Public sector watch

[///ajd]

freakybacon said:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093642/Child-pro...

Mail link. Well worth £960 a day of your taxpayers money.

I agree this is ridiculous, but is this a result of cutting numbers?

Govt forces departments to shed employees - hence the work (which still needs to be done) gets outsourced.

I suspect this may be a factor here. But it is beyond cheeky!

[V8 Fettler]

///ajd said:

freakybacon said:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093642/Child-pro...

Mail link. Well worth £960 a day of your taxpayers money.

I agree this is ridiculous, but is this a result of cutting numbers?

Govt forces departments to shed employees - hence the work (which still needs to be done) gets outsourced.

I suspect this may be a factor here. But it is beyond cheeky!

Poor management of public money. Nothing new.

[The Don of Croy]

Essay from John Redwood on public sector performance, and why it matters;

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/06/23/why-we-nee...

- of course it's playing on numbers (who has the correct ones?) but he makes a cogent point.

[FiF]

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

Hackney LGPS employee 5.5% employer >30%

[Mark Benson]

The Don of Croy said:

Essay from John Redwood on public sector performance, and why it matters;

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/06/23/why-we-nee...

- of course it's playing on numbers (who has the correct ones?) but he makes a cogent point.

I think he has it spot on.
In the private sector, increased efficiency and productivity often results in a stable or even increasing workforce.

If that understanding and sense that cost reduction does not necessarily mean fewer jobs could be promoted within the public sector (or to be accurate, the unions could understand the concept and release themselves from 1970s dogma) then we could all benefit, the public sector could deliver more with the same number of people at less of a burden to those of us paying.

But the Unions won't let that happen.

[arp1]

With regards to public service pensions, you can see how they are cushy, hobnobbing with Abramovich and driving around in bentleys and rollers...

[turbobloke]

arp1 said:

With regards to public service pensions, you can see how they are cushy, hobnobbing with Abramovich and driving around in bentleys and rollers...

You can't see it that way but you can see how generous they are with other people's money i.e. employer contributions within index linked defined benefit schemes by comparison with what's seen to be affordable outside the public sector - and by the amount paid out compared to the (sometimes notional) size of the pot. This is a more reasonable comparison than with oligarchs, so the contrast becomes clear.

[mph1977]

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

which one would that be ?

as its' not the NHS scehem , nor plod, trumpton or teachers ... and i don;t think any DB part of the LGPS is that genherous

[Russ T Bolt]

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

Would love to know where that is, if you are talking 49ths that is a final salary scheme, I didn't think any were left in the public sector.

[mph1977]

Russ T Bolt said:

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

Would love to know where that is, if you are talking 49ths that is a final salary scheme, I didn't think any were left in the public sector.

49ths and final salary i don;t think so

the final salary schemes / sections are usually 60ths ( plod and trumpton with the >11% employee contribution) or 80ths ( others )

the more favourable accrual raters outside the military scheme ( for serving soliders / sailors / crabbists / booties) are generally CARE and other such reduced payout buit still DB schemes

[Russ T Bolt]

mph1977 said:

Russ T Bolt said:

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

Would love to know where that is, if you are talking 49ths that is a final salary scheme, I didn't think any were left in the public sector.

49ths and final salary i don;t think so
the final salary schemes / sections are usually 60ths ( plod and trumpton with the >11% employee contribution) or 80ths ( others )

the more favourable accrual raters outside the military scheme ( for serving soliders / sailors / crabbists / booties) are generally CARE and other such reduced payout buit still DB schemes

Not sure on your point. I had a (private sector) job that accrued a final salary pension at 40th's so they do exist. But not heard of that in the public sector hence my interest.

Edited by Russ T Bolt on Wednesday 24th June 18:21

[arp1]

You need to remember that public service pensions were 'traditionally' more generous than private due to lower wages than the private sector, so what is more important to you? A low wage for the here and now but maybe (due to constant goal post changing) a better pension, or a better and higher wage just now and take your chances with a potentially lower private pension. It's the choices people make.

[turbobloke]

arp1 said:

You need to remember that public service pensions were 'traditionally' more generous than private due to lower wages than the private sector, so what is more important to you? A low wage for the here and now but maybe (due to constant goal post changing) a better pension, or a better and higher wage just now and take your chances with a potentially lower private pension. It's the choices people make.

OK that may have been the case at some point, but how long ago was it? Public sector pay overtook the private sector job-for-job years ago.

Here are two links covering this. For those who dislike one there's always the other, though as usual it's a pointless dislike as both sources are reporting the same ONS data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011414/Pu...

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-networ...

Article said:

Office for National Statistics compared workers who do the same job, are the same age and sex, and live in the same region.

[FiF]

turbobloke said:

arp1 said:

You need to remember that public service pensions were 'traditionally' more generous than private due to lower wages than the private sector so what is more important to you? A low wage for the here and now but maybe (due to constant goal post changing) a better pension, or a better and higher wage just now and take your chances with a potentially lower private pension. It's the choices people make.

