Civil Servant for 23+ years yet no pension?

Tromking

atush wrote: »

Probably right, but the insults are still flying. From the Civil service no less.

No insults from me, not my style.

gadgetmind

Tromking wrote: »

Did you read past the headline on that report?

Yes, I read the entire article, thanks, and several other such articles full of such "inconvenient truths".

Yes, direct comparisons are hard, but when you do them correctly, the picture is clear and justifies the headlines.

hugheskevi

When direct comparisons are done correctly, you generally find:

(a) Public sector workers in London and the south are under remunerated, those in the north and other countries in the UK are paid more than comparable private sector workers

(b) Higher paid/more senior public sector workers are remunerated far below private sector comparable positions

(c) Lower paid/more junior public sector workers are remunerated above comparable private sector positions.

All of which calls into question policies of protecting the lower paid public sector workers (eg exempting from pay freeze and pension contribution increases) whilst increasing the cuts on higher paid (eg tiered pension contribution increases, shift from final salary to career average).

So if the headlines are "Lower paid public sector workers in Grimsby significantly over-remunerated" then I agree

gadgetmind

Do you have references for those studies?

Andy_L

gadgetmind wrote: »

As these benefits are better in the public sector than the private sector, where would people go?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643

"Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS)."

If you actually read the whole article however your find that, on a like for like comparison, the Private Sector has a slight pay lead

gadgetmind

Andy_L wrote: »

If you actually read the whole article however your find that, on a like for like comparison, the Private Sector has a slight pay lead

I really don't think those adjustments really end up with like-for-like, particularly the "larger employers" one. However, that it's taken years of much-needed public sector pay cuts, real terms reductions, etc. to get us to arguing over a few percent rather than a vast gulf speaks volumes.

Oh, and those figures don't include pensions. What percentage value should we put on even career average defined benefit pensions? An extra 20% on top of salary maybe?

If at the end of all of this, those in the public sector feel the grass really is greener out in the real world, then put your CV where your mouth is and give the private sector a whirl.

An no, I don't want a job in the public sector despite the pensions as it would drive me mad! A colleague recently retired from our company and assumed a glide path to complete retirement via a job as a maths teacher. He's a brilliant mathematician, and likes kids, but I have no idea how he can work in a system like that.

Tromking

gadgetmind wrote: »

If at the end of all of this, those in the public sector feel the grass really is greener out in the real world, then put your CV where your mouth is and give the private sector a whirl.

The argument you make is too simplistic. There is a reason I think why public sector pensions reform has not been as swingeing as you and many others want. Its because the politicians realise that decent/generous pensions are needed to get the job done.
With due deference to those in the private sector, we need happy Paramedics more than we need happy call centre employees I would suggest.
I have a worry that even though the reforms have not been as tough as you would want, they`ve been just tough enough to deter the quality people we need from choosing a career as a public servant.

hugheskevi

Do you have references for those studies?

The study I've found most robust and unbiased is this one by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2012.

gadgetmind

Tromking wrote: »

the politicians realise that decent/generous pensions are needed to get the job done.

Why would they be needed in the public sector above and beyond what's needed in the private sector? What's wrong with a level playing field?

they`ve been just tough enough to deter the quality people we need from choosing a career as a public servant.

So, despite the generous pensions, higher pay, modest workload, and greater number of sick days, the public sector can't attract the right stuff?

We get top people despite being on the back foot. Someone must be doing something wrong, and it isn't my recruiting department.

Tromking

gadgetmind wrote: »

Why would they be needed in the public sector above and beyond what's needed in the private sector? What's wrong with a level playing field?

Because the country perhaps needs properly remunerated Nurses, Doctors, Paramedics, Fire-fighters and Policemen more than what you do for a living?
Besides, your private sector pension package is between you and your Boss. I respect your views as a fellow tax-payer on public sector pensions but slash and burn doesn't get the job done.