Public sector to work longer for worse pensions

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 10 March 2011  |  Comments 36 comments

The Government's pensions adviser has proposed a massive overhaul of public sector pensions. But do his plans go too far?

Public sector to work longer for worse pensions

Public sector workers face having to work longer for smaller pensions, following a Government report.

Lord Hutton, a former Labour minister, has published his report into public sector pensions, with a number of radical suggestions to ensure they are affordable in the future, the most dramatic being the call for existing final salary pensions to be scrapped.

The changes

It always used to be the case that by taking a job in the public sector, you sacrificed a more competitive wage for the sake of the benefits, of which pensions was a key component. However, as salaries have risen, that argument has become more redundant, hence the difficulties in justifying current public sector pension provision.

Here are the main recommendations Lord Hutton has made following his nine month study.

  • Existing final salary schemes should be replaced by new schemes where the pension entitlement is linked to career average earnings.
  • Linking normal pension age in public service pension schemes to the State Pension age.
  • Members of the ‘uniformed services’ (armed forces, police, firefighters) currently have a normal pension age of less than 60. This should be raised to 60.
  • Public service pension schemes should have a ‘clear cost ceiling’ – the proportion of pensionable pay that taxpayers will contribute to employees’ pensions.
  • Introducing more independent oversight and stronger governance of pension schemes.
  • Overhauling legal framework to make pensions simpler.

An end to final salary schemes

Scrapping final salary schemes will see some lose out. Of course, if your career started with you earning £20,000 a year and you retire with an annual salary of £30,000 a year, then the pain will be fairly small.

If you've left your pension planning to the eleventh hour, find out how to catch up quick.

However, if there are large fluctuations in your pay – perhaps you started out for a few years at a basic level before rising up to a senior role on a healthy wage – then the size of your pension pot will be heavily dented. Of course, if you’ve been on such a healthy wage for a while, you can probably afford to pay a little more into your pension anyway.

Working for longer

My wife is a teacher, and I’ve often joked she is my walking pension plan. While that may still be the case, I’ll have to wait a little longer to enjoy the fruits of her labour if this particular recommendation is adopted.

As it stands, for many public sector workers, the ‘normal pension age’ – the age at which they qualify for their pension – is substantially lower than for the rest of us when it comes to claiming State Pension. Lord Hutton thinks that the two ages should be the same. It’s difficult to criticise this idea to be honest.

A ‘normal pension age’

However, when I look at it objectively, I can’t help feeling there’s a good reason for it for certain public sector workers. There’s a reason you don’t have too many 60-year old firefighters – it’s a stressful, physical job that is beyond many by the time they’ve reached that age.

And how many 60-year old bobbies on the beat should there be? Are more elderly coppers the answer to anti-social behaviour? I’m not so sure.

Related blog post

Of course, roles can be found for some of them away from the front line, but there are only so many office workers you need in a fire station. Making 60-year olds rescue cats from trees seems a touch daft to me.

There’s the argument that they can always find another job, too. Sounds great, but we need to ensure our businesses are willing to take on people aged 50 or over who only have experience as police officers, or firefighters, or in the navy.  

A ‘clear cost ceiling’

For me, this is really the crux of the issue. At present, the belief is that ordinary taxpayers like you and me are paying too much towards the pensions of public sector workers, and the balance needs redressing.

That’s fair enough. At present the public sector pension bill costs around £30bn a year, a figure that looks even more unsustainable in the present climate. And ensuring that public sector workers contribute more towards their own pensions is an eminently sensible thing to do. After all, many of us can’t rely on our employers to bump up our salaries.

The table below was put together by Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Services Pension Commission (which is behind the report) and shows average public sector employees’ own contributions, as well as those in private sector schemes.

Scheme

Employee contribution

Employer contribution

Teachers

6.4 %

14.1%

NHS

5.5%-8.5%

14%

Civil service

1.5% or 3.5%

19%

Police – 1987 scheme

11%

24.2%

Police – 2006 scheme

9.5%

24.2%

Fire – 1992 scheme

11%

26.5%

Fire - 2006 scheme

8.5%

14.2%

Armed forces – officers

0%

37.3%

Armed forces – others

0%

21.4%

Local Government Pension Scheme

5.5%-7.5%

14-25%

Average private sector open defined benefit scheme

5.4%

14.9%

Average private sector open defined contribution scheme

3%

6.4%

Clearly, in certain sectors, the contributions made by the employer – essentially, you and me – are pretty vast. Ensuring that there is more of a balance to these contributions is a good move.

