Public Sector Pension

johnp23

I have a question for all public sector workers. Instead of a direct pay cut would they be willing to give up the pension contributions the Public service make on there behalf and also pay or use public transport to commute to work instead of the goverment car parks which could be put to greater use.

BC

Yes on the pensions. The pension scheme is one of the fundamental issues in the public sector in my opinion. It discourages movement and means that you end up with people who have only ever worked in the public service and haven't a clue about 'real' issues.

On the car parks issue, i think its (again in my opinion) overstated.
I work in a building with approx 200 people. The car park has 20 spaces, its first come first served. Most people do use public transport.

dvpower

BC wrote: »

The pension scheme is one of the fundamental issues in the public sector in my opinion. It discourages movement ...

How?
A public servant who leaves is still entitled to a deferred pro rata pension on retirement.

Tipp Man

Why don't the government say from Jan 1st 2011 the defined benifit pension will cease for all current and future employees.

for current employees they get the pro rata amount, the same as if they left the public service,

Then simply replace the pension with a defined contribution, government matchs employees contribution up to 5%, employee wants more then he pays more. Employees can also get the state pension pro rata for the years that they are out of the defined contribution

Is is not that simple or am i missing something??

Nightwish

I work in pensions management in the public service and they cannot change pension entitlements for existing employees but the option could be that they could introduce defined contribution pension schemes for new staff.

glaston

Why not Nightwish?

Nightwish

They cant change the scheme for those who have or are currently paying into it. Its a legal thing afaik. In the private sector, like the banks, they changed the scheme from defined benefit to defined contribution but only for new employees. Do you not think they would have changed it for all employees if they could get away with it?

Idbatterim

Would the Government consider taxing pensions? at say 5 - 10%? The way I see it is, everyone is talking about fair, you have alot of public servants saying they cant afford to take another cut! and some of them may well be telling the truth! Ill tell you who can afford it! those retired Public Servants or those about to retire, they can afford it better than anyone! they probably have no mortgage, dependants, bla bla bla! they in my opinion should take the hit! Why not sell their house, down size, or rent? Release the equity! If we are sertiously talking about protecting the vulnerable, be they employed or unemployed, thats where I would start!

glaston

My pension got changed from DB to DC, private sector.
I'd guess the banks didnt make the change for everybody as they were afraid of industrial action.
We got told ''accept the change or production will probably move to another country''.

Idbatterim

Nightwish, seeing as you have a good knowledge in this area, do you not think that the Goverment are the Goverment at the end of the day, and that they should in exceptional circumstances be able to overrule any legal blocks? All of this nonsense about not being able to touch judges pay, or effectively cut anything (ryan tubridges salary) etc etc etc is just taking the mick! Especially when it comes to the PS, its not like in the Private Sector (where employers could run riot), wages or pensions are only ever going to be frozen or cut in the Public Sector in extreme circumstances!

prinz

johnp23 wrote: »

I have a question for all public sector workers. Instead of a direct pay cut would they be willing to give up the pension contributions the Public service make on there behalf and also pay or use public transport to commute to work instead of the goverment car parks which could be put to greater use.

What greater use could a carpark be put to I wonder?

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ill tell you who can afford it! those retired Public Servants or those about to retire, they can afford it better than anyone! they probably have no mortgage, dependants, bla bla bla! they in my opinion should take the hit! Why not sell their house, down size, or rent? Release the equity! If we are sertiously talking about protecting the vulnerable, be they employed or unemployed, thats where I would start!

I presume you'd expand to cover all retired people? Why should a retired garda have to sell up and rent after working all his life to afford a mortgage just like the shop keeper living next door? Will people come back down to earth!:mad:

Nightwish

I have knowledge of pensions, but I don't know about the government changing from one type of scheme to another. I did ask about it, and I was told exactly what I said in the previous post. Pensions are not as inexpensive to the employee as they once used to be. If you want to pay for previous service, it is very expensive for anyone who entered the public service after 1995 or if you want to add years to your pension, again it is cost prohibitive to many employees. The figures quoted for pensions in the papers are not always accurate. Very few people retire on full pension. Most, especially women have around 20 years service, due to the marriage ban in the 70's and 80's.
Anyway I am not trying to detract from the fact that there badly needs to be public service reform, but things are not always as they are portrayed in the media.

Absurdum

johnp23 wrote: »

I have a question for all public sector workers. Instead of a direct pay cut would they be willing to give up the pension contributions the Public service make on there behalf and also pay or use public transport to commute to work instead of the goverment car parks which could be put to greater use.

No to the first one. As already stated, it's a legal thing. I would however agree with taxing or putting a cap on the lump sum payment.

The nearest train station is over 5km from where I work and doesn't run 24 hours a day like my roster does. Besides, I pay or paid VRT, VAT, excise, motor tax, insurance levy, tolls and so forth on my car and I have as much right as anyone to actually use it.

glaston

Absurdum wrote: »

No to the first one. As already stated, it's a legal thing.

Can you elaborate on this?
I never signed anything to agree to the change in my pension, did my employer act illegally?

Idbatterim

my point is that at this stage anyone about to retire or retire probably owns atleast one property! They are the least vulnerable in society! my point about reducing pension is that, Im sure that those working now in the PS, be they old or young, would prefer to keep their current salary and have a small reduction from their pension... That way they atleast have time to pay off whatever outstanding loans they may have or bring their lifestlye and spending more inline with the current situation we find ourselves in! when Public Servants retire are they also entitled to the state pension? or how does it work?

Nightwish

Well if the Government bring in the much heralded pay cut in the public sector, that automatically equals a cut in pensions.

Absurdum

glaston wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?
I never signed anything to agree to the change in my pension, did my employer act illegally?

I can't because I don't know the legalities of it. Maybe Nightwish could elaborate on posts 5 & 7 above?

Nightwish

Hey look I dont know. I said that already I was just told they couldnt change the pension scheme for those who already had paid into it. It could have even been a Union issue! Dont quote me! I only work with the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, so I dont know how private pensions work.

Absurdum

ok I was just wondering!

whatnext

Nightwish wrote: »

They cant change the scheme for those who have or are currently paying into it. Its a legal thing afaik. In the private sector, like the banks, they changed the scheme from defined benefit to defined contribution but only for new employees. Do you not think they would have changed it for all employees if they could get away with it?

I wish you were correct - but you are not.

Simply wind up the existing one and start a new one.

happened to me :mad: was challenged but alas to no avail.
Cant go into too many details, yet!!! still have an outstanding issue / technicallity

Immoral yes, illegal no:( apparently

Please some one correct me with facts if you can.......................

Jamie-b

I don't get this:

Then simply replace the pension with a defined contribution, government matchs employees contribution up to 5%, employee wants more then he pays more

I already paid 5% at least. now I pay the extra 6/7% pensin levy. How much should a pension cost???

whatnext

Jamie-b wrote: »

I don't get this:

I already paid 5% at least. now I pay the extra 6/7% pensin levy. How much should a pension cost???

when benchmarking was being undertaken it was asscessed as being 20%.

However when I called my broker I was quoted 32%, although Im a bit older at 34. My other half was quoted at 28% and is a couple of years younger.

I asked for a pension equal to that of a teacher or nurse. Figures quoted do not allow for lumpsum payment at 65 either. Doesnt stack up for me as the tax relief is caped at 20% up to 40 years of age from what remember off the top of my head.

These figures are based on being a top up on the OAP

rainbowtrout

Idbatterim wrote: »

my point is that at this stage anyone about to retire or retire probably owns atleast one property! They are the least vulnerable in society! my point about reducing pension is that, Im sure that those working now in the PS, be they old or young, would prefer to keep their current salary and have a small reduction from their pension... That way they atleast have time to pay off whatever outstanding loans they may have or bring their lifestlye and spending more inline with the current situation we find ourselves in! when Public Servants retire are they also entitled to the state pension? or how does it work?

Everyone who pays enough PRSI is entitled to the state pension. The PS pension includes this pension. The PS pension tops up the state pension like any other private pension does only that it's not broken down into separate state and PS pension, it's all in one.

Wishbone Ash

johnp23 wrote: »

pay or use public transport to commute to work instead of the goverment car parks which could be put to greater use.

You may need to clarify you question. Presumably you are referring to city centre type parking. Otherwise, what greater use do you propose for the car parking areas used by Public Servants in rural areas? I'm sure a forestry inspector working in the wilds of Donegal isn't depriving too many of a parking spot!

And how would you propose Public Servants get to work where there is no public transport? (We don't have the luxury of company cars! )

Nightwish wrote: »

Most, especially women have around 20 years service, due to the marriage ban in the 70's and 80's

IIRC, the marriage ban was lifted in 1974 so anyone married female returning then could have 35 years service and also what she had prior to getting married. Many however, took time off to have/rear children and it is this which is reducing their pension rather than the marriage ban.

Nightwish

There was still a marriage gratuity offered to staff in the public service up until 1980. I still deal with staff who are paying back the lump sum they were given to leave work. They pay it back with quite a significant level of compound interest.