Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
Countdown said:
For the sake of argument let's assume they're not justified. So, across the board, on a like-for like basis, on average, remuneration for a job in the PubSec is 25% higher than the Private Sector? If that's the case where do you think all the highest calibre people will be applying?
The highest calibre people will apply to the jobs for which they are best suited and where they have the best opportunity for progression. Of course, not everyone is motivated by money.As illustrated above in the survey results, the high flyers have more opportunities in the private sector, leading to the conclusion that the less able would seek employment in the public sector, all other things being equal (which frequently they are not).
As stated on many previous ocassions, few people really appreciate the value of the DB pension scheme (hence we could remove this and increase salaries for some public sector workers (nurses?) and both they and the taxpayer would feel better off.
sidicks said:
The highest calibre people will apply to the jobs for which they are best suited and where they have the best opportunity for progression. Of course, not everyone is motivated by money.
I agree. A lot of the people who work in the Public Sector do so because they get better job satisfaction, despite knowing that thet could earn more in the Private Sector.sidicks said:
As illustrated above in the survey results, the high flyers have more opportunities in the private sector, leading to the conclusion that the less able would seek employment in the public sector, all other things being equal (which frequently they are not).
So logically the Public Sector needs to offer higher salaries to attract these "high flyers"? 
sidicks said:
As stated on many previous ocassions, few people really appreciate the value of the DB pension scheme (hence we could remove this and increase salaries for some public sector workers (nurses?) and both they and the taxpayer would feel better off.
If they don't recognise the value of the DB schemes then why do they seem so reluctant to give them up?Countdown said:
I agree. A lot of the people who work in the Public Sector do so because they get better job satisfaction, despite knowing that thet could earn more in the Private Sector.
So if they get better job satisfaction, why do they need a 20-25% higher salary package?[quote=CountdownSo logically the Public Sector needs to offer higher salaries to attract these "high flyers"?
Countdown said:
If they don't recognise the value of the DB schemes then why do they seem so reluctant to give them up?
Of course you're not going to give up something for nothing, they're not stupid!If you offered them a 10-15% pay rise in lieu of the pension, what do you think the outcome would be?
sidicks said:
So if they get better job satisfaction, why do they need a 20-25% higher salary package?
It's not higher. They could probably earn more in the private sector. Apparently there are more opportunities theresidicks said:
Countdown said:
So logically the Public Sector needs to offer higher salaries to attract these "high flyers"?
Logically, in isolation, yes, all other things being equal (which they are not)!Countdown said:
If they don't recognise the value of the DB schemes then why do they seem so reluctant to give them up?
sidicks said:
Of course you're not going to give up something for nothing, they're not stupid!
If you offered them a 10-15% pay rise in lieu of the pension, what do you think the outcome would be?
Some would take it, others wouldn't. Not because they don't appreciate the value of the scheme but simply because they need/want the cash now rather than in 30/40 years time.If you offered them a 10-15% pay rise in lieu of the pension, what do you think the outcome would be?
Countdown said:
It's not higher. They could probably earn more in the private sector. Apparently there are more opportunities there
1. The ONS survey suggests it is 2. Not doing the same job, because that is exactly what the ONS survey is measuring!
Countdown said:
So focusing on ONE particular thing (like pensions) without taking into account the myriad of other things which impact on a person's employment choices is pointless.
That's why we aren't focusing on pensions in isolation, we are focusing on pensions and salary which is the normal way of comparing jobs!Countdown said:
Some would take it, others wouldn't. Not because they don't appreciate the value of the scheme but simply because they need/want the cash now rather than in 30/40 years time.
Giving people what is valuable for them (and cheaper) for the taxpayer is a good way of helping staff retention / acquisition and reducing the burden on the public finances!sidicks said:
Of course you're not going to give up something for nothing, they're not stupid!
If you offered them a 10-15% pay rise in lieu of the pension, what do you think the outcome would be?
There was an NHS Trust doing this last year. I remember a kerfuffle about it, but don't know what the final outcome was.If you offered them a 10-15% pay rise in lieu of the pension, what do you think the outcome would be?
It was aimed at bringing back agency nurses, but they also offered it to existing staff who had opted out of the NHS pension. The latter is interesting to me - I've mentioned this before but my daughter works in the NHS and very few of her similar age colleagues have joined as they think it'll never pay out.
Sheepshanks said:
There was an NHS Trust doing this last year. I remember a kerfuffle about it, but don't know what the final outcome was.
It was aimed at bringing back agency nurses, but they also offered it to existing staff who had opted out of the NHS pension. The latter is interesting to me - I've mentioned this before but my daughter works in the NHS and very few of her similar age colleagues have joined as they think it'll never pay out.
I think they are mad! It was aimed at bringing back agency nurses, but they also offered it to existing staff who had opted out of the NHS pension. The latter is interesting to me - I've mentioned this before but my daughter works in the NHS and very few of her similar age colleagues have joined as they think it'll never pay out.
sidicks said:
I think they are mad!
In some ways one can see where they're coming from. The scheme has changed 3 times in a few years and there's a fairly chunky employee contribution now. The other thing is the bit she works in was created by a JV between a charity and a remote NHS Trust, which sells its services to the local NHS.
The local NHS also procures the same service from a company run by another charity and their staff are not on NHS T's & C's.
Longer term, they see a lot of stuff going this way.
Sheepshanks said:
In some ways one can see where they're coming from. The scheme has changed 3 times in a few years and there's a fairly chunky employee contribution now.
The scheme has changed but not significantly (in terms of the value of benefits that will be received)The chunky contribution is small compared to the benefits that will be received.
Sheepshanks said:
The other thing is the bit she works in was created by a JV between a charity and a remote NHS Trust, which sells its services to the local NHS.