A parliament of discontent

Unsurprisingly, the unions are already up in arms about these plans, warning that strikes are inevitable. Given that elements of these recommendations would take years to implement, strike action would likely be prolonged across the length of this parliament.

When you consider the numerous other strikes and protests the Government has been on the receiving end of already, then there’s a good chance this will be seen as a parliament of discontent, no matter how sensible some of the changes may be.

More: The best Sipp for your retirement | Earn 5% on your savings, tax-free | Forget fixes and turn to trackers

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (36)

  • WalterleRouge
    Love rating 5
    WalterleRouge said

    The idea that the employer's contribution to the pension is somehow different to the 'taxpayer's money' that pays the actual salaries of teachers, etc, is wrong. The salary of a teacher, say, is 14.1% lower than it would be if the employer didn't contribute to the pension. The cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same as if there were no employer contribution. When I joined the teaching profession in 1973, I accepted that I would have a lower than the graduate going rate salary in other jobs in return for enforced pension contributions. That was a conscious trade-off. What is wrong with this decision is that it penalises once again those people who have thoughtfully planned their retirement strategy well ahead, only for the rules to be changed when it may be too late for them to remedy the situation and when they may already have committed to long-term financial products that are now unsuitable.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • JR2006
    Love rating 2
    JR2006 said

    This is quite simply a question of what is affordable for the tax payer and the risks attached to meeting future outlays based on the size of the working population in the future. Public sector pensions are a kind of ponzi scheme i.e. those currently recieving pensions are at least in part paid by those currently in work vs. the pot that has actually been built up on their behalf. This worked fine when the public sector was small but not so well now.

    The private sector has seen a universal shutting of final salary schemes to new members and the existing members benefits cut e.g. to 2% increase in pensionable salary each year, effectively decoupling the final salary element. I can see no argument why the public sector should not have to do the same.

    Surely we want people in the public sector because they want to be there, not because of the pension. I really hope my son / daughter's teacher is not standing at the front of the class thinking only of their pension !

    That said it is fair the say that any changes in pension should be made with plenty notice for those to adjust their retirement planning accordingly. For some that may include leaving the public sector for the private sector - so be it.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Alan14
    Love rating 16
    Alan14 said

    The going rate for graduates in teaching is no worse (according to http://www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/pay-and-benefits.aspx) than for other graduates, with a scale from £21,588 for a newly qualified teacher up to £52,090 for an 'excellent' teacher. There are also other fringe benefits, such as working 195 days/year, and extra responsibility pay.

    As for the police force, where else can one retire at 48 (30 years service, minimum joining age 18) with a 2.5 years salary tax free lump sum and an index linked pension of 2/3 final salary? In West Yorkshire this benefit works out as worth an additional 45% on salary.

    Simple fact is that those not in public service are now propping up the pensions of those in public service, and it's not sustainable. Of course those who don't like the changes are free to change their jobs - most people in the private sector have had to, sometimes often!

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • jscadden
    Love rating 16
    jscadden said

    The average Public Service Pension is only £4,000 per annum. These are official figures and the average salary is less than £15,000 per annum. These are the people you are trying to take money from. Average annual bonuses of about £150 when added to the salary, still make for low wage. I've just started drawing my Civil Service pension, most of which was paid for by me before I joined the service, from pension schemes where, although the employer was supposed to contribute but always took "contribution holidays" so in essence, I was the only one making contributions. If I were not receiving my Civil Service pension, the taxpayer would have to foot the bill anyway through pension credit. The reality is totally different from what people and politicians spout! There is no work out there for elderly people. The Age discrimination act is not worth the paper itis written on as was most of the employment legislation passed by the last government.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • strighttalk
    Love rating 5
    strighttalk said

    I think public sector workers are a really easy target at the moment, shameful politics.

    I'm not a public sector worker but I respect our NHS workers, Police Officers, Firefighters, Teachers and Service Personel.

    I don't agree with private sector workers who bemoan the public sector pension packages and think anyone who does needs to spend a night shift in A&E or on a Friday night in Hackney or Tottenham with the police, or spend a week with a teacher at a challenging inner city school.

    It's a farce to imagine Police Officers and firefighters working until 60.

    I have friends in the Police and Teaching and they tell me that moral is at rock bottom.

