LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Jezyboy

wallace_and_gromit said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

True, but an odd comment in response to a post primarily about Building Societies which were privately owned, by their members.

Though as an aside, the history of the ex-Building Societies suggests that demutualisation was some sort of bizarre cult-like mass suicide.

Sure it was more in response to the general sell off comment rather than the building society bit.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

if you include the pension liabilities then they got a very good price

The assumptions pretty much the entire West made about pensions from the 1950s-80s would be a scandal if it wasn't such a universal miscalculation.

you are going to have to expand on that.

I was referring to unfunded public sector liabilities which continue to be unfunded to this day,

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I had never realised UK spends 1.4% of GDP on housing benefit.

myself and others on here have told you for years that Blair/Brown started a massive transfer of wealth to private sector landlords.

Couple that with the massive transfer of wealth to allow the likes of Tesco to employ people at below livable rates of pay an you have a massive scandal.

If this was the Tories it would easily be explained away by enriching their donors and keeping their core vote happy but what are the off the shelf explanations for this New Labour scandal?

Um, given the sell off of council houses under rhe Tories before that, I'm not sure what other option they had.

Build some f***ing houses would be one option.

That wasn't a short term fix when Blair took over. Also, would have cost several times more to build back what had just been sold.

Tories = short sighted.

Not necessarily, it depends on perspective.
I seem to remember the tories wanting everyone tied to mortgages, and not fluid renting.

How is that working out?

I don't know the economics of council housing to be honest, but the people who receive housing benefits aren't ever going to be tied to mortgages are they.

They sold off council stock on the cheap. This made it affordable.
I remember people buying 3 bedroom houses for £6k. They'd have been mad not to!

I was like all the sell-offs, including the building societies - 'little people' getting a taste of what it's like to get free money in the short term, but overall paying for it in the longer term. Bribery. I got £1200 from my Abbey National shares, but then it just turned into yet another foreign-owned bank paying shareholders at the expense of the customers.

The problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of assets to sell off at below market rate.

if you include the pension liabilities then they got a very good price

The assumptions pretty much the entire West made about pensions from the 1950s-80s would be a scandal if it wasn't such a universal miscalculation.

you are going to have to expand on that.

I was referring to unfunded public sector liabilities which continue to be unfunded to this day,

I think he means the assumptions that there will be X working people for every retired person and the average period drawing the pension would be 5-10 years, not 20-30 years.

wallace_and_gromit

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

shirley_basso

Presume that will lead to more inflation, and more pressure to increase interest rates?

pblakeney

shirley_basso said:

Presume that will lead to more inflation, and more pressure to increase interest rates?

More likely a temporary blip as there's no justification for future high wage increases.
Call it a correction and move on.

wallace_and_gromit

shirley_basso said:

Presume that will lead to more inflation, and more pressure to increase interest rates?

Don't know about "more" and "increase" but it does suggest falls in won't be rapid. Though today's figures are no surprise (other than to the anti-Tory Twitterati etc, of course) as they've been widely predicted so I don't think they change much in practical terms.

Pross

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

wallace_and_gromit

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. ... Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Agreed. And I'm now nearer 60 than 50. (Which is painful to type!)

It was a good policy for its time, but times have moved on.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

Right. I think it’s sensible that the government(s) take a serious look at social security and reevaluate the whole model and obviously pensions are right at the top.

I think we need to get better at incentivising people to save appropriately for a much longer retirement and recognise that there is a cost for not doing so - we shouldn’t really have to bankroll poor savers for possibly decades.

The viability of a full social security net is definitely being challenged and will be tested to destruction with an aging population and an increasingly difficult environment for working age people, in all senses.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

the originalargument was that pensioners were becoing relatively poorer. Triple lock is mathematical madness

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

Fwiw this would not be my advice to individuals re pay bargaining.

Obviously different at a public sector and collective bargaining, so not commenting on that, but pay is almost always anchored to what you’re currently on > always take more now as the raises thereafter are based on that new number so the benefit is compounded.

Similarly, my advice is never to take less pay, regardless of how good the role is, if comp is anywhere of relevance to you.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Presumably your glass is half empty and you think the gap will narrow or revert, rather than widen.

kingstongraham

Part of this year's increase is 12% on public sector pay, a proportion of which is lump sum payments. So next year's actual pay (even with an increase) is going to look pretty stingy.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Presumably your glass is half empty and you think the gap will narrow or revert, rather than widen.

Yeah a lot of firms hanging onto people in Q1 and Q2 in the hope of recovery and now letting people go

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

the originalargument was that pensioners were becoing relatively poorer. Triple lock is mathematical madness

But it has been turned into a 'war on pensioners' if anyone even mentions removing it and pensioners are more likely to vote so it won't be removed by the current lot as that is their core vote. Assuming Labour get in they need to ditch it as quickly as possible that way any controversy will be pretty much forgotten by the next election.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

Right. I think it’s sensible that the government(s) take a serious look at social security and reevaluate the whole model and obviously pensions are right at the top.