OK that may have been the case at some point, but how long ago was it? Public sector pay overtook the private sector job-for-job years ago.

Here are two links covering this. For those who dislike one there's always the other, though as usual it's a pointless dislike as both sources are reporting the same ONS data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011414/Pu...

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-networ...

Article said:

Office for National Statistics compared workers who do the same job, are the same age and sex, and live in the same region.

TUC came up to a similar conclusion. They found it difficult to compare similarjobs etc as these days private and public sectors are so different. Therefore they compared educational qualifications and found a picture where workers with lower qualifications were paid a fair bit more and those with higher quals degree and above were paid slightly less but by only a matter of the odd %.

That was simply on salary and didn't take into account pensions and other benefits. At which point the usual suspects start pointing out take home company cars, which could be a fair point except that bik taxation levels make that point moot for many, and when they throw in laptops (with rules only for business use) and mobiles (use ditto) is the only answer which leaves us with the issue of pensions.

As you have probably forgotten have been trustee on various schemes, the only one still involved in that respect has assets of about 750 million and has both DB and DC parts, the DB is closed to new members and has been for sometime. So because of the doubters above did some calcs to see what we would have to put in to provide similar benefit accrual.

Now whilst it's a DB scheme it isn't a true final salary scheme in the general sense of the term. Though it does use final salary in a way, but not the same way as someone in a true DB final salary scheme can have a massive promotion / pay rise a year before retirement and that counts as the pensionable salary for calculation. So in detail it's more like a career average scheme. However the significant factor is the way accrued pension is fully index linked for life, not just in retirement but right through the working life.

Referring your comment TB about the Hackney LGPS I did the same calculations for this scheme from the pension trustee side, how much would we be telling the employer to contribute and the answer is significantly over 30%, significantly over.

The question I was asked was "should I agree to this or go for the reduced payment scheme or into the Govt scheme?" Whilst not legally qualified to give such advice as close family it's ok and advised to snatch their hands off, advice followed thankfully. Good luck to her, first proper job since graduating and bang straight in at the very top of the pay band too, with a rebanding upwards on the horizon.

Edited by FiF on Thursday 25th June 08:57

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Referring your comment TB about the Hackney LGPS I did the same calculations for this scheme from the pension trustee side, how much would we be telling the employer to contribute and the answer is significantly over 30%, significantly over.

Understood, my point was also about who pays the employer contributions as well as their size, and for Hackney LGPS as per other public sector schemes it's the private sector taxpayer of course. That said, the idea of an employer contribution at over 30% is interesting to private sector folk

[Sheepshanks]

FiF said:

The question I was asked was "should I agree to this or go for the reduced payment scheme or into the Govt scheme?" Whilst not legally qualified to give such advice as close family it's ok and advised to snatch their hands off, advice followed thankfully. Good luck to her, first proper job since graduating and bang straight in at the very top of the pay band too, with a rebanding upwards on the horizon.

Yet staff retention in many public sector jobs, even in roles such as nursing and teaching which generally need a complete career change to move, is terrible. So people aren't staying for the pension.

[SpeedMattersNot]

turbobloke said:

arp1 said:

You need to remember that public service pensions were 'traditionally' more generous than private due to lower wages than the private sector, so what is more important to you? A low wage for the here and now but maybe (due to constant goal post changing) a better pension, or a better and higher wage just now and take your chances with a potentially lower private pension. It's the choices people make.

OK that may have been the case at some point, but how long ago was it? Public sector pay overtook the private sector job-for-job years ago.

Here are two links covering this. For those who dislike one there's always the other, though as usual it's a pointless dislike as both sources are reporting the same ONS data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011414/Pu...

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-networ...

Article said:

Office for National Statistics compared workers who do the same job, are the same age and sex, and live in the same region.

You're an interesting chap.

Proud to dismiss similar standards of data sources in the climate change thread, but use large, significant, independent/global/governmental sources for other points of view?

Make your mind up

[turbobloke]

SpeedMattersNot said:

You're an interesting chap.

Such positive affirmation from you makes all the difference.

SpeedMattersNot said:

Proud to dismiss similar standards of data sources in the climate change thread...

There is no ONS data used in climate studies or articles.

SpeedMattersNot said:

...but use large, significant, independent/global/governmental sources for other points of view?

If you say so, but not really as in fact you're talking nonsense.

SpeedMattersNot said:

Make your mind up

Long ago.

[Russ T Bolt]

FiF said:

Hasn't there been repeated assertion on this thread that public sector pensions, despite claims to the contrary, aren't all that special, except for special sectors in civil service, Whitehall etc.

Just been looking at the scheme rules for someone, recent graduate, just starting out. Job quite normal administration type.

Defined Benefit. 5% employee contributions. All index linked. Accrual at 49ths.

Would have loved to have that.

So are you able to share where this is, or is it a fictitious job ?