    Kick these everyday heroes too hard and you will get what you deserve. You think you have Broken Britain at the moment, wait five years when these hard working public servants have well and truly had enough. It makes me angry, I can see whats around the corner. Be warned.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • richardbrinsden
    Love rating 2
    richardbrinsden said

    I am self employed,I have paid into a pension for over 20 years,but due to poor performance I will get £120 a week pension.Am I upset that my taxes go to non productive people on a lifetime job,no I am not.

    P.S.my daughter is a teacher.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • johnmolly
    Love rating 4
    johnmolly said

    I'm a public sector worker and I started my job at 19 years of age. Currently, I could retire at 49. If they raise the pension age, it means I'll have to work for another 11 years or won't be able to draw my pension for another 11 years. Either way, that seriously affects my future, as my supposedly secure pension had figured greatly in paying my mortgage off etc...

    I really feel that all this has come about because of the press pointing the finger and I am very upset by it all. There is a reason we have reasonable pension plans, because we have to sacrifice an awful lot in our daily lives. My job is very hard work, I see things every day and deal with things every day that the average person doesn't see in a life time and I have to work public holidays and shifts, whether I like it or not.

    I'm very disappointed because I voted this government in. I won't make that mistake again!

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Hardtruth
    Love rating 66
    Hardtruth said

    @strighttalk you make the mistake of applying cherry-picked soundbites. I have plenty of family members and friends who work in the public sector and they paint a very different picture to the hero laden lal-la land that you paint. Heaps of deadwood, jobs for the boys (and girls), freeloading, militancy, jobsworths, non-jobs, 'elf 'n safety, PC, inefficiency etc etc.

    In fact the overriding sentiment is that it is because there has never been reform and overhaul they are angry that they are now in the firing line for failure to have fixed these growing and unsustainable problems a long time ago. Yes morale is low but the reasons for that are not the obvious ones that you think. You hear only the voices of the loudest and they are not necessarily the ones that hold all the arguments.

    Irrespective of public or private sector there are deserving and undeserving. First time in living memory, if ever, that the squeeze has gone onto this over-bloated, self serving, bureaucratic podgy middle and it is time to shape it up and ship it out. No more gravy train. Sad fact of life is that there will be people who do not deserve what is coming to them and that is unfortunate but it is a case of welcome to the real world in which the rest of us live.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • cherokee
    Love rating 3
    cherokee said

    The debate is an interesting one...without trying to be cheesy being an nurse was always notoriously a poorly paid job in monetary term but reaped such rewards in by way of fuzzy warm feelings and acts of kindness and pride in the job you did. The fact we were being managed by clinicians that are sidelined into management as they lack people skills was ridiculous but inevitable but we felt valued by the knowledge that at least we got a decent pension.

    The ridiculous middle management, institutional bullying , obsession with quantifiable and irrelevant targets,.....the inability to think in efficient business terms and the general poor patient care that has now become the Primary Care Trusts and hospitals. Hmmmmmm.......again focus on individuals not society as a whole.

    Now the pensions have gone pear shaped, the salaries for nurses still pants, patient contact decreasing and child protection and litigation increasing, thus the inability to "care" for your patients deteriorating.

    Ok Alan14 ,who suggest those who don't like it go to the private sector.... pray tell who may employ a 40 year old public sector worker with a degree,msc, myriad of nursing certificates,a post graduate diploma etc? When most people undertake a degree, perhaps it is transferable . If only life were that simple.

    Ex nurse ( as of 6 hours ago)

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I remember when the government privatised the water company. My father, a civil servant, hit the roof, bitterly complaining that he no longer had a job for life. How dare the government take away his RIGHT!

    So, many people who are civil servants will discover what the real world is about. Planning your own future, being made redundant, and having to stand on your own two feet are some of the many perks we private sector workers have to cope with.

    It should toughen up a few people, who thought that life was a cotton wool wrapped existance.

    As for salary, one of the reasons the government introduced the minimum wage, was to ensure that people didn't earn less than 'X' pounds, but many people are barely surviving on about £12,000 a year (or less if they are part time or agency workers).

    Also, while there may be some justification to not employing older people in high risk jobs, such as Police or Fire Fighters, I have also met quite a few older people who could easily carry on as Police or Fire Fighters. In other words, age should not be a deciding factor, but rather competence and ability. After all, I knew a 50 year old who was going senile, and a 65 year old who could have carried on for another 10 years. Age is NOT an indicator.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • fireworx6
    Love rating 0
    fireworx6 said

    You missed out a vital fact in the above article in that GPs in the NHS have to pay BOTH employees (highest rate) and employers contributions so thus have to pay the highest rate of all in the table!