I think we need to get better at incentivising people to save appropriately for a much longer retirement and recognise that there is a cost for not doing so - we shouldn’t really have to bankroll poor savers for possibly decades.

The viability of a full social security net is definitely being challenged and will be tested to destruction with an aging population and an increasingly difficult environment for working age people, in all senses.

This is obviously easier said than done for those on low wages though. I've been paying into a pension since I was 16 but when I moved into the private sector in my mid 20s I wasn't really able to pay in as much as is recommended as despite earning around the national average and then above it I didn't have the money spare (believe it or not, paying a mortgage / childcare etc. has never actually been cheap!).

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I think we need to get better at incentivising people to save appropriately for a much longer retirement and recognise that there is a cost for not doing so - we shouldn’t really have to bankroll poor savers for possibly decades.

I agree, but realistically how do you do that? I imagine the reality is that very few people are poor savers i.e. they have the means to save but overspend and/or don't maximise investment and savings opportunities available to them.

I would suspect that the majority who have very little in savings, at any given age, are in the position of simply not being able to save at all (or certainly not to a degree that would secure them financially in later life), and being reliant on fairly minimal workplace pension contributions for the future.

As has been discussed at length on the forum, many people in the general population cannot afford rental and mortgages, or can just about cover these. If that is the case (and it will be for millions in the UK), how can you save anything?

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Triple lock has to go. I'm really struggling to understand why someone who no longer works should have their income potentially linked to earnings of those in employment on the rare occasions pay rises actually get ahead of inflation and having a fixed rise even if inflation and wage rises are low is also a bit baffling. Surely by now any shortfall in the state pension this was supposed to address has been dealt with?

Sorry to sound like Rick. I'm saying this as someone who'll be collecting a pension sooner than I'd like to admit so it would suit me on a personal level for it to stay but isn't really sustainable.

Right. I think it’s sensible that the government(s) take a serious look at social security and reevaluate the whole model and obviously pensions are right at the top.

I think we need to get better at incentivising people to save appropriately for a much longer retirement and recognise that there is a cost for not doing so - we shouldn’t really have to bankroll poor savers for possibly decades.

The viability of a full social security net is definitely being challenged and will be tested to destruction with an aging population and an increasingly difficult environment for working age people, in all senses.

One of the big, big successes of the Government over the last 13 years has been auto-enrolment, coupled with pensions freedoms. The sad thing is that the auto-enrolment model is what Brown should have introduced in 2001, not his cocked up stakeholder waste of time and money.

The triple lock should become an average of the three measures, rather than the highest.

But also don't forget, all those with preserved benefits in other public sector schemes, yet to draw their pensions, also saw massive hikes in their pensions, so it really isn't just those already retired who benefit.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged

This was the question I have asked myself repeatedly over the last 2 years, why did so many PS workers and Unions leave it so long? They should have been seeking incremental pay rises for years, not waiting indefinitely and then asking for a large increase in one go which was never going to be granted.

I fully respect their right to strike and agree pay across various PS bodies needs increasing, but they seem to have got their approach to this badly wrong, unless someone can highlight that they were seeking pay rises year on year and not getting anywhere with it?

rick_chasey

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I think we need to get better at incentivising people to save appropriately for a much longer retirement and recognise that there is a cost for not doing so - we shouldn’t really have to bankroll poor savers for possibly decades.

I agree, but realistically how do you do that? I imagine the reality is that very few people are poor savers i.e. they have the means to save but overspend and/or don't maximise investment and savings opportunities available to them.

I would suspect that the majority who have very little in savings, at any given age, are in the position of simply not being able to save at all (or certainly not to a degree that would secure them financially in later life), and being reliant on fairly minimal workplace pension contributions for the future.

As has been discussed at length on the forum, many people in the general population cannot afford rental and mortgages, or can just about cover these. If that is the case (and it will be for millions in the UK), how can you save anything?

I don’t really know tbh. Over time I think we need to explain to the public you can’t expect to get by on state pension alone.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

Fwiw this would not be my advice to individuals re pay bargaining.

Obviously different at a public sector and collective bargaining, so not commenting on that, but pay is almost always anchored to what you’re currently on > always take more now as the raises thereafter are based on that new number so the benefit is compounded.

Similarly, my advice is never to take less pay, regardless of how good the role is, if comp is anywhere of relevance to you.

I found out my roles salary isn't even benchmarked by the firm recently. They are making it up as they go along. Can't see the point in bargaining with anything other than my feet at this stage of chaos.

Best outcome would be to realise I'm X% under market value and push them up a bit, but that would be a dead cat bounce.

It's actually in the e.ployee handbook that we shouldn't ask each other about salaries. That's not a good sign.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

Fwiw this would not be my advice to individuals re pay bargaining.

Obviously different at a public sector and collective bargaining, so not commenting on that, but pay is almost always anchored to what you’re currently on > always take more now as the raises thereafter are based on that new number so the benefit is compounded.

Similarly, my advice is never to take less pay, regardless of how good the role is, if comp is anywhere of relevance to you.

I found out my roles salary isn't even benchmarked by the firm recently. They are making it up as they go along. Can't see the point in bargaining with anything other than my feet at this stage of chaos.

Best outcome would be to realise I'm X% under market value and push them up a bit, but that would be a dead cat bounce.

It's actually in the e.ployee handbook that we shouldn't ask each other about salaries. That's not a good sign.

I agree. Does it say you shouldn't tell about your salary without being asked?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

Fwiw this would not be my advice to individuals re pay bargaining.

Obviously different at a public sector and collective bargaining, so not commenting on that, but pay is almost always anchored to what you’re currently on > always take more now as the raises thereafter are based on that new number so the benefit is compounded.

Similarly, my advice is never to take less pay, regardless of how good the role is, if comp is anywhere of relevance to you.

I found out my roles salary isn't even benchmarked by the firm recently. They are making it up as they go along. Can't see the point in bargaining with anything other than my feet at this stage of chaos.

Best outcome would be to realise I'm X% under market value and push them up a bit, but that would be a dead cat bounce.

It's actually in the e.ployee handbook that we shouldn't ask each other about salaries. That's not a good sign.

I agree. Does it say you shouldn't tell about your salary without being asked?

Been a while since I checked. Think it is more like Fight Club.

wallace_and_gromit

Dorset_Boy said:

But also don't forget, all those with preserved benefits in other public sector schemes, yet to draw their pensions, also saw massive hikes in their pensions, so it really isn't just those already retired who benefit.

Can you expand on this, please? I'm reasonably clued up on pensions but hadn't clocked that the benefits from public sector schemes are being hiked. (The pressure seems in other direction on Mrs W&G's NHS pension with the management wanting to move to a career average basis, though she is still working so potentially not in the scope of you "preserved benefits" comment above.)

Thanks!

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

FWIW - probably not that much - UK average pay growth in the last year (7.8% excl bonuses) is now outpacing CPI inflation (6.8%).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/sep/12/uk-unemployment-rises-real-wages-grocery-inflation-business-live

Won’t last is my semi informed prediction.

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged. They should be asking for something modest over several years, because half of that will be some other government or some other ministers problem, and the result will be less newsworthy. So more likely to get a yes.

Fwiw this would not be my advice to individuals re pay bargaining.

Obviously different at a public sector and collective bargaining, so not commenting on that, but pay is almost always anchored to what you’re currently on > always take more now as the raises thereafter are based on that new number so the benefit is compounded.

Similarly, my advice is never to take less pay, regardless of how good the role is, if comp is anywhere of relevance to you.

I found out my roles salary isn't even benchmarked by the firm recently. They are making it up as they go along. Can't see the point in bargaining with anything other than my feet at this stage of chaos.

Best outcome would be to realise I'm X% under market value and push them up a bit, but that would be a dead cat bounce.

It's actually in the e.ployee handbook that we shouldn't ask each other about salaries. That's not a good sign.

There is always a reason to say no to previously agreed upon pay rises.

Always take the money now. Very few people get given pay cuts unless they’re in very performance orientated pay.

You almost always start comp negotiation based on your existing comp. So might as well make existing comp as high as possible.

People surprisingly forget sometimes that pay is recurring so £5k increase is compounded across your remaining career.

Dorset_Boy

Preserved benefits are the pension entitlement someone who has left the scheme has. The pension entitlement is revalued each year and effectively also increases in line with the triple lock.
Additionally, public sector pensions that are in payment are also increased each year in the same way. So for example, those receiving a LGPS pension saw it increase by 10.1% in April.

Public sector schemes are / have moved to career average whilst a member, so typically your wife will accrue 1/49th of her annual pensionable salary each year.
Under the old final salary system, he pension would have been based on her final salary (different definitions apply), and as people's salaries typically increase as the approach retirement, a big pay rise in the last few years would have a big impact on the pension entitlement.

Career average is still a gold standard pension and all the liability falls on the employer. It may not be the platinum standard of final salary, but is still way more valuable than a money purchase arrangement as seen outside the public sector.

The value of public sector pension are totally underestimated by most who work in that sector.

Pross

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Course it won't. Any big pay rise in a given year is always punished, and averages out much lower over time. Its why the ask from a lot of the unions and medics at the moment is ill judged

This was the question I have asked myself repeatedly over the last 2 years, why did so many PS workers and Unions leave it so long? They should have been seeking incremental pay rises for years, not waiting indefinitely and then asking for a large increase in one go which was never going to be granted.

I fully respect their right to strike and agree pay across various PS bodies needs increasing, but they seem to have got their approach to this badly wrong, unless someone can highlight that they were seeking pay rises year on year and not getting anywhere with it?

It's my annoyance with the NHS staff in particular (and I know it is probably heresy to criticise them in any way). They've accepted previous pay deals but are now asking for well above (already very high) inflation to make up for those pay deals they previously accepted. No-one ever asks them that question when they keep spouting the 'effective pay cut over the past x years' line in interviews.