To think public sector DB pensions should be illegal

It's funny how the answer to "public sector workers get better pensions than private sector workers" is never "so how do we improve private sector workers pensions" ?

They’re hoping to save money by not paying more now with the realistic expectation that an amount the public work force won’t actually live to see their pensions.

Some back of the envelope figures:

600,000 UK teachers

Average pay £40000

Employee and employer contributions (from April 27) of 25%

Gives £6billion per year that pays current pensions.

If most of this was used instead to build up a fund or individual funds it would still need to be replaced. So, while we were waiting for us old teachers to die, there would be a slowly reducing bill in the billions each year to fulfill promises made.

That's where we are, rightly or wrongly.

Similar figures must apply to NHS, Civil Service, Armed Forces and police.

No it isn't a "great example", it's reductive bullshit.

Some universities are skint and laying off staff because fee income hasn't kept up with costs, government funding has been cut and the number of overseas students has dropped due to stricter visa requirements. Additionally a lot have massively overinvested in capital projects.

Still it fits your agenda so yeah, "great example".

You’re definitely not a pension advisor.

No one is a tree, you can choose where you work, if you want a higher salary you apply to jobs that pay you more, workplace pensions are paid into over 40 years.

Not too mention that in many areas of the public sector the workforce is female dominated so that due to child care responsibilities many have worked part-time. There are also, relatively, high levels of burnout, sometimes resulting in long term disability which impacts ability to work and pensions. Add into that the lower paid workers in ancillary services and you have a big swathes of public sector pensioners on extremely modest occupational pensions.

What private schools have done isn't replicable in state schools.

What the govt did over the last 30-odd yeas recognise the huge cost of transitioning to a funded scheme and opted instead to reduce pension generosity, increase retirement age and increase employee contributions.

While at the same time more recently gently squeezing pay relative to 2008.

So any new moves to "reform" the teachers pension scheme would quite rightly be met with a high degree of suspicion.

In any case the employer contribution is reducing to a (still generous) 17.6% in April although this wont benefit state schools as this reduction is clawed back through lower budgets to schools.

No need for some magic 5 year fixed term contract.
Any government can hire and fire any employee whenever they want to, and they do
Just comply with employment law and/or change the law in parliament

e.g. The civil service went through a major reduction in staffing using “voluntary early release” VERS a number of years ago. The first round offered voluntary redundancies in line with contracts with a higher payout than enforced redundancy which was to follow if insufficient numbers volunteered.
After that round they passed legislation through parliament to change the maximum payments, so then round two was capped meaning that if you volunteered or were enforced then you hit the maximum cap either way

Another example is governments switching around different types of people in the same roles.
e.g. civil servants are employees and the government has all of the employers responsibilities. So tender out for contracts and TUPE the staff over - that cuts the number of civil servants in FOI counts, it does add a layer of expense by putting in a management layer with a company but makes things “easier” by passing away employer responsibility and may be cheaper in the longer term

Another way of using different types of people is across Defence - civilianise military posts, such as take an officer or a clerk out of the office. That benefits continuity as the individuals don’t move every 2 years, eases the headcount shortage when the services are smaller and is much cheaper to pay civil service wages than military pay and training to sit at a desk. Next contractorise the civilian

Or change a regular post into a full time reservist if you need the “military skills”. That eases the Regular head count shortage, can provide continuity past 2 years and is cheaper to pay a Reservist 5 days a week than a Regular (on a cheap rate 24 hour 7 day week 365 days a year contract). But that goes wrong when Reserves funding is tight and their days per year get capped

Or take soldiers off the gate - let them have rest time instead of being put on guard duty, with shifts on the gate rotating to sleeping on a bunk in the guard room
Grumpy soldiers that leave the army due to being messed about, and an expensive security guard looking at ID cards, whilst having shortages of headcount’s
Replace them with a civil servant security guard force on a shift contract. Much cheaper - even when there’s a shortage and their overtime goes up.

But as there’s a shortage being paid overtime take them away from Regular sites and tell the services to “guard yourself” if there’s a unit on site. Just keep the civil servant guards where there isn’t a decent sized unit or have the civilian on the counter booking in visitors and the soldier on the gate.
Go through multiple cycles of switching various security options of Regulars, civilians, MoD police, a Reserve armed guard service etc

The cost of the anarchy resulting from having no police and health care from the lack of doctors and nurses would cost more than the pensions. On another thread, people described a £50-60k pension as paltry but most public sector people will only receive half that rate in pensions - my husband and I will only receive that amount between us after a lifetime of paying huge contributions and earning relatively poor salaries. Paying a higher salary and lower pensions would probably cost just as much and not benefit the country.

I have bad news for you.

We're still paying EU pensions. Even though we've left!

A contract's a contract and much depends on what the consequences of breaking it might be.

Everyone knows public sector workers have whopping gold plated pensions, with 30% employer contribution, when private sector pensions average 3% employer contributions.

Says it all really. It takes under 1 minute to google LGPS employer contribution rates showing a typical 16.6% of pensionable pay not 30%. Some employers in local government have reduced this further, to single figures - don't take my say so, just look on line. Employee contribution rates vary depending on the salary. 1/49 of each year's pensionable pay goes in to the pension calculations. Private sector contributions don't average 3%, that's the minimum and many employers pay more.

And read a few post above which explain that current Civil Service pensions are paid by the contributions of the current staff, not directly from taxation (which they pay as well).

50% of peanuts is still peanuts. A "gold plated" pittance is still a pittance

I don't know where you worked before, or how long ago it was, but I can assure you that staffing has been cut to the bone in most areas and workloads increased. We have to account for every single penny spent, and due to the accusations of members of the public that we aren't being careful with "their" money (we pay taxes & NI too remember) we have quite a large overhead in ensuring that we can be audited at any time with no notice. There's very little overtime available any more, and TOIL is impossible to take due to workload, so many of us just simply absorb the extra hours we end up working.

Private sector pay is a lot closer to public sector pay these days

😂

You are either pretending to believe all this to get a reaction or have found yourself misled into believing this nonsense.

You sound awfully angry for first thing in the morning.

You can’t wait for the country to go bust? You want a huge section of the population unemployed - and then presumably need to claim unemployment benefits?

I’m not even bothering to replies to your lies & propaganda.

Google IR35 public sector abuses.

Everyone knows public sector workers have whopping gold plated pensions, with 30% employer contribution, when private sector pensions average 3% employer contributions.

Public sector pensions paid for by PRIVATE SECTOR workers.

Don’t even start me on public sector skiving, waste, unaccountability, bloat.

I just can’t wait for the country to go bust due to all this 30% pay hikes to doctors and train drivers last year, and for doctors, seemingly year-on-year.

Then the whole public sector pension sector will be finished. Not a moment too soon. Greedy lazy fuckers.

and yes, I used to work in the public sector. I never saw so much waste, unaccountability, incompetence and laziness. Bring on AI is what I say and get rid of millions of non-jobs on big fat wages.

Amen.

Ah, apologies. I should have said, "companies who offered pensions."

Still staggers me that eg Ladbrokes offered final salary back then, and now it's seen as a wildly extravagant civil service anomaly.

I do think those pensions are something else that we, as a country, can’t afford and, moving forward, will have to be changed.
And I’m not sure that the argument that people won’t join those professions if they do change the pension conditions, holds much weight. When the insistence to “tax the rich” is met with the very real possibility that those people will just leave, the consensus on here is “good riddance”. By that mindset, anyone who doesn’t want to join a public sector organisation because the pension isn’t what they expect? Good riddance! We are in the middle of a worsening unemployment crisis, people will gravitate to whatever jobs are available.

All companies used to offer final salary pensions, 30 years ago

No they didn’t. Many companies, even large ones, provided no pension at all. That’s why the Pension Act was passed in 2008.

Public sector pensions are forecast to generate a surplus of close to 4 billion by 2029, meaning more paid into the system than out.

This is tilting at windmills.

As an aside, illegal and unlawful are not the same thing.

Forgot to say NHS

I think the OP has a point but may be I benefir. When I reach 60 and if I am still in employment I will receive a 25K pension to add to my salary. I might enjoy a better lifestyle or invest for retirement at 67. Loads of people in the same situation. We just got a good deal back in the day...

When someone thinks 5% pay-in (make that 9% in the case I know of), that retirement is at 60 (er, no, 67 and guaranteed to rise), that the average person dies at 100 (83 for women, 79 for men) and that the civil service offer final salary pensions, instead of career average... it does give a clear notion of where we are in this.

All companies used to offer final salary pensions, 30 years ago. The fact that has been hollowed out, and most people left worse off than recent generations, is undeniable. I'm just not sure blaming those still in receipt of them, instead of questioning the removal for everyone else, is the way forward.

As for the idea that past Parliaments can't tie subsequent ones... we paid off WW2 debts for decades. We'll be paying Covid off for decades. And PFI contracts from the Blair years, which were how they funded the massive infrastructure improvements, are costing the taxpayer 10 billion every single year - the final contract doesn't end till 2048. So no, it is not rare for the state to pay bills run up by policy in the past. It is utterly normal.

Who is retiring at 55? I’m 47 and my retirement age - and the age I can receive TPS - is 68.