Moving a Royal Mail pension

lvader

hyubh wrote: »

Give us examples of this 'lying'. Go on, you can do it. Can't you...?

This is so easy.

The government wants firefighters and other public sector workers to pay more, work longer and still get less for our pensions. The FBU says this is daylight robbery.

hyubh

lvader wrote: »

This is so easy.

The government wants firefighters and other public sector workers to pay more, work longer and still get less for our pensions. The FBU says this is daylight robbery.

And? See my comments about the FBU position on a previous thread, if you can be arsed.

lvader

Clearly this isn't daylight robbery and such emotive terms leads people to think they are being robbed by staying in their current scheme and would be much better off out of it. Unions know people are opting out but are doing nothing to make sure people don't commit financial suicide as a result of their poor advice.

grey_gym_sock

"daylight robbery" is a metaphor, not a lie.

are the bits about paying more, working longer, and getting less true? (i don't know the details, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were accurate.)

rpc

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

are the bits about paying more, working longer, and getting less true? (i don't know the details, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were accurate.)

It depends what you mean by "getting less." The pension per annum is reducing a little, but the total pension paid is likely to be more than it was. The problem is that all these public sector workers (just like their private sector colleagues) just aren't dying like they are supposed to. They have the nerve to live a long and happy retirement, when they really should pop their clogs at 70-75. Totally irresponsible of them.

In the private sector, the employees usually fund this additional longevity. It is easy to show the costs because either you are in a DC pension and you see annuity rates drop or you are in a DB pension and the actuary tells you there aren't enough assets (there is usually a settlement where the deficit is split between employees and employers).

The public sector employees would rather the taxpayer fund the whole cost of their additional pensions. It is usually couched as a "promise" that was made when they started work but they were also "promised" that their mean life expectancy would be shorter than it actually is.

Either contributions needed to increase a lot, or the retirement date needed pushed back a lot or the annual pension needed decreased a lot. The govt has gone for a little of all three to reduce the impact.

grey_gym_sock

thanks. that's a fair summary of the reasons for modifying public sector pensions. though i'm not sure that anybody was told they were expected not to live for too long!

on the FBU quote, i'd say that gives us 1 ambiguity (about "getting less"), and 1 very emotive metaphor ("daylight robbery"). but no actual lying.

quotememiserable

hyubh wrote: »

Give us examples of this 'lying'. Go on, you can do it. Can't you...?

Really, its easy. Most of the unions have been telling their members they will 'lose their pension' 'halve their pension' and all sorts of rhetoric that's simply untrue. Either they do this to whip up anger and keep themselves important, or else they just don't understand the issues. Either way, inexcusible.

grey_gym_sock

so how about a direct quote, with source?

hyubh

rpc wrote: »

The public sector employees would rather the taxpayer fund the whole cost of their additional pensions.

Your supposed distinction between public and private sector is really a distinction between funded and unfunded schemes. While deficits in the LGPS (i.e., the main public sector funded scheme) indeed largely fall on employers (though frankly, they do in the private sector too, unless you have any stats to the contrary), contribution rates are such that a short-term employer is unlikely to accrue deficits in the first place.

hyubh

quotememiserable wrote: »

Really, its easy. Most of the unions have been telling their members they will 'lose their pension' 'halve their pension' and all sorts of rhetoric that's simply untrue.

For a person in the old police or old firefighter scheme and who doesn't come under the transitional protections, it is not 'simply untrue' at all. Does that mean closing those schemes is wrong? In my view no, however I don't blame the unions/employee organisations involved when they kick up a fuss - that's what they are supposed to be doing, standing up for their members.