Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

Thrugelmir

badmemory wrote: »

I thought this was illegal. Or does that only apply to DC schemes?

If people wish to opt out as they would prefer the income why would it be illegal. Not advisable perhaps but for some people a necessity.

badmemory

I thought that it was illegal for companies to offer "bribes" to people to stop them taking up a pension. It is for the new autoenrollment ones.

hugheskevi

I thought that it was illegal for companies to offer "bribes" to people to stop them taking up a pension. It is for the new autoenrollment ones.

A company must provide a pension of value equal to or greater than the statutory minimum. A company cannot offer inducements to members to opt-out of this pension. For example, an employer can not provide a pension but say to employees they can have a £500 salary increase if they opt-out. It could offer a higher salary in return for a lower pension (pay flex), as long as the remaining pension meets statutory minimum levels.

If a company is offering a pension in excess of the statutory minimum, they can review their remuneration package and decide to change to offer new and/or existing staff a lower pension (subject to statutory minimum and consultation) and a higher salary if they wish.

hyubh

badmemory wrote: »

I thought this was illegal. Or does that only apply to DC schemes?

It was rescinded after (following union prompting) the trust was reported to the Pensions Regulator by the NHS Pensions Board. That said, the deal wasn't 'no pension', just 'no NHS pension'.

badmemory

Well I guess I am showing my age here as I always thought that bribery was against the law. Suppose it is alright as long as the bribe from the employer only reduces your rights and doesn't actually remove them entirely.

Sorry hyubh typed before I saw your response.

Tromking

Judges win their age discrimination case.Watch this space on other public sector roles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38639818

Paul_Herring

Tromking wrote: »

Judges win their age discrimination case.Watch this space on other public sector roles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38639818

I think it might rather have hinged on this aspect of the case which I don't believe will affect other sectors:

In order to sweeten the pill for existing judges, the government decided in 2013 that those who were within 10 years of their normal pension age, as of April 2012, would be excluded from the requirement to switch schemes.

In effect, that meant that three-quarters of the then judges would not be affected at all.

Some others as of that date, who were aged between 51 years and six months, and 55 years, were given "transitional" protection from the changes until September 2025 at the latest, when they too would have to switch schemes.

Altogether the protected groups amounted to 85% of all judges, leaving just 279 to feel the full force of the change, to a much less generous pension arrangement.

Had the arrangement benefited only a minority of the cohort, I don't think it would have had as much of a chance of success.

paparossco

The NHS scheme had similar 10 year protection with tapered transitional protection so I presume the format must be similar across the Public Sector (will await the version for MPs with interest.....).

Tromking

paparossco wrote: »

The NHS scheme had similar 10 year protection with tapered transitional protection so I presume the format must be similar across the Public Sector (will await the version for MPs with interest.....).

.
The same with the Prison Service. I can`t see how this ruling would not apply to other public sector workers similarly treated

Paul_Herring

paparossco wrote: »

The NHS scheme had similar 10 year protection with tapered transitional protection so I presume the format must be similar across the Public Sector.

Tromking wrote: »

.
The same with the Prison Service. I can`t see how this ruling would not apply to other public sector workers similarly treated

Simplistically, I can only see the ruling being applicable if greater than 50% of current employees are subject to the same exemptions as the judges - i.e. within 10 years of retirement and totally exempt, or 51½-55 and given transitional exemption, thus making a minority of the rest of the workforce at a disadvantage.

Since I don't believe the demographics of either NHS or prison service are anywhere like that criteria, I think they'll have to find another argument to fight this on.