We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
TUPEd Civil Servants....
50Twuncle
Posts: 10,763 Forumite
... May be interested in this link
http://www.osborneclarke.co.uk/publications/services/pensions/update/2013/public-sector-pension-reform-fair-deal-guidance.aspx
http://www.osborneclarke.co.uk/publications/services/pensions/update/2013/public-sector-pension-reform-fair-deal-guidance.aspx
0
Comments
-
... May be interested in this link
http://www.osborneclarke.co.uk/publications/services/pensions/update/2013/public-sector-pension-reform-fair-deal-guidance.aspx
What on earth is the penultimate paragraph wittering on about? Here's what the actual Hutton report had to say on the matter:
'Recommendation: It is in principle undesirable for future non-public service workers to have access to public service pension schemes, given the increased long-term risk this places on the Government and taxpayers (Recommendation 16).'
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207720/hutton_final_100311.pdf
If anything, the implication was a recommendation to close off non-public sector access to the LGPS, not extend it to the unfunded schemes.0 -
What on earth is the penultimate paragraph wittering on about? Here's what the actual Hutton report had to say on the matter:
'Recommendation: It is in principle undesirable for future non-public service workers to have access to public service pension schemes, given the increased long-term risk this places on the Government and taxpayers (Recommendation 16).'
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207720/hutton_final_100311.pdf
If anything, the implication was a recommendation to close off non-public sector access to the LGPS, not extend it to the unfunded schemes.
The date is a giveaway - Huttons 'final' report was March 2011
The link that I provided was 07 October 2013.
What I am interested in - is the effects that the "new deal" will have on existing pensioners who were subject to being TUPEd from Civil Service posts already - will they "backdate" any pension amounts lost due to the transfer ?0 -
The date is a giveaway - Huttons 'final' report was March 2011
The link that I provided was 07 October 2013.
Not sure what that has to do with my complaint... The press release linked to comes across as just garbling an already garbled government press release.
'Existing pensioners'? I very much doubt it - TUPE and 'fair deal' concerns the currently employed, not the previously employed. The government is hardly going to re-negotiate historical outsourcing contracts so that the outsourcer has to pay a large retrospective pension contribution, and moreover, get into the business of de-crystalising crystalised pension benefits.What I am interested in - is the effects that the "new deal" will have on existing pensioners
I honestly don't understand why you think this would be on the table. OK, pension monies probably appear to come out of thin air in the unfunded schemes, but they don't really...will they "backdate" any pension amounts lost due to the transfer ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards