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:
fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:46

tartyflette · 29/07/2026 17:44

It's not just the public sector that has DB pensions, I have one in payment and I worked in the private sector, for a good international organisation. I know that they are not as common as they used to be but they are still available.
And in the public sector, as PPs say, it is a valuable and valued employment benefit which attracts and retains good employees.

They are super rare now

Ballooney · 29/07/2026 17:45

I dont properly understand it so it should be illegal

Is there a reason you have not opted ro work in the public sector if its so great?

parkintrouble · 29/07/2026 17:45

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:33

Yes, that’s the exception.
NHS. Teachers, Police, Armed forces etc all unfunded.

Aren't teachers part of the LGPS?

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:44

BashfulClam · 29/07/2026 17:42

My husband is similar and if the public want to decrease his pension they will need to pay private sector wages. He could earn £7k a year more in the private sector.

I think they should do this.

Paying less today is an artificial subsidy that will come back to bite us.

OP posts:
itsgettingweird · 29/07/2026 17:44

Things are also changing.

LGPS has now (for people in my sector anyway) said we have to pay pension contributions and the employer has to pay pension contributions on any unpaid leave.

So I took a weeks unpaid leave as a carer - lost £600 in wages and then paid 6.9% of my unearned wage towards my pension.

I think things will change but it’s not simple math and it needs to be done alongside ensuring wages are livable, housing is affordable and social care is reliable.

tartyflette · 29/07/2026 17:44

It's not just the public sector that has DB pensions, I have one in payment and I worked in the private sector, for a good international organisation. I know that they are not as common as they used to be but they are still available.
And in the public sector, as PPs say, it is a valuable and valued employment benefit which attracts and retains good employees.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:43

hydriotaphia · 29/07/2026 17:30

The fact that government departments enter into contracts (of all kinds) that commit them to doing something beyond the end of the current parliament doesn't offend the principle that one parliament can’t bind another. Parliament could (constitutionally) pass a law saying the present government won’t honour contracts entered into by the previous government but it verbally chooses not to as this would cause lack of trust in the state at home and abroad, market collapse etc. not that I think it’s a bad idea to pay civil servants more and remove db pensions. But realistically it would only be done prospectively.

I accept this argument in general but I think I'm arguing that it's such a huge breach of trust to reverse the promise of a pension, that it effectively binds parliament even more than, say, being in the EU.

One could argue that borrowing costs are also in this category, I suppose. Not sure what I think about that, what's your opinion?

OP posts:
fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:43

DeftGoldHedgehog · 29/07/2026 17:40

What's with the anti-pension campaign on the boards today?

country is broke!

BIossomtoes · 29/07/2026 17:42

DeftGoldHedgehog · 29/07/2026 17:40

What's with the anti-pension campaign on the boards today?

They got tired of benefit bashing and the flow of immigrants has slowed to a trickle. It’s all there is left.

BashfulClam · 29/07/2026 17:42

BlackBean2023 · 29/07/2026 17:35

I’m in LGPS which is funded by- although still a generous scheme.

I earn 20% less than I would in the private sector though so if you took my pension benefit I’d want paying the market rate!

My husband is similar and if the public want to decrease his pension they will need to pay private sector wages. He could earn £7k a year more in the private sector.

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:42

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:40

That’s in total. Annually is about £55bn

Still an enormous sum.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:41

DeftGoldHedgehog · 29/07/2026 17:40

What's with the anti-pension campaign on the boards today?

I've got nothing against pensions and saving for retirement in general. I have an issue with public sector DB pensions.

OP posts:
DeftGoldHedgehog · 29/07/2026 17:40

What's with the anti-pension campaign on the boards today?

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:40

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:38

But the liability is enormous.

That’s in total. Annually is about £55bn

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:40

It’s current pensioners who have benefited from the best pension schemes public & private which is why as a generation they hold so much wealth.

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:39

BIossomtoes · 29/07/2026 17:38

Local authority pensions are funded.

Yes, it’s the exception.

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:39

Having worked in the public sector & private sector the salary thing isn’t necessarily true. Lower roles tend to pay more in the public sector vs private

OneDearWasp · 29/07/2026 17:39

Public sector pensions are generous. They are far less generous than they used to be.

Starting either mutual or individual funds for Teachers, NHS staff etc would be eye wateringly expensive at the outset because all the employee and employer contributions that currently pay retired staff pensions would instead go into funds.

BTW employers contributions for Teachers pensions are going to fall from about 28% to about 17% from next April.

Soontobe60 · 29/07/2026 17:39

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:32

The government of today can hire you and pay you this year and for the next five years, the government of five years' time can fire you if they think your job isn't something they want to fund, yes, what's the problem?

Quite different from the government of 5 years' time being forced to pay another 20y of pension for someone who retired 5 years before they even came into power and had no control of the hiring of.

What on earth are you going to on about? Why do you feel so angry about DB pensions?

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:39

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:35

Why's it bollocks?

They could pay into DC pensions. They could pay higher salaries today to help with nurse recruitment etc.

As I said - paying higher salaries would cost far more than the pension liability.

BIossomtoes · 29/07/2026 17:38

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:29

They are also unfunded - liability is estimated at £1.2 trillion.

Local authority pensions are funded.

ShanghaiDiva · 29/07/2026 17:38

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:35

Partially unfunded. They’re not employer or employee contribution-free. Contributions are pretty hefty.

But the liability is enormous.

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.

titchy · 29/07/2026 17:36

BlackBean2023 · 29/07/2026 17:35

I’m in LGPS which is funded by- although still a generous scheme.

I earn 20% less than I would in the private sector though so if you took my pension benefit I’d want paying the market rate!

Exactly. I suspect increasing public sector salaries by 20% would cost far more than any unfunded pension liabilities.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:35

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.

Why's it bollocks?

They could pay into DC pensions. They could pay higher salaries today to help with nurse recruitment etc.

OP posts: