Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

Thrugelmir

Wesley_Donnelly wrote: »

Or another way of looking at it is the government have acted illegally and will now have to pay out the money that was rightfully and lawfully promised.

The taxpayer foots the bill. Then one shouldn't be surprised by the growing discontent and division across society.

Wesley_Donnelly

So you are in favour of unlawful discrimination then ?

I am also a taxpayer and there are many things I might not agree with but the law is the law.

Paul_Herring

Wesley_Donnelly wrote: »

If the government had quite simply introduced a new public sector pension scheme for new recruits this whole mess would have been avoided it is a mess of their own making.

No. There'd still be claims of racial, sex and age discrimination. Because the white, male, old people who have been there the longest would still be getting better remuneration than the non-white, non-male, non-old people who haven't been there quite so long, and have been able to enter the profession due to the eradication of the aforementioned alluded to discrimination in employment.

Thrugelmir

Wesley_Donnelly wrote: »

So you are in favour of unlawful discrimination then ?

I am also a taxpayer and there are many things I might not agree with but the law is the law.

Of which unfortunately there's a growing disrepect in many facets of daily life.

Silvertabby

To be fair, I can understand the Fire Service wanting to keep 55 as their normal pension age. Not many 55+ fire fighters would be able to maintain the physical fitness needed to do the job - and very few would have the chance of gainful employment behind a desk.

As for the change from final salary to CARE, I have a different view. When the LGPS CARE scheme details were announced, the first thought that my colleagues and I had was that this wouldn't last long as it was much more generous than the FS scheme and therefore would be much more expensive.

Ok, those who join as a tea boy/girl and then spend 40 years working themselves up to a CEO position may get less under a CARE scheme than FS - but how many people do that? The vast majority of public sector workers only manage, at most, a couple of promotions throughout their working lives - and the LGPS CARE accrual rate of 1/49 plus the annual CPI revaluation will almost certainly give them a much better pension than the old FS, assuming that yearly salary pay rises continue to be less than/don't exceed CPI.

When the LGPS switched to CARE in 2016, the Unions made a big drama of telling everyone how good they had been by negotiating that everyone who left before a certain date would have the protections of having their pensions calculated under the old rules. This resulted in a flood of demands for estimates 'using the (underpin) protections'..

Reality was that in more than 99% of cases FS to 2016 and CARE thereafter gave a bigger pension than FS only because of the better accrual rate.

hyubh

Silvertabby wrote: »

To be fair, I can understand the Fire Service wanting to keep 55 as their normal pension age. Not many 55+ fire fighters would be able to maintain the physical fitness needed to do the job - and very few would have the chance of gainful employment behind a desk.

That may be so, but the NPA in the 2006 Firefighter's Scheme (NFPS) was already 60 from active (65 from deferred). The 2015 Scheme has the same NPA from active and just a slightly higher one from deferred (SPA).

Muscle750

The main problem is that for a long time the public sector pensions have promised big returns and i certainly dont see any retired ex public sector workers i know struggling to make ends meet i know of at least two that have stated they are better off from their pension income than they would be if they had carried on working. Now finally someone has suddenly realised these gold plate pensions are unsubstainable end of. Plus of course the employer ie the tax payer in the public sector are ploughing far higher percentages into workers pensions contributions every month My private sector pension in comparison is nothing compared to the gold plate public sector pensions which ive along with everyone else in the private sector have paid for. And as soon as somebody tries to change the public sector why do you think they all throw the toys out the pram , We have our FS scheme ripped from under our feet in 2007 since then weve been in a DC scheme which is looking like loose change. With a miserly 5% paid by employer.

marlot

Muscle750 wrote: »

The main problem is that for a long time the public sector pensions have promised big returns ....

And yet when I worked in the public sector it was very hard to recruit people on the salaries we were able to offer - even with the pensions included. Some salaries were competitive - but there was no chance in the technical areas.


I'd have stayed longer if the money was better - but even including the pension it wasn't attractive any more.

hyubh

Muscle750 wrote: »

The main problem is that for a long time the public sector pensions have promised big returns and i certainly don't see any retired ex public sector workers i know struggling to make ends

Certainly not Mrs Muscle, eh...

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The taxpayer foots the bill. Then one shouldn't be surprised by the growing discontent and division across society.

As a taxpayer you should perhaps look at level of competence of the Government lawyers who no doubt signed off on this supposed reform. I recall the antics of the Cabinet Office to help push the changes through, the tactic was tap into the discontent of private sector workers and sow the seeds of the division you talk of.