But the point is not if their pension is fair or not. Its weather you can change the terms and conditions off anyone’s pension after they worked under the assumption it would be a certain level when they retire. Public, private, or whoever I would deem this a lame move on behalf of the employer if it was done to me.
But that should be the point.
It might be a lame move on behalf of the employer but since WE are the employers and are paying for it whilst we ourselves have to tighten our belts and deal with our pensions being cut, I don't see why we (the Govt) shouldn't take a hard look at public sector pensions as well.
We've already established that your pay isn't as bad as public sector workers like to claim it is, so why would we pay for an outrageous and unaffordable pension scheme?
I would agree that to do this to people that have been working for 20-30 years is not right and they should be protected...no problem with that at all. But to see people in their 20s and 30s in the streets protesting over this shit really pisses me off. Their pensions have to be cut now.
BTW, before this goes all cuckoo and "look at how sorry someone who has been working for 30 years is"; Lord Hutton has CLEARLY stated that
7.34 The Commission’s expectation is that existing members who are currently in their
50s should, by and large, experience fairly limited change to the benefit which they would
otherwise have expected to accrue by the time they reach their current scheme NPA. This
would particularly be the case if the final salary link is protected for past service, as the
Commission recommends. This limitation of impact will also extend to people below age
50, proportionate to the length of time before they reach their NPA. Therefore special
protections for members over a certain age should not be necessary. Age discrimination
legislation also means that it is not possible in practice to provide protection from change for
members who are already above a certain age.
7.35 Those employees who intend to take their pension in the next few years could do so
before the new terms are introduced. An employee now aged around 50 with many years
of service in a scheme with an NPA of 60 would retain the link to his or her final salary for
past service, while accruals from about the age of 55 would be under the new terms with a
higher NPA. Although the exact impact of this will depend on individual circumstances and
the scheme parameters, it is likely that most people currently in their early 50s will have a
slightly lower pension if they choose to retire at their current pension age. Individuals could
choose either to retire at the age of 60 with a slightly reduced pension, or work for a little
longer in order to obtain the same pension income as that which would previously have been
payable at 60."
On page 155
http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/hutton_final_100311.pdfSo, if the govt indeed goes with Lord hutton's recommendations (and they have stated that they broadly will) WTF is this crazy argument about people close to retirement being screwed???