Skip to content

Under 55 on 1st April 2011? You get to work longer

July 21, 2010

Under the employers’ pension change proposals, the pensionable age is moved to to 65 for those under 55 on 1st April 2011. Subsequently the rules will follow the official pension age.

The contractual pensionable age at the University of Leeds is currently 60.

Under the proposed new deal, you get to work longer and retire poorer.

Remember:

  • Only employers so far have been consulted, not employees. Your union thinks you should be consulted over your future.
  • In a ballot of members in May this year, 96% of voting UCU members voted to reject the employers’ proposed changes, with a similar number backing UCU’s alternative proposals to share costs between employers and staff.
  • £627,000 of taxpayers’ money was used to support the employers in preparing and pushing their proposals.
  • Some could get up to £127,000 less in pre-tax pension income under the new proposals
5 Comments leave one →
  1. In the abscence of Facts permalink
    July 21, 2010 8:46 AM

    So you get to work longer and retire poorer do you. Not really true is it – If you are in a final salary scheme and you work longer you retire richer because of the accrual rate.

    It is true that the pension age will move to 65, this simply puts USS back to where it initially was. USS was designed and established as a scheme with a retirement age of 65, and originally the ability to retire at 60 with an unreduced pension was viewed as something which would be granted in exceptional circumstances. Over the past 35 years that exception expanded to the point where retirement at 65 became the exception. The inevitable consequence of this has been to increase the cost to the scheme.

    Also nice to see you continuing to repeat the myths from your previous USS posting. So if I may, I will repeat my comments too.

    (Edit: to keep matters brief, see the comments on the previous blog posting)

  2. Another academic permalink
    July 22, 2010 1:10 PM

    What kind of logic is at work in the above comment. Arguing that one is ‘richer’ in the current scheme does not obviate the fact that one is ‘poorer’ under the employers proposals. In fact, it supports it. To be ‘richer’ you have to be ‘richer’ than something. The comparator is the employers’ proposals. You argue that we are ‘richer’ under the current scheme. No, the current scheme is the current scheme. The proposed scheme would make one ‘poorer’, plainly.

    I don’t buy your argument of the UCU statements being ‘myths’. Their maths add up for ‘pre-tax pension income’, which is what they are talking about. The UCU give this figure as ‘at least’ what could be lost in certain scenarios. That is to say there are even worse secnarios.

    The employers’ proposals under CARE make no provision for the automatic payment of a lump sum at retirement.

  3. In the abscence of Facts permalink
    July 26, 2010 2:25 PM

    Dear Another Academic – it would be easier to provide a coherent argument if UCU Leeds didn’t delete them off.

    to UCU Leeds I have printouts, and screenprints of my comments should you feel like adding them back at any point..

    I guess the £1.5million your union bled from USS may be more of a difficult issue to address than I’d suspected.

  4. July 26, 2010 2:57 PM

    Dear IAOF,

    We did try to email you but you have provided a non-existant email address. Your IP address gives some notion of where you post from, but not enough to identify you, so we have been unable to contact you. We don’t print repeats of comments. You repeated yourself, so we created a link to the original material. We have deleted nothing. We approve all comments, except those that repeat themselves (or which are in any way offensive).

  5. anotheracademic permalink
    July 26, 2010 3:16 PM

    Instead of ranting IAOF, do you accept that

    a.) if one scheme makes one ‘richer’ then the comparator makes you ‘poorer’.
    b.) the employers’ proposals under CARE make no provision for the automatic payment of a lump sum at retirement.
    c.) the maths add up for ‘pre-tax income’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: