Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Strike and final pension

109 replies

EuroExpat · 28/03/2006 10:05

Weren´t you shocked when you heard on breakfast TV this morning that the average worker striking today will receive a pension of only 4000 pounds per year? I´m absolutely horrified!! And the pompous so-and-so doing the interview said men deserved to get more money as they "worked" for more years than women. This sort of thing really makes me worry that women feel feminism is no longer needed.

OP posts:
bushytail · 29/03/2006 13:26

I think the final salary aspect of our pensions will be the next to go... that's why I'm willing to support this strike.

Uwila · 29/03/2006 13:31

If we don't accept the end of final salary pension schemes, we will not be able to compete with the likes of India and China in world markets. And then many of us won't have jobs at all.

Tony and Gordon are well aware of this, as are the Torries. The end to final salary pension is not going to be prevented by a mass council strike.

My company just ended final salary pension. It made a lot of people very mad. A lot of them left the company. I, however, being American took it in stride because I would never have dreamt of getting such a generous perk. Nobody has final salary pension in the states. We have other savings plans (like 401K).

gomez · 29/03/2006 13:51

Bushytail - unless people are willing to start paying more for it it is almost inevitiable that the final salary aspect of public sector pensions will go.

bushytail · 29/03/2006 14:02

Hmmm... I think it's to do with what you were promised when you signed up :)

I am in my early 40s and would be willing to pay more up front for a more generous pension. (I know I am lucky to earn enough to do this - but as a relatively highly paid local government worker would be happy to pay an amount linked to my salary to ensure better pensions for all in local government).

gomez · 29/03/2006 14:09

But people can do as Uwila collegues did and move on - which given how utterly appaling public sector pay, benefits and working conditions are, apparently, I am surprised more don't already Smile.

I know I don't because I get paid well, (not as much as I did in a previous life but then I don't have to work daft hours)have a great work/life balance and minimal stress! All in all a winner for me.

Things change and it is an out-dated and perhpas a but niave to think that the public sector is excluded from this.

Normsnockers · 29/03/2006 15:23

Gordon Brown raided all private pension schemes almost as soon as he got into power as far back as 1997. At the same time the pensions industry as a whole took stock of longer living pensioners and decreased investment returns and evaluated the shortfall because accounting rules stated that projected pension scheme shortfalls should be acknowledged in company accounts.

The projected shortfall in investment pots for those on final salary schemes would need to be made up by employers (who are therefore rapidly shutting such schemes to be replaced by money purchase schemes) or in the case of civil servants (nhs/ education/ local government) is being made up from taxpayers money. Civil servants have not to my knowledge been informed that they need to increase their contributions from 6% to say 8% if they wish to receive the originally anticipated retirement benefits.

The shortfall for non-final salary pension scheme employees is being made up by them from increased contributions or the acceptance that they will need to work longer/retire later. Their pension goalposts have been changed so why can't the goalposts move for the civil servants ?

I realise that there is inequality between the local government employees' position and other civil servants but if the government won't tackle the issue with the other civil servants, the little old taxpayer can't do anything but judge the government on this at the next election.

BTW I can't find a single serious newspaper article (excluding redtop newspapers) that confirms the Unison figures and statements in full.

Uwila · 29/03/2006 15:54

Bushy, I think your point is fair. They made a deal and they abide by it. Okay, for say those who have already worked many years and ar due to retire in say 5 maybe 10 years. Also, because it is rather difficult to get a new job at 55. But, probably not 45. So, if they said ok, those of you within ten years of achieving rule 85, we'll keep it on for you. But no more. The rest of you will work until 65, or whatever age everyone else works until in this country.

gomez · 29/03/2006 16:12

There is protection in the current proposals.

Pension entitlement accrued by all members prior to October 2006 will be protected - so if you have 25 years service currently, serve another 3 years and then retire early only the last 3 years worth of pension will be reduced.

Also if you are due to hit 60 before 31/3/2013 all your benefits are protected.

Not quite a whipping away of all current rights is it?

Uwila · 29/03/2006 16:31

Well, then the proposal seems fair. Go to work, just like the rest of us! (she says typing on mumsnet and not working)

expatinscotland · 29/03/2006 16:31

'My company just ended final salary pension. It made a lot of people very mad. A lot of them left the company. I, however, being American took it in stride because I would never have dreamt of getting such a generous perk. Nobody has final salary pension in the states. We have other savings plans (like 401K).'

Yep. I guess that's what I'm used to.

'Oh, but they promised us.'

Yeah, well, people lie and renege on their promises. It happens all the time.

Look at those Enron b*stards.

I mean, someone working in a bank call centre is pretty low paid, too, but they're not getting to retire at 60.

It's all an outdated social experiment that's failing.

That's reality.

Normsnockers · 29/03/2006 16:34

Remind me again why I have to increase my own pension contributions to achieve the previously projected level of pension benefits but civil servants expect "their employer" to see them right on this matter ?

By expecting their employer to maintain the status quo won't we all just pay more in taxes to make up the government employees investment pot shortfall.

Therefore, some of us are trying to make up our own shortfall and have no choice but to contribute to the public sector shortfall also.

I started contributing to the state pension on the understanding that as a woman I'd retire at 60, the goalposts moved for that also and now I have to work to 65 before I can draw state pension.

I'll stop now before I get too wound up.

expatinscotland · 29/03/2006 16:40

The figures aren't going to add up w/the way things are going. There just won't be enough taxpayers to support people retiring at 60 and living till mid-80s+. Goalposts move all the time in life.

I know it sounds harsh, but if it's not dealt with NOW it's really going to be nasty.

I never saw state 'pension' contributions as anything but another tax on me, b/c I don't expect to get FA from it by the time I'm 60, 65, whatever.

Uwila · 29/03/2006 17:22

Nice post, Normsnockers.

Mercy · 29/03/2006 17:22

Normsnockers - civil servants are not the same as NHS or local government employees. Civil servants work for central government and unless things have changed recently, receive a non-contributory pension. They also get a much higher London Weighting than council employees.

Can't comment on any other facts or figures as I'm well out of my depth!

Normsnockers · 29/03/2006 17:39

Apologies if I use the term civil servant a little too broadly, I was trying to refer to all employees of the government, be it teachers, nhs staff, local government and any others I may not have listed.

When I worked for the NHS I erroneously considered myself a "civil servant", probably better to say a public sector employee then.

All of the above and the real civil servants have their pensions at least part funded by government funds and hence partly funded by taxes paid by themselves and private sector workers.

Private sector workers have their pensions funded by themselves and whatever contribution is on offer from their employers. The employer funds its contributions to employye pension schemes out of profits.

Normsnockers · 29/03/2006 17:43

I have to agree with ExpatinScotland.

Unless we face the truth now, things are indeed being to be grim in retirement for many who will spend their time berating the governmemt for the paltry value of the state pension which is only intended as a safety net to ensure against "starvation" not deprivation.

philippat · 29/03/2006 19:14

I'm sorry, but I really can't take any argument seriously that says 'we do it much better in america'.

expatinscotland · 29/03/2006 19:34

No one said that philipat. The two of us just described our experiences is all.

I don't buy ANY argument as to why as a low-paid taxpayer who works in the private sector I should be expected to fund someone's 5 earlier years of retirement than I get just b/c they work in another sector.

Uwila · 29/03/2006 19:35

PHilipat, what is your pint? That everything that comes from America is bad? Hmmmm... that's a pretty weak argument. Not to mention untrue.

Uwila · 29/03/2006 19:36

Sorry, that was meant to be point, but come to think of it I'd quite like a pint. Grin

philippat · 29/03/2006 19:47

no, but america has considerably different priorities. Fair enough, just in my view it's worth striking for what I believe our society stands for.

One of the reasons some people working in the public sector don't change jobs into the private sector is because they believe they make a difference to their communities.

parping out now, too wide a divide to try and cross. Just don't any of you expect to enjoy my museum in the future because I'll have left to do something that gets me more money... (like work in a museum in the US for example...)

philippat · 29/03/2006 19:48

and I'll have a bitter, please Grin

Mercy · 29/03/2006 20:05

Are you all expat North Americans?

Uwila · 29/03/2006 20:06

sorry, I only stock lager. Oh bugger, that reminds me I'm meant to be doing the Tesco shopping now. Whay are there only 24 hours in a day?!?!?!

tb · 30/03/2006 09:23

My husband is 57 and has worked in the public sector for 36 years. He is nearly blind in 1 eye due to the effects of an auto-immune disease and with nearly 30 years experience as a fully-qualified Chartered Chemist is still paid less than a newly qualified accountant. His pension is identical to those that used to be offered by private sector schemes in companies such as Unilever, Littlewoods etc.

No matter how much his pension is, 50% of b all, is still b all, and represents deferred salary.

Despite increasing responsibility, for most of the 1980's he received no increases in salary, and now that fixed pay scales have been abolished in the organisation where he works
he receives rises that are less than inflation. The performance percentages are skewed in favour of employees with less experience, and therefore lower salaries, who can be relied upon to approve them.

Each month, after mortgage, council tax etc are paid we have £200 to buy food, petrol etc. Hardly a 'jolly'. The latest proposal would reduce his pension by 33% if he left 8 years early as a fine, and would force all staff to take a cash lump sum rather than provide a larger pension for partner/children after their death.

Rule of 85 - yes in theory, in reality it doesn't exist.

Sorry it this reads like a rant, but he wouldn't even take time off when given a sick note for acute glaucoma a he reckoned he could still see well enough out of 1 eye!! He was also asked to go into work the day of his father's funeral as his boss at the time preferred to sit in his office all day writing text book rather than manage a laboratory!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread