Skip to content


Fire Pensions: Big Trouble in the UK (Part 2)

No comments

It seems that David Cameron and his Coalition partner, Nick Clegg, wish to give UK firefighters a drubbing in the latest pension dust-up.

Some Significant UK/NA Pension Differences

UK and North American firefighter pensions are roughly comparable up to a point but then significant differences emerge.  UK firefighters operate under a tiered benefit system: the FPS is now closed and firefighters hired after April 2006 are in the NFPS, but here is a major difference: they can opt out at anytime—initial or continued participation is not mandatory.  And, another extraordinary (or so it would seem to us) difference:  both the FPS and NFPS are pay-as-you-go.  There are no funds invested anywhere to generate market returns.  Current employee and employer contributions pay the benefits of current retirees.

Opt-Out

Anytime opt-out of a pay-as-you-go scheme would seem to create a situation where there was little margin for error or flexibility.  (The FBU points out that the number of members opting out in the Greater Manchester Pension Fund has increased by over 50% during the most recent year.) Those not happy with changes to the plan are free to walk and seek other alternatives.  Because there is no underlying investment strategy to create additional returns, the plan would be very vulnerable to the loss of active members.  Individual plan members, and by extension, the union that represents them, could have a considerable effect on the solvency of the fund.

Contribution and Accrual Rates

The FPS has an employee contribution rate of 11%, and the NFPS is 8.5%.  The coalition government wants to increase contribution rates by as much as 3.2% through 2014 and there is much discussion as to how this would occur and exactly who would be affected.  In a possible divide and conquer scenario, lower earners could see no rise while those in higher wage scales could see significant increases.

Accrual rates (the rate at which benefits are earned) are different for FPS (1/60th per year of service through 20 years and then increasing rates up to and after 30 years) and NFPS (1/60 per year) though the NFPS has a higher accrual cap of 75%.  There is some indication that the Coalition plan would remove these caps though it’s also doubtful that firefighters would be able to work long enough to receive an “enhanced” benefit, so cap removal may be largely “window-dressing.”  Accrual rates may also be changing to require a longer career in order to achieve the same level of benefit.

Current reporting in the British press shows the Government’s on-line benefit calculators indicating current workers paying more and working longer but receiving less upon retirement.

Salary Averaging

North American firefighters generally have a 3-year salary average and in some cases a simple final salary average when determining the pension benefit.  In the UK the current norm is final average but plans are afoot to change this to a career average where some of the salary points used in the average could be over 30-years old.  The rationale for the change is that final salary unfairly rewards those who gain promotion late in their career or who receive other salary boosts.

Benefit Linking and Inflation Adjustment

The Coalition Government has shown interest in linking occupational pensions with National old-age pensions where the combination of the two would equal a type of living wage.  Such a move diffuses the ability for unions to negotiate clearly over pension benefits as the two providers could then point to the other as the cause of future problems when the sum of both falls short of previous or expected income levels.

The Coalition government also proposes to change the inflation adjustment model from the Retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index, which it is believed will result in lower increases.  Some of these changes have been made unilaterally outside of the collective bargaining framework and are the subject of continued litigation.

What’s Next?

The Fire Brigades Union has gone to great lengths to refute the Coalition points where their members are concerned.  They have provided documentation, from actuaries and others, suggesting that firefighter pension benefits are neither more lucrative nor less sustainable than private pension schemes and that the employee contribution rates are also comparable with the private sector.

UK firefighters are engaged in a long-term battle for pension survival.  The previous Labour government, supposedly union friendly, presided over the creation of the 2006 NFPS which resulted in a lower benefit for new hires.  Now, the current Coalition government would seem poised to deliver the coup-de-grace to public employee pension benefits over the dubious rationale of national deficit control.

It all comes to a head tomorrow, November 30, as millions of UK public sector workers, will show what they think of the Coalition’s plan for the future.

Stay tuned.

 

 

Fire Pensions: Big Trouble in the UK (Part 1)

No comments

United Kingdom public sector workers, including firefighters in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are engaged in a titanic national struggle with the “Coalition” government made up of the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats. The Coalition is currently set on weakening pension benefits.

(These Liberal Democrats are not the ones your mother warned you about, but rather a political party that would be generally happy with a moderate conservative as their leader.  Think Nelson Rockefeller in Lady Thatcher’s pumps.)

