Civil Servant for 23+ years yet no pension?

gadgetmind

Tromking wrote: »

Genuine worry re. the country`s finances

For me, yes.

or annoyance that they themselves did `nt opt for a career with a public sector pension?

Blimey no. I thrive in the private sector and am pretty sure I would "go postal" very quickly in the public sector. I hate unproductive meetings, endless bureaucracy, mountains of paperwork and (as a Yorkshireman) find wasting money soul destroying even if it's not my money.

The public sector might be a gravy train but that simply isn't my kind of gravy.

bigadaj

So what's actually happened is that we have the same old story about the baby boomers running off with all the money and leaving younger people to pay for it. You've effectively acknowledged this but many others simply complain that they've paid in for years a nd only want to get out what they paid in, when in actual fact they actually want many times what they have paid in, but paid for by others.

bigadaj

Tromking wrote: »

Genuine worry re. the country`s finances or annoyance that they themselves did `nt opt for a career with a public sector pension?
Hmmmm.

No, just want a fair and transparent system.

Like gadget my experience of public sector working has been quite depressing, there are very good and committed people but there are also huge numbers working inefficiently with the knowledge that however useless they are there is no possibility of their job being threatened.

As I've said before I don't understand why all jobs aren't quoted stating the value of all benefits included, transparency and openness is the best disinfectant. There would be debate about exact valuations but the true value of defined benefit pensions would be more easily explained and acknowledged hopefully by public sector workers. Many appear not to realise the true cost or benefit, and being told they are actually paid say 25% more than they thought might be a nice surprise!

Tromking

gadgetmind wrote: »

Blimey no. I thrive in the private sector and am pretty sure I would "go postal" very quickly in the public sector. I hate unproductive meetings, endless bureaucracy, mountains of paperwork and (as a Yorkshireman) find wasting money soul destroying even if it's not my money.

The public sector might be a gravy train but that simply isn't my kind of gravy.

We`re digressing I know, but your views on the public sector are in my opinion a bit on the clich!d side. By using the term 'gravy train' again it smacks of thinly veiled envy on your part.

hyubh

bigadaj wrote: »

Fair play if that's the way the system works

All I was saying was: one of the purposes of a defined benefit pension scheme is surely to attract talent. Otherwise, you might as well save a lot of money and just use NEST, or before auto-enrolment, offer no pension scheme at all.

but it's still crazy, for going back to the public sector for a couple of years this person has benefitted, or cost the state really, £3500 per year.

Again, that was just a function of a final salary pension scheme. The same thing would have happened if he was a career civil servant and got promoted several times... or for that matter, had worked for a private sector employer that offered a final salary pension scheme (which, let's remember, a lot of companies did during the time period in question, i.e. 1970s through to the late 1990s/early 2000s).

it's just such a helluva additional cost, no wonder the country is so indebted.

The risk would have been part of the costing of the scheme. I'm not denying the civil service scheme in particular was/is generous (traditionally non-contributory!), or indeed that offering a final salary pension scheme at all isn't a very prudent thing in hindsight. However, you are focussing on a specific risk that was always well known and accounted for.

Tromking

bigadaj wrote: »

As I've said before I don't understand why all jobs aren't quoted stating the value of all benefits included, transparency and openness is the best disinfectant. There would be debate about exact valuations but the true value of defined benefit pensions would be more easily explained and acknowledged hopefully by public sector workers. Many appear not to realise the true cost or benefit, and being told they are actually paid say 25% more than they thought might be a nice surprise!

I joined my area of the public sector as a 21 year old and akin with most others I knew the pension was good but probably didn't comprehend how good it has turned out to be, especially when you compare it with those on offer in the private sector I guess. Although not true in every case I think you need to factor in the stressful nature of some public sector professions and the fact that unless the terms and conditions are decent then recruitment and more importantly staff retention becomes problematic.The big test of your argument and the recent reforms to public sector pensions will be when large-scale recruitment begins again. I have a fear that the package on offer to would-be public servants in the future will not be sufficient to sustain the quality of public services we`ve been used to. Only time will tell.

hyubh

Tromking wrote: »

I have a fear that the package on offer to would-be public servants in the future will not be sufficient to sustain the quality of public services we`ve been used to.

How on earth do you work that one out on the basis of the career average schemes actually being put into place...

Tromking

hyubh wrote: »

How on earth do you work that one out on the basis of the career average schemes actually being put into place...

Don't get me wrong the pension is still good, but that's only half the story. I certainly don't fancy being a Paramedic or Prison Officer at 68!

bigadaj

hyubh wrote: »

Again, that was just a function of a final salary pension scheme. The same thing would have happened if he was a career civil servant and got promoted several times... or for that matter, had worked for a private sector employer that offered a final salary pension scheme (which, let's remember, a lot of companies did during the time period in question, i.e. 1970s through to the late 1990s/early 2000s).



The risk would have been part of the costing of the scheme. I'm not denying the civil service scheme in particular was/is generous (traditionally non-contributory!), or indeed that offering a final salary pension scheme at all isn't a very prudent thing in hindsight. However, you are focussing on a specific risk that was always well known and accounted for.

Ok, but under what circumstances would this specific example have arisen anywhere else.

It could of course be that the OP is on huge money, but can you see any commercial organisation thinking its a good idea to accrue £45000 per year costs just in pension costs?

That figure is actually conservative as the annuity lump sum to purchase such a payout would surely be higher.

atush

Tromking wrote: »

We`re digressing I know, but your views on the public sector are in my opinion a bit on the clich!d side. By using the term 'gravy train' again it smacks of thinly veiled envy on your part.

I disagree. I find Gadget's ideas completely sensible in a financial sense, nothing to do with any political ideology.

I find your attack on him to be a bit cliche'd?

My 19 yr old twins have fun trying to perfect certain accents, and have learned Gravy in both scots and yorkshire accents. They both love their gravy lol.