Merging Local Government and NHS Pensions

hyubh

kidmugsy wrote: »

The public finances are in ruins: the Coalition may have stopped matters getting a lot worse

Yes, those Royal Mail pension scheme assets have come in very handy. Oh, wait a minute...

PeacefulWaters

greenglide wrote: »

Here on BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26556047

An act of evil.

CAE

hyubh wrote: »

Genuine question - how could this be done within the scheme rules?



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/653/pdfs/uksi_20080653_en.pdf

I wondered this as well. Is it a case of one person saying something without thinking things through? Surely NHS pension regulations would need to be amended, and guess the unions might have something to say about that.

Interesting, when the definition of pensionable pay for the LGPS 2014 regs allow for overtime and pay for additional hours worked for part timers to be included in pensionable pay, thereby increasing pay figures for pension purposes.

Andy_L

hyubh wrote: »

Genuine question - how could this be done within the scheme rules?



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/653/pdfs/uksi_20080653_en.pdf

Quite easily, as they did with the civil service they just class it as a "bonus" or create a new non-pensionable pay classification.

taktikback

So some staff in the NHS really expect a 4% pay rise?. Have I missed something or isn't inflation at 2% or so? plus I thought automatic increments went out with the ark? Surely nobody still believes that is a sensible way to manage anything -public or private?

I'm a big believer in stable public services that are funded for the long term and give fair salaries and benefits, but come on guys...

t0rt0ise

taktikback wrote: »

I thought automatic increments went out with the ark? Surely nobody still believes that is a sensible way to manage anything -public or private?

You are right. Increments are not a fair way to manage a payscale. The full rate for the job should be paid immediately on starting and not 8 or so years later. Working for those first 7 years for a salary that is below what the job is worth is totally unfair.

hyubh

Andy_L wrote: »

Quite easily, as they did with the civil service they just class it as a "bonus" or create a new non-pensionable pay classification.

With my LGPS glasses on I honestly don't see the obviousness of that (while the government can change the law, they are not above it). Moreover, it is not unknown for the government to lose legal challenges on the general topic - there was one for the firefighters' scheme a couple of years back to do with retainers for non-retained (i.e., regular) firefighters. Do you have any examples to the contrary in mind...?

mark55man

t0rt0ise wrote: »

You are right. Increments are not a fair way to manage a payscale. The full rate for the job should be paid immediately on starting and not 8 or so years later. Working for those first 7 years for a salary that is below what the job is worth is totally unfair.

so someone with 7 years experience should get the same as a new starter? One rate is for a person with no experience the other rate is for a more experienced person.


Or if you have to pay the same why would you ever hire the less experienced person


Not a fan for auto promotion / increment forever, but there is a place for experience to be recognised even within a rank / role