Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think public sector DB pensions should be illegal

365 replies

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:24

Everyone seems to accept that it's obvious that the private sector, speaking very generally, pays better salaries in-year but the public sector makes up for it in excellent defined benefit (DB) pensions.

As in, you get a certain amount paid to you indefinitely, based on how many years of service, your level reached, average or final salary, etc.

Everyone acts like this is normal but it is actually insane!

Growing up in school I was always taught that it was a fundamental principle of a parliamentary democracy that one parliament cannot bind another. Parliament should be able to override anything a previous parliament did, so that voters always have the ability to change course democratically and nothing is locked in forever.

But having DB pensions for public sector workers is binding future parliaments into very large financial commitments that will leave them increasingly less wriggle room.

It would be one thing if they were defined contribution pots that were in each individual's name. That would operate independently and doesn't represent an obligation on future governments to pay out pensions out of future taxpayer money, maybe future taxpayers who have different priorities for what they want to spend the money on.

AIBU to think public sector salary culture should, if anything, be the reverse: high salaries now, because the government is legally not allowed to commit to future compensation in another government's name?

OP posts:
Gwenna · 29/07/2026 19:09

NeverDropYourMooncup · 29/07/2026 18:55

So you would be happy for somebody working as a TA or school support staff and paying contributions for x years to suddenly find out 'oh, no, can't afford to pay you anymore, we have somebody to invade for oil/water/control over a waterway'? They wouldn't have received the higher pay you think would be given to them and not teaching staff/SLT/COO & CFO salaries (and schools do not have to give support staff rises if they don't want to already), but they could suddenly be told 'nah, you're on your own now' with rent and bills to pay.

This 👏

RetiredFromExplaining · 29/07/2026 19:09

You're being ridiculous.

Every time the government agrees a loan they bind future parliaments.

The government accepted the Marshall Plan in the second world war, a massive debt that we didn't finish paying until the 1990s. We only paid off debt from the Battle of Waterloo in the 20th century.

We could not run the state at all under your reasoning.

Gwenna · 29/07/2026 19:07

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:24

Everyone seems to accept that it's obvious that the private sector, speaking very generally, pays better salaries in-year but the public sector makes up for it in excellent defined benefit (DB) pensions.

As in, you get a certain amount paid to you indefinitely, based on how many years of service, your level reached, average or final salary, etc.

Everyone acts like this is normal but it is actually insane!

Growing up in school I was always taught that it was a fundamental principle of a parliamentary democracy that one parliament cannot bind another. Parliament should be able to override anything a previous parliament did, so that voters always have the ability to change course democratically and nothing is locked in forever.

But having DB pensions for public sector workers is binding future parliaments into very large financial commitments that will leave them increasingly less wriggle room.

It would be one thing if they were defined contribution pots that were in each individual's name. That would operate independently and doesn't represent an obligation on future governments to pay out pensions out of future taxpayer money, maybe future taxpayers who have different priorities for what they want to spend the money on.

AIBU to think public sector salary culture should, if anything, be the reverse: high salaries now, because the government is legally not allowed to commit to future compensation in another government's name?

YABU, and I can’t say why more simply than - it’s not your working fellow man that’s stealing all the money, OP!

nocoolnamesleft · 29/07/2026 19:05

When I was a junior doctor, and when working nights and weekend was paid one third of the normal hourly rate (not one and a third, only a third, significantly less than the porters and cleaners) we were told it was alright, because we'd get a decent pension. Like fuck are you coming after our deferred benefits.

Yogabearmous · 29/07/2026 19:05

So public sector workers work for rubbish pay and pensions … these people already do awful jobs for terrible pay, let’s not take away all future hope! There will be no one doing the jobs our country so desperately needs .

DemonsandMosquitoes · 29/07/2026 19:03

Claiming mine without penalty and retiring at 55 later this year after 37 years nursing. Without it, I would have quit looong ago!

riceuten · 29/07/2026 19:00

This reads something along the lines of "I have a *rap pension, so should you"

Have you any idea how many people in the public sector earn buttons ? That the pension makes up for being a low earner? (As many people in the public sector are?)

hallie8936 · 29/07/2026 19:00

It’s interesting when you think about other careers that are notoriously challenging but without public sector pensions, early years and carers are the main ones I’m thinking of. I’m not sure to what extent there is a recruitment crisis, I assume much more in adult/elderly care hence why we have sectors so reliant on immigrants?

titchy · 29/07/2026 18:58

ChampagneLassie · 29/07/2026 18:56

closing them all and moving everyone to DC pensions would be the best thing for the country long term. But you’d have to significantly raise salaries now to get peopred agreement. And that would require raising taxes or a huge additional debt. So whilst long term it would look better, short term it would be much worse and politicians don’t believe people would vote for it. So they focus on short term stuff instead and kick the problem down the road

Why would it be better? The IFG report posted earlier shows it’s fiscally neutral.

Dilemma999 · 29/07/2026 18:57

paralinno · 29/07/2026 18:48

Most European countries and maybe others worldwide have generous pensions for public sector workers. Is UK any different, or is it just a basket case as a result of bad political management, the legacy of the financial crash, and Brexit?

Civil Service numbers can be tweaked a bit with voluntary severance, early retirement without actuarial reduction and so on. However, to mess with the public sector is asking for trouble, so any issue concerning that sector is handled with kid gloves. They do a great job for all of us.

Totally agree with this and other posters stating not many people would want to do a lot of these jobs if there wasn’t a decent pension. Child protection social worker anyone?

We all know higher pay wouldn’t happen. LG workers have to fight for measly pay rises. Pay has actually decreased over the past 20 years when inflation is taken into account. No bonuses, gift vouchers or Xmas parties.

ChampagneLassie · 29/07/2026 18:56

closing them all and moving everyone to DC pensions would be the best thing for the country long term. But you’d have to significantly raise salaries now to get peopred agreement. And that would require raising taxes or a huge additional debt. So whilst long term it would look better, short term it would be much worse and politicians don’t believe people would vote for it. So they focus on short term stuff instead and kick the problem down the road

Doozs · 29/07/2026 18:55

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 18:23

@Doozsits 32k now

Even better

NeverDropYourMooncup · 29/07/2026 18:55

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 18:27

That's subtly different from what I'm saying.

In my suggestion, from tomorrow, no-one gets a DB pension. All contributions go into individual DC pots.

In theory, this should cost the exact same amount as what the government is paying today, if they're funding them properly. As you say, it's just a different way of organising pensions.

However, if a future government, or more precisely if future taxpayers, decided that they didn't want to spend £55bn on pensions anymore, currently they don't have options. The people who've retired on DB pensions can't realistically have them taken away.

Let's say there's a war or something in 50y time and suddenly every penny is needed. The government of the day can't decide, okay let's fire some of the teachers, we need everyone to go and either be in the army or be a nurse (or whatever).

But they can't, because they're still stuck paying for teachers who retired 20 years ago. They're paying the deferred compensation owed by a long-gone government with different priorities.

So you would be happy for somebody working as a TA or school support staff and paying contributions for x years to suddenly find out 'oh, no, can't afford to pay you anymore, we have somebody to invade for oil/water/control over a waterway'? They wouldn't have received the higher pay you think would be given to them and not teaching staff/SLT/COO & CFO salaries (and schools do not have to give support staff rises if they don't want to already), but they could suddenly be told 'nah, you're on your own now' with rent and bills to pay.

NCOneDayOnly · 29/07/2026 18:53

Qb2654 · 29/07/2026 17:36

Im in the LGPS. Local authorities just would not have staff if they were axed. I earn a lot less being in the public sector.

This is it exactly: public sector jobs aren't as well-paid when compared to similar jobs in the private sector and there's no opportunity to earn performance-related bonuses. There's really not a huge amount of incentive to work in the public sector beyond the pension - setting aside thoe who truly believe in the vocation of their work which is, of course, admirable, but won't feed you when you retire.

Notellinganyone · 29/07/2026 18:52

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:33

Good luck recruiting teachers, nurses and civil servants to the Gov that decides to change their pensions.

Pensions are paid using current member contributions btw.

If the Government can’t legally commit future governments to spend £x on y wouldn’t all public sector employees be on short term contracts? Which makes me think your understanding is somewhat bollocks.

This. We pay for the currently retired teachers and the younger ones will pay for me. It’s also the case that unlike a lot pension- if I die a year after I take my pension the bulk of it dies with me, it doesn’t pass to my dependents unlike my DPS private pension.

