Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[Toaster]

JagLover said:

Workers will want the best pay package possible, which includes the pension element.

It is good for the worker and a cost for the employer. Ranting about shareholders does not create infinite money to pay for it.

With a DC scheme the cost and benefit is clear at a given percentage of salary. With a DB scheme the value has to be estimated and changes over time.

Best pay package doesn't mean the highest pay, so for example a contractor on say £70K if employed with benefits may only get £45K, but then the contractor would have to sort out their pension etc which a few will do well and most probably won't.

Im not ranting about shareholders but a if a large company took a % of those divi's it would go a long way to pay into the pension scheme

Interestingly the companies that had a DB scheme seemed to have closed those first before the DC ones (pretty sure I have got that the right way around)

[Toaster]

WindyMills said:

Not that I'd make such a career limiting move, but my boss would probably reply with any of the following:

• When I see a unicorn fly
• We already give you the legal minimum
• You can pay in more yourself
• Go to the public sector

The ONS has stats on pension contributions, types, age groups, sector, etc. I think you might find it interesting. Your average private sector worker under 30/40 is fked - going by contribution rates.

Totally understand why an individual can't really get a company to make a change but overall the 'workers' and unions really do need to try and get better pension provision particular as you say the under 30/40 is a big concern.

This is even more reason why the lecturers pension rights need preserving.

[sidicks]

911newbie said:

Has anyone mentioned the university pension scheme USS is not a public pension ? It is a private pension paid for out of contributions from universities and their workers.
This fact alone might cause Sidicks and Co some tumescence problems. Sorry tax payers are not paying for my pension.
(My employer, a university, does take some money from the state but no where near 100% of income. We are more contractors supplying a service into the state than public sector. I have annual income targets which are multiples of my salary.

You seem very confused with where the money comes from. Never mind.

911newbie said:

Also that the pension scheme is not in fact likely to be in deficit ? The employers projections were truly the worst case possible - ie 100% of all UK universities close.
Whilst this prospect might reignite Sidicks's vascular efforts, it is vastly unlikely.

You still demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about pension fund valuation.

911newbie said:

The union's has countered with some equally unlikely scenarios in which the pension scheme is £8bn in the black.
N one without an accurate crystal ball really knows what will happen, but it is not likely there will be a massive deficit. This is all about the employers wishing to reduce their contributions.

Future contributions are irrelevant to the current deficit.
You’ll have to explain how the USS scheme is somehow immune to the economic and demographic factors that affect all other schemes...

911newbie said:

In the end this is a negotiation about our remuneration package. Someone above proudly stated they were a lawyer and had no difficulties in negotiating salary with their employer. Congrats. Most people rely on a union to do this since they have feck all power as individuals. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with recognising that, because the cost of providing the pension has increased significantly , the total runeration package has also increased significantly over the period. Of course these lecturers often choose to pretend otherwise.

That those same lecturers seem unable to explain why the proposed contribution rate is sufficient to fund the DB scheme but at the same time will give them a much lower pension if they have to invest this contribution via DC themselves...

911newbie said:

All developed and developing countries put money into their university systems. Most more than the UK. Why ?

Make up your mind, earlier on this wasn’t a public scheme, it was ‘private’...

911newbie said:

Is it because they are all run by left-wing Venezula loving nutters as Sidicks might believe ? Not really.

Strawman nonsense.

911newbie said:

Most countries realise there is massive value in money spent on education, and although it is difficult to measure directly, there really is a great return on investment from funding universities.

The return come from educating the population appropriately, not from funding excessive pensions. HTH

911newbie said:

For credibility reasons I will disclose that I work in a UK university, and work directly with industry in research. I have invented things and have patents, and currently two companies are trialling new bits of design tool code which I have written.
I'm doing my bit for UK Plc.

What is weird to me is why so many people (OK this is NP&E on PH) have such extreme views on things like this issue.

Perhaps you mean ‘why do people who have an understanding of (and exposure to) economics and demographics believe that the public sector should also have the same understanding and exposure’?

911newbie said:

Why does Sidicks, and perhaps others too, have such wildly off course views about stuff ?
Is this a product of the Daily Mail agenda, or have people always been so crazy ?

Crazy views? You mean the one where the lecturer pretends to understand pensions better than the experts?

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

911newbie said:

Has anyone mentioned the university pension scheme USS is not a public pension ? It is a private pension paid for out of contributions from universities and their workers.
This fact alone might cause Sidicks and Co some tumescence problems. Sorry tax payers are not paying for my pension.
(My employer, a university, does take some money from the state but no where near 100% of income. We are more contractors supplying a service into the state than public sector. I have annual income targets which are multiples of my salary.

You seem very confused with where the money comes from. Never mind.

Where does the money for your pension come from? Is it by any chance people who pay tax?

[lauda]

Toaster said:

Erm I think my point is that an ethical and well run company would pay both, its staff first and then pay the divi's rather than pay the divi's at the cost of the staff.

I guess that depends on whether you think a company exists to provide returns to the shareholders and jobs for current employees or whether those activities should be curtailed in order to have to continually fund provision for a group of former employees. The strain placed on companies by having to fund legacy pension schemes feels a lot like the tail wagging the dog to me.

I'm not suggesting that companies should be able to walk away from historic liabilities but all of the risk and costs sits with the employer and it's a deeply unattractive position for a corporate to find itself in. You're basically shovelling money out the door for people who no longer provide any benefit to your business. Hence why the private sector has all but closed these schemes now.

As a shareholder, I'd much rather the company I invested in focused its time and energy on doing whatever the company was set up to do, rather than be spending time and money on pensions. Hence why a DC scheme with a sensible contribution rate is by far the best solution in the current economic and demographic climate.

[Countdown]

JagLover said:

Workers will want the best pay package possible, which includes the pension element.

It is good for the worker and a cost for the employer. Ranting about shareholders does not create infinite money to pay for it.

With a DC scheme the cost and benefit is clear at a given percentage of salary. With a DB scheme the value has to be estimated and changes over time.

The benefit depends on what fund assets are worth at the time the person retires, so it isn't clear at the time the contribution is being made. DB schemes are the flipside (the costs aren't know but the "benefit" is).

[sidicks]

lauda said:

I guess that depends on whether you think a company exists to provide returns to the shareholders and jobs for current employees or whether those activities should be curtailed in order to have to continually fund provision for a group of former employees. The strain placed on companies by having to fund legacy pension schemes feels a lot like the tail wagging the dog to me.

I'm not suggesting that companies should be able to walk away from historic liabilities but all of the risk and costs sits with the employer and it's a deeply unattractive position for a corporate to find itself in. You're basically shovelling money out the door for people who no longer provide any benefit to your business. Hence why the private sector has all but closed these schemes now.

As a shareholder, I'd much rather the company I invested in focused its time and energy on doing whatever the company was set up to do, rather than be spending time and money on pensions. Hence why a DC scheme with a sensible contribution rate is by far the best solution in the current economic and demographic climate.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

The benefit depends on what fund assets are worth at the time the person retires, so it isn't clear at the time the contribution is being made. DB schemes are the flipside (the costs aren't know but the "benefit" is).

Agreed, but I think the point being made is that the ‘benefit’ is also quite explicit to the employee - it’s 18% contribution (or whatever the number is) so the remuneration being received is easy to compare against other roles.

A lower salary but with a future pension 30-40 years into the future based on an unknown future salary is a much harder comparison to make!

[JagLover]

Countdown said:

The benefit depends on what fund assets are worth at the time the person retires, so it isn't clear at the time the contribution is being made. DB schemes are the flipside (the costs aren't know but the "benefit" is).

Not really the way I look at it.

If my employer pays 5% of salary into a DC scheme then that is my salary package Gross pay plus 5%. Investment returns are variable in any savings scheme you might use, you can also often choose where the money is invested.

[travel is dangerous]

sidicks said:

Nothing wrong with recognising that, because the cost of providing the pension has increased significantly , the total runeration package has also increased significantly over the period. Of course these lecturers often choose to pretend otherwise.

No it hasn't, the cost of the remuneration package has increased, but the value of it to the employee has not. Employees will naturally only be concerned with what they receive, and will be unhappy when their employer proposes a 10-20 % cut in remuneration.

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

No it hasn't, the cost of the remuneration package has increased, but the value of it to the employee has not. Employees will naturally only be concerned with what they receive, and will be unhappy when their employer proposes a 10-20 % cut in remuneration.

Still wrong. If people are living longer then the value of what you are receiving has gone up. HTH

Regardless, in the real world, ‘value’ would be assessed by comparing the amount of money that would need to be set aside to find the same benefits.

And I just know that if the situation had been reversed - that private sector schemes had become massively more generous over the period - the same public sectors workers definitely wouldn’t have been complaining that, although they were getting what they were previously promised, that this wasn’t fair and they should get more!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 13:44

[Ali G]

lauda said:

Toaster said:

Most companies are slaves to the stock exchange and 'shareholder value' they wish to pay a shareholder who has contributed zip to the companies wealth

Have a read of that sentence back to yourself. You do realise that without the shareholders, there is no company?

How many shareholders are actually the pension funds underlying the university DB schemes (assuming that they are funded).

It's nice to know that our DB schemes were closed to provide greater shareholder returns to support the lecturers' pensions!

[JagLover]

travel is dangerous said:

No it hasn't, the cost of the remuneration package has increased, but the value of it to the employee has not. Employees will naturally only be concerned with what they receive, and will be unhappy when their employer proposes a 10-20 % cut in remuneration.

If an increase in the deficit is due to an increase in life expectancy than the employee will actually receive something of greater value as it will be a pension for longer, on average.

[Rovinghawk]

Toaster said:

I agree with your viewpoint, what I am astounded at is those who seem to think either that final salary or defined benefit pension is a bad thing

I think it's a great thing & I'd like everyone to have a superb pension, of whichever sort.

OTOH I don't want to have my future taxed to oblivion to pay for someone else's retirement.

Now do you see where the conflict of interests lies?

Toaster said:

a shareholder who has contributed zip to the companies

So let's get rid of all shareholders as they contribute nothing. Wait- who will provide capital to the companies if we do that? Should we nationalise every company & replace shareholders with a works committee? I don't think you've thought your position through fully.

Toaster said:

So Guys you, in my opinion should be supporting the lectures keeping their pensions and asking your boss.......where is my pension that equals a final or defined benefit scheme.

The boss also wants to know where exactly the money for all this will come from- I've suggested a magic money tree but he's not convinced.

[crankedup]

Carilion had 13 separate pension schemes operating under their auspices, 12 of which were in black holes. The 13 scheme was unsurprisingly in rude health, nothing to do with the fact that this scheme was that which was directly afforded to the management board of the former Carillion.
This type of mockery of working people causes such damage in the working environment that it, imo, requires stronger legislation that ensures parity of pension scheme equality wether Board or worker schemes

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Carilion had 13 separate pension schemes operating under their auspices, 12 of which were in black holes. The 13 scheme was unsurprisingly in rude health, nothing to do with the fact that this scheme was that which was directly afforded to the management board of the former Carillion.
This type of mockery of working people causes such damage in the working environment that it, imo, requires stronger legislation that ensures parity of pension scheme equality wether Board or worker schemes

Entirely irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

And ignores the background and benefits on any of the schemes and the progression of the deficits on these schemes over time, from when they originally incorporated under Carillion.

Unless you have this additional information that has led you to this conclusion?

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it’s a bold claim based only on superficial evidence.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 14:19

[crankedup]

Toaster said:

911newbie said:

Has anyone mentioned the university pension scheme USS is not a public pension ? It is a private pension paid for out of contributions from universities and their workers.
This fact alone might cause Sidicks and Co some tumescence problems. Sorry tax payers are not paying for my pension.
(My employer, a university, does take some money from the state but no where near 100% of income. We are more contractors supplying a service into the state than public sector. I have annual income targets which are multiples of my salary.)

I agree with your viewpoint, what I am astounded at is those who seem to think either that final salary or defined benefit pension is a bad thing public or private, what seems to be misunderstood is that the pension you receive can be viewed as deferred wages.

People should be shouting for a good pension that supports individuals in retirement and that elusive thing called an economy. People work hard most of their life, part of their wage and the contribution from the company which lets face it is part of the cost of employing someone. Most companies are slaves to the stock exchange and 'shareholder value' they wish to pay a shareholder who has contributed zip to the companies wealth yet companies bemoan pension schemes that pay the true wealth generators....their staff. University staff need pensions its the 'Top management' who are lining their own pockets that wish to change something that was part of the employees contracts.

So Guys you, in my opinion should be supporting the lectures keeping their pensions and asking your boss.......where is my pension that equals a final or defined benefit scheme.

Edited by Toaster on Wednesday 21st March 10:39

+1
Some balance needs to be brought to our current system of capitalism, seems to me that too much is in favour of those that head up Companies and it’s workers. Not including those that are not listed Companies.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

+1

So much of this is so wrong and so ill-informed, yet you seemingly agree with it!

crankedup said:

Some balance needs to be brought to our current system of capitalism, seems to me that too much is in favour of those that head up Companies and it’s workers. Not including those that are not listed Companies.

None of this is relevant to the topic under discussion.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 15:10

[crankedup]

Toaster said:

JagLover said:

Workers will want the best pay package possible, which includes the pension element.

It is good for the worker and a cost for the employer. Ranting about shareholders does not create infinite money to pay for it.

With a DC scheme the cost and benefit is clear at a given percentage of salary. With a DB scheme the value has to be estimated and changes over time.

Best pay package doesn't mean the highest pay, so for example a contractor on say £70K if employed with benefits may only get £45K, but then the contractor would have to sort out their pension etc which a few will do well and most probably won't.

Im not ranting about shareholders but a if a large company took a % of those divi's it would go a long way to pay into the pension scheme

Interestingly the companies that had a DB scheme seemed to have closed those first before the DC ones (pretty sure I have got that the right way around)

Although a certain poster would like to act as moderator in this and other threads, I note and agree with you that a imbalance of significant proportions between workers and board members, not to mention pay directly, needs to be corrected. Carillion continued to pay out overly generous dividends to shareholders whilst the workers schemes were in black holes and the Company itself was sinking fast.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Although a certain poster would like to act as moderator in this and other threads, I note and agree with you that a imbalance of significant proportions between workers and board members, not to mention pay directly, needs to be corrected. Carillion continued to pay out overly generous dividends to shareholders whilst the workers schemes were in black holes and the Company itself was sinking fast.

If I remember correctly, you had previously planned to invest in Carillion - was this for the ‘overly generous’ dividends or some form of charitable enterprise to help fill their ‘pension black hole’?