Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

thatoldchestnut

Govt told to stop holding up pension improvements for public sector – FBU https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Govt-told-to-stop-holding-up-pension-improvements-for-public-sector-FBU.php

hyubh

thatoldchestnut wrote: »

Govt told to stop holding up pension improvements for public sector – FBU https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Govt-told-to-stop-holding-up-pension-improvements-for-public-sector-FBU.php

A phrase about having and eating cake come to mind.

Oliver1191

What annoys me about this is that people will have made decisions e.g. where to work / where to invest, based in part on incorrect pension scheme information due to being discriminated against.

They need to address this promptly as the conservatives, yet again, are in the wrong.

GunJack

Oliver1191 wrote: »

They need to address this promptly as the conservatives, yet again, are in the wrong.

Yeees, but tbf (and I'm not a natural tory) how come the the legal advice given to the government didn't pick up on this at the time it was being discussed, well before implementation??

If it was incorrect, think I'd be inclined not to use those lawyers again and maybe send round some of HMG's security service types to ensure they couldn't give dodgy advice again...

If it was given correctly and the govt ignored it, then yes, by all means hang the b*****ds!!!!!

hugheskevi

Yeees, but tbf (and I'm not a natural tory) how come the the legal advice given to the government didn't pick up on this at the time it was being discussed, well before implementation??

The independent report into public service reform from March 2011 which was the foundation of the reforms found (page 155, my bolding):

The Commission’s expectation is that existing members who are currently in their 50s should, by and large, experience fairly limited change to the benefit which they would otherwise have expected to accrue by the time they reach their current scheme NPA. This would particularly be the case if the final salary link is protected for past service, as the Commission recommends. This limitation of impact will also extend to people below age 50, proportionate to the length of time before they reach their NPA. Therefore special protections for members over a certain age should not be necessary. Age discrimination legislation also means that it is not possible in practice to provide protection from change for members who are already above a certain age.

The Government defended their position at Employment Tribunal, Employment Tribunal Appeal, and applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, so appear to have considered they had a legal defence.

GunJack

hugheskevi wrote: »

The independent report into public service reform from March 2011 which was the foundation of the reforms found (page 155, my bolding):


The Government defended their position at Employment Tribunal, Employment Tribunal Appeal, and applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, so appear to have considered they had a legal defence.

So....

We CAN hang the b*****ds!!!!!

FIRSTTIMER

Interesting, so if you are in 2015 career average and 'young' will this mean you should have your pension 'uprooted'

GunJack

All of this could have been easily avoided if current staff stayed on their existing pensions, but all new starters after a set date joined the new schemes...but far too simplistic for politicos I suppose...

GunJack

FIRSTTIMER wrote: »

Interesting, so if you are in 2015 career average and 'young' will this mean you should have your pension 'uprooted'

It's possible...we just need to wait and see what's proposed..

JoeCrystal

GunJack wrote: »

All of this could have been easily avoided if current staff stayed on their existing pensions, but all new starters after a set date joined the new schemes...but far too simplistic for politicos I suppose...

Having all the current staffs staying in their more generous pension scheme is likely to cost more after all.