Graham P Davis wrote:
On 30/11/11 16:53, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Graham P Davis wrote:
On 30/11/11 15:54, Eskimo Will wrote:
Perfect weather for a strike and for picket line duty!
Sun, and temperature around 10C.

Great turnout at Exeter City Centre rally with just under 4000 union
folk and families/supporters on the rally with all unions represented
including mine - PROSPECT www.prospect.org.uk . Many met Office
colleagues were with us too fighting for a fair *negotiated* pension
settlement, not a government imposed one. First strike in the Met
Office
for over 30 years.

Red Will :-)

The one and only time I was on picket duty, I got a sunburnt nose. I
was Red Graham! ;-)

Whist I was on duty, A Roller crawled past in heavy traffic and a
bloated plutocrat in the back harrumphed, "why don't you go and do
some work?" The heavy traffic was because it was race day at Ascot and
he was off to the races.

A few years after I joined the Office, I realised that the
final-salary pension scheme was iniquitous and a scheme based on
average earnings throughout one's working life would be fairer. I also
realised that a so-called non-contributory scheme was going to serve
us ill and should be replaced by one that where contributions were in
the open and not removed from us during salary comparison exercises.
Chickens have finally come home to roost.

---------------------------
How do you factorise average earnings to take inflation into account?
For example my £750 per annum starting salary would be approximately
£18K to someone starting the same job today. Surely if a scheme wants to
pay out less it would be more straight forward to make it say, a 30/80th
scheme instead of a 40/80th based on final salary.
Dave
Dave

I don't see what the problem is with producing an average salary
corrected for inflation, especially since you've just done it with your
example.

The idea I had was not to pay less but to give a fair payment.
Final-salary schemes are too open to chicanery. For example, someone
works shifts almost all their working life but then the strain tells on
their health and they are limited to day work for the last few years.
Another person starts their working life with a note from their doctor
saying they can't work shifts. A few years away from retirement and they
stage a miraculous recovery and work shifts for the last year or so. If
their basic salary was £30,000 each, say, the first would retire on
£15,000 and the skiver would have about £21,000. Under my system, the
balance would be reversed. [The calculations are based on old ideas of
shift pay and may not hold true now.]

-----------------
Sounds like you knew someone in the skiver category! But seriously, it
is quite complicated to get it fair. I agree that would be wrong but
what about the person who started on a very low salary but worked hard
or maybe studied when his family was grown up, got promotions later in
life but had a very stressfull job till he retired. He would get a much
lower (than deserved?) pension. (That's not me, quite ;-)
It is tricky.

Dave