In thinking that I may never be allowed to retire.........

[whymumwhymum]

Have worked in public sector for nearly 20 years now and just saw in the news today that they are planning on keeping the pensions for my age group and under back until we are 66 ffs.

That was not what I signed up for when I decided to pay into the scheme!

Thats nearly another 30 years and tbh I don't think i'll survive in this job that long, and thats not taking into account that by the time I'm 50 or older they will probably have pushed the age back further.

I don't feel particularly ' lucky' to be a public sector worker, i worked and studied damn hard for years to get my now reasonably (not by any means highly) paid job. I will never ever get a bonus even if i do twice the 'reasonable' work, will also never get overtime payments. I'll never have a company car or private health care or any other perks.

Many's the night I've lain awake worrying about the people i get paid to look after .

The pension was the one thing that made it 'wothwhile' long term and i am losing faith that I will ever see it, in payments alone i calculat I will have paid in somehwre in the region of 100k over a working life of 45 years not accounting for inplation. Should have just saved the money or better still blown it on stuff I could actually enjoy before i'm six feet under!

I am 46 and have 20 years contribution in LGPS. I started paying into LGPS at 22. I am no longer in the public sector. With LGPS it doesn't matter if you pay in 20 years starting at 40 or 20 years of age.

I have a genetic health problem. At 22 I thought that with my health problem, a retirement age of 60 made it worthwhile to have a pension. With retirement age rising I am now thinking I would have been better to put money in savings.

I work with challenging families. I can't imagine being able to do my job in my 60's. Yes peoplelive longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be well enough to work. I think you will end up with a lot of public sector workers being long term ill or being sacked because they are unable to do their job.

Senior managers are well paid in the public sector. But lots of other jobs are still poorly paid. And public sector workers don't get any of the perks lots of private sector workers get. Public sector workers don't even get tea and coffee provided free or a xmas party. The only perk is a pension scheme.

It annoys me that people don't realise that there is 1 public sector pension scheme. There are different ones e.g. teachers,fire brigade,local government public sector pension scheme (LGPS).

LGPS one is the one that most low paid puiblic sector employees get - care assistants, TA's, admin workers, street sweepers, etc. This has already had benefits cut with the default retirement age already at 65 and employee contributions increased. This will increase it to 66.

The public care about pension scheme for nurses, etc and the other pension schemes have not had benefits eroded. And the LGPS scheme's are individual ones run by councils. The majority do not have any deficit. A couple do,where the pension scheme has not been so well run.

I put the £100k mentioned in OP through an on-line annuity calculator based on a 66 year old female in normal health. There weren't options for CPI index-linking, whole lifespan or widower provision, so I used the next nearest (RPI for 10 years guaranteed). The highest quotation was for £3,741. Of course, in a non-public sector pension annuity rates can vary, so by the time you reach 66 it could be quite different.

Do you know how that compares to your pensions projection?

And public sector workers can opt out of their pensions contributions (I think that's been possible since the late 1980s) to make their own provision (or none at all).

So we will all work longer to support our children who will not have jobs because we have them?
Better have a one child policy then as well.

I love the myth that all public sector workers have amazing perks as Trixy suggests - yes some departments get 6 months full paid mat leave but as an NHS employee or teacher this is not the case (although I'm grateful for what we do get compared to many). There are private sector employers who pay 6 months full paid mat leave. I've never had a Christmas night out paid for in 15 years so not sure where that idea came from. Perks and terms and conditions vary widely amongst public sector employment and I'm aware that there has been huge amounts of excess spending in some departments in the past, but that's not the case for all of us.

If you are entitled to take the full maternity package as a teacher, this is what you get.

'Ordinary maternity leave of up to 26 weeks which will be paid leave as follows:

? first 4 weeks of absence: full pay inclusive of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP);
? next 2 weeks: 90 per cent of a week?s salary inclusive of SMP;
? next 12 weeks: half pay plus £128.73 SMP (not exceeding full pay);
? next 8 weeks: £128.73 SMP.

Additional maternity leave of up to a further 26 weeks, 13 of which will be paid at the SMP rate of £128.73 per week, with the remaining 13 weeks unpaid.

So, nowhere near 6 months on full pay, which is why I went back when mine were less than 4 months old.

So that would be like the myth that private sector workers get free tea and coffee and Christmas parties etc? We pay £3 a month to the social club for our party. No free tea and coffee, not even a kettle due to health and safety, we have to buy it at the canteen. My pension, holidays, mat leave are the minimum they can get away with as ate my DHs benefits and most other people I know who work in the private sector. So I get a bonus, but a measly 4% comes nowhere near making up the pension differential.

I don't know any public sector workers that just got stat mat pay.

Public sector workers have no idea just how much a final salary or career average pension scheme adds to their overall package. As other people have said there is no pay gap anymore so public sector workers are much better off. Even with a career average scheme, working a bit later and adding extra contributions they will still be much better off on average.

Thank you TheBride for a sensible non emotional post :)

I think one of the problems with this whole debate is that each side sees the other side as greener. There are shit jobs and there are jobs with good perks in both sectors. I work in the private sector, and don't get company car/health insurance/overtime or bonuses and I think the pay I get is pretty much inline with the public sector. We do get a Christmas party, but that's it - I think it's a bit disingenous to compare a Christmas party with employers pension contributions!

I have friends in the public sector who have it very cushy, but equally I have other friens in the public sector who have to work damn hard.

Let's stop letting ourselves down with over reactionary, jealousy filled posts, and debate how to solve the pension's crisis instead, for as has been said further up, retirement is something from a bygone age - mainly for the reason that we are so much healthier and live longer and start work later.

I'm sorry I don't believe that there is no pay gap. Senior managers salaries have risen dramatically over the last 5-10 years and this has distorted the average salary public sector workers get. For jobs that are directly comparable and are not senior managers e.g. IT people, public sector workers are paid less.

no, Goblinchild, not anywhere near 6 months full pay, but more than the private sector standard of 6 weeks at 90% pay followed by SMP only.

See, this is why public sector strikes are doomed to failure, to many in the public sector don't get how much better the benefit package is in the public sector, when saying 'only' about something that's far better than most people get. (Note most people aren't Bob Diamond - the average wage is around £25k) The pensions you will get at 66 will still be paying out more than someone in the private sector who earned the same amount throughout their life and paid into company schemes. In the private sector, many people will have paid far more in pension contributions but will get less per year when they retire. You are asking them to further subsidise your retirement because even though you are already getting more for less, you want even more.

You might feel you are right to get more as you contribute more to society that your wage level suggest, (and therefore should get a 'boost' at retirement on top of what you've paid in to your pension) but you just aren't going to win public support at this time.

I agree the pensions issue will affect everyone. I think the real problem though is that there will be lots of people who live a long time but won't be well enough to work full time.

There are lots of people like me who would have died at a young age even 50 years ago. I doubt I will be well enough to work in my 60's and I know lots of people in their 40's and 50's in similar positions.

I'm not feeling defensive about the private and public debates that are raging, I was providing a factual answer to the belief that we got 6 months on full pay.
I know I have a good deal, and I will use any legal means possible to hang onto it. If I have to work til 66, then I will probably leave MS school and go for private tutoring.

'you just aren't going to win public support at this time.'

As I have said before, we have never had public support for any action that inconveniences parents, and teachers are constantly under attack in the media on a daily basis, strikes or not.
So I'm not too worried about losing what we haven't got.

My gran is 96. She stayed healthy until her mid 80's. But peers who were less healthy died young e.g. her brother who had same genetic problem I have died aged 3. How are we as a society going to manage in 10 - 20 years time with people who are not able to retire until late 60's/70's, but are too ill to work?

And with medical advances I think we are going to have a lot of people in this position who would have previously died young.

Stop providing anything other than basic and emergency care for those over 60. Unless they can pay for it all by themselves.
So yes to A & E, no to transplants and replacements and geriatric care.
Both my parents would be dead and I would have inherited their wealth.
Sounds anything like a possible future Conservative policy?

god no, Goblinchild, the older someone is the more likely they are to vote Tory - they'll never fuck with the current pensioner vote - where as public sector employees rarely vote Tory anyway, even after retirement, so there's no loss there.

More likely a general insurance based health system. Which is fine if you work for a large company or the government, anyone working for small companies or self employed will struggle.

A reminder of my earlier post to those who seem to have missed it:
The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year, in the three months to the end of November 2010 (source Office for National Statistics).
So, in other words, not only do get a reasonable wage but you also want to screw the rest of the population - in the form of higher taxes - to fund you to sit on your arses for the last 30 years of your life. Not very fair, is it?

Both my dh & myself work in the private sector,my dh's work have just reviewed the pensions yet again,final salary was ended a couple of yrs ago & now they have changed the terms yet again.

For him to recieve the same pension as somebody due to retire now or already retired we will have to find an extra £21k per yr.Obviously we have no chance of that.

He works 12 hr shifts,getting up at 4.15 a.m & getting home at 6.45p.m,i dont know how much longer he can carry on doing that.

I work pt in a high st chemist,we dont get free tea/coffee or a free christmas party,i pay into a pension but again i missed out on the final salary scheme so my pension will be peanuts,it might pay our council tax bill.

The problem is the baby boomers have never worked long enough or paid enough into the system to warrant 30 yrs of pension paid to them.

I think they will be the last generation who will be retiring in good health & having the option to travel & play golf/lunches out etc,the rest of us now will be dying in service,& thats whether you work in private or public.

Some of us will have to suck it up cos the country has no money.

Apparently the average public sector worker gets paid just 22,000.
The media would have everyone believe that public sector workers are highly paid and have it easy....compared to the private sector.

Seems that public sector workers are an easy target...bail out the banks (who continue to get massive bonus's) and make the public sector workers pay for their mistakes...and services will undoubtedly suffer.

As for the pension thing. I do believe that existing contracts will stand...inasmuch as your existing age of retirement stands. For others however I see sickness absences increasing significantly with an aging workforce (no doubt those too wil be drasticly cut). However, under the dear coalition's new charter...everyone will have to pay considerably more out of their wage packet/salary towards their pensions....and they will get no more pension for doing that. So you get a pay 'freeze' (for however long they decide to continue that) and effectively a pay cut...

Good times eh!

not sure you're following this thread sausagesandmarmelade...

mdowdall - The average wage in public sector is distorted by 2 factors.

1. A lot of the lower wage type jobs that aredone in public sector buildings like cleaners, securityare contracted out to the privatesector. So they still provide a service to the public sector but aren't included in average wage stats.

1. Senior and in some areas middle manager wages have risen in the last 5-10 years so much that they are often much higher than private sector comparisons. This distorts the average wage - especially as in many services management structure can be bloated.

Where direct comparisons can be made between jobs and it is not senior management, public sector workers are paid less.

With average wages in public sector - remember there are lies, damned lies and then statistics.

lesley33 - I was expecting a post like this. The average wage in the private sector is even more distorted by the fact that there are some v high earners in this sector - bankers and traders to name two obvious groups. This brings the average up considerably. So, all in all, methinks the figures quoted are a fair reflection of things.

Another thing lesley33. There arer public sector workers further up thread complaining that they dont get paid the same as their private sector counterparts on a like for like basis. Your point 2 is saying the opposite to back up your average wage argument. You guys cant have it both ways.

Public sector workers

Teaching assistants
Welfare assistants
Caretakers
Phyiso assistants
Social work assistants

Etc etc etc

Low paid, no pensions, no overtime, no perks and now being asked told to take pay cuts, lose annual leave, lose paid sick, give up further rights to pay rises for ever

Or get the sack.

Its a fucking blast in the public sector at the moment.

But we only look after the poor, the old, children, people with disabilities, clean the streets etc.

Nothing of any consquence.