Ilikewinter · 29/07/2026 18:52

I moved from the private sector in the CS and I could potentially buy into this. It would be interesting to see what the uplift in my base salary would be to compensate, and then run some maths to see how that would compare to say, if there are no changes.

titchy · 29/07/2026 18:51

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 18:27

That's subtly different from what I'm saying.

In my suggestion, from tomorrow, no-one gets a DB pension. All contributions go into individual DC pots.

In theory, this should cost the exact same amount as what the government is paying today, if they're funding them properly. As you say, it's just a different way of organising pensions.

However, if a future government, or more precisely if future taxpayers, decided that they didn't want to spend £55bn on pensions anymore, currently they don't have options. The people who've retired on DB pensions can't realistically have them taken away.

Let's say there's a war or something in 50y time and suddenly every penny is needed. The government of the day can't decide, okay let's fire some of the teachers, we need everyone to go and either be in the army or be a nurse (or whatever).

But they can't, because they're still stuck paying for teachers who retired 20 years ago. They're paying the deferred compensation owed by a long-gone government with different priorities.

Your idea is to save money. That IFG report shows it clearly won’t save money, and it’s practically cost neutral (interesting!). So a pointless exercise that would cost a huge amount in terms of staff churn.

Anyone know why TPS, civil service and NHS pensions aren’t invested like LGPS ones are?

As an aside, I’m in a private DB scheme - invested well and currently healthy financially. So it is possible.

MaidOfSteel · 29/07/2026 18:50

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:30

The LGPS is funded.

I worked in the Local Government Pension Scheme nearly 40 years ago. At that time the fund was so awash with cash that the councils/public bodies in the area I looked after had paused making the employer’s contributions!

paralinno · 29/07/2026 18:48

Most European countries and maybe others worldwide have generous pensions for public sector workers. Is UK any different, or is it just a basket case as a result of bad political management, the legacy of the financial crash, and Brexit?

Civil Service numbers can be tweaked a bit with voluntary severance, early retirement without actuarial reduction and so on. However, to mess with the public sector is asking for trouble, so any issue concerning that sector is handled with kid gloves. They do a great job for all of us.

Sadcafe · 29/07/2026 18:45

You can’t have it all ways, it’s hardly the fault of public sector workers that private sector pensions are so poor, public sector doesn’t generally have as good a salary for similar level of responsibility/knowledge/skills jobs and as people always state, if the public sector is so good, people are perfectly welcome to take a job in it

Dilemma999 · 29/07/2026 18:43

Digerydont · 29/07/2026 18:04

Work for 30 years, retire at 60, draw half pay for another 30 years. What's not to like.

Misinformation. Why don’t you read up on the schemes properly.

FredaMountfitchet · 29/07/2026 18:42

Well if it’s the pension that you begrudge everyone feel free to work for the NHS or local authority . Loads of jobs not well paid often but ‘gold plated pension’
Workers contribute to the pension and certainly an ever increasing amount of nhs staff are being hit by annual allowance bills due to their pension contributions/ growth . These bills can easily be £20000 plus .
Furthermore PS pensions have been reformed and are certainly by no means as attractive as they once were .

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 18:41

@yetnothernameI’m not sure how that disproves what I said?

DdraigGoch · 29/07/2026 18:40

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:33

Good luck recruiting teachers, nurses and civil servants to the Gov that decides to change their pensions.

Pensions are paid using current member contributions btw.

If the Government can’t legally commit future governments to spend £x on y wouldn’t all public sector employees be on short term contracts? Which makes me think your understanding is somewhat bollocks.

Imagine being like the US where they just shutdown the government if they can't agree a budget.

CarryOnRewardless · 29/07/2026 18:40

I’m a Police Officer so paying into a DB pension. In 2015 they changed the pension so it isn’t as good as it used to be but of course still better than a private sector pension.
We do pay quite a big contribution, it’s almost 14%

Trust me the pension and job security is the only perks of the job we have. We get spat on, called the most horrendous names, assaulted I could go on.

Change the pension to a DC one and retention and recruitment would fall off a cliff I fear hardly anyone would want to do the job.
I joined in late my late 30s so I do have experience of the private sector too