Government U-Turn or Pragmatism?

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

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

What about retiring at 37 like Option Arm (financed by the public), I wouldn't mind if he shooting his mouth off all the time at people less fortunate

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

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

Either that, or a dose of Thatcherite union smashing.

Interesting, I thought they had already been smashed?

Percy1983

As I youngish person currently on a final salary pension I have no problem moving over to an average salary as I can see why.

But to offer this to people retiring in the next 10 years does bother me, whatever happens it should happen to all of us at the same time.

The fact is all years in the FSP will be protected so instantly the older will be getting a better deal on that front so to give them another 10 years is an insult to the younger amongst us.

pqrdef

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i do like the fact that anyone who retires in the next 10 years will not be affected

Not true. The RPI/CPI change affects everybody. Including people who've retired already.

Going4TheDream

IronWolf wrote: »

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?

Apologies for my bad phrasing...

Yes they have to offer all people irrelevant of gender the same pay and benefits .

But the benefits for new employees will not necessarily be the same benefits as existing employees was what I was trying to say!

With regard to the public sector, I have to agree.

My personal experience in the private sector being that we were advised there was a shortfall in our FSP, we were advised that in year one we would pay 1% extra and in year 2 and ongoing 2% extra. There were no discussions it was as simple as 'if you want to keep this valuable benefit then this is what is required'

For me it is simple - those on public sector FSP should be making higher contributions to cover their shortfall and it shouldn't be done at the expense of others who don't have the same benefits. The fact that they may have been lower paid originally and this benefit compensated it no longer holds water I feel.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point!