Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Do you agree or disagree with today's public Sector protests?
67 Answers
http://
With the Private Sector also experiencing cuts and other changes to their less generous pension schemes, can the general public find any sympathy for these Public Sector workers?
Since it is illegal for Prison Officers to strike will they all be prosecuted, if not perhaps our Armed Forces should also down weapons because their pensions have also took a hammering, not to mention the conditions they have to work under?
With the Private Sector also experiencing cuts and other changes to their less generous pension schemes, can the general public find any sympathy for these Public Sector workers?
Since it is illegal for Prison Officers to strike will they all be prosecuted, if not perhaps our Armed Forces should also down weapons because their pensions have also took a hammering, not to mention the conditions they have to work under?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not really much of an answer to say that the government took some people as employees without realising how long people would live. Don't think you or I would be able to novate a contract simply because it turned out to be more burdensome than we expected, hoped, or predicted, and yet that is what the government is doing; purporting to substitute one contract with a new one, is it not?
Where in the contract does it say that an employee who starts with a pension in one form, an essential term in the contract, part of the consideration for it, is liable to have that pension changed according to the whim or wish of one party to it ?
If he proposed change applies only to those who become employed after the change, then there's no problem; they either take as the new contract is or refuse it, but that does not appear to be the case here.
Where in the contract does it say that an employee who starts with a pension in one form, an essential term in the contract, part of the consideration for it, is liable to have that pension changed according to the whim or wish of one party to it ?
If he proposed change applies only to those who become employed after the change, then there's no problem; they either take as the new contract is or refuse it, but that does not appear to be the case here.
I have absolutely no problem with your proposals, Fred, and you will realise my euthanasia comment was tongue-in-cheek.
There are two ways to solve this but the staff and unions reject both of them.
1) A line is drawn under the existing pension promise (pension benefit A) and a new scheme starts on different terms (pension benefit B). The benefit from A is capped at CURRENT salary plus CPI escalation up to the point of retirement. The benefit from B is based on whatever parameters are negotiated.
2) A career-average scheme is put in place that is established using actuaries who can model the likely benefits versus costs - but it runs across the whole career of the individual.
No-one is denying (not even me) that civil servants had a contractual promise made when they started their careers that the final year salary pension would be whatever it is at the end of the scheme, but the problem was (and still is) that the end-point salary that drives the cost during retirement was (and still is) undefined. That is why the existing terms of existing schemes need to be terminated - and civil servants take their future benefits from benefit A (above)at retirement age based on 2012 salary plus CPI indexing.
Every delay and provarication by the unions continues to delay the inevitable, and continues to cost taxpayers millions.
There are two ways to solve this but the staff and unions reject both of them.
1) A line is drawn under the existing pension promise (pension benefit A) and a new scheme starts on different terms (pension benefit B). The benefit from A is capped at CURRENT salary plus CPI escalation up to the point of retirement. The benefit from B is based on whatever parameters are negotiated.
2) A career-average scheme is put in place that is established using actuaries who can model the likely benefits versus costs - but it runs across the whole career of the individual.
No-one is denying (not even me) that civil servants had a contractual promise made when they started their careers that the final year salary pension would be whatever it is at the end of the scheme, but the problem was (and still is) that the end-point salary that drives the cost during retirement was (and still is) undefined. That is why the existing terms of existing schemes need to be terminated - and civil servants take their future benefits from benefit A (above)at retirement age based on 2012 salary plus CPI indexing.
Every delay and provarication by the unions continues to delay the inevitable, and continues to cost taxpayers millions.
I think there is a major misunderstandings about what is being proposed. I partly blame the government but i also blame the public sector union leaders.
First there is a misconception among public sector workers (and I am one) that the terms of a pension scheme when someone joined- maybe 30 years ago- would remain forever. Most people in the private sector know that schemes can change because they have seen them changed or scrapped. I have worked in both sectors and the changes being made now reflect those that had to be made in many private sector companies 5 years ago.
There is also a misconception that retrospective changes are being proposed. This is wrong. All final salary benefits earned under previous service will remain- it is only future accrual rights that will be based on 'career average'.
Finally, the argument is constantly trotted out that these changes are being made to pay for the mistakes of bankers or to fund bankers bonuses. This is tripe. The present arrangements are not sustainable given the significantly increased longevity of the population. I blame the government partly here for not making the rationale clear and allowing the unions to make misleading claims that their schemes are affordable.
Maybe an independent report should have been produced which everyone signed up to before hand and agreed to commit themselves to its findings.
Finally, I also know that I'm probably wasting my time making these points as most people (me included I'm sure some will say) have made up their minds on this issue and are unlikely to want to be bothered by the facts and figures or accept counter arguments.
First there is a misconception among public sector workers (and I am one) that the terms of a pension scheme when someone joined- maybe 30 years ago- would remain forever. Most people in the private sector know that schemes can change because they have seen them changed or scrapped. I have worked in both sectors and the changes being made now reflect those that had to be made in many private sector companies 5 years ago.
There is also a misconception that retrospective changes are being proposed. This is wrong. All final salary benefits earned under previous service will remain- it is only future accrual rights that will be based on 'career average'.
Finally, the argument is constantly trotted out that these changes are being made to pay for the mistakes of bankers or to fund bankers bonuses. This is tripe. The present arrangements are not sustainable given the significantly increased longevity of the population. I blame the government partly here for not making the rationale clear and allowing the unions to make misleading claims that their schemes are affordable.
Maybe an independent report should have been produced which everyone signed up to before hand and agreed to commit themselves to its findings.
Finally, I also know that I'm probably wasting my time making these points as most people (me included I'm sure some will say) have made up their minds on this issue and are unlikely to want to be bothered by the facts and figures or accept counter arguments.
I can sympathize with their protest and their rights to do so.
However, I was employed in the private sector and in the last three years before I more or less retired my pension scheme was changed 3 times, each time being degraded. So, things change and you either have to suffer it or change your job.
However, I was employed in the private sector and in the last three years before I more or less retired my pension scheme was changed 3 times, each time being degraded. So, things change and you either have to suffer it or change your job.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.