To think we are heading into a pensions disaster

But even if not full on 9-5 (most aren't), if you've a lecture at 10am a seminar at 1pm and a tutorial at 5pm, you can't work during that day, can you? That's the reality. There may only be 20 "contact" hours per week, but if they're spread randomly throughout each day, and through the week, you don't have a long enough time gap for a job. So, you're basically just down to evening and weekend work, which is when the sports, clubs and societies, are run and which is usually the only decent length of time to do longer bits of study work, i.e. long essays, research in the library, etc for which the odd hour or two spare during the day doesn't really cut it if you need several hours of uninterrupted concentration.

Most working students just work in places like supermarkets, Argos, bars, McDonalds etc., where they can just pick up the odd random shift that they can fit in. A typical Uni student is no use for an employer who wants someone to work every weekday morning, or every weekday afternoon, or to cover every weekday 10-2 lunchtime peak, etc. Also not too much use for an employer like a bar or restaurant who needs say staff for the evening peak to start at 6pm, if they've a lecture or seminar or tutorial some weekdays that starts at 5, meaning they won't clear the Uni until after 6 and then need to travel to flat to get changed, travel to work, etc - they won't be there till after 7 - some employers are fine with that, many won't be.

Also remember the timetable changes every term, So if your timetable gave you every Wednesday off (no contact time) for the first term, which works for the employer, come the second term, you may have no days with no contact time, or your non contact time might be Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon, which may not work for the employer!

You really have to look at the practicalities. You can't just lazily say "only 20 hours contact time so they can work during the week" - You have to look how those hours are spread and then think about how few employers will be very flexible enough to want staff to work randomly, often with no longer term ongoing pattern nor commitment.

Yes. A v recent introduction. You can decide to lack the foresight that so many do. And then moan about their poor decisions.

You can opt out of public sector pensions, it might not be sensible but you can

And that public sector workers are tax payers. They have chosen a career which gives a pension but can’t choose to opt not to pay in to it. Others have chosen a job with a private pension and often opted to delay pension contributions in favour of other life style ‘priorities’.

We also need to look at people who deliberately refuse to pay into a pension because it will debar then from government aid! That's just disgusting. The rest of us pay for them. To me that's much worse than someone paying into a public sector pension.

”The doctors” do not. A few aging doctors do.

@Helen483 The NHS contribution can be nearly 24%. It’s obviously too generous. The doctors get to the max pension tax limit and then go part time to avoid tax. It’s a retirement issue too. They don’t need to work, so they don’t. They go freelance for a few hours and don’t add to their pensions - so we cannot get appointments because we don’t have enough hours being worked. It’s going to get worse with the 22% pay rise.

@Wildflowers99
Lectures for some courses are not just 4/5 hours a day. They might be if you’re studying English or History for example.
However if you are doing Nursing you spend about half you degree time working shifts in the NHS, plus studying time.
One of my DC did pharmacy masters and it was lectures all day, plus several hours of study in the evenings/weekends.
Other healthcare degrees require at least 1000 hours spent on placement, working a 37.5 hours pw. It can be hard fitting in a part time job around this.

Just to clarify I do mean EBSA is a real thing. I have lots of lived experience!

I’m really worried about a lot of mums who are giving up work due to children with disabilities, both single parents and those in relationships. Not only is SEN on the rise, I believe there is a subtle change in rhetoric on a lot of the online forums about home ed being best, the ‘trauma’ of school and of course EBSA being a very real thing.
These women are being forced to leave their jobs due to insufficient school support, delays to EHCPs, inflexible employers and it leaves them really vulnerable.
There are statistics about relationship breakdown being more likely for parents of SEN children and so if a mum leaves her job, then gets divorced, it’s going to be something like 12 years before she can get back into work. By then it’s so much harder.
I see so many posts from women living on UC, DLA, carers element and child maintenance who are terrified of what will happen when their children turn eighteen and their finances drop so much. As we know these children are often not ready to go out and earn, move away for uni but they are not compelled to share their PIP if they qualify.
So the mums are left with a significant amount of time out of work, no money, no savings, still could be in a mortgaged house or renting and not enough N.I contributions.
I don’t know what the answer is apart from more support to keep them in work and changing the bloody message that sending kids into school who don’t want to go is somehow akin to child abuse.

