Public Pensions, AL ??
Thread Starter
Public Pensions, AL ??
According to a BBC report, UK Gov have lost in the Courts against the imposition of poorer pension rights for younger Judges! Sounds like there could be implications for all Public pensions!
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandfathering rights (as we saw for 75/05 ->15) for more experienced personnel as AFPS15 evolves? If I was in charge of the purse strings, it's a golden opportunity. I'd wipe my Treasury spectacles, point at the judiciary and say 'sorry.. blame them'. So, will everyone get the new (contributory?) scheme to ensure equality? Cue sound of well worn, more senior boots thundering for the door.
I almost hate to say it, but you can imagine the dastardly politicians and mandarins engineering this.
I almost hate to say it, but you can imagine the dastardly politicians and mandarins engineering this.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downsizer - agree. A proper federation is needed. Maybe, just maybe, if senior ranks now potentially stand to be disadvantaged too, in a way that they were previously insulated from, there may be some movement? It'll be interesting to see how the various bodies purportedly representing servicemen, women react and formulate a response, if it does transpire that the goat rope may be fed out to everyone.
Also, huge ramifications, potentially, for the WASPI campaign.
Also, huge ramifications, potentially, for the WASPI campaign.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al R,
In the spirit of this being a ruhmour network, how do you think current serving personnel could be affected? Personnel who remained on 75/05 being transferred to 15? Those on 15 being put back on 75/05? A change to 15, or a blend of some/all?
In the spirit of this being a ruhmour network, how do you think current serving personnel could be affected? Personnel who remained on 75/05 being transferred to 15? Those on 15 being put back on 75/05? A change to 15, or a blend of some/all?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judge was quite specific in one of two areas yesterday.
Namely, the ten year transition period - why ten years, who determined it, was it arrived at to support industrial relations with (say) hospital porters and was, therefore, it rolled out across the public sector without further regard, and if so, was it done arbitrarily but fairly, or for the social good? I think the one thing that it is fair to say, we won't see transitional protection when/if AFPS15 becomes AFPS21, or will it become tapered (something which the MoD was allowed to say, with impunity, it could rely on when making people redundant)?
And if we say that transitional protection in 2015 was wrong for everyone, unless it could be argued otherwise, do you reverse it, how do you reverse it, or do you put everyone serving at the time in the position whereby they have retained previous benefits, albeit in some de-facto format? Or, do you do nothing. What is obvious, is that I'm sure other public sectors have potent legal resources with which to address this matter, via their representative bodies. The military has none.
Judiciary pension ruling - possible impact on AFPS | Al Rush
Namely, the ten year transition period - why ten years, who determined it, was it arrived at to support industrial relations with (say) hospital porters and was, therefore, it rolled out across the public sector without further regard, and if so, was it done arbitrarily but fairly, or for the social good? I think the one thing that it is fair to say, we won't see transitional protection when/if AFPS15 becomes AFPS21, or will it become tapered (something which the MoD was allowed to say, with impunity, it could rely on when making people redundant)?
And if we say that transitional protection in 2015 was wrong for everyone, unless it could be argued otherwise, do you reverse it, how do you reverse it, or do you put everyone serving at the time in the position whereby they have retained previous benefits, albeit in some de-facto format? Or, do you do nothing. What is obvious, is that I'm sure other public sectors have potent legal resources with which to address this matter, via their representative bodies. The military has none.
Judiciary pension ruling - possible impact on AFPS | Al Rush
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Looking at the press report, it appears that the judiciary is divided into two camps:
1. Old, White, Male with preserved or transitional rights
2. Younger, ethnic, female and BME (?).
Now the Services do not have that democratic:
1. Old, White, Male and some Female.
2. Younger, ethnic, female and male and ???
So there is no parallel at all is there?
1. Old, White, Male with preserved or transitional rights
2. Younger, ethnic, female and BME (?).
Now the Services do not have that democratic:
1. Old, White, Male and some Female.
2. Younger, ethnic, female and male and ???
So there is no parallel at all is there?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judge, effectively, suggested that the MoJ transitional protection figure of ten years was one drawn from other areas of the public sector, and based on negotiations aimed at fostering good industrial relations. The government was unable to provide any detail about why it had relied on it for the judiciary, the judge wondeeed if it was rolled out in the interests of fairness. For its part, the MoD is exempt from age discrimination legislation, but as the rational behind the 10 year TP was not tested, let alone advanced, the question then, surely, evolves into one of 'why have protection at all?'.
If the MoD wants to advance and then rely on the age argument in order to then rely on a legal exemption.. basically, it might have to provide the evidence. Again, the judge made the post that provision for more imminent retirement already existed, and wondered about its relevancy. If the MoD promotes the age discrimination exemption argument (and let's remember, the ruling applied too, to gender and race) at that point, the Treasury could, in all possibility, simply say 'Dear Wing Commander, you have twenty years work in front of you, you are highly attractive to a civilian employer, crack on.. go get a job'.
Therefore it may be that ageism won't come into it at all, and that transitional protection becomes a non-issue, simply because there is none applied and that the purported DC/Defined Ambition scheme is therefore rolled out in one go to new entrants and immature and mature careerists alike. I have long been a fan of tapered protection, but the ruling appears to require that even that needs to be justified. I accept that the Forces Pension Society is not a fan of it, based on its unwillingness to rely on it to help redundees sacked so close to getting EDP.
PN, BME = black/minority/ethnicity.
If the MoD wants to advance and then rely on the age argument in order to then rely on a legal exemption.. basically, it might have to provide the evidence. Again, the judge made the post that provision for more imminent retirement already existed, and wondered about its relevancy. If the MoD promotes the age discrimination exemption argument (and let's remember, the ruling applied too, to gender and race) at that point, the Treasury could, in all possibility, simply say 'Dear Wing Commander, you have twenty years work in front of you, you are highly attractive to a civilian employer, crack on.. go get a job'.
Therefore it may be that ageism won't come into it at all, and that transitional protection becomes a non-issue, simply because there is none applied and that the purported DC/Defined Ambition scheme is therefore rolled out in one go to new entrants and immature and mature careerists alike. I have long been a fan of tapered protection, but the ruling appears to require that even that needs to be justified. I accept that the Forces Pension Society is not a fan of it, based on its unwillingness to rely on it to help redundees sacked so close to getting EDP.
PN, BME = black/minority/ethnicity.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Young judges win pensions discrimination case against MoJ
<<The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) discriminated against younger judges by forcing them to leave their final salary scheme while protecting older judges, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The ruling, which confirmed there had been age, sex and race discrimination, could cost the government up to £118m.
The case could also have knock-on consequences for both public and private sector schemes where younger workers have had reduced defined benefit (DB) pensions than their older counterparts, or no access.
The claim was brought by six High Court judges and 204 Crown Court judges, district judges, sheriffs and tribunal judges, over transitional arrangements when the final salary pension scheme was closed in 2015.
The claimants had argued by forcing younger members to leave the unfunded Judicial Pension Scheme (JPS) in April 2015 - while allowing older judges within 10 years within pensionable age to remain - the then lord chancellor Liz Truss had discriminated against younger workers.
Due to the higher proportion of female and ethnic minority judges in the younger group compared to the older group, High Court judges Dame Lucy Theis and Sir Rabinder Singh also claimed indirect sex and race discrimination.
The JPS provided an income on retirement of a 40th of final pensionable pay, multiplied by the judge's length of service. Members also received a lump sum on retirement after age 65 at two-and-a-quarter times the annual rate. Prior to 2012, the scheme did not require employee contributions.
However, in 2015 younger members were forced to join the New Judicial Pension Scheme which is instead based on a career average accrual model. Employees are required to make contributions, and pension pots accrue at a 43rd of final pensionable pay.
The changes were part of wider reform introduced across all public sector pension schemes in 2015.
In a written ruling on 13 January, the tribunal agreed with the claims, stating the MoJ has "treated and continues to treat the claimants less favourably than their comparators because of their age".
Bindmans partner and head of employment Shah Qureshi, who acted on behalf of the High Court judges, said the government's reforms had not been legitimate.
"The lord chancellor has failed to justify these discriminatory reforms," he said. "These reforms not only discriminate against younger judges but also disproportionately impact on women and ethnic minorities.
"The protection of those closest to retirement at the expense of younger judges was not a legitimate aim nor was it proportionate. Indeed, the tribunal noted that younger judges compelled to join the new scheme are the worst affected by the reforms.
"The judgement also makes clear that there were non-discriminatory alternatives open to the government."
The MoJ had provided a transitional period for judges aged between 51 years and six months and 55, allowing them to remain in the JPS until September 2025 at the latest.
The tribunal added the MoJ had not considered how the cost of this, estimated at £23m, could have been used to provide equal alternative options to all JPS members.
Leigh Day associate solicitor Shubha Banerjee, who represented the 204 other judges, also welcomed the verdict.
"This is a great victory for our clients, many of whom sit alongside older judges who were appointed some years after them but who are, in effect, paid more purely because they are older," she said.
"The fact that there is a significant number of female and black and minority ethnic judges in the younger group simply compounds the unfairness of the changes that were made to judicial pensions."
A government spokesperson said: "We are disappointed by the court's findings and will be considering whether to appeal the judgment."
The case is similar to a separate employment tribunal case where the Fire Brigades Union is alleging members were discriminated against because of their age.
In the case, which is ongoing, younger firefighters were transferred from the Firefighters' Pension Scheme to a new scheme where they will work longer, pay more and receive a reduced pension than older firefighters.>>
I didn't know the FBU was going in to bat on this one. Apologies if you need a log in. Mods, in the event I've breached a copyright provision by pasting that, apols.
Firefighters' case flags age discrimination quandary in pensions
<<The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) discriminated against younger judges by forcing them to leave their final salary scheme while protecting older judges, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The ruling, which confirmed there had been age, sex and race discrimination, could cost the government up to £118m.
The case could also have knock-on consequences for both public and private sector schemes where younger workers have had reduced defined benefit (DB) pensions than their older counterparts, or no access.
The claim was brought by six High Court judges and 204 Crown Court judges, district judges, sheriffs and tribunal judges, over transitional arrangements when the final salary pension scheme was closed in 2015.
The claimants had argued by forcing younger members to leave the unfunded Judicial Pension Scheme (JPS) in April 2015 - while allowing older judges within 10 years within pensionable age to remain - the then lord chancellor Liz Truss had discriminated against younger workers.
Due to the higher proportion of female and ethnic minority judges in the younger group compared to the older group, High Court judges Dame Lucy Theis and Sir Rabinder Singh also claimed indirect sex and race discrimination.
The JPS provided an income on retirement of a 40th of final pensionable pay, multiplied by the judge's length of service. Members also received a lump sum on retirement after age 65 at two-and-a-quarter times the annual rate. Prior to 2012, the scheme did not require employee contributions.
However, in 2015 younger members were forced to join the New Judicial Pension Scheme which is instead based on a career average accrual model. Employees are required to make contributions, and pension pots accrue at a 43rd of final pensionable pay.
The changes were part of wider reform introduced across all public sector pension schemes in 2015.
In a written ruling on 13 January, the tribunal agreed with the claims, stating the MoJ has "treated and continues to treat the claimants less favourably than their comparators because of their age".
Bindmans partner and head of employment Shah Qureshi, who acted on behalf of the High Court judges, said the government's reforms had not been legitimate.
"The lord chancellor has failed to justify these discriminatory reforms," he said. "These reforms not only discriminate against younger judges but also disproportionately impact on women and ethnic minorities.
"The protection of those closest to retirement at the expense of younger judges was not a legitimate aim nor was it proportionate. Indeed, the tribunal noted that younger judges compelled to join the new scheme are the worst affected by the reforms.
"The judgement also makes clear that there were non-discriminatory alternatives open to the government."
The MoJ had provided a transitional period for judges aged between 51 years and six months and 55, allowing them to remain in the JPS until September 2025 at the latest.
The tribunal added the MoJ had not considered how the cost of this, estimated at £23m, could have been used to provide equal alternative options to all JPS members.
Leigh Day associate solicitor Shubha Banerjee, who represented the 204 other judges, also welcomed the verdict.
"This is a great victory for our clients, many of whom sit alongside older judges who were appointed some years after them but who are, in effect, paid more purely because they are older," she said.
"The fact that there is a significant number of female and black and minority ethnic judges in the younger group simply compounds the unfairness of the changes that were made to judicial pensions."
A government spokesperson said: "We are disappointed by the court's findings and will be considering whether to appeal the judgment."
The case is similar to a separate employment tribunal case where the Fire Brigades Union is alleging members were discriminated against because of their age.
In the case, which is ongoing, younger firefighters were transferred from the Firefighters' Pension Scheme to a new scheme where they will work longer, pay more and receive a reduced pension than older firefighters.>>
I didn't know the FBU was going in to bat on this one. Apologies if you need a log in. Mods, in the event I've breached a copyright provision by pasting that, apols.
Firefighters' case flags age discrimination quandary in pensions
