Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

DCodd wrote: »

I agree that the Unions have a political agenda as well, a situation that tends to fan the flames of any dispute. I also agree that there are many sets of figures that can be banded around to "prove" one point or another. However this is a numbers issue and the rational behind these propsed cuts are entirely based on data sets and so the figures are, in this case the be all and end all.

The ONS report on Private DB pension schemes indicates that the only DB schemes in the Private sector in 2010 that were showing a surplus are, ironicaly the 1400+ active ones, with the closed ones (being the majority) showing a deficit. However that deficit has gone from £148bn to £68bn due to the change from RPI to CPI. Which suggests that the change from RPI to CPI and an increase of contributions for all to 6.8% (LPGS level) would suffice in the Public Sector, especially if the Government maintained their contributions at 14.1%. Just to draw a comparison, the average employee contribution in the active DB private pension schemes is less than 6% and employer contributions over 15%.

In these remaining DB private schemes what is the age at which pensions can be taken?

Another interesting point is that the liabilities of underfunded private schemes are covered by the pension protection fund (PPF) which was set up by the government. But even this does not pay out from government funds but is from a levy on occupational salary related schemes.

rachelhen

Not sure if anyone has made the point that the strike will actually save the councils a big chunk of funds in unpaid wages for the day which hopefully will be recycled to the most needy .

dshart

rachelhen wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has made the point that the strike will actually save the councils a big chunk of funds in unpaid wages for the day which hopefully will be recycled to the most needy .

And it will cost twice as much in overtime etc to catch up on the backlog. No one gains from strikes.

Koicarp

dshart wrote: »

Are you saying that the deficit in public sector pensions is down solely to the armed services scheme? If so then they should bear the brunt of the changes. But I am sure it is not just the armed services.

The government may be able to take some measures to manipulate future pension costs and that is what I believe they are trying to do with the proposed changes, but as with all DB schemes it is hard to work out the true cost as there are so many variables in the equation and the liabilities extend so far into the future. The government may set pay rates, staff numbers and pension contributions but in all these matters they are opposed by the unions who are fighting for higher pay, less job cuts and higher pensions. I'm not saying they shouldnt fight for these things, but it means that these are not totally under the government control as they have to negotiate.

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not saying deficit in pensions is solely down to the armed forces scheme- I've already stated that there was 3.1bn paid from the treasury to the four largest schemes- though it seems from figures elsewhere in Hutton that 3 of the 4 pay in more than they pay out. Elsewhere Hutton states that the armed forces scheme pays out 1.8bn more than is paid in.
For the rest of us, under the current cap and share arrangements all that has to happen to balance the books (if there is a problem) is the government value the scheme, then lets us know how much more we have to pay in- the employers contribution is fixed where it is now (14%). For some reason the government doesn't want to use these arrangements.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not saying deficit in pensions is solely down to the armed forces scheme- I've already stated that there was 3.1bn paid from the treasury to the four largest schemes- though it seems from figures elsewhere in Hutton that 3 of the 4 pay in more than they pay out. Elsewhere Hutton states that the armed forces scheme pays out 1.8bn more than is paid in.
For the rest of us, under the current cap and share arrangements all that has to happen to balance the books (if there is a problem) is the government value the scheme, then lets us know how much more we have to pay in- the employers contribution is fixed where it is now (14%). For some reason the government doesn't want to use these arrangements.

So the way you read the figures in Hutton's report the 4 largest schemes have a deficit of £3.1bn, but 3 of these pay more in than goes out. By my maths that means one of the 4 has a deficit in excess of £3.1bn and that should seriously be looked into. Any idea which scheme it is?

Regarding the cap and share arrangements, I am not aware of the full details of them, but maybe the government realises that the amount they would have to ask you to pay in would be totally unacceptable. I don't know, and I agree they should publish more figures and let us know the true mess the country's finances are in.

hugheskevi

In these remaining DB private schemes what is the age at which pensions can be taken?

1.5m members at age 65
0.5m members at age 60
0.1m between age 61-64

Source: Occupational Pension Scheme Survey 2010, figure 3.19

dshart

hugheskevi wrote: »

1.5m members at age 65
0.5m members at age 60
0.1m between age 61-64

Source: Occupational Pension Scheme Survey 2010, figure 3.19

Interesting how majority of private sertor workers in DB schemes cannot take them till aged 65, yet the public sector workers are arguing against a similar change.

Backbiter

dshart wrote: »

So the way you read the figures in Hutton's report the 4 largest schemes have a deficit of £3.1bn, but 3 of these pay more in than goes out. By my maths that means one of the 4 has a deficit in excess of £3.1bn and that should seriously be looked into. Any idea which scheme it is?

Regarding the cap and share arrangements, I am not aware of the full details of them, but maybe the government realises that the amount they would have to ask you to pay in would be totally unacceptable. I don't know, and I agree they should publish more figures and let us know the true mess the country's finances are in.

The fact that they won't value the schemes is at the very heart of this dispute, and makes public sector workers question the credibility and integrity of the negotiations. Government spokesman have made all manner of false claims aimed at misleading the public over this, when there is already an agreement in place since 2007 that contributions should rise to cover any shortfall in the schemes.

I genuinely believe these strikes could have been avoided if the Government had acted honestly in their negotiations, but they have not. It takes a spectacularly inept and vindictive Government to unite such a wide spectrum of employees.

Moby

Backbiter wrote: »

The fact that they won't value the schemes is at the very heart of this dispute, and makes public sector workers question the credibility and integrity of the negotiations. Government spokesman have made all manner of false claims aimed at misleading the public over this, when there is already an agreement in place since 2007 that contributions should rise to cover any shortfall in the schemes.

I genuinely believe these strikes could have been avoided if the Government had acted honestly in their negotiations, but they have not. It takes a spectacularly inept and vindictive Government to unite such a wide spectrum of employees.

Good point. I have been close to these so called 'negotiations' and it is clear this Government has been cynical and disingenuous. This will be the first of a series of such strikes due to the vindictive industrial relations approach taken. Even the 'moderate' new Labour man Alan Johnson accepts this!
For those of you still banging on about whether we can afford it....anyone listen to the news today about a new injection of cash into BAE systems.... 110 million of tax payers money to pay for 3000 redundancies! I thought BAE was run by shareholders????. Talking about BAE....remember our defence budget is huge!..... another thought to bear in mind when they slash our pensions :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Where there is a will there is a way it seems!

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

In these remaining DB private schemes what is the age at which pensions can be taken?

Another interesting point is that the liabilities of underfunded private schemes are covered by the pension protection fund (PPF) which was set up by the government. But even this does not pay out from government funds but is from a levy on occupational salary related schemes.

64 - 65 depending on scheme.

But a levy is a tax, it may be a specific tax but it is a tax.