I agree-for a variety of reasons there is a huge wave of pension shortfall and retirement poverty coming down the pipeline.
The irony is-so many Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z folk are banging on about how money should be taken away from pensioners, without making the connection that THEY will lose out when benefits are removed. State benefits taken away are very rarely re-instated. My message to Gen X, Millenials, Gen Z is be VERY careful what you wish for...especially if you think YOU'LL need a State funded retirement.

I’m grateful my employers have paid into my pension for me, and they do matching contributions if we put more in so my pot is OK. I will still work until I’m at least 70 though.

They are still defined benefit pensions based on salary and vastly more generous and much more secure than the defined contribution schemes used in the private sector. They also typically benefit from much higher employer contributions. The fact that they are very slightly less generous than 30 years ago does not alter that.

Yes you're right, I do know that.

I worked for a local authority in the NE recently (as a contractor) and they paid a massive 13% pension contribution to employees.
The most I have ever come across in the private sector is 6% (which you had to match).

The NHS pension scheme is an unfunded defined benefit one, so I suspect when @FixTheBone says it’s projected to be in surplus they are simply referring to the fact that at some point the contributions paid (staff and employer) in a given year equal or exceed the pensions paid in the same year.

But that’s to completely misunderstand the meaning of surplus (or deficit) in a defined benefit pension scheme. A defined benefit pension is a commitment to pay a benefit in the future, and us such the liability for the NHS scheme is the sum of those commitments based on mortality rates, salary and years of service, allowing also for increases. For the NHS scheme the liability for commitments made is around one trillion pounds. That’s £1,000,000,000,000. There are no assets because it’s an unfunded scheme so it’s not possible for it to be in surplus in the way that funded defined benefit schemes (used in the private sector and some local authority schemes) can be.

I’d just like to point out that most public sector pensions are no longer final salary. Haven’t been for years!

@FixTheBone How can public service pensions ever be in credit. The liability is massive. Are you saying the tax you pay covers the government pension contributions for you? So your tax goes to nothing else? Or are you ignoring the taxpayer contribution completely? Your contributions don’t pay for your pension. Everyone else chips in.

Because they are idiots?
Or they have a political axe to grind?
I'm not a financial advisor, so if you're not sure take advice from a professional. But in general it's a good idea to make up NICS gaps

I've been too busy prioritising my mortgage and home
And that's another financial error people make. It's more important to build your pension than pay off your mortgage

I've never been able to afford to save into a pension. We have a business we hope to eventually sell and use to live off of but if that doesn't go to plan then we are screwed.

But how much did you pay in?

I have worked all my life in the private sector, sometimes as contractor rather than salaried. And so I have made contributions into private pension plans.
My husband worked 12 years for the Civil Service. His contributions are perhaps 10% of what I have paid into my pension plans over the years - but his pension entitlement is about the same as mine.
There is NOTHING as valuable as a final salary pension!

As someone facing medical retirement my 'gold plated' public sector pension is worth around £4000 a year. Four thousand.

That’s not reflective of the average person.
There aren’t many jobs that get £300/hr

Overall if you look at all public sector jobs and reduced the employer contribution % their would be a saving.

I doubt anyone would think the country could function without public sector workers but neither could it without private. The private sector makes the money to fund the public sector.
Both are equally worthy of equality in retirement .

Completely agree, no chance of getting enough work to help. My son’s student property is £8k a year. His books and resources come to £500. The student loan doesn’t cover anywhere near enough. We pay his rent and he still struggles