NHS pensions are bleeding the taxpayer dry

uk1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My public sector employer contributes 26% of my salary as their pension contribution. While I obviously won't decline it. The pension I am accruing is obscene when compared to a similar private sector role.

We don't receive lump sums though. Doctors (Consultants) often receive £300k on retirement plus their pension. That simply isn't justified.

Thanks

I think some of the posts on the thread prove a point.

There cannot be any doubt that there is a tremedous sense of unfairness in society directed at the pensions given to public sector workers. All of the arguments that are put forward to justify them may or may not be reasonable. That is a debate everyone can have on an equal footing.

But what happens instead is that some try to derail the debate by changing the subject and by picking at the method of costing what it would cost to offer public sector pensions as a percentage of earning in the private sector when comparing public with private sector pensions instead.

Jeff

Thrugelmir

uk1 wrote: »

But what happens instead is that some try to derail the debate by changing the subject and by picking at the method of costing what it would cost to offer public sector pensions as a percentage of earning in the private sector when comparing public with private sector pensions instead.

Public sector pensions are undergoing reform. Change has to be gradual though. The current swathe of VE redundancy is capping future liabilities. I'm sure many people don't realise what they are losing. The ability to enjoy jam today attracts the majority of people.

System

Jeff - the other post points out how the article is politically motivated and that total liability can't be compared with annual spend

The other post I thanked because it says that total remuneration must be considered

As for the point in your post just now, that you can compare private pensions directly to public ones, that'd only be a fair way of assessing overall fairness if everything else was the same, I.e. basic pay was the same, which it isn't

Therefore the public sector worker generally works longer for each £ they put into the scheme compared to a professional in the private sector

So the 'generous' pension is really just an artificial backhander to compensate for otherwise worse pay

RickyB2000

Gradual change because who will they blame when the generous provision is removed? The government. It is as much, if not more, a political issue as it is an economic one. It is unlikely to be the deciding factor for votes among the envious private sector employees either, unless it comes with large tax cuts for all or something.

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff - the other post points out how the article is politically motivated and that total liability can't be compared with annual spend

The other post I thanked because it says that total remuneration must be considered

As for the point in your post just now, that you can compare private pensions directly to public ones, that'd only be a fair way of assessing overall fairness if everything else was the same, I.e. basic pay was the same, which it isn't

Therefore the public sector worker generally works longer for each £ they put into the scheme compared to a professional in the private sector

So the 'generous' pension is really just an artificial backhander to compensate for otherwise worse pay

It is interesting that when this topic crops up, the "defence" is always that public sector pay is less than private sector pay. Then when it is pointed out that this is factually incorrect and that average public sector pay is higher than private secotr pay, we are then told that the difference is because so much of the public sector lower paid work has been outsourced.

What is never explained is if public sector pay is lower than private sector pay, how can the public sector justify outsourcing to the private sector, which should logically not just be higher because of the higher wages, but it is inflated for the profit element. What makes it doubly puzzling is that we are told it is the junior tasks in the public sector where the largest differentials exist.

This is a circular argument that seems difficult to resolve logically. There is always it seems some contortations to justify puzzling conundrums.

I do not doubt that some in the public sector earn less than they could. I do not believe that to be generally the case. I think there is a general perception in society that public center workers are better rewarded than private sector workers all things considered.




Jeff

System

Jeff - all true, I think of you go to different NHS trusts you'll see different levels of outsourcing, so in some the low jobs are literally private and often minimum wage, but in others you'll have the job done by an NHS company that has bidded for the contract. The private companies/ agencies tend to make more per hour than their staff, but they remove a responsibility from the NHS, which I think is why they pay for it, sometimes though the private company can let standards slip or kick off and demand extra pay when the cqc raises the standards.

However when it comes to the care workers, private ones on agencies can be much higher paid, and that's not really high up the ladder

Also its the matter of doctors going abroad which implies the NHS isn't allowed to pay a retaining wage, and the locum agency doctors can make a fortune

System

The locums do well because they exploit the desperation of the situation...

RickyB2000

Don't doctors earn more per hour in the private sector than the public? I always thought the argument was the highly paid public sector earned a lot less than their private sector counterparts. So head of the civil service vs FTSE 100 CEO. These are the guys getting the obscene pensions.

Not comparing one min wage person with another.

Thrugelmir

RickyB2000 wrote: »

, a political issue as it is an economic one.

I would say economic. With 40 years service in the Civil Service someone can accrue a pension of 75% of salary. Where in the private sector could someone match that doing an average job even using their own savings.

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff - all true, I think of you go to different NHS trusts you'll see different levels of outsourcing, so in some the low jobs are literally private and often minimum wage, but in others you'll have the job done by an NHS company that has bidded for the contract. The private companies/ agencies tend to make more per hour than their staff, but they remove a responsibility from the NHS, which I think is why they pay for it, sometimes though the private company can let standards slip or kick off and demand extra pay when the cqc raises the standards.

However when it comes to the care workers, private ones on agencies can be much higher paid, and that's not really high up the ladder

Also its the matter of doctors going abroad which implies the NHS isn't allowed to pay a retaining wage, and the locum agency doctors can make a fortune

It therefore very clearly proves the point that the cost of employing someone in the NHS once salary and pension and other benefits are calculated is so high that it is cheaper to outsource because that total cost even when inflating for the profit element is less. The argument that their total package is less than the private sector has therefore been disproved.

The places for medical school are highly competed for. I have always felt that there should never have been an option for graduates to immediately go abroad.

The odd thing about the locum and agency nurse situation is that it disproves another myth, and that all zero hour contracts are exploitative.

Jeff