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bisto44
    Love rating 2
    bisto44 said

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought one of the original reasons that the retirement age was lower for public sector workers was that it was recognised that those in stressfull jobs, and more so those who work shifts had a shorter life span, hence less time to spend (and be paid) their pension. I do seem to recall research saying five years less for perminent nights, and seven for internal rotation. The plan to increase the retirement age will save money because we will all be dropping dead before reaping the rewards of our hard work.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Chris Sagan
    Love rating 1
    Chris Sagan said

    There are 'around 300 public service pension schemes. More than 95% of public sector workers are members of the 6 largest categories': those listed in the table in the main article. Why are there such variances in the public sector pension schemes?

    As the table in the article indicates not all public sector pension funds are 'heavily subsidised' by the private sector taxpayers. What a pity the table did not have room for another column showing a Pension Fund surplus/deficit.

    Teachers and NHS workers seem to have schemes very similar in terms of percentages to the Average private sector open defined benefit scheme. Note it's the Average. Surely, the public sector schemes that appear to be too generous eg 0%, 1.5% employee contribution rate are the schemes that should be scrutinised?

    I have sympathy for the poor people with the Average private sector open defined contribution scheme (especially those below average!) and I pity those people working who -at present- have no works pension scheme. I wonder how many of these are victims of a certain Mr Brown's raiding UK pensions...

    Do I want the services of the public sector? Health Care -via nhs; Education; Law and order? I do and I'm willing to pay taxes to fund service workers - and their pensions. At least (most) public sector workers are working. What really concerns me is not the £33 billion of my taxes spent as employee contributions to some of their pension schemes, but the £194 billion of my taxes spent on Social Security in the year 2010-2011 when we borrowed £149 billion - source HM Treasury.

    As other commentators have said, we should be looking to improve pensions - to MP standards? hmm? that would be 'Gold Plated'! - and not to pull pensions down to the worst.

    I think all Public Sector pension schemes should have the same employer contributions (c14%) and to make them viable the employee contributions adjusted (tricky bit) to keep the funds in the black, so that the schemes may be relatively self supporting. The goverment of the day/taxpayer will always be the employer, so they'll have to pay the employer contributions to the (300! - needs sorting out!) schemes.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tonytelecom
    Love rating 4
    tonytelecom said

    I am not a fan of either the state or private pensions.

    It would seem that they get to move the goal posts at whim.

    Surely, it should be a contractural obligation on behalf of the employer.

    I can fully understand that the employer closes the floodgates to new employees.

    But not to renage on people who are 30 years in and have worked out their retirement plans based on their contract of employment.

    A disgrace.

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • mikex
    Love rating 13
    mikex said

    Well, I'm retired and in my 70s. During my working lifetime, although I had the usual baggage of mortgage and 4 kids to bring up, we managed with the minimum of state help. During my working lifetime, I was prudent enough to subscribe to one or other of the govt-sponsored 'top up' schemes in operation (SERPS e.g.), and I was fortunate enough to work for two employers who offered a final salary pension scheme, and, although not a fortune, I do get a little extra from those sources to make life that bit more comfortable. However, I am taxed on these private pension elements, if it comes to that, on the govt 'extras' as well. This leads to the irony of paying tax to fund my own pension, and paying to cover the undoubtedly generous benefits enjoyed by the public sector.

    Do I resent this? You bet I do!

    I don't have problems with those who work hard for ungenerous wages, but am concerned about the 'jobsworths' who proliferate in both national and local govt. employ. After all, I also pay council tax, and am only too well aware of the proliferation of facetious jobs, particularly in local govt. I don't have trouble with those who have problems with their sexuality, but am not keen on funding gender change co-ordinators (or travellers' liaison officers for that matter).

    Hope you get my point; I couldn't make it any ctearer...

    Report on 10 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • westwinds3
    Love rating 10
    westwinds3 said

    Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK has done an interesting calculation on private sector pensions. These pay out about £35b a year in pensions. However, if you add together all the tax breaks - income tax relief, NI relief, relief on bond income, capital gains tax etc., it also comes to about £35b a year. In other words the Government indirectly subsidises the entire cost of private sector pensions. The contributions that employees and employers make are effectively a donation to the financial services industry. Those bankers really need their bonuses. I don't trust his calculation completely, but I suspect it is not far off.

    Our own pension scheme pays out about £20m a year in pensions, and about £5m to all the various managers and advisors (remember, although the charges are a small percentage of the value of the fund, you need to hold a lot of money to pay £20m a year pensions).

