Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
1. Yes, this is about changes so obviously just deals with future accrual. The earlier you are in your career, the more important that is, though.
2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
Why is happening to the other 4.5%??2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
3. Of course I am free to seek alternative employment, but that is irrelevant.
4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are s
t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector.
You mean:4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are s
t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector. 1) public sector workers should be immune to economics and demographics?
2) it’s a cost that other people should pay so that you can have an extremely attractive pension?
2) What's wrong with providing an attractive pension to highly skilled people who do work that directly benefits society and mankind and exist in an international labour market? Doesn't society benefit overall from the existence of universities? I believe it does, that's why we have them... funding them properly includes providing the funding to attract the best people to work there, too. We shouldn't be embarrassed by that.
travel is dangerous said:
4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are st now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector.
The issue is that you want others who can't afford such a pension themselves to pay for your over generous and unstainable pension.t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector. travel is dangerous said:
Because the employers have said they favour a more cautious investment approach, and because the DB scheme will be closed to any new entrants/accruals, the universities have to contribute to that... (to meet the deficit they have created by specifying a low-growth investment strategy).
Nothing to do with new entrants / accruals.You mean a lower risk scenario, quite reasonably. Why should the taxpayer (and future members) be forced to take an unacceptably high risk to try and fund your pension?
You also forget that the liabilities (by your own admission) are likely to be higher than stated, due to wages increasing faster than assumed in the valuation.
travel is dangerous said:
1) no I don't mean we should be immune.
It certainly seems that way - how much extra contribution would you pay to help support the retention of the DB scheme. You’ve recognised that market conditions mean that buying an annuity is expensive and that growth rates are lower, yet you appear to believe that shouldn’t affect you. Why is that?
travel is dangerous said:
I mean that all workers - including public sector - should be remunerated in a way that is consistent with their skills, abilities and value. Do you think that teachers should get worse pensions too? What about doctors?
2) What's wrong with providing an attractive pension to highly skilled people who do work that directly benefits society and mankind and exist in an international labour market? Doesn't society benefit overall from the existence of universities? I believe it does, that's why we have them... funding them properly includes providing the funding to attract the best people to work there, too. We shouldn't be embarrassed by that.
You may not realise, but the money isn’t available. We have a deficit of £60bn down from £160bn.2) What's wrong with providing an attractive pension to highly skilled people who do work that directly benefits society and mankind and exist in an international labour market? Doesn't society benefit overall from the existence of universities? I believe it does, that's why we have them... funding them properly includes providing the funding to attract the best people to work there, too. We shouldn't be embarrassed by that.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 14:25
sidicks said:
You may not realise, but the money isn’t available. We have a deficit of £60bn down from £160bn.
Universities' income has grown by more than 10 % on average over each of the past 5 years, by the way. You may not realise it but UK universities are world leading and it's one of our major exports. Universities promote the UK and project influence around the world.
Your argument, which implies that universities are poor value for money or 'can't be afforded' is just risible.
sidicks said:
You’ve recognised that market conditions mean that buying an annuity is expensive and that growth rates are lower, yet you appear to believe that shouldn’t affect you. Why is that?
We can't do anything about market conditions but we can argue about the scheme is run and the risk profile it takes. I think that should be re-examined, along with the contribution rate from both employee and employer. What I believe is that the retirement benefit should remain at the level it is at currently. The cost of the benefit is immaterial - if we believe that university staff should be remunerated at a certain rate - including a certain retirement income, then nothing has changed to alter the value that we believe these staff offer, has it? Would you accept a 10-20 % lifetime pay cut for continuing to do the same job?
Having said that, I'd happily pay 5 % more. Perhaps even more than that. The university sector is running a large surplus (it is clearly not run very well, given the poor handling of this situation by UUK). They could afford increased contributions too.
superlightr said:
The issue is that you want others who can't afford such a pension themselves to pay for your over generous and unstainable pension.
The idea that 'people shouldn't pay for pensions for other people that they can't afford themselves' also falls down at a moments scrutiny. Isn't this exactly what people do for doctors, teachers, MPs? Doesn't this idea logically mean that all public sector employees should be the lowest-paid in society? What happens in the private sector? How about every time you buy something from a shop? You are paying for the remuneration of everyone in the company that you purchase the item from, and for everyone in the company that manufactured, designed, advertised, and transported it, aren't you? That is true whether the item is a can of cider or a Lamborghini.You can't avoid paying for other people's livelihood, that's how our society is configured.
Edited by travel is dangerous on Monday 26th February 14:35
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
If the sixth wealthiest Country on the planet cannot afford decent pensions for employees then it’s a very poor reflection upon Government, businesses and investors.
