Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust offering cash inducements to opt out of pension

Malthusian

And imagine what an outcry: older women offered 30% uplift but younger men offered 10%...

There would have to be some sort of pressure group set up to campaign against it. They could call it Whitecoats Against Sacrificed Pension Inequality, maybe.

kidmugsy

What is the objection to giving an employee the choice of two remuneration routes? Power to the People!

lawriejones1

The NHS pension is a fundamental part of the package and while I can see that people should have free to choose what they do with their money, it's shortsighted in the extreme to miss out on one of the best pension offers out there.

My 6 years in the NHS (and my pension contributions) have set me on a strong course for the rest of my life in terms of saving and pension contributions.

woolly_wombat

PensionTech wrote: »

It looks like they're offering 10% extra gross salary, but employer contributions are 14.3%

Varies according to which spine point you look at, but I make it just a shade over 10% in all cases.

All less, as you say, than the 14.3% employer contribution rate.

http://oxleas.nhs.uk/working-at-oxleas/

"Accessing this offer means you would not be a member of the NHS pension scheme, we will instead be paying you directly the money that we would have paid into the NHS Pension Scheme on your behalf."

That makes the emboldened extract from the employer's website look misleading and factually inaccurate.

hyubh

woolly_wombat wrote: »

That makes the emboldened extract from the employer's website look misleading and factually inaccurate.

Perhaps it works out if you take account of contracted out vs. contracted in employer NICs...? (Which is admittedly not a factor for much longer.)

PensionTech

Perhaps it works out if you take account of contracted out vs. contracted in employer NICs...? (Which is admittedly not a factor for much longer.)

From my rough calculations, I think the non-pension option would still result in a saving to the employer of about 1-2% of salary. And, as you say, that's about to be ditched anyway - although there would still be some effect from NI savings generally due to salary sacrifice (provided that remains available for a little while longer).

woolly_wombat

hyubh wrote: »

Perhaps it works out if you take account of contracted out vs. contracted in employer NICs...? (Which is admittedly not a factor for much longer.)

PensionTech wrote: »

From my rough calculations, I think the non-pension option would still result in a saving to the employer of about 1-2% of salary. And, as you say, that's about to be ditched anyway - although there would still be some effect from NI savings generally due to salary sacrifice (provided that remains available for a little while longer).

I must admit that the NI exemption on employer pension contributions was a factor that I had not considered.

If that was abolished it would surely be a terrible blow to NHS employers, much worse than the abolition of contracted-out status?

Thrugelmir

princeofpounds wrote: »

And plenty of medical staff quite happily work for agencies that effectively have similar arrangements; shouldn't the NHS be allowed to recruit such workers direct?

A lot of nursing staff do agency work as it's better paid. Also they can pick and choose their hours/shifts. Agency staff are a drain on NHS resources. Pensions are a side issue.

kidmugsy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Agency staff are a drain on NHS resources.

Their own staff are a drain on NHS resources. So are drugs, X-ray machines, and so on. All expenditures are a drain on resources.

PensionTech

Their own staff are a drain on NHS resources

I think Thrugelmir means they're an unnecessary drain on NHS resources - i.e. there are savings to be made that would not come at the expense of the quality of service, if those agency staff could be recruited directly.

I have to say I'm leaning towards the side of the NHS on this one. Pensions aren't a side issue, not at all. We know they're not a side issue because the word only has to be mentioned to cause a strike among some of the public sector. So prospective employees have the choice of a lower salary plus a pension, which is apparently incredibly important to them (and should be), or a higher salary and no pension, by going through an agency. The fact that these nurses apparently seem to be attracted by the latter proposition is a big concern. This is more expensive to the NHS than non-agency recruitment, so they want to find a way to get these nurses to them directly. And that can be done by offering to pay a higher salary plus no pension, much as the agency would. It's not a case of trying to tempt their current workers to opt out (as is supported by the fact that this only applies to a specific band of employees) - it's trying to attract people who wouldn't otherwise go near the NHS. So I can see how this has happened, provided that we accept there is indeed a significant issue with recruitment.

I think the NHS needs to be able to demonstrate that they are not making any direct savings by doing this (other than, as they say, through reduced agency fees). I think they should also ensure that they are being completely transparent and open about how this offer is presented: nurses should know how valuable the pension benefit is, and we should all know that they know.

Would it have been better, smarter, to not get themselves into this PR disaster at all? - yes, probably.