Public sector watch
Discussion
sidicks said:
I've just glanced at that, but doesn't that suggest that:
1. public sector pay is already higher than private sector pay (and public sector pay should increase to retain that differential) without explaining why the differential is justified?
2. It doesn't take into account other benefits, which we know are significant for public sector pensions!
Average qualifications are higher in the pub sec too. Both because all the lowest paid/qualified jobs in the pub sec, eg cleaners, moved some time ago to the pri sec, which skews the comparison.1. public sector pay is already higher than private sector pay (and public sector pay should increase to retain that differential) without explaining why the differential is justified?
2. It doesn't take into account other benefits, which we know are significant for public sector pensions!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 3rd July 17:01
This is not new.
sidicks said:
La Liga said:
The IFS support a pay rise for a variety of reasons: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9241
I've just glanced at that, but doesn't that suggest that:1. public sector pay is already higher than private sector pay (and public sector pay should increase to retain that differential) without explaining why the differential is justified?
2. It doesn't take into account other benefits, which we know are significant for public sector pensions!
They're essentially saying now things are better in the private sector better people will go there instead of the public sector. Although I'm not sure why if there's a pay differential (albeit a small one when taking into consideration workers' characteristics).
It acknowledges the pension with (4) at the bottom.
La Liga said:
or does it take into account the wider financial context i.e. deficit and debt.
They're essentially saying now things are better in the private sector better people will go there instead of the public sector. Although I'm not sure why if there's a pay differential (albeit a small one when taking into consideration workers' characteristics).
It acknowledges the pension with (4) at the bottom.
Yes, it acknowledges it at the bottom, but ignores it in the analysis!They're essentially saying now things are better in the private sector better people will go there instead of the public sector. Although I'm not sure why if there's a pay differential (albeit a small one when taking into consideration workers' characteristics).
It acknowledges the pension with (4) at the bottom.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Lump sum would be a maximum 3 times pension, so for someone earning £22k pa with 40+ yrs pension scheme paying in they would get a max of £11k pension and £33k lump sum in the original (better) NHS scheme. The newer scheme will pay less than this at 65 or later based on career average pay, however a bigger lump sum can be swapped for a further reduced pension per annum as it's more flexible on retirement anonymous said:
[redacted]
As far as I'm aware NHS locums are being effectively exempted from the IR35 changes so not sure why they'd get a higher rate?A friend of mine works for Hays. The work for contractors is still there as long as they are PAYE somewhere along the food chain . And there are plenty of people (in accountancy at least) willing to do 6 month stints for market rate (as opposed to market rate plus tax)
200Plus Club said:
Lump sum would be a maximum 3 times pension, so for someone earning £22k pa with 40+ yrs pension scheme paying in they would get a max of £11k pension and £33k lump sum in the original (better) NHS scheme. The newer scheme will pay less than this at 65 or later based on career average pay, however a bigger lump sum can be swapped for a further reduced pension per annum as it's more flexible on retirement
Just saying it is 'better' doesn't make it so.As explained, the higher accrual rate and revaluation rate can make a significant difference and lead to higher pensions than the final salary version, particular for those who have lower increases (i.e. Everyone in the last few years!!).
sidicks said:
200Plus Club said:
Lump sum would be a maximum 3 times pension, so for someone earning £22k pa with 40+ yrs pension scheme paying in they would get a max of £11k pension and £33k lump sum in the original (better) NHS scheme. The newer scheme will pay less than this at 65 or later based on career average pay, however a bigger lump sum can be swapped for a further reduced pension per annum as it's more flexible on retirement
Just saying it is 'better' doesn't make it so.As explained, the higher accrual rate and revaluation rate can make a significant difference and lead to higher pensions than the final salary version, particular for those who have lower increases (i.e. Everyone in the last few years!!).
Sticks. said:
Average qualifications are higher in the pub sec too. Both because all the lowest paid/qualified jobs in the pub sec, eg cleaners, moved some time ago to the pri sec, which skews the comparison.