You appear to be confusing ‘decent’ with ‘gold-plated’.crankedup said:
I recall thatcher allowing businesses to take ‘pension hoilidays’ during the easy period, must have been a very easy job for pensions companies to make a quick buck too.
You appear to be misinformed, not for the first time.crankedup said:
I can recall a company one of my bro’s worked for, printing industry, they offered a contributory pension scheme to employees for years. The Company used that money to set up a new company business for themselves before putting the old company into receivership, thieving scum.
Cracking anecdotal. Obviously entirely irrelevant, but very interesting nonetheless.crankedup said:
But what of the future for those at work today when they retire with no pension, aside from the National pension which some say will not be available. They can’t all be wealthy FTSE Board Directors can they!
Yes, It’s almost as if it doesn’t make sense for poor private sector workers to fund gold-plated public sector pensions, whilst being unable to fund their own pensions...Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 14:16
When you tell me that ‘I must have been misinformed’ why, what makes you say that?
Businesses that thieve from its workers is never irrelevant. Presume you have never had that misfortune? Bad practice and wrongdoing are alive and well in the private sector, as witnessed over the past decade.
Pensions thieving must never been forgotten.
Poor private sector workers were soft and bent over when thier employers reined in the pension schemes. Why blame that on the public sector workers.
travel is dangerous said:
sidicks said:
You may not realise, but the money isn’t available. We have a deficit of £60bn down from £160bn.
Universities' income has grown by more than 10 % on average over each of the past 5 years, by the way. You may not realise it but UK universities are world leading and it's one of our major exports. Universities promote the UK and project influence around the world.
Your argument that universities are poor value for money or 'can't be afforded' is just risible.
travel is dangerous said:
The idea that 'people shouldn't pay for pensions for other people that they can't afford themselves' also falls down at a moments scrutiny. Isn't this exactly what people do for doctors, teachers, MPs? Doesn't this idea logically mean that all public sector employees should be the lowest-paid in society?
No it really doesn’t mean that at all. That is an absurd argument. Is that really the best you’ve got?No-onene is suggesting that there should be no pensions, just that they should be rebalanced to take into account the economic and demographics world that we are facing. HTH
travel is dangerous said:
What happens in the private sector? How about every time you buy something from a shop? You are paying for the remuneration of everyone in the company that you purchase the item from, and for everyone in the company that manufactured, designed, advertised, and transported it, aren't you? That is true whether the item is a can of cider or a Lamborghini.
You can't avoid paying for other people's livelihood, that's how our society is configured.
And yet in the private sector those DB pensions no longer exist, why is that do you think?You can't avoid paying for other people's livelihood, that's how our society is configured.
crankedup said:
Maybe that’s because I have a higher value to worker ethics than you.
I doubt it. What has theft got to do with the discussion on the unaffordability of DB pensions for employees?
crankedup said:
When you tell me that ‘I must have been misinformed’ why, what makes you say that?
Who was insisting on pension holidays and why?How on earth do pension managers gain if no contributions are being paid?
crankedup said:
Businesses that thieve from its workers is never irrelevant. Presume you have never had that misfortune? Bad practice and wrongdoing are alive and well in the private sector, as witnessed over the past decade.
Pensions thieving must never been forgotten.
No-one said it should. It’s just 100% irrelevant to a discussion about the affordability of DB pensions.Pensions thieving must never been forgotten.
cranked-up said:
Poor private sector workers were soft and bent over when thier employers reined in the pension schemes. Why blame that on the public sector workers.
Private companies have to recognise economic realities - the liabilities within these schemes would have caused many employers to go bust unless the changes were made.Recognising economics isn’t blaming anyone. HTH
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Why don’t you proactively dedicate yourself to wanting all workers to have some sort of pension? The Govenment is doing a little to plug a hole with legislation but not nearly enough.
Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
So we should force struggling private sector workers to invest much more into pensions?Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
Going back to my point regarding the degeneration of Societal awareness and the consequences that may bring. I note that you generally never offer an opinion on the matter. The only concern for me personally is that it is a Society in which my family will be living, I would prefer a more balanced Society borne from greater investment into workers now
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
So the Government are contemplating a change in investment because the current arrangements work just fine and dandy then!
You really should read what the consultation is about!sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Maybe that’s because I have a higher value to worker ethics than you.
I doubt it. What has theft got to do with the discussion on the unaffordability of DB pensions for employees?
crankedup said:
When you tell me that ‘I must have been misinformed’ why, what makes you say that?
Who was insisting on pension holidays and why?How on earth do pension managers gain if no contributions are being paid?
crankedup said:
Businesses that thieve from its workers is never irrelevant. Presume you have never had that misfortune? Bad practice and wrongdoing are alive and well in the private sector, as witnessed over the past decade.
Pensions thieving must never been forgotten.
No-one said it should. It’s just 100% irrelevant to a discussion about the affordability of DB pensions.Pensions thieving must never been forgotten.
cranked-up said:
Poor private sector workers were soft and bent over when thier employers reined in the pension schemes. Why blame that on the public sector workers.
Private companies have to recognise economic realities - the liabilities within these schemes would have caused many employers to go bust unless the changes were made.Recognising economics isn’t blaming anyone. HTH
The debate is wider than merely DB pensions, you cannot discuss such a narrow subject without bringing in all factors which affect pension schemes. Apart from that I do not know if his scheme was db or otherwise.
So the businesses were misinformed about the viability of long term growth, who was at fault for that?
Pleased you agree that pensions thieving by companies should never be forgotten.
Recognition of economics, it’s been a race to the bottom for thirty years, except for those big businesses which are doing very nicely.
So far as the early pensions holidays are concerned. that was the tories helping out thier pals in business. The funds were stacking up nicely at the time and the Government decided that pensions holidays was available to those that wanted to take advantage. Just another example of dreadful Governance, fixing the roof whilst the sun shone.
sidicks said:
And yet in the private sector those DB pensions no longer exist, why is that do you think?
Because they are expensive and successive generations of company leaders have found it beneficial to prioritise profits and dividends over their own employees. This is related to the uneven growth of pay packets when comparing leadership positions to the majority of staff, which has occurred despite no improvement in the long-term profitability of companies generally.The idea of company that has responsibilities not just to investors but also to staff, society, it's local community, and customers, is sadly unfashionable.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
That’s rich coming from you, if it hadn’t been for my advise you wouldn’t even have been aware of any proposals. Add to that I take a different interpretation and allow for further amendments as progress is made.
Still not true!travel is dangerous said:
sidicks said:
And yet in the private sector those DB pensions no longer exist, why is that do you think?
Because they are expensive and successive generations of company leaders have found it beneficial to prioritise profits and dividends over their own employees. This is related to the uneven growth of pay packets when comparing leadership positions to the majority of staff, which has occurred despite no improvement in the long-term profitability of companies generally.The idea of company that has responsibilities not just to investors but also to staff, society, it's local community, and customers, is sadly unfashionable.
Precisely, and it’s just about time that was reversed. ahbefive brexit implications will provide the required catalysed for this.
crankedup said:
I beg to differ judges upon your posts over the past five years or more.
The debate is wider than merely DB pensions, you cannot discuss such a narrow subject without bringing in all factors which affect pension schemes. Apart from that I do not know if his scheme was db or otherwise.
So even less relevant than first thought. Ok, thanks for the confirmation,The debate is wider than merely DB pensions, you cannot discuss such a narrow subject without bringing in all factors which affect pension schemes. Apart from that I do not know if his scheme was db or otherwise.
crankedup said:
So the businesses were misinformed about the viability of long term growth, who was at fault for that?
Not sure if you’re aware but there have been a lot of changes to the economic environment post GFC, that no one could have forecast.crankedup said:
Pleased you agree that pensions thieving by companies should never be forgotten.
No idea why you think anyone would think otherwise. But given that it is totally irrelevant I’ve still no idea why you brought it up.crankedup said:
Recognition of economics, it’s been a race to the bottom for thirty years, except for those big businesses which are doing very nicely.
You seem unaware of the massive demographic and economic change over the last 30 years.crankedup said:
So far as the early pensions holidays are concerned. that was the tories helping out thier pals in business. The funds were stacking up nicely at the time and the Government decided that pensions holidays was available to those that wanted to take advantage.
Total nonsense, as ever. You might to research a bit deeper!crankedup said:
Just another example of dreadful Governance, fixing the roof whilst the sun shone.
WTF?crankedup said:
Oh it’s true, you may want to have a play on words but it’s very true for all to see.
Of course it is. And I don’t have any clients investing in infrastructure projects. Oh wait...
Try this from 2013..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10165...
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 15:16
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Oh it’s true, you may want to have a play on words but it’s very true for all to see.
Of course it is. And I don’t have any clients investing in infrastructure projects. Oh wait...
Try this from 2013..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10165...
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 15:16
You don’t have any clients investing into infrastructure! go on surprise me
Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 27th February 09:20
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Why don’t you proactively dedicate yourself to wanting all workers to have some sort of pension? The Govenment is doing a little to plug a hole with legislation but not nearly enough.
Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
So we should force struggling private sector workers to invest much more into pensions?Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
crankedup said:
Yes, but perhaps not direct taxation of people. Lots of other possibilities exist. Try opening up your narrow mindset.
Such as?It seems you favour taking funding away from some of the poorest people / countries in the world (foreign aid) and use it to fund excessive pensions for public sector workers.
Perhaps you aren’t as morally superior as you like to portray!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff