Low pay and high levels of stress are not the preserve of the state sector. Further, state employees have far less to worry about from technological advances, downsizing, ousourcing, offshoring, and ageism. Bleating about the “ethics” of changing contracts and benefits in the public sector will garner no support from those in the private sector who have seen final salary schemes stopped, lost pension benefits in TUPE arrangements, and have fragmented pension funds by the need to keep careers moving amongst increasingly “downsized” companies by hopping between them. The dead hand of demographics means we simply cannot afford the generous state pension provisions of yesteryear. Mark Allen, Oxfordshire
Civil service pension schemes may indeed be much more secure than those in the private sector but it remains a disgrace to change the terms and conditions of any employment in this manner. Of course, if senior civil servants were a little less set on taxing pension funds, neither public nor private sector schemes would be in the mess they are. Let us lay the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs - Gordon Brown and the Treasury. Alan G Melville, Auchterarder
I hear civil servants cry out about poor pay and stress. I know what civil servants do and get. I find it hilarious. They work less hours than the private sector, have three times more sick time than the private sector and are massively unproductive. They have access to subsidised sport, entertainment, insurance and other financial products. I suggest the civil servants take a look at the real world - one of job insecurity, short term contracts for many, poor pension rights, little time off and no subsidies. This goes along with large amounts of unpaid overtime and huge amounts of stress. The civil servants’ comments show that they still live in a world totally apart from the rest of us. David Allen, Glasgow
Advertisement
The reforms go much further than the change in retirement age. It is also proposed that they change from a final salary scheme to a “career average” scheme. When I joined the NHS as a scientist over 20 years ago it was in the knowledge that salaries were comparably lower than in the private sector, but this fact was balanced by three main factors: namely, job satisfaction, job security and a good pension scheme. Job satisfaction is rapidly diminishing as ever-increasing workload (double digit percentage rises year on year) is not matched by increased recruitment - although there are steps under way to resolve this. Job security is still a feature, though in no way as secure as in the past with the Government seeking to involve the private sector in the NHS (private sector work with public sector pay - aargh!). The change from a final salary scheme to a CARE scheme is a massive blow, as many NHS staff start on pitiful salaries (hence the recruitment problems and staff shortages), and over the years build up to reasonable salaries. The effect of the proposals will be to factor in the many years of low pay to reduce the pension at the end of your working life. The final point I would like to make is that over twenty years ago I committed my working life to the NHS, during many of those years working up to 56 hours per week covering 24-hour emergency requirements. I feel it is morally and ethically wrong to change the terms of my pension contract when I am more than half way to retirement. Alan Lauder, Wakefield
There can be absolutely no justification for maintaining current pension benefits for the public sector in the face of the reality of what investment returns can be expected to support their pension funds. Throughout the private sector (the sector that actually generates the country’s wealth) most people are having to accept “down graded” pensions and delayed retirement though economic reality. Why should the public sector maintain theirs, simply because government can tax whatever it likes in order to pay for it? Any party that stands up to the lunacy of the public service union demands will get my vote! Bob Finbow, Suffolk
I have to register an interest in this subject as I am a recipient of a local authority pension. However, I committed 11 per cent of my salary for a number of years towards my pension and 7 per cent prior to that. In total, for a period of 30 years. I believe what I receive is fair given the level of my contributions. Leonard Lyon, Falkirk
The rationale for current civil service pension arrangements has been overtaken by events. Pay levels are now comparable with, and in many cases in excess of, those in the private sector. Stress levels in the civil service are also a “red herring”. There is also stress in the private sector... Increasing life expectancy applies to all. The private sector pension funds have to grapple with this. Civil servants also have a higher level of job security than the private sector who are funding civil service pensions. There is a strong case to argue that civil service pensions should not be payable until age 70, let alone 65. Peter Crombie, Garstang
As a retired civil servant, I remember quite clearly being told that the level of our pay was held back by approximately 12.5 per cent to pay for our pensions. It seems somewhat churlish therefore, to say we are now too expensive. These remarks are usually made by people in the private sector whose income was much higher than mine ever was,or by politicians whose propensity for hypocrisy is legendary in both the public and private sectors. Name and address withheld
Advertisement
Public Sector pension’s are more than generous. They deserve the name “gold plated”. Why should public sector employees not work to 65 years, like the rest of the working population? Why should council taxpayers have to pay exorbitant increases to subsidise the pension funds of these workers, when many of them cannot afford a pension of their own? Brian Lloyd, Broadstone, Dorset
The generous pension provision was originally necessary to reflect the low final salary in the public sector. This at the time reflected the low demands of a job with steady promotion and little competitive element. Public sector employment now has salaries that in many cases - such as teaching, the police and fire service - exceeed the private sector counterparts even without taking into account the early retirement and higher pension. When one adds to this the 3 per cent pa pension dividend tax added by Gordon Brown which takes out half of any annuity based pension, he is sowing the seed of a serious problem for the future. David Cage, Highworth, Wiltshire
Tens of thousands of private sector employees have lost a large part, or in some cases all, of their prospective pension before reaching retirement age. These people face the prospect of working on past retirement age to survive. Public sector employees do not face this risk. Perhaps it’s time they did, starting with MPs. I suggest every year 30 MPs selected at random, but with a weighting towards those nearest retirement should have their pensions eliminated, and they should start saving from scratch. It might help to concentrate their minds. Peter Dunford, Bournemouth
Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Wherever possible we would like you to include your name, address and e-mail. Priority will be given to e-mails providing these details.