Civil Service Alpha or Partnership?

hugheskevi

A stab in the back?

No, it is to help the new joiners to make cuts Rumour has it that larger sets of knives are about to be rolled out.

kidmugsy

hyubh wrote: »

'Should be grateful' that accrued (as distinct from prospective) benefits are going to be respected...?

Yes. I thoroughly approve of accrued benefits being honoured and would be appalled if they weren't, but (as I said) some poor sods in some places are going to find that it won't happen for them.

hyubh

xylophone wrote: »

A stab in the back?:eek:

Ha! Not sure how Safari's AutoCorrect managed to auto-correct quoted text...!

Tromking

hugheskevi wrote: »

No, it is to help the new joiners to make cuts Rumour has it that larger sets of knives are about to be rolled out.

Care to put some meat on those rumours?
Genuinely curious.

Tromking

femalemonarchfemalecanine wrote: »

down to 15,000 staff by 2020. Fairly big cut.

.......hmrc?

hyubh

I repeat, I was told on joining that was the pension scheme, there was no mention at all that it could be changed

It wasn't in your contract that the pension scheme would never change. 'I repeat', you've got a far better deal than most equivalent private sector DB members your age (final salary scheme went on longer, successor scheme far better, flat rate pension increases...).

when the classic scheme changed to nuvos, we were told (as a fact) that the scheme would not need to change for 25 years

For things to have played out that way would have been grossly irresponsible by the government. Even as things stand I doubt the new CARE schemes will last as they are for more than a decade (if that).

3. your point being?

Where do you think the money to pay your pension comes from? To an extent: off of the backs of people with far worse pension provision.

I'd quite like everyone to have a decent pension, just as I'd like everyone to have a decent standard of living. I don't know why the race to the bottom is so appealing to so many.

If you're really an egalitarian you should welcome key features of the new CARE public sector schemes because, compared to their final salary predecessors, they will lessen the gap between the poorer and wealthier pensioner members, and moreover, have the former proportionally contribute less compared to the latter.

you don't know my medical history, so don't comment on what you don't know.

If you really are likely to die aged 65, then how was the old scheme such a great deal? You should have elected for the DC option as soon as it came available.

hyubh

femalemonarchfemalecanine wrote: »

and those poor sods have my sympathy; it is not right that anyone should not get what they have accrued. I do not however have any interest in joining them, would you?

See his posting history - he has a sizeable USS pension and is paranoid about the state of the USS' finances...

hugheskevi

hugheskevi wrote: »

Rumour has it that larger sets of knives are about to be rolled out.

Care to put some meat on those rumours?
Genuinely curious.

It was just a facetious comment, but there are some clues around.

Firstly, Civil Service employment history is available at this ONS link. It shows full time employment in Civil Service fell from 418,000 in 2010 to 340,000 (which is a fall of 19%) in 2013 (part-time employment stayed constant, falling by only 1,000 in the same time period). A 2012 NAO report found that 17,800 employees had left during the first year of the new Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies found, in 2014, that:

With schools and the NHS protected from spending cuts in the 2010 and 2013 Spending Reviews, this trend of NHS and education dominating the public workforce is set to continue. At the extreme, if there were no reductions to the education and NHS workforces between mid-2013 and 2018–19 the OBR’s forecasts could only be borne out if the rest of general government shrank by 40%. Even if education and NHS were cut by 200,000 from mid-2013 to 2018–19, the cuts to the rest of general government would still need to be about 30%.

So if reductions in employment continued on the current trajectory there would be a loss of around 70,000 full time Civil Servants by about 2018, and if it is more in line with the IFS suggestion it would be getting up above 100,000.

Tromking

hyubh wrote: »

Where do you think the money to pay your pension comes from? To an extent: off of the backs of people with far worse pension provision.

Well, public servants pay taxes too.
Your argument would have more weight if umpteen private companies could pay their employees enough and thus spare taxpayers the burden of paying for their working tax credits.
As a taxpayer at least I get a days work from a civil servant (usually anyway!) however I don't see why I should fund a subsidy to the likes of Tesco and its shareholders though.

kidmugsy

femalemonarchfemalecanine wrote: »

yawn...

I see that the decline in intellectual standards in the civil service is continuing.