    The main costs to our scheme are investment manager fees. On this basis unfunded public sector pensions are rather efficient. The expenses are minimal and the government gets an interest-free loan.

    I am retired with a good pension and I know I am lucky. But decent pensions only exist because people fought for them. It is crazy for those with lousy pensions to be devoting their energy to fighting against good pensions for others. Remember that the people who tell us that decent private sector pensions are impossible today are the same people who told employers to take a 10-year pension holiday a few years ago. I didn't believe them then and I don't believe them now.

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • krustallos
    Love rating 39
    krustallos said

    I work in Local Government and I didn't go into it with any thoughts about my pension although now I'm reaching the age where that's becoming more important I'm quite happy with the entitlement I've built up which is quite a bit more than I was expecting. If it's now arbitrarily reduced I shall be very annoyed. If people have contributed to a scheme with set rules those rules should be maintained; the goalposts should not be moved.

    Whether we work in the private or public sector, reductions in pension entitlements are basically a hidden pay cut and it's in the interest of all of us who are employees to fight against any attempt to cut back on them. The sort of letters I've seen in the newspapers recently from private sector workers complaining about public sector pensions are incredibly short-sighted. Private sector pay and benefits have been forced down by private sector employers (so they can pocket more of the turnover) not by public sector workers, and the idea that we should level everyone's pay and conditions down to the worst available is suicidal. Good pay and conditions should be seen as a benchmark to aspire to, not as a source of envy. Affordability is a question of political will - apparently we could afford to bail out the banks, so paying nurses a decent pension should not really present a problem.

    I don't know where all these 'non-jobs' in the public sector are, by the way. Nearly everyone I've met in local government works extremely hard, I've never come across a "gender change co-ordinator", and traveller liaison officer is actually a pretty important job, as anyone living near a traveller site will be aware.

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    Give that most actuaries say that over a working lifetime of 40 years then given average investment returns you need to pay in a minimum of 20% of salary to get a 2/3rds final salary pension then those in DC schemes are going to be poor when they retire.....

    It is also salutory to remind ourselves that employers have cut pension costs/benefits in the private sector in order to give more money to shareholders - and of course company directors are all shareholders (OK, yes and so are pension funds). Also remember that most people joined (firms and) the public sector with the contractural promise of a DB pension. And most of us don't realise that when the Welfare State was set up, the country's deficit was a tiny 230+% of GDP whereas it is now an enormous 50/60% GDP.

    Oh, and can we go back to the old Lovemoney system where the first comment made followed the article and the rest followed in sequence, instead of having to plough all the way down to the bottom of the page and work our way back up, thanks.

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Sadly this is just bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Except MPS of course who are not mentioned.

    Local Government pensions were affordable and their funds in good health until the government robbed them of billions of pounds . Also some foolishly took pension contribution holidays. There is also a tendency for many top jobs to be very highly paid which did not happen before as everyone stuck to a scale. The Labour Government facilitated teh ruin of local government by dumping more services onto it - some from teh police sme form health- and this has led to an expansion of the service . Also the need to beat 'target' which has led to many staff being taken on to form fill and to '. All this was encouraged by balir/Brown that well known pair of wreckersspin'

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • emilybutt12
    Love rating 4
    emilybutt12 said

    As a new NHS worker (as of 6 months) the thought of retiring seems a very long way a way, and as the age of retirement seems to be increasing it seems even further. However, being money savvy, and fortunately/unfortunately growing up during the credit crunch, has made me appreciate what I do get in my pension i.e. what I contribute and what is contributed on my behalf. But it has also made me question what is going to happen in the future and what I need to do to ensure that I am able to retire comfortably.

    However, I feel that I am one of very few. In a sweeping statement, but probably relatively true, most public sector workers sacrifice the salary for a good pension pot - and why shouldn't we. As a nurse I deal with all manner of bodily fluids day in day out, work 12.5 hour shifts - nights, days, weekends, bank holidays - this year I worked nights over Christmas, and the stress coming with being short staffed, more complex patients and trying to provide the best care I can for them and their families. So JR2006, we may not be standing there doing our job and just thinking of our pensions, we do the job because we enjoy it, yes, but we have also had to think about that trade off between salary whilst working and pension pot. I would also like you to do the job I do and not.

    I think there are many short sighted folk out there, who don't appreciate quite what we public sector workers do. Alan14 you state that teachers earn the same as a graduate and have 'other fringe benefits, such as working 195 days/year, and extra responsibility pay'. If you actually talked to a teacher I feel you would find that they worked a lot more than 195 days a year. Many weekends are taken over with marking and planning, as are their half term and other holidays. Also many teachers are in school by about 7:30 and are often not out until 5 or even later, now they are longer days than your average 9-5 worker. If you actually added up the hours that they worked, not the hours they are contracted to work, then you would probably find it is a lot more than your average 9-5 er. So why should they not be rewarded.

    If the UK didn't have public sector workers, because they all decided they weren't getting some kind of pay off from working what they do for the salary they do, and they all went into the private sector this country would be up the creek. That albeit being able to with a very specific degree/experiences/qualification that actually allowed them to be employed in the public sector.

    I am on the side of those who are already paying into their pot/have contributions, I do think it unreasonable that these changes may come about and will have huge impacts on you when you have been working for 30+ years. In my opinion, yes change should come about, this country is in a dire financial situation and something needs to be done. I don't think anyone can blame this government, something needs to be done, it cannot carry on as it is, and it has only come to this becasue of the previous government. Eventually a government is standing up and doing the right thing, and yes it will hit people, but isn't the rise in petrol hitting people hard too? However, the change should impact people like me, who are only just starting out and therefore have the next 40+ years to sort it out, not those who have been working for 30+ years. If you entered into a scheme the scheme should stay the same until you don't need it any more.

    Well done to Lovemoney who are helping those out there to plan for their retirement, and providing useful information. That is what we need more of, especially with the changes coming about.

    Finally, I applaude those of you who are public sector workers I think you all do amazing jobs. Private sector workers - some of you are too closed to see the importance of what public sector workers actually do and their impact, so please try our job before you make such rediculous sweeping statements. Actually look at the figures before you tell us that if we don't like it to just change jobs.

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • waggy142
    Love rating 11
    waggy142 said

    Sorry, but my comment is not "on-topic".

    I'd just like to say that the new idea of showing the comments in reverse order is a bit inconvenient. For example, emilybutt12 refers to a couple comments made before hers. As I am reading them in reverse order, I haven't yet seen those comments, which means that I need to go to the bottom of all of the comments, and work my way up.

    Report on 11 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • Vern54
    Love rating 12
    Vern54 said

    "As it stands, for many public sector workers, the ‘normal pension age’ – the age at which they qualify for their pension – is substantially lower than for the rest of us when it comes to claiming State Pension. Lord Hutton thinks that the two ages should be the same. It’s difficult to criticise this idea to be honest."

    It may be difficult to criticise because the State Pension is not paid until the public sector workers are 65, like everyone else. And this will soon be raised to 66.

    The works pension may be paid at an earlier age, but like everyone else's works pension, the amount paid is based on the number of years worked, up to a maximum of 40/45 years. It will be paid for a longer period (possibly) but a large percentage of civil servants die within a few years of retirement - or so I'm told!

    But everyone is being brought down to a level rather than trying to strive for something better - such as the pensions MPs receive. Was it Gordon Brown's raid on pension funds that caused so much misery?

    As for me, I've got to give a large portion of my pension to the ex-wife (who ran off with a man earing twice as much as me!) and being a few years off retirement have very limited (costly) options to repair that damage.

    Oh well. Life goes on.

    Report on 12 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Like the private sector have to, to pay for other people's better deals.

    I've always had to retire at 65 and they want to push that higher, unlike the Public Sector who retire at 55 or 60 depending on job. They still have final salary schemes? I lost mine 8 YEARS ago (thanks Brown, you imbecile), and lost 500 quid in the first year.

    The Public sector don't know they're born.

    We don't produce enough wealth now. The gravy train has ground to a halt. We have let it all go and were too much dependable on oil which is now running out.

    You haven't seen anything yet.

    Report on 13 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I love the way that some public sector workers mention the private sector 9 to 5 ers. Very few work pure days these days.

    Ask anyone who works in the food industry, and you will see a completely different picture. Bank holidays, including Christmas and Boxing day, are now often considered normal working days, and they often attract flat rate pay.

    Fifty hours a week or more is another factor with a lot of food manufacturers. A local employer in my area expects 5 times 10 hours shifts with the option of overtime, meaning people often don't always get their weekend. As for opting in to the 48 hour working week, when your competition are Polish immigrants who work whatever they are told to work, then you have little choice.

