RMT Industrial Action - Hull Trains

[Wolfie]

Long time Civil Servant here .
I had my pension scheme changed by my employer in 2005 , from a final salary scheme to a career average scheme.
The reason for the change was that under the final salary scheme I had paid NO contributions to my pension (Classic Scheme_ over the previous 26 1/2 years and it would cost the Government a fortune in unfunded pension schemes.
They brought in a new Pension Scheme called Alpha which means I have to contribute to my pension of 4.6% of my gross salary - my union PCS objected to this - I saw this as fair because I have had 26 1/2 years not contributing.
Following the McCloud Judgment the 6 years I have paid into the Alpha Scheme I have a choice of keeping it in Alpha (which is a better scheme as it accrues at 1/60th instead of 1/80th in the Classic).
Just because your Union objects to the change doesn`t mean the change is wrong.

As a Civil Servant of over 30 years standing l utterly and completely object to this post. HMT always considered their contributions to our pension as part of our overall remuneration and reduced payrises accordingly. The rationale behind that was had they actually paid us the additional pay and taken contributions then pension entitlements would have risen accordingly.
I note that you coincidentally do not mention that Classic pays out at age 60 whereas Alpha is state pension age. There were several intermediate stages (the option of Classic + or Premium and then Nuvos) too. I was forced to move into Alpha. All of that will be moved to Classic and l will be taking my pension at age 60.

 

[jayah]

Long time Civil Servant here .
I had my pension scheme changed by my employer in 2005 , from a final salary scheme to a career average scheme.
The reason for the change was that under the final salary scheme I had paid NO contributions to my pension (Classic Scheme_ over the previous 26 1/2 years and it would cost the Government a fortune in unfunded pension schemes.
They brought in a new Pension Scheme called Alpha which means I have to contribute to my pension of 4.6% of my gross salary - my union PCS objected to this - I saw this as fair because I have had 26 1/2 years not contributing.
Following the McCloud Judgment the 6 years I have paid into the Alpha Scheme I have a choice of keeping it in Alpha (which is a better scheme as it accrues at 1/60th instead of 1/80th in the Classic).
Just because your Union objects to the change doesn`t mean the change is wrong.

Yes - the typical 3% contribution is more akin to a tea club than a pension scheme. The Hull Trains accounts seemed to be around 9% employer contributions vs payroll, not all payroll costs being personable and not all of the payroll being in the scheme.

Not unreasonable to expect the same from employees expecting 20+ years of bank transfers for doing nothing.

Is there a contract stating you have traded lower current pay for a better pension?

Has HMT published these accrued liabilities on the public accounts?

Has HMT actually paid any contributions to your pension (i.e. their contributions) and if so, where are the accounts?

It is insulting to taxpayers to expect us to honour an unwritten IOU transferring tens of billions of pounds of borrowed money to some of the best paid public sector workers in the country.

 

[Wolfie]

Yes - the typical 3% contribution is more akin to a tea club than a pension scheme. The Hull Trains accounts seemed to be around 9% employer contributions vs payroll, not all payroll costs being personable and not all of the payroll being in the scheme.

Not unreasonable to expect the same from employees expecting 20+ years of bank transfers for doing nothing.

Is there a contract stating you have traded lower current pay for a better pension?

Has HMT published these accrued liabilities on the public accounts?

Has HMT actually paid any contributions to your pension (i.e. their contributions) and if so, where are the accounts?

It is insulting to taxpayers to expect us to honour an unwritten IOU transferring tens of billions of pounds of borrowed money to some of the best paid public sector workers in the country.

Re your last para, firstly you obviously really do not have a clue about civil service pay. Secondly our pension is contractual. Any changes can only be for the future not for entitlements already earned; there are Court rulings that any attempt to reduce or change those would be illegal. Finally HMT has made the same level of payments, namely zero, to the civil service pension scheme as it has to the state pension scheme, namely zero. Payments are covered by current income.

You may find this, particularly the approx 20% effective contribution to a "non-contributory" scheme and de facto cut in actual pensions, interesting. Also the figures for actual pensions payments as opposed to the Daily Heil myths.

UK Civil Service - Pensions

 

[jayah]

Thanks for clarifying that "their contributions to our pension" do not actually exist.

Clearly a large part of your argument indeed rests around commitments perceived on your part, but which do not actually exist in writing.

Clearly the civil service are ardent believers in the magic money tree in thinking that a 20+ year retirement can and should be funded literally by fresh air and unwritten commitments.

There is no court ruling that 'any attempt to change these entitlements for the past is illegal' as courts rule on the matters in front of them not in general terms.

Actual pensions are of course affected by tenure and many people have small amounts from working for a few years.

That doesn't diminish the incredible generosity of these unfunded schemes or the affront of people who think it is unfair to be asked to pay even a derisory 4.5% for them.

 

[Wolfie]

Thanks for clarifying that "their contributions to our pension" do not actually exist.

Clearly a large part of your argument indeed rests around commitments perceived on your part, but which do not actually exist in writing.

Clearly the civil service are ardent believers in the magic money tree in thinking that a 20+ year retirement can and should be funded literally by fresh air and unwritten commitments.

There is no court ruling that 'any attempt to change these entitlements for the past is illegal' as courts rule on the matters in front of them not in general terms.

Actual pensions are of course affected by tenure and many people have small amounts from working for a few years.

That doesn't diminish the incredible generosity of these unfunded schemes or the affront of people who think it is unfair to be asked to pay even a derisory 4.5% for them.

With respect to your fourth para I suggest that you look at ECHR Protocol 1 Article 1 and rulings made about pensions in that context.

 

[jayah]

With respect to your fourth para I suggest that you look at ECHR Protocol 1 Article 1 and rulings made about pensions in that context.

Pensions have already been changed such that existing contributions are updated by CPI vs RPI thereby devaluing them at realisation. Equally changes to the age at which benefits can be taken.

ECHR refers to peaceful enjoyment of your own possessions unless in the public interest - this doesn't have the blanket effect you imagine and HMG could move away from ECHR. If the magic money tree died and it was a choice between closing hospitals or cutting unfunded pensions, it wouldn't be difficult to argue.

ASLCs are pure circular money - the Treasury pays the departments and they pay back a 'charge' based on notional value of accrued pension entitlements. No money changes hands, there are no actual contributions and no pension fund. I genuinely pity whoever can claim their contribution to the human condition was such a pointless exercise - calculating these charges no doubt keeps a few hundred civil servants ticking over.

I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has been paid 20% below market rate to 'fund' these unfunded public sector pensions.

Back to the topic:

33% employer contributions are unfair.

3% typical private sector pension funding, is a tea club not a pension.

A typical railway scheme at roughly 10% each is fair, and can be sustainable as a payroll cost as long it links contributions to entitlements i.e not final salary.

I disagree with anyone arguing in favour of unfunded pensions, unfairly split contributions or the idea that all defined benefit schemes are unaffordable.

 

[centro-323]

RMT have now apparently suspended their action

https://twitter.com/Hull_Trains/status/1425431437797433350?s=19