If you removed the inducement by making public sector workers responsible for their own "defined contributions" pensions, most of which are both optional and highly portable, you would see public sector workers job hopping like everybody else, every time something more attractive passes by. And this is something that the state (any state) simply cannot afford, either in terms of cost, or in the disruption which would arise from the continual turnover of public sector staff (especially as it would be the good ones that go and the chisellers that stay).
The new National Employmemnt Savings Trust (NEST) Regs could ensure that many civvy employers offer an even worse retirement proposition than they do at the moment. From October 2012 until 2017 (and depending on the size of company), all UK employers will contribute a minimum of 3% of each employee’s eligible earnings into a pension, assuming the employee does not “opt out”. This is intended to incentivise them to save for their retirement. Employees will also pay a personal contribution of 4% with a further 1% tax relief being added to make the minimum contribution 8%.
So, by comparison, the MoD can afford to dilute things, because civvy street will be less attractive. Many civvy pension plans are better than NEST already anyway, but opinions are divided as to whether or not many will wind up their existing schemes in order to dumb things down even further,
to NEST level. By comparison, AFPS could still look more attractive. And don't forget - many civvy employers don't offer the other perks that the MoD does (learning credits, free gym, subsidised food, housing etc).
Latest news - DWP