    In fact, in my previous role, I saw the Polish outweigh other races (including the indiginous race) by three to one. In fact, my employer actually stated they preferred Polish workers because they worked without regards to health and safety, often accomplishing the job quicker than someone who worked safe (climbing racking to fetch stock, rather than use the correct manual handling equipment). In fact, in my role as Safety Officer, three quarters of accidents and near misses involved immigrants not aware of safety awareness and the role of the HSE (Health and Safety at Work Act).

    In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the private sector employers often make up their own rules, which are only contested when someone decides to challenge such rules at an Employment Tribunal. I have even seen someone threatened due to a disability, even though they were supposed to be protected by the Disability Discrimination Act. You wouldn't believe how many employers think that the Law doesn't apply to them.

    Report on 13 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • azincourt
    Love rating 2
    azincourt said

    Although Armed Forces pensions are widely publicized as being non-contributary (and, to be fair, nothing is docked from servicemen's pay as a contribution towards towards their pension) what is less well known is that, when the Armed Forces Pay Review Board (AFPRB) meets to determine pay scales, this fact is taken into account. If my memory serves me correctly, last time it was considered, it was calculated that the non-contributary pension was worth the equivalent of 13% of pay. In other words, if the pension were not available, servicemen would be paid 13% more. Therefore it is not really non-contributary at all, it's just that the accounants have taken the contributions out of the equation. Also, having a retirement age of 50 or so is definitely a mixed blessing, How easy is it to find a job at that age when all you have ever known is life as a soldier/sailor/airman? Many servicemen would be delighted to have the opportunity to continue working until normal retirement age, but this opportunity is denied to them.

    Report on 13 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • onthecomputer
    Love rating 80
    onthecomputer said

    Oh dear woe is them lol

    Report on 13 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Quarket
    Love rating 25
    Quarket said

    Richard Brinsden, how does your daughter feel about you thinking she is in a non-productive lifetime job?

    Report on 14 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • twowilliam
    Love rating 1
    twowilliam said

    Do please substitute the word *worse* for *realistic* in your headline.We the tax payers pay for these human parasites pensions whether we like it or not.They even rent the flowers they have in their offices. 99% 0f Council staff would find it hard to get the minimum wage in the private sector.

    Report on 14 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Quarket
    Love rating 25
    Quarket said

    twowilliam, forums such as this allow you to hide behind a handle which enables you to make cowardly anonymous attacks on people who are trying to bring the best of services at minimal cost to you and another 60 million people. You wouldn't say to a nurse's or a policeman's or a teacher's face that they were a parasite, so please refrain from such attacks on the forum.

    If you know of an example of some public sector service "renting flowers" as you say, then spill the beans and state where it is. That will outrage public sector workers as much as everyone else. I have worked in the public sector for 35 years and I don't think I have ever seen a flower in a public sector office yet.

    Report on 14 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    I am appalled by the consistent lack of knowledge (some would say ignorance) displayed by those people who attack public sector workers with the backing of the Daily Mail. I work as a senior administrator for a university; I have worked in higher education administration for over 32 years; I pay into the Local Government Pension Scheme, a scheme I joined from the outset in 1978 on the understanding I could opt to retire at 60. I now find the Government have removed the rights I had, effectively breaching the contract.........and yet, the sickening thing is.......the public sector detractors agree with this. For information, to my certain knowledge, local government staff have not had a pay rise in excess of inflation for 30 years......that's right....30 years !!! So before anyone knee-jerks and points fingers at the public sector, they need to appraise themselves of the reality. I am entitled a "senior" administrator; I have worked in the sector for over 32 years and my annual salary is just over £23000 - so before any of you listen to the media selectively harping on about local government chief officer salaries, remember the reality of low to average pay for the overwhelming majority of public sector staff. Its positively demoralising to be rewarded with low pay, have our pensions continually axed, be faced with thousands of redundancies and then be forced to listen to ignorant drivel from critics of the public sector who haven't done their research.

    Report on 17 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • baldilocks247
    Love rating 6
    baldilocks247 said

    I'm sorry if it offends the sensibilities of those in the public sector who do work hard and well but I have been in those jobs and seen so many of my former colleagues who would be virtually unemployable anywhere else, hanging on in a "dead-man's shoes" job doing hardly anything worthwhile just to keep their "noses clean" until they get their pensions. Yet others, who were very capable, leaving and going into the private sector, as I did myself, because of those dead-beats blocking any form of promotion chain.

