Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

BobQ

jamesd wrote: »

That is not so. It was also found to be discriminatory on grounds such as gender that were different for different age cohorts in the employee base. Because age was in effect acting as a selector that directed the consequences more heavily towards those groups that are more highly present in the younger cohorts.

Agreed, I have now read the judgement.

Interestingly, they did an EIA and concluded there was an objective justification. One wonders why the Treasury did not get any legal advice on something so important. Their conclusion seems like an opinion......

Therefore, the Government considers that it is appropriate and proportionate for the transitional protections to have a differential impact on members dependent on their proximity to expected retirement age. It believes that this approach is justified as a proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aims of reform (as set out in Chapter 1

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA12-024.pdf

76zedfour

Resurrecting this thread in light of the recent tribunal hearing

https://www.thetimesbrief.co.uk/users/39175-the-brief-team/posts/28625-judges-could-lose-hundreds-of-thousands-of-pounds-from-pensions-reform

I know the hearing won't release their findings until the Spring but has anyone been following it and perhaps explain in laymans terms the possible fallout?

Tromking

Latest re. the FBU’s efforts to challenge aspects of the Governments pension reform.

https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2018hoc0073mw/pensions-age-discrimination-appeal

Tromking

The Prison Officers Association launches its own legal challenge.

http://www.poauk.org.uk/index.php?press-releases&newsdetail=20180411-2_prison-officers-take-legal-action-over-pensions

zaax

It's not only pensions, the the civil service used to be a good job with a good pension. Not now £25000 for an officer, poor promotion prospects, and a rubbish pension.

Paul_Herring

It's not only pensions, the the civil service used to be a good job with a good pension.

It still can be. Especially if you're an MP.

Paul_Herring

Tromking wrote: »

Latest re. the FBU’s efforts to challenge aspects of the Governments pension reform.

https://www.fbu.org.uk/circular/2018hoc0073mw/pensions-age-discrimination-appeal

The sole criterion to determine who has to leave the old scheme and who does not is age. A younger member has to transfer into the new scheme even though an older member who joined at exactly the same time, or even later, does not.

A rather simple solution does rather present itself. Not that it would make the older members happy of course...

Tromking

Paul_Herring wrote: »

A rather simple solution does rather present itself. Not that it would make the older members happy of course...

The simple solution would be to keep the individual member in the scheme they originally joined. Bearing in mind that public sector pensions have seen regular reforms in recent decades.

Andy_L

Paul_Herring wrote: »

It still can be. Especially if you're an MP.

MPs aren't civil servants

hyubh

zaax wrote: »

It's not only pensions, the the civil service used to be a good job with a good pension. Not now £25000 for an officer, poor promotion prospects, and a rubbish pension.

It's not 'rubbish' - Alpha is excellent. In fact, Partnership is very good.

Paul_Herring wrote: »

It still can be. Especially if you're an MP.

You are misinformed. Both Alpha and the current MPs' scheme are CARE, with CPI revaluation. However, Alpha has an accrual rate of 2.32% and an employee contribution rate of between 4.60% and 8.05%, whereas the MPs' scheme has an accrual rate of 1.96% and a contribution rate of 11.09%. Or, in short: while still very good, the MPs' scheme is worse than the Civil Service one.

Tromking wrote: »

Bearing in mind that public sector pensions have seen regular reforms in recent decades.

Compared to the private sector, not so much.