30% pay rises for NHS workers.

[headmelter]

41 minutes ago, spyguy said:

90% of nurses pay 9% or less pension.

Friend works 3 x 12h a week. She does the odd extra shift.

Hospitals are not always busy. The work ebbs n flows, even AnE.

A nurse really doesnt need a degree. The level of instruction in nursing degrees isnt that high.  For example, when my friend's trust changed, the new trust pushed a maths competency test. Nothing massive - 11+ levels. This caused massive problems and a couple of strops out.

 

 

Strange I pay 12.5% into my pension.

I work 37.5 hrs per week.... Then you need to add on the extra 2-3 hrs I work 'for free' every week.

I work in a hospital with full bed occupancy every day. Beds are re-occupied within 24 hrs... I know this because I often work as patient flow co-ordinator. There is ALWAYS pressure on beds, it's as simple as that.

You base your assertions on your interactions with one nurse. What area ? Has she specialised ? How long has she been qualified ?

Basic maths is all that is required to ensure accurate dosage of medication. There are individuals in many professions that only require GCE/GCSE level maths... Does a journalist need higher level maths ? If nurses can't demonstrate an adequate level of mathematical comprehension when revalidating they will be refused entry on the register.

Edited July 27, 2021 by headmelter
fat fingers

[scottbeard]

5 hours ago, kzb said:

I suppose so, but there is also the increased risk of DC pensions to take into account.  OK you get your 25-30% employer contribution but then there is a massive stock market crash a few years before you retire.  Then where are you ?

1.  Most financial advisers would not suggest being heavily invested in the stockmarket just as you approach retirement for exactly that reason.

2.  Even if the market crashes you can still do income drawdown whilst it recovers (or indefinitely)

3. The idea that DB pensions (certainly those provided in the public sector) are "guaranteed" or "risk free" is a fallacy - I bet most civil servants thought that they were getting a pension payable from age 65 with RPI-linked increases, only to find the government has changed it to payable from 68 with CPI linked increases (overall about a 30% reduction in benefit, so akin to a stockmarket crash that never recovers).  I wonder what their next change will be...

So yes, I agree, on balance DB generally carries less risk for the employee than DC does for the same expected pension, but I think "DB good, DC bad" is a big oversimplification.

[kzb]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

3. The idea that DB pensions (certainly those provided in the public sector) are "guaranteed" or "risk free" is a fallacy - I bet most civil servants thought that they were getting a pension payable from age 65 with RPI-linked increases, only to find the government has changed it to payable from 68 with CPI linked increases (overall about a 30% reduction in benefit,

Hang on though, the usual course of events is to preserve previous rights when switching to a revised scheme.

If you are on a final salary scheme at first, and then ten years later they switch to a CARE scheme, your final salary contribution years count as that.  Something like that anyhow.

Also, as a pensions expert, have you thought about the effect of a CARE pension when workers are getting below inflation pay rises ?

The teachers CARE pension revalues each year of service by CPI +1.6%, the NHS scheme by CPI +1.5%.  Plus the accrual rates have been enhanced from 1/80th.

It seems to me, many will get a bigger pension from the CARE scheme than they would have under the Final Salary scheme.

[scottbeard]

7 hours ago, kzb said:

Hang on though, the usual course of events is to preserve previous rights when switching to a revised scheme.

If you are on a final salary scheme at first, and then ten years later they switch to a CARE scheme, your final salary contribution years count as that.  Something like that anyhow.

That's correct - and why I chose my example carefully.  When the government switched to CARE the final salary historic part was preserved, but the future CARE part just gets worse and worse.

7 hours ago, kzb said:

Also, as a pensions expert, have you thought about the effect of a CARE pension when workers are getting below inflation pay rises ?

It seems to me, many will get a bigger pension from the CARE scheme than they would have under the Final Salary scheme.

That's correct if the below inflation increases persist all the way to retirement

(although a different point to my point that DB is not necessarily always better than DC, because it depends on the generosity of benefits offered in each.)

[coypondboy]

On 7/28/2021 at 9:11 AM, scottbeard said:

That's correct - and why I chose my example carefully.  When the government switched to CARE the final salary historic part was preserved, but the future CARE part just gets worse and worse.

That's correct if the below inflation increases persist all the way to retirement

(although a different point to my point that DB is not necessarily always better than DC, because it depends on the generosity of benefits offered in each.)

You have to factor in the equivalent annuity would need to be inflation proofed with a 2/3 widow's pension and option of ill health early retirment without loss which is a massive cost for someone trying to get this in the private sector who will have to take more risk to get this.  Safer investments such as corporate property (hit hard by coronavirus with big funds like M&G closed for withdrawal and having to fire sell assets which will affect performance)  and bonds (very expensive and could implode if inflation and int rates take off and leaving in no risk cash you get no return). 

Advisers and fund mgrs want 2.255% a year to manage it (1% adviser fee, 0.75% fund manager fee, 0.5% wrap platform fee) so your returns going forward even worse or you need to have more in the stockmarket increasing your risk.

None of this to worry about if in a defined benefit scheme.

Genourosity of private sector scheme have you seen the funding levels by employer's for the govt's compulsory scheme if you get 3% or more of salary you are very lucky.  Only the big employers more generous and you have to match it, I pay in 15% to get my employer to match it but very lucky, most are not.

Edited August 6, 2021 by coypondboy