Public Sector Pensions

[flip_flop]

Teachers and other public workers are talking about 'fairness' and the fact that they don't want to be forced to increase their contributions and don't want to work beyond their current retirement age.

As I understand it the vast majority of their pension is paid for them out of the public purse.

Ignoring the point that I don't think we should be providing them with a pension at all - as I'm having to save for my retirement by paying into a private pension I don't see why they can't - if the reports are to be believed public sector pensions are among the best there are with many of them still being final salary and index-linked.

Am I missing something here?

Because I'm struggling to understand why they are moaning about having to contribute a little more and work a little longer.

[emmie]

it does, but then we also lose some good people, because they are made to retire early.

[DrFilth]

sorry that was wage not pension

pension would be just over £10,000 if she takes the high tax free lump sum of over £60,000 (think that was the figure)
or higher pension if lower tax free lump sum taken

[sammmo]

I work in the private sector and our pension contribution was increased by 4% to be entitled to 1/80 th for every years service instead of 1/60 th per years service and instead of being able to claim it from the age of 62 I will have to wait until 65 before i can claim it.. After seeking financial advice I was told it was still better than the other option on offer IE a money purchase scheme.. No I didn't like it..No I didn't go on strike.. I just excepted the fact that pension pots were hit by the financial troubles and theres nothing we can do about that.. I've got a bit of sympathy with the public sector workers but they will have to except its going to happen come what may..

[dave50]

Dont forget that Gordon Brown all but destroyed the pension investments for private sector workers and all our final salary schemes were ended thanks to that idiot. There was a woman on tv last night saying it wasn't right that she had to start paying more for less pension, work longer and have to worry about job security. I say welcome to the real world!!

[AB Editor]

I heard the phrase "Equality of misery" the other day. Seems to be the general call? "They've got something and I don't, lets take it away from them".

I think this kind of thinking is toxic to the whole of society.

Just my non-editorial tuppence.

Spare.

[Sqad]

Ed...I don't think that ANYBODY is suggesting that their pensions are "taken away from the" just that to be able to afford their upkeep they will have to pay more onto them for a longer period.

[Quizmonster]

MPs are surely part of the "public sector"; they are after all paid through taxation in exactly the same way as are teachers, civil servants etc.
When the Cabinet Office was asked about MPs' pensions, the reply was that these were a matter for the Parliamentary Standards Authority. They, in turn, said they could do nothing until the Leader of the House of Commons set the matter going and that lengthy consultation would then be required. The Leader is Sir George Young (Tory) and his deputy is David Heath (LibDem).
Given that "we are all in this together" and that MPs are accruing pension rights at double the pace of teachers, shouldn't these two gentlemen do just that without further ado?
(Supporting links - including The Telegraph - available by googling MPs' pensions 2011.)

[jno]

"gold-plated"? The public sector pension in my household is less than half the private sector one, despite being for the same kind of work and longer service. Critics sometimes talk through their hats.

[Quizmonster]

Re "gold-plated" teachers' pensions, J, MPs' ones are now being referred to as rhodium-plated. I'm no scientist, but I understand that this means they're even better than platinum-plated!

[Sqad]

jno.......the pension depends upon the amount of money that you pay into the "pot"......whether public or private...............not the job that you do or length of time.

The difference being is that the public sector "pots" are "ring fenced" against the vagaries of the financial markets and the private pensions are not.

[AB Editor]

Sqad, I think it's a general theme of the last year or so. I may be being unfair, but...

There seems to be a need to compare the public and private sector as if they were like for like currently - which to me seems a bit mad. One is for individual profit, the other for public good.

Spare.

(non editorial message)

[rowanwitch]

My feeling is.. when we signed up to work in the public sector the deal included the pension scheme...to move the goal posts when we have spent our working lives basing our retirement plans on a certain level of income accrued while providing public service is I believe immoral... One thing I will say though is market forces impact on the private sector over recent years mean that some public sector workers are now comparatively well paid. I can retire next year but as I have no other source of income and as I will not now get a state pension until 67 I will need to carry on working. BTW I feel that changing the state pension age is effectively the government breaking a contract with the working population... When I started work the agreement was work until you are 60 and contribute to the economic
wellbeing of the nation and in return for your contribution you will be given a small pension from the state.

[Sqad]

Ed

<<<<There seems to be a need to compare the public and private sector as if they were like for like currently - which to me seems a bit mad. One is for individual profit, the other for public good. >>>>

Individual profit depends upon providing a good service.......often public sector rewards are irrespective of quality of end results.

[B00]

All i care about is that i've had to use one of my piddling 20days holiday for this sodding strike.

Oh how i laughed!

Grrrr!!!!

[jno]

the private sector pension may not be protected, Sqad, but it's actually grown faster in retirement than the public sector one despite vagaries and vicissitudes all round. The usual understanding is that public sector workers get less pay than private sector equivalents, on the understanding that they'll get more peension (which is basically deferred pay). This has turned out to be false: less pay and *much* less pension. A win-win situation for the government.

Quizmonster, I suppose it's too late to insist that mine be restrospectively coated in moon dust?

[Sqad]

rowan....I have a certain amount of sympathy with that opinion....but life is not like that..........nothing is forever.
The public sector pensions are no longer affordable.

[jno]

sorry, rowan's post wasn't there when I started, so I echo her message.

[rowanwitch]

I think the fairest way is to change the system for new entrants to the pension schemes although I would be willing to increase my contributions for the remaining time I have as part of the workforce to ensure it remained 'final salary' based

[AB Editor]

"Individual profit depends upon providing a good service......."

Not always. Look at the trains.

"often public sector rewards are irrespective of quality of end results."

I honestly don't believe that. In the same way a plumber or mechanic works "in good faith" so do teachers, doctors and politicians (okay, maybe not politicians) - and we have to accept that.

And I think all pensions are non-performance linked in the end? You don't get a better pension for being better at your job?

I'm anti-pension anyway. I'd scrap any form of publicly provided pension across the board except for those in the worst of conditions.

Spare

(definitely non editorial comment)

[Ellipsis]

I wonder what issues the Govt aren't tackling or what bad news they are burying while they spend time having a public row with the teachers.

Are public sector pensions really such a big deal that they had to be tackled within a year of the Govt coming to power? I can't fathom why it's a topic for discussion at this stage, when even at the current levels the cost is set to fall by 25% (as a proportion of GDP). And, as pointed out, if the MPs had led from the front and tackled their own outrageous pensions first then they may be able to claim some moral high ground in the discussions. As it is, it just appears to be selfish dogma.

So what's really going on? This is hardly a great advertisement for the profession. I'm sure really good, dedicated individuals are longing to be teachers; their work is obviously highly appreciated ... not. The net result is that good people won't come into the profession and will leave the profession, the quality of state education will suffer and the gap between state and private education will widen. If this ISN'T the long term aim, then somebody is messing up somewhere ...