30/11 Strikes.

Stretch said:
Article hear about what the pension changes actually mean.

The part that shocks me the most is this



A £600k pension pot, if accrued without investment would mean a contribution of £1,250 a month for 40 years. They are being asked to contribute 3.2% of their salary which is £91 a month.

And this is the scheme the unions are rejecting.
Click to expand...

It certainly is......

• A teacher earning £37,800 at the end of a full career in the scheme would get a pension of £25,200 under the new rules, compared with a pension of £19,100 under the existing final salary scheme. To achieve that through a private pension, Alexander said they would need a pension pot of £675,000.
Click to expand...

although they argue that it isn't about the amount, it is about the promise and principle, as well as the need to work a couple of years longer and pay 3.2% more in contributions,(although the accural rate is substantially better)....something the Police have been doing for some time already.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Article hear about what the pension changes actually mean.

The part that shocks me the most is this



A £600k pension pot, if accrued without investment would mean a contribution of £1,250 a month for 40 years. They are being asked to contribute 3.2% of their salary which is £91 a month.

And this is the scheme the unions are rejecting.
Click to expand...

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE "REJECTING" THAT'S PART OF THE BLOODY PROBLEM!

And moving on... but in all seriousness. People have no details to work out the implications.
 
Castiel said:
although they argue that it isn't about the amount, it is about the promise and principle, as well as the need to work a couple of years longer and pay 3.2% more in contributions....something the Police have been doing for some time already.
Click to expand...

I think they just want to know what it is.
 
Robbo said:
Good for you.



There's nothing really wrong with it, it's just that the reason given was a bit strange.

Castiel's logic is a better reason for not using them, and the fact they're a bit dodgy at the best of times.
Click to expand...

pingwing said:
To be a uni lecturer you only need the degrees... You don't need the training of being a teacher like at school and it REALLY shows. My tutor who's off tomorrow is god awful at actually teaching... Not a bad Lecturer but not an actual teacher, which is true for most university members of teaching staff.



Just annoyed my uni is shut really (essays in on monday) so by striking I feel the uni is only really damaging my education (and all the kids in school too) instead of improving the conditions for those who teach.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a fair pension but they are not fighting for it for everyone, don't kid your self, if they were the action would actually matter and unions would be able to have clear unified and joint aims...
Click to expand...


Wow I bet you suck at uni, your supposed to learn by yourself for most of the time anyway, it isn't middle school
 
Biohazard said:
It's not their fault the Cabinet Office won't give them the details is it?

You can't be expected to accept something you can't cost, something this Government seems to be having on multiple fronts..
Click to expand...
Which part of the proposal is unclear?
 
Biohazard said:
The proposal.

There has been next to no communication.
Click to expand...
The Guardian seem to have manged to pick up enough to write an article. My wife also works in the public sector, she also seems to know how the changes will impact her. She's not part of a union, maybe they're causing the confusion?
 
Biohazard said:
I think they just want to know what it is.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no-one really knows what their pension will be, all we have is annual and three year projections.....that is the nature of investments.

The changes seem pretty straight forward to me and in line (or significantly better) with any (remaining) private sector final salary scheme.

It is definitively better than the one we offer our employees and that is one of the best in the industry...final salary with 6.5% employee contributions....a dirty big black hole (which we as a company are funding as part of the agreement to close it to new members).

The new pension scheme offered to new employees is a defined benefit scheme but not a final salary one.
 
Stretch said:
The Guardian seem to have manged to pick up enough to write an article. My wife also works in the public sector, she also seems to know how the changes will impact her.
Click to expand...

Enough to base your life on though? I think not.

As for your wife, I couldn't really comment but if she thinks that enough information to plan the rest of her life on I'd be having words with her.
 
Castiel said:
The problem is that no-one really knows what their pension will be, all we have is annual and three year projections.....that is the nature of investments.

The changes seem pretty straight forward to me and in line (or significantly better) with any (remaining) private sector final salary scheme.

It is definitively better than the one we offer our employees and that is one of the best in the industry...final salary with 6.5% employee contributions....a dirty big black hole (which we as a company are funding as part of the agreement to close it to new members).

The new pension scheme offered to new employees is a defined benefit scheme but not a final salary one.
Click to expand...

Which sounds pretty reminiscent of, ooooh, just about every company that comes across my desk.

Final salary schemes invariably run at a deficit, and need to be propped up by the company if not closed altogether and replaced with defined contribution schemes.
 
Castiel said:
The problem is that no-one really knows what their pension will be, all we have is annual and three year projections.....that is the nature of investments.

The changes seem pretty straight forward to me and in line (or significantly better) with any (remaining) private sector final salary scheme.

It is definitively better than the one we offer our employees and that is one of the best in the industry...final salary with 6.5% employee contributions....a dirty big black hole (which we as a company are funding as part of the agreement to close it to new members).

The new pension scheme offered to new employees is a defined benefit scheme but not a final salary one.
Click to expand...

No, I think they just want to know what the offer and terms are. Projections are more than possible, it's not a great mystery unless you aren't told what those details are.
 
Stretch said:
Article hear about what the pension changes actually mean.

The part that shocks me the most is this



A £600k pension pot, if accrued without investment would mean a contribution of £1,250 a month for 40 years. They are being asked to contribute 3.2% of their salary which is £91 a month.

And this is the scheme the unions are rejecting.
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near that simple. An occupation pension is not a savings account with 0% interest.

Try taking into account compound interest over the 40 years (and the consequent increases in the costs of goods and service and wage rises if they ever happen again), pension funds making long term investments and finally employers contributions.
 
MagicBoy said:
It's nowhere near that simple. An occupation pension is not a savings account with 0% interest.

Try taking into account compound interest over the 40 years (and the consequent increases in the costs of goods and service and wage rises if they ever happen again), pension funds making long term investments and finally employers contributions.
Click to expand...
I am aware of this which is why I said "if accrued without investment".

However, if you want a more precise calculation then if you took an average annual real interest rate of 2% (which is more than generous) then you'd need a contribution of ~£800 a month to make up the £600k in 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
I am aware of this which is why I said "if accrued without investment".

However, if you want a more precise calculation then if you took an average annual real interest rate of 2% (which is more than generous) then you'd need a contribution of ~£800 a month to make up the £600k in 40 years.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of employers contributions?
 
MagicBoy said:
Ever heard of employers contributions?
Click to expand...
Yes, but in this case the employer is the Government funded by the tax payer. £600-700 a month is a huge contribution. Most employers contribute 6% if you're very lucky. £650 a month on a salary of £34,000 is closer to 20%+.
 
Last edited:
My Student Union is supporting the strike, and has suggested that we get involved. I've just emailed the President to ask why we (the Student Union represents the student body) are supporting this and what steps were taken to find out that this course of action is what the wider student body want.
I await a reply.
 
Students are nice and cheap shock troops. Can be almost guaranteed to be up for anything and are available in large numbers. They can run around a lot and be noisy also they dont mind fronting it with the police.

On Topic, 25 years of service in private industry, where I paid 6% and the company paid similar has given me a guaranteed pension of 13k per annum. Now that was based on an income starting at 4k 30 years ago and ending at 35k 5 years ago. Someone could do the math and calculate the return.
But to accurately predict 30 years ago what I would get now is unreasonable in my view. All you can do is review it as you go along, make adjustments with AVC's if you wish.
Basing your life on what you would get in retirement seems a little sad to me unless you are nearly there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom