlike the right to equal pay the right to have an FSP was never a legal requirement, merely a 'benefit' companies offered to make them more attractive to potential employees.

Companies are obliged to offer the same pay across gender but not the same 'benefits' and it is clear that the unsustainable cost of maintaining such benefits is that they have now all but disappeared to new employees

Companies ARE obliged to offer the same benefits across genders, you think that companies can get away with men only non-salary benefits these days?

I have no problem with FSP being closed, but it's not fair to close schemes to new members while allowing existing members to continue to accrue rights under the FS scheme. Almost all companies in the private sector have stopped FS accrual altogether.

Under the public sector pension arrangements its the tax payer that's paying for the continuing accrual of FSP, which is fine as long as the bill doesn't spiral out of control. But if the pension bill where to be stabilised it would mean FS accruers were benefiting at the expense of the average salary accruers, as if everyone was on the same scheme the average salary scheme could afford better terms under the same budget. So again, how is that fair?

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

A bit of deflation would be very nice, thank you.

I asssume you are retired and don't actually need a job.