The Coalition, led by David Cameron, is moving aggressively to re-design public pensions as a deficit reduction or “cost saving” measure on a national level.  It is a perfect storm with very real life implications.  We should be aware of what is taking place as bad news (and policy) travels fast, even across the Atlantic.  The Coalition argument is that retirement ages for current pension plans were created early in the 20th century when life expectancy was much lower.  They are aiming to change the pension fundamentals so that firefighters and other workers will work longer and often receive less when they eventually do retire, at a later age.

Their attack is centered largely on arguments of sustainability, fairness and employee contribution rates.  They say that the current arrangement cannot be maintained for the long run and that public pensions are more lucrative than their private counterparts.

North American Pensions

A quick take on what US and Canadian firefighters often have as a pension framework:

-  mandatory participation in a pension plan where the monies are invested and where the pension, once received, is subject to a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) to offset the effects of inflation

-  Retirement after a set number of years, some beginning with 20 years of service, though 25 may be more the norm and in some cases there is also a tandem age requirement of 50 or 55

(Thousands of US firefighters do not participate in Federal Social Security making their work pension the only source of guaranteed income.  Some Canadian pension plans are integrated with their federal benefit where reductions can occur after age 65.)

UK Pensions

In one of those perfectly understandable language differences that makes it all interesting and sometimes amusing, the UK equivalent of “plan” as in pension plan, is “scheme”, as in pension scheme.  There are basically three firefighter pension schemes in the UK:

-  Firefighter Pension Scheme (FPS) closed to new entry since 2006 with a retirement age of 55, (which could occasionally be lower)

-  New Firefighter Pension Scheme (NFPS) for all hired after 2006, with a retirement age of 60

-   Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) with a retirement age of 65

Tomorrow- Firefighter Pensions:  Big Trouble in the UK (Part 2)

Public Pensions and the Brothers “B”

No comments

Are we fast approaching an era where people will talk of pensions the way they do of the rotary dial phone and the ringer washer? (I clearly remember both.)  More and more it’s looking that way.

The myth is that change usually emanates from the West Coast and flows toward the stodgy and staid easterners but last week’s pension news may mean a tsunami meeting in the heartlands.

California Governor and erstwhile hippy Jerry Brown teamed up, apparently unintentionally, with Hiz Honor, Mayor Bloomberg, to send ripples through the public pension community in the form of (re)forms that will surely alter the pension landscape.

 

Pensions were once a tool for providing post work income.  They were relatively modest and quite often partially paid for by the recipients during their working careers.

Decades ago, management and labor discovered that pensions were also a place to effectively obscure the costs of compensation improvements and suddenly the staid world of pensions became a center of political and negotiating activity.

Pensions were a windfall for elected officials looking for an “off the books” way to conciliate labor.  In some areas the costs could be pushed into the future through various waves of the  magic wand of actuarial science.  Employees who were paying a portion of their salary toward their pension could be charged less in what was surely a raise but one that would be flying just under the radar screen. What a wonderful world we lived in.

Labor leaders and others discovered the perks of pension boards and some have been caught up in nasty ethics scandals of alleged self-dealing and dubious decision making fraught with international travel and fancy meals.

Well, Jerry and Mike are out to change all that, or so they think.

Governor Brown has unveiled a public pension revision package that substantially alters the future of benefits in California.  He intends to succeed by going directly to the voters rather than through labor negotiations.  That’s a thorny proposition (no pun intended) for a democratic governor.

Public employees can expect to work longer and pay more for the pension they eventually receive.  Brown also intends to do away with the notorious practice of double-dipping where retirees collect one pension and then go to work for another local government to earn a second one.  He also plans on eliminating pension padding or spiking by limiting their calculation to regular wages and excluding overtime and other pay in the calculation.

In New York, Bloomberg envisions a wholesale redesign of the City’s various pension boards which have dozens of trustees who oversee  benefits for 500,000+ current and retired workers.  The plan also calls for a single board and an in-house investment staff that could be a boon or a disaster.  Either way, it probably removes power and authority from the current trustees.  Bloomberg expects to recoup as much as $1B a year under the new arrangement.

 

If you are a retiree sipping your Starbuck’s and thanking your lucky stars, don’t let your smugness get the best of you–these changes, as well as the train wreck in Rhode Island, are harbingers for a future where current retirees can see their benefits under attack, including the cornerstone of any pension– the cost of living adjustment.

AARP, anyone?

 

[Credits/Source: New York Times]