To think this is appalling hypocrisy

[charmedrose]

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/865327/Pension-Civil-service-Labour-Robert-Devereux-transport-UK-national-salary

Why should he be allowed to retire at 61 and why such a HUGE pension. It's all right for some isn't it.

Any one can retire at any age they like, he choses to retire at 61. He wont get his state pension until he;s 67, just like the rest of us.

Incidentally, you do realise he didnt make the laws - parliament does, he is just the admin function in a governament department.

To put it in perspective, my collegue had nursed for 32 years, hasn't been anywhere near a patient for 25 of those years, she can go in 3 years on her NHS pension, at 55, with £112K lump sum - whats the difference?

Please point out the hypocrisy

He wont get his state pension til 67 either

Civil servants don't make the laws. Look to the government for the culprits.

And who knows, without highly skilled civil servants working out how to implement the laws they have no control over, the implementation of things like this might be screwed up so badly that things would be a lot worse for the people affected.
Like it or not, if you want the best people for the job you have to pay them enough to make the job attractive. Even if it feels wrong to pay those at the top so much. And yes, I do think that other public sector workers should be paid more than they currently are as well.

Most people with Careers, from school/Uni, I know, Nurses/Sw's/Teachers, Civel Servants, plan to retire at 60. They draw their pension and then do temp work.

It's just the pay scale.

However, I agree that the pay differences are too disproportionate and need addressing.

Can’t get my knickers in a twist about this. A private pension deal is being honoured. Can’t see the hypocrisy

"Like it or not, if you want the best people for the job you have to pay them enough to make the job attractive. "

That applies to all sectors, but oddly only gets implemented at the top.

We would have much better standards of Care, if we paid a fair wage for what the job entails.

He’s more than enough to live on. Going to continue paying a whack of tax and he’s freed up a job for someone else.

Like it or not, if you want the best people for the job you have to pay them enough to make the job attractive.
Hmm i wonder why that only seems to apply to the likes of top civil servants, bankers etc. Shame they don't apply that logic to people who work in care homes looking after the elderly and vulnerable.

People get paid what they are worth ie market rates dictate.

I wouls assume his first from Oxford is slightly more useful in his current role than a BTEC L1 pass in H&S and a DBS check?

I imagine 99% of the working age population could qualify to be a carer if they wished.

How many people could run an entire government department.?

Thats why they get paid more

Hmm i wonder why that only seems to apply to the likes of top civil servants, bankers etc. Shame they don't apply that logic to people who work in care homes looking after the elderly and vulnerable.

That's capitalism for you! Luckily it's on its way out.

You do realise that civil servants pay a large chunk of their salaries to their pension......

I meant "hypocrisy" in the fact that the government are wanting the majority of us to practically work till we drop and have no option to be able to retire early, but that won't apply to them of course. Different rules for the haves and the have nots.

We can all contribute heavily to our pension schemes. But in this case, remind us again how much the employer (i.e. HMG) puts in as their contribution vs the employee?

And whether it is a funded or unfunded scheme?
And final salary or defined contribution?

(I don't think he's done much wrong but dance with the one what brung him, but that isn't to say it's a pension scheme just like the rest of us have - it's wildly different in setup and payout)

Sloesloe your nurse colleague is in a minority though isn't she , the pension changes within the profession mean that only those who are due for retirement soon , will come out with a decent pension , others like myself won't

Most teachers, SWs, etc I know do NOT retire at 60, they can not afford to.

frumpety most people I know take their pension at 55, and remain in post, so its like 2 salaries really and a lump sum. Seems to be the vogue thing to do. You can clear any debt/morgage/put kids through uni on the lump sum, then bank the payments until you naturally retire.

It's not a different rule.

He just earns more and is fortunate enough to have a good pension.

There are other private sector workers who are in a similar position.

He is drawing his pension from age 61. He is legally allowed to do this.

There is a difference between your state pension age and your normal retirement age in a private pension arrangement.

The former dictates when you receive your state pension from and is decided by the government, the later is set under the rules of your private pension arrangement and the government has nothing to do with it.

O/T I am surprised no one has had a hissy about over paid footballers yet, as the OP has tried to tangent the thead on wage disparity.

I imagine 99% of the working age population could qualify to be a carer if they wished.
I don't agree with that. There often aren't checks on people who are carers, the low wage ensures that many wouldn't consider the job, and some "carers" aren't fit to look after a dog never mind a human being. I must stress though that the majority of carers are kind caring people, but i don't like the implication that looking after the elderly could be done by anyone. No it certainly couldn't. It's time carers were given a decent wage for their very important work.

A civil servant who has been in a long time will have a final salary pension, they were the normal thing for big companies as well until recently and are still offered by loads in e.g. Financial Services. Things have changed since I was a Civil Servant, but you definitely had to contribute to your pension when I was in & I'm pretty sure they won't have reduced the contributions!

Standard Civil Service retirement age used to be 60 anyway, and many company pensions these days are still set at 60. As a pp said, he won't be able to receive his state pension until whatever the current retirement age for men is, same as anyone else.

I used to work in pensions, and can tell you now that a senior manager in the City will retire just as early if not earlier, on plenty more money.

This civil servant will likely have been on an old scheme. Politicians determine the pension arrangements. Public sector pensions have been cut, eg 68 before people can claim.

Those in high paying jobs in Government do get better pension deals. Those working jobs like carers, TAs, etc do not get great pension deals.

OP is talking about hypocrisy. This civil servant isn’t a hypocrite: he isn’t in pensions policy and didn’t determine his own or others’ pension arrangements.

If OP was talking about MPs’ pay/pensions she’d have a point.

OP, this man is not part of the government, he's a highly skilled civil servant. I agree with you that carers should be paid better but the fact is that care work does not, unless specialist, require significant professional expertise and therefore just won't attract the salary paid to someone like Devereux (and rightly so).