The local NHS also procures the same service from a company run by another charity and their staff are not on NHS T's & C's.
Longer term, they see a lot of stuff going this way.
But that doesn't mean that benefits already accrued won't be protected.The local NHS also procures the same service from a company run by another charity and their staff are not on NHS T's & C's.
Longer term, they see a lot of stuff going this way.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 17th January 15:48
Sheepshanks said:
I've mentioned this before but my daughter works in the NHS and very few of her similar age colleagues have joined as they think it'll never pay out.
As a tax payer I'm very happy to hear that but IMHO they are extremely foolish. There is no reason to think that accrued benefits will or can legally be reneged on. The problem is the likes of mph1977 (in ignorance) and the unions (deliberately) conflate previously accrued benefits with changes to t&c's effecting future accruals. If your daughters colleagues do not understand the difference you should probably avoid using her hospital for medical treatment!fblm said:
Sheepshanks said:
I've mentioned this before but my daughter works in the NHS and very few of her similar age colleagues have joined as they think it'll never pay out.
As a tax payer I'm very happy to hear that but IMHO they are extremely foolish. There is no reason to think that accrued benefits will or can legally be reneged on. The problem is the likes of mph1977 (in ignorance) and the unions (deliberately) conflate previously accrued benefits with changes to t&c's effecting future accruals. If your daughters colleagues do not understand the difference you should probably avoid using her hospital for medical treatment!They are correct in thinking that future guarantees will be different but ring-fenced arrangements are rarely dabbled with. Indeed, this is why it's more important now than ever before to start investing asap. It really is difficult to grasp this notion in your 20s.
Countdown said:
ONS links below suggests otherwise. In my experience at higher levels, pay & perks in private sector are significantly better than PubSec.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105...
I'm a bit puzzled by that report. There are a couple of statements which suggest the private sector pays more overall - but is this skewed by a very small number of very high earners?http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105...
Figures 1 (hourly rate vs age) and 3 (hourly rate vs earnings decile) seem to show that the public sector pay outstrips private sector pay almost across the board. It's only well above the 90th decile that private sector pay starts to outstrip the public sector.
Jockman said:
They are correct in thinking that future guarantees will be different but ring-fenced arrangements are rarely dabbled with. Indeed, this is why it's more important now than ever before to start investing asap. It really is difficult to grasp this notion in your 20s.
The issues are containing in that response. You say "rarely" but they think that in 40 years time (may well be more if the retirement age keeps moving out) the NHS won't exist (many people agree with that) and no-one can guarantee anything in terms of previous arrangements.Coupled with that you've got young people maxxed out on their salaries so they need money now - the suggestion of a good return in 40+ years time doesn't carry any value they can relate to today.
Sheepshanks said:
Jockman said:
They are correct in thinking that future guarantees will be different but ring-fenced arrangements are rarely dabbled with. Indeed, this is why it's more important now than ever before to start investing asap. It really is difficult to grasp this notion in your 20s.
The issues are containing in that response. You say "rarely" but they think that in 40 years time (may well be more if the retirement age keeps moving out) the NHS won't exist (many people agree with that) and no-one can guarantee anything in terms of previous arrangements.Coupled with that you've got young people maxxed out on their salaries so they need money now - the suggestion of a good return in 40+ years time doesn't carry any value they can relate to today.
I have a Nurse daughter too (aged 31). She would not dare leave the Pension Scheme. My eldest is employed by a large HA and has maxed out on her match-funded contributions. I appreciate not everyone is in this position.
Moonhawk said:
I'm a bit puzzled by that report. There are a couple of statements which suggest the private sector pays more overall - but is this skewed by a very small number of very high earners?
I think the summary is:On a like for like (job) basis, private sector pays very slightly less on average
If you adjust for size of company, private sector pays more on average
Within that average, private sector pays more for high earners and public sector pays more for lower earners.
Moonhawk said:
Figures 1 (hourly rate vs age) and 3 (hourly rate vs earnings decile) seem to show that the public sector pay outstrips private sector pay almost across the board. It's only well above the 90th decile that private sector pay starts to outstrip the public sector.
The hourly rate averages are not particularly informative as they aren't directly comparable (don't take into account the given skill level / different qualification level of the respective sectors.La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
According to the judgement, the case was judged by Judge SJ Williams, who is a judge.
Who else did you expect to make a legal judgement? Jockman said:
I can't see a Public Pension ever being in such a situation. When the Postal Service was privatised in 2012? The Tax Payer retained the Pension liability and even contributed to future arrangements for 4 years. As this comes to an end it is interesting to see strikes being considered.
I have a Nurse daughter too (aged 31). She would not dare leave the Pension Scheme. My eldest is employed by a large HA and has maxed out on her match-funded contributions. I appreciate not everyone is in this position.
Indeed. Look at the Railway Pension Scheme. The TOCs don't recognise the related deficit on the grounds that there's still an implicit guarantee from the taxpayer (essentially because the problem is shifted on to the next franchisee at every change of franchise). And that's how long post-privatisation?I have a Nurse daughter too (aged 31). She would not dare leave the Pension Scheme. My eldest is employed by a large HA and has maxed out on her match-funded contributions. I appreciate not everyone is in this position.
I can't see any accrued service that is today explicitly underwritten by the government not being paid out. People would have to be totally off their heads not to sign up to the maximum available benefit.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
According to the judgement, the case was judged by Judge SJ Williams, who is a judge.
Who else did you expect to make a legal judgement?It's alright making simplistic conflict of interest links (it's easier to attack the judge than the judgement) and trotting out the 'insular empires' line ad nauseum, but that doesn't address the fact that the laws we have dictate our legal structure and processes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff