Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

Tromking

A ET judgment due soon on Judges pensions, could have ramifications for other public servants too apparently.

https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/201611/judiciary-take-truss-tribunal-over-pension-changes

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judges-pensions-no-one-complaining-about-the-change-itself/5058904.article

Paul_Herring

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/15/younger-judges-take-government-to-court-over-pension-cuts

Employment tribunal hears claim they are being discriminated against, with older colleagues getting more generous retirement incomes

This has been happening in the private sector for years.

Presenting a claim on behalf of six high court judges against the Ministry of Justice, Michael Beloff QC said it was irrelevant that they earned more than most other public sector workers or that “there is a need to cut public expenditure”. High court judges get a salary of about £180,000 a year.

Indeed.

What was significant, he said, was that older judges were allowed to retain more generous pension arrangements while younger judges had suffered a “double whammy” because their payments on retirement had been reduced and a harsher tax regime had been introduced.

Private sector again.

This is just special pleading, is it not?

hyubh

Paul_Herring wrote: »

This has been happening in the private sector for years.

Changing pension scheme arrangements is hardly unknown in the public sector either. The headline argument sounds so preposterous to me, I'm assuming there must be something else (top legal brains in the country and all that...)

kidmugsy

What would Justice Cocklecarrot say?

MARTYM8`

Dont the judges in this case have a conflict of interest as it may affect their pension payout - as presumably the Government would have to cut their pensions to the level of that of the new judges on cost grounds.

Can judges personally rule on a case that would make them as individuals better or worse off - collectively and individually?

Andy_L

hyubh wrote: »

Changing pension scheme arrangements is hardly unknown in the public sector either. The headline argument sounds so preposterous to me, I'm assuming there must be something else (top legal brains in the country and all that...)

I think its because in "the old days" judges were (more so than the wider public sector) white, male & old as a profession. its only relatively recently that that balance has been changing. Thus a change to newer entrants pension terms indirectly discriminates against the young, female &/or non-white.

TheGardener

I appreciate it may be hard to sympathise with big pensions for big earners - but if this did trickle down to the school dinner lady and the guy who empties the dog poo bins - would the judges case help them?

Andy_L

TheGardener wrote: »

I appreciate it may be hard to sympathise with big pensions for big earners - but if this did trickle down to the school dinner lady and the guy who empties the dog poo bins - would the judges case help them?

No, the changes to the LG pension would have equally impacted them so no indirect discrimination is in play.

hyubh

TheGardener wrote: »

I appreciate it may be hard to sympathise with big pensions for big earners - but if this did trickle down to the school dinner lady and the guy who empties the dog poo bins - would the judges case help them?

The changes to judges' pensions were broadly similar to the changes to other public sector schemes in 2014-2015, including the LGPS that the sorts of people you mention are typically eligible for.

Andy_L wrote: »

No, the changes to the LG pension would have equally impacted them so no indirect discrimination is in play.

A change from final salary to CARE clearly discriminates against anyone who will come to have a sharp salary increase, whether during a career in local government or from spending the middle part of their working life in the private sector. In fact, scheme changes were particularly 'discriminatory' against the latter sort of person with the imposition of the 5 year break rule.

Andy_L wrote: »

I think its because in "the old days" judges were (more so than the wider public sector) white, male & old as a profession. its only relatively recently that that balance has been changing. Thus a change to newer entrants pension terms indirectly discriminates against the young, female &/or non-white.

A small, highly paid elite is by definition selected for in a 'discriminatory' fashion, whether that is in a meritocratic manner or not. (Why are you picking on thick, socially inept people? They can't help it - they were born that way. Just like clever, socially adept people in fact.)

Tromking

TheGardener wrote: »

I appreciate it may be hard to sympathise with big pensions for big earners - but if this did trickle down to the school dinner lady and the guy who empties the dog poo bins - would the judges case help them?

This case is certainly being mooted in my area of the MOJ as having ramifications for other public servants also. I`m not sure if this appiles so much to new entrants to a pension scheme rather people like me who are time served (29 years)and because of our younger age were moved to a less generous scheme and are now paying more in the way of contributions.In many cases older staff with less 'time in' than me were left on their original scheme, on the face of it a discrimitory decision in my view. We`ll see.

Tromking

Evidence perhaps that swingeing public sector pension reform is becoming problematic as regards staff retention in certain public sector roles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38170756