Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?
Comments
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the government appealed and eventually won the appeal. Transitional arrangements have been common to both the public and private sectors and to use the logic of this judgement to compensate younger employees could cost billions which neither the government nor the private sector pension funds have. The supreme court is likely to weigh the effect of the financial impact to a much greater degree than the employment tribunal.0
-
Yes, it does seem that the unions sought and obtained transitional protections that discriminated against the majority of their members on the basis of their age. Outrageous that the unions which were supposed to be looking out for them argued so hard and even got those members to strike in favour of being discriminated against.
Sorry, but that's just claptrap. I don't know about judges pensions (do judges have 'trade unions' exactly...?), but for the LGPS etc. the deal won discriminated mainly in favour of the very low paid, and discriminated against the highest paid.Meanwhile, things have moved on in a particularly notable way: the single tier state pension allows those who have been in contracted out pension schemes, notably almost all public sector employees
The state pension changes were concocted entirely separately from the move away from final salary pensions in the public sector.0 -
I agree, should have let Hutton's proposals be introduced without being watered down.
Au contraire, Hutton included things such as blandly asserting the unsuitability of non-public sector employers in public sector schemes (I agree with the unions for resisting this) and made a fetish of CARE. Changing the police and fire schemes was a waste of time (should have just moved everyone into the 2006 schemes), and the CARE LGPS isn't officially any less expensive than the FS scheme it replaced.That's unions for you.
They set out to defend members' (and potential members') pension rights, and they succeeded in that. Good for them.0 -
The decision and my post were about the transitional protection, not the main Hutton deal, for which Hutton recommended no transitional protection on the grounds that it would be age discrimination. This tribunal just agreed with Hutton that in the case of the judges the transitional protection was unlawful age discrimination.the deal won discriminated mainly in favour of the very low paid, and discriminated against the highest paid..
If you haven't read the decision you really should. If nothing else you'll better understand what I wrote, why and the potential significance.
Unless good reasons are found, the main public sector transitional protection portion might also end up being thrown out as unlawful age discrimination. This decision in effect gave some possible approaches to saving it. Which may be tough because it also tells the younger employees how to fight it and get higher benefits for themselves, rather than the least disadvantaged group that the transitional protection helps. One example approach given that would not have been age discriminatory in the case of the high court judges would have been to take the budget for the transitional protection and distribute it evenly among all employees, delaying the change date from old scheme to new for all.0 -
Sorry, but that's just claptrap. I don't know about judges pensions (do judges have 'trade unions' exactly...?), but for the LGPS etc. the deal won discriminated mainly in favour of the very low paid, and discriminated against the highest paid.
It's still discrimination though, irrespective of the result.0 -
Au contraire, Hutton included things such as blandly asserting the unsuitability of non-public sector employers in public sector schemes (I agree with the unions for resisting this) and made a fetish of CARE. Changing the police and fire schemes was a waste of time (should have just moved everyone into the 2006 schemes), and the CARE LGPS isn't officially any less expensive than the FS scheme it replaced.
The idea of CARE was to have some consistency across all the public sectors. Putting all police onto the 2006 scheme would have still carried on the unfairness that results from someone shooting up the ranks in the last few years of their service, as it's a final salary scheme. It also has a retirement age of 55, rather than the 60 that was recommended. So, not really a waste of time.They set out to defend members' (and potential members') pension rights, and they succeeded in that. Good for them.
No they didn't. They blackmailed the govt with industrial action and and demanded discriminatory transitional protection for those closest to retirement.0 -
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.)
I can assure you that rather a large proportion of the "highly paid elite" are "socially inept".
The highly paid elite include those who are highly qualified, or have rich parents, or have useful connections, or have business skills in some form. As for the less advantaged being "born that way", that could spark a long discussion.0 -
Yes, it does seem that the unions sought and obtained transitional protections that discriminated against the majority of their members on the basis of their age. Outrageous that the unions which were supposed to be looking out for them argued so hard and even got those members to strike in favour of being discriminated against.
I do wonder though: what percentage of the union negotiators and executives were in the group that was to benefit from the discrimination?
What %age of TU members were in that higher age group, I've a gut feeling based on my experience (so could well be wrong) that TU membership is more common for older workers0 -
More meat on the bones with this article.
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3002692/young-judges-win-pensions-discrimination-case-against-moj“Britain- A friend to all, beholden to none”. 🇬🇧0 -
Any thoughts on the government's next actions? Presumably appeal regardless but looks forlorn hope.
If Fireman and Policeman win their appeals could get very interesting.
Spread the transitional funding over all staff groups? Lots of !!!!ed off people then whose retirement plans affected again.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards