Public Sector Pension Rises Will Hit Key Workers, Unions And Doctors Say

Pcs

Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 28/07/11 12:33 BST Updated: 27/09/11 11:12 BST

Unions have reacted angrily to to plans by the government that could see public sector workers pay up to £3,000 a year more to keep up their pension schemes.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) said such rises would only strengthen the resolve of trade unions to go on strike, while the National Teachers Union (NUT) said they would stage action again "if the government does not see sense".

Unison General Secretary, Dave Prentis, criticised the government for putting talks in “jeopardy” by their ”naïve tactics” and apparent lack of negotiating skills.

“We entered into the scheme specific talks on public sector pensions in good faith and we genuinely believe we are making progress, albeit slowly. But these talks are being put in jeopardy by the crude and naïve tactics of government ministers who don’t seem to understand the word negotiate.

"The government must take its responsibilities seriously, and stop treating these talks like some kind of playground game."

Under the new plans detailed by the Cabinet Office more than five million people in public sector pension schemes will see an increase in contributions, with those earning over £100,000 per year paying an additional £3,400 a year for their final salary scheme.

The maximum increase will be 2.4 per cent from April. Only the lowest paid 750,000 staff would escape any increase.

Prentis called the release of the details "totally unhelpful", saying that there would be "no point" in having further meetings if the government position was "set in stone".

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS, said:

"These highly detailed proposals show that the government has made its mind up and is not negotiating seriously. It makes a mockery of the ongoing talks."

But Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said the plans were "fair and sustainable".

"We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden. The lowest paid will be protected, and the highest paid will face the biggest increases.

“This is the start of a process, phased over the next three years, that will help set a fairer balance between what employees and the taxpayer contribute towards public sector pensions. We will continue to discuss with Unions how to achieve the required savings in the following two years as well as the longer term reforms proposed by Lord Hutton.”

The British Medical Association also attacked the plans, claiming that NHS staff would be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes. Dr Hamish Meldrum, chair of the BMA attacked the government for introducing a "tax on pensions" and using "megaphone diplomacy" rather than negotiating with doctors.

Dr Meldrum told the BBC's Today Programme: "The NHS pension scheme is going to generate over £10bn surplus over the next five years.

"The NHS scheme went through a major reform three years ago, meaning NHS staff are already paying more than they were and they are contributing higher levels than other public sector workers.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Unions have reacted angrily to to plans by the government that could see public sector workers pay up to £3,000 a year more to keep up their pension schemes. The Public and Commercial Services Un...
Unions have reacted angrily to to plans by the government that could see public sector workers pay up to £3,000 a year more to keep up their pension schemes. The Public and Commercial Services Un...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
lastpost
see biography
06:46 AM on 07/29/2011
"government ministers who don’t seem to understand the word negotiate."
Humm. They seem to have similar difficulties with the word transparency too.
It has been claimed that sums show an excess in the amount being paid in, against the amount being paid out. If so, then why not ask if contracting out is an option? Although getting an assurance that the pot will not be plundered, as with Gordon’s past fund raids, is unlikely. Even if such an undertaking were to be given. The fact that contractual agreements mean nothing to government, is all too evident from this current renege.
12:14 PM on 07/29/2011
Sorry to disappoint you but in most cases there is no "pot". Public sector pensions are largely unfunded. The future liability of over £1 trillion will come from the taxpayer.
10:39 PM on 07/28/2011
Why are you falling for the ridiculous propaganda being perpetrated. The reason people take a job in the first place is because of the benefits that they are promised. We now are finding out that those promises were total lies. The pensions of all of the working class people world wide are being dissolved. Trillions in wealth is being transferred from the working class to the financial sector. Odd isn't it that you don't hear of any of these corporate executive's exorbitant retirement pensions being slashed to nothing. I'm sure they have a really ridiculous explanation for it that you will somehow totally fall for. Look around the world, if you don't see the mark, then you are the mark.
10:46 PM on 07/28/2011
Just think Fred the Shred got a pension contribution of £3,000,000 when he left RSB after just a few years.......and they said they had to pay it because it was in his CONTRACT........
12:15 PM on 07/29/2011
Comparing public sector pensions with a few high earners hides the reality of the situation. Most public sector pension schemes are unfunded; ie there is nothing backing them other than current tax income. Private sector companies could not operate like this and can only pay what they can afford and if they can not afford the schemes they will close or the firm will go bust and the pensioners' pensions will be severely reduced.

In the case of the public sector there is no risk for the pension scheme members. They will always be bailed out by the taxpayer; a benefit private sector workers would love to have.
12:51 PM on 07/29/2011
The funds for all pensions was there and is still there. The funds didn't just disappear! They have only moved to someone else's possession. Ask yourself. Who has all the money right now?
03:18 PM on 07/28/2011
Note that nothing has been said about MP's Final Salary scheme, you remember them, public sector workers who are only there because they were voted for not there because they are the best for the job......(2:1 in History makes you an expert on Economics.....)

MP's pensions are based on either 1/40th, which costs 10% or 1/50th @6% of salary where as Nurses currently pay 6.4% for 1/80th......
05:40 PM on 07/28/2011
Bringing up MP's pensions is just a diversion. The pensions of 600+ people are insignificant when compared with the liabilities attaching to funding the pensions of 5 million.

Final salary schemes are dead in the private sector because of the huge financial exposure that they carry. To believe that in the public sector final salary schemes are somehow immune from financial risk is delusional.
02:08 PM on 07/28/2011
These existing pensions are far beyond what normal people can expect. It is understandable that these workers want to keep the best, but why should people who will have pensions nowhere near the gold-plated civil service plans have to pay for them ?
If they have to pay increased contributions fair enough, so they should. Many people have to fund their own pensions out of their own pockets and will get far less.
01:50 PM on 07/28/2011
A good entry!