    Report on 17 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • les8960
    Love rating 1
    les8960 said

    I work in public sector, and have been paying into my pension for many years now. I am really angry that since I have begun working for local government, they are gradually taking away any benefits they were offering when I first went for the job many years ago. They have already frozen our pay for 3 years (so far). They want to mess with our pensions. They have already reduced our leave since I started, what will be next? All of this is not fair. Surely they are breaching their part of the contract I signed that stated what benefits we got etc.

    I have worked really hard for my employers. We do not get overtime pay, and often work past our contractural hours. We see this as part of the job and don't make a fuss. Good for the Unions wanting to fight this for the public sector workers. I will be out on strike I can assure you, and maybe will begin working to rule as well. The trouble with Local Government is they are all take and no give.

    Report on 17 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    baldilocks247, do you therefore recognise that those minority of staff you term "dead beats" will actually now stay in work longer and block "the promotion chain" EVEN MORE owing to the on-going attacks on the public sector pension schemes ? I've heard of irony but this really is taking the proverbial !

    Report on 17 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    I'm sorry for all these moaning minnies in the public sector, but frankly, it's about time their pensions adjusted to reality. So what if they thought they had an agreement? The scheme was too generous in the first place and ignored economic realities, and did not cater for the huge increase in life expectancies that is now occurring. In addition, public sector wages are now, on average, higher than in the private sector, which squashes the idea that their pensions are somehow a compensation for low wages. Many private-sector people have barely any pension at all nowadays, and I see no one rushing to the defence of the self-employed, who get an appalling deal in return for their income and NI taxes.

    Yes, there are plenty of good, hard-working people working in the public sector, but there are also many, many skivvers: look at the statistics on absenteeism, on "sickness" absences, and on productivity, which has been falling for years. The private sector improves productivity by innovation, by growing their businesses, by firing people if necessary. Public sector workers have no incentive to become more productive: all they ever do is bleat that they are underfunded, instead of looking at ways they can do more with less, as everyone else has to do.

    Actually, though, the Hutton review looks like it will be good for most public sector workers: under the existing scheme people on very high wages are disproportionately rewarded when they retire, whereas people on lower wages or with only a few years service get relatively little. Under Hutton's scheme, most people will do better, not worse. Why are all these public sector workers defending the existing scheme, when it gives so much preference to their bosses?

    Report on 18 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Thirdman
    Love rating 10
    Thirdman said

    I've had 3 civil service jobs in the public sector since I left University. Who paid me and added to my pension? You the tax payer.

    I left a couple of years ago for a higher paid job in the private industy. Who pays me and adds to my pension now? You the consumer.

    Get rid of the civil service workers and you'll still have to pay, either in unemployment benefits or inflated bills.

    My job is easier, has more "perks", I get bonuses and I don't have to put up with Daily Mail types moaning about "human parasites" when they really don't have a clue what goes on.

    (Believe me you all buy the product my industry produces and are paying far too much for it)

    Report on 18 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    If you wanted any greater measure of the "ignorance" about public sector pensions I referred to in my previous postings, I need only refer you to the posting proffered by 'matchmade' below. To generalise to the extent that MM does is frankly value-judgmental at its worst and profoundly disrespectful. To label a majority low-paid staff who are being forced to work harder and contribute more for less and having their pensions rights frittered away as "moaning minnies" is disgraceful. To generalise that the "scheme was too generous in the first place" reveals a lack of insight; LGPS staff do not, despite what you might have heard, get a pension for nothing, we pay into our pensions schemes/our pension scheme is not financially destitute, its actually in the black/ we do not receive a two-thirds of final salary pension (actually 50%)/I can't see any evdience of the alleged profusion of skivers in my place of work (employs in excess of 2000 staff) we have a strict absence management policy that positively deters "sickness" absences. I acknowledge that many people employed in the private sector look at public sector pensions with envious eyes, but a lot of this envy is based far too readily on a misguided belief propagated within the pages of the Daily Mail - low pensions entitlements in parts of the private sector do not legitimise or justify attacks on public sector pensions; I wouldn't have the gall to label private sector employees who voiced concern over their pensions as "moaning minnies" or attempt to back a central theme by labelling people as "skivers" - thats just disrespectful in the extreme.

    On the issue of salary levels, again, MM displays an astounding level of subjective ignorance; in my sector (higher education) the previous government commissioned an independent (BETT) report into higher education salaries; surprise surprise, the report concluded that salary levels in higher education were actually 20-30% lower than those avilable in the private sector - so that's another load of nonsense assigned to the dustbin of ignorance.

    Report on 18 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2