That's already adjusted for.Sticks. said:
This is not new.
Neither is the answer!anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course, working for Flash and Bang he'll be paid a lot more than in the NHS. So he could put that extra into a pension - but he won't.To me, this is the ridiculous part of these discussions. Even the lower paid NHS staff are contributing far more than their private sector counterparts.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm quite surprised it's that much.98elise said:
barryrs said:
I was chatting to a close family member over the weekend who works for the MOD in accountancy with many years service. They were looking forward to substantial pay rises and bonuses this year as they have all been reclassified as "contractors" so the pay caps gone out of the window.
Apparently an unintended consequence of a government crack down on tax avoidance by contractors working for the civil service has seen the rise in reclassification as they get the same pay and protection as regular staff but no 1% pay cap.
That's back to front. The IR35 crackdown is bringing people in from being Contractors to being being on the books as such.Apparently an unintended consequence of a government crack down on tax avoidance by contractors working for the civil service has seen the rise in reclassification as they get the same pay and protection as regular staff but no 1% pay cap.
If you are employed as a bum on a seat and report to a manger etc the crackdown will mean you can no longer work as a contractor. If you get any sort of employment protection then you will almost certainly be inside IR35.
I cannot see any scenario where it would push previously employed people into being reclassified as contractors.
Sheepshanks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course, working for Flash and Bang he'll be paid a lot more than in the NHS. So he could put that extra into a pension - but he won't.To me, this is the ridiculous part of these discussions. Even the lower paid NHS staff are contributing far more than their private sector counterparts.
Sheepshanks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm quite surprised it's that much.sidicks said:
Guess what? If the government put in £3 for every £1 invested by a private sector employee, people would make much larger contributions!!
D'ya reckon? Who knows, I guess some would, but probably not many. Some people drop out of public sector pensions, saying they can't afford the contributions. Would love to see some stats on that - anecdotal evidence from my 'kids', one in the NHS and the other a teacher, is a lot of the younger staff have opted out.Sheepshanks said:
sidicks said:
Guess what? If the government put in £3 for every £1 invested by a private sector employee, people would make much larger contributions!!
D'ya reckon? Who knows, I guess some would, but probably not many. Some people drop out of public sector pensions, saying they can't afford the contributions. Would love to see some stats on that - anecdotal evidence from my 'kids', one in the NHS and the other a teacher, is a lot of the younger staff have opted out.Sheepshanks said:
sidicks said:
Guess what? If the government put in £3 for every £1 invested by a private sector employee, people would make much larger contributions!!
D'ya reckon? Who knows, I guess some would, but probably not many. Some people drop out of public sector pensions, saying they can't afford the contributions. Would love to see some stats on that - anecdotal evidence from my 'kids', one in the NHS and the other a teacher, is a lot of the younger staff have opted out.We currently do it on a 4:1 ratio (tiny Employer).
London424 said:
Sheepshanks said:
sidicks said:
Guess what? If the government put in £3 for every £1 invested by a private sector employee, people would make much larger contributions!!
D'ya reckon? Who knows, I guess some would, but probably not many. Some people drop out of public sector pensions, saying they can't afford the contributions. Would love to see some stats on that - anecdotal evidence from my 'kids', one in the NHS and the other a teacher, is a lot of the younger staff have opted out.1. It pays out death in service 4 to 6x annual salary to your estate.
2. It is by far the best part of the package so opting out why didn't you work elsewhere maybe with a higher take home?
3. Clearly it's only going to get worse as time goes by be it pay in more starts later or you get less or all three. Locking in he early savings now is a very smart thing to do.
Randy Winkman said:
Young people think they're never going to be old.
There's a bunch of reasons, but not the least of which is the contributions are hefty - I'm pretty sure both my kids are paying in the 10% area. And let's not forget that nurses are so hard up they're using food banks. 
The NHS scheme has changed a couple of times, which shakes their confidence long term.
The other thing is that many think they'll leave so won't be there for long.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff