Civil Servant for 23+ years yet no pension?

uknick

It's a shame this thread has descended into yet another "let's attack/defend the public sector". I'm sure there's a place for this debate elsewhere.

I hope the OP has not been put off and keeps us informed of the outcome of her investigations.

atush

Tromking wrote: »

Again, some rather hackneyed views on the merits or otherwise of working in the public sector. I have to say the experiences of the civil service some have espoused on this thread are not ones I have been witness to in my 27 years on the frontline. Perhaps you chaps were Desk Johnny types engaged in admin tasks.:)

Yeah, working a large teaching hospital ER is a Desk Jonny job, geez, get a life.

hyubh

bigadaj wrote: »

Ok, but defined benefit schemes don't really exist in teh private sector anymore

Final salary schemes don't exist for new recruits to the civil service either (admittedly, Club transfers into Nuvos are still done on a final salary basis... but if they weren't, they wouldn't be Club transfers). Conversely, they did exist in the private sector too for the time period we are talking about (70s, 80s and 90s).

and to go back to my main point I don't think there would be virtually any scenarios whereby a private sector company would accrue those pension costs over that period of time, it's just not economic on most circumstances.

On what basis do you think final salary schemes in the private sector traditionally worked on a fundamentally more prudent basis than final salary schemes in the public sector? In fact, in the past ten years the public sector in parts is better. E.g., the costs of each early retirement case in the LGPS are determined on an actuarial basis and paid up front by the employer.

You might say I'm comparing apples and oranges, but there aren't any oranges left for comparison.

I'm saying you're wilfully ignoring the basic mechanics of how any final salary scheme works...

atush

uknick wrote: »

It's a shame this thread has descended into yet another "let's attack/defend the public sector". I'm sure there's a place for this debate elsewhere.

I hope the OP has not been put off and keeps us informed of the outcome of her investigations.

Well given the OP has found her statement when she left, proves that she does have a pension. That was kinda the cliffhanger- if she had one or not.

Tromking

gadgetmind wrote: »

I've never really got envy. I've always preferred to give myself the required kick up the backside to get on with the job, and have therefore ended up pretty much where I want to be.

However, I can fully understand how someone in the private sector who's had to contribute 25%+ of their meagre salary to get a decent pension might well envy those who get it handed to them on a plate. Such disparities aren't good for us as a country.

My feeling towards the public sector are simply the result of it not being fit for purpose regards quality of service and being incredibly inefficient because of the quantity of deadwood that it not only carries but rewards handsomely.

How we get from where we are to where we need to be is the hard one. Changes are being made but at a fraction of the speed that change happens in the private sector, hence the gulf we see opening up.

I`ll make this my last post in defence of decent pensions in the public sector as uknick is right as regards the off topic nature of recent comments on this thread.


Again, your comments are heavy on rhetoric rather than balanced and reasonable. If your argument is that pensions in the private sector have gotten so bad, that those in public sector need to be as bad, then I can`t really argue against that logic can I?
In my area of the Civil Service, the intrusion of the private sector has reached a bit of a crisis point. It would appear that the privateers aren't as good as some would have you believe and in a couple of cases their penchant for embezzling taxpayers money is truly shocking.
The changes you talk of will never happen in certain public services in my opinion, simply because unless the package is decent then the goodwill and quality people the state needs to do the 'down and dirty' things on our behalf, wont get done or not to the standard we expect.

Tromking

atush wrote: »

Yeah, working a large teaching hospital ER is a Desk Jonny job, geez, get a life.

Hospital workers are in the civil service?

uknick

atush wrote: »

Well given the OP has found her statement when she left, proves that she does have a pension. That was kinda the cliffhanger- if she had one or not.

Missed that due to the chaff about public sector pensions and how they are the invention of the devil

atush

Tromking wrote: »

Hospital workers are in the civil service?

Some are, some aren't. I worked for the dept of health.

Have you heard of the NHS then lol?

Tromking

atush wrote: »

Some are, some aren't. I worked for the dept of health.

Have you heard of the NHS then lol?

So you have a civil service pension as a result of your clinical hospital work rather than an NHS one?
Interesting.

bigadaj

hyubh wrote: »

Final salary schemes don't exist for new recruits to the civil service either (admittedly, Club transfers into Nuvos are still done on a final salary basis... but if they weren't, they wouldn't be Club transfers). Conversely, they did exist in the private sector too for the time period we are talking about (70s, 80s and 90s).



On what basis do you think final salary schemes in the private sector traditionally worked on a fundamentally more prudent basis than final salary schemes in the public sector? In fact, in the past ten years the public sector in parts is better. E.g., the costs of each early retirement case in the LGPS are determined on an actuarial basis and paid up front by the employer.



I'm saying you're wilfully ignoring the basic mechanics of how any final salary scheme works...

I'm not arguing for or against defined benefit pensions, they have historically been paid out at a level that is un sustainable, and so be have the unedifying position of a great transfer of wealth from younger working people to older retired people.

You may say this is what they signed up to and expected, and that's perfectly fine, but the transfer of wealth from younger people will be huge, particularly when they are public sector schemes and to a large extent unfunded, meaning that all teh historic promises will be funded by future tax payers.

Anyway my point is that the example previously, whilst extreme, is anomalous. That person has played the system well, but to reemploy someone with pension costs of £45k a year is just a bit crazy. If this happened in the private sector then it would be incompetent financial management and wouldn't be considered, when it's public money then less responsibility is taken.