Good luck to them …I have never really understood why it’s legal for employerd to change terms of a contract after signing it but if an employee tries to that’s illegal

This ^^
I have some sympathy with firefighters on this one and hope my (ambulance) union, Unison, do something about it. So far they have been totally inept.

The idea that it is acceptable for anyone of the proposed retirement age to be expected to carry out a job involving that level of physical activity is quite frankly ridiculous and will put the lives of all those involved at greater risk. For those smartarses who are saying ‘get another job’, ‘stop getting fat and unfit’ – have you any idea of the training and fitness level required? Have you ever had to lift a person as a dead weight?

I’ve worked for the ambulance service for the past 8 years and there are very few people who retire without work related injuries/ailments at the current age and many are forced out prior to that! As has been pointed out already, an increasing fat population means this will only get worse.

I’ve worked for the ambulance service for the past 8 years and there are very few people who retire without work related injuries/ailments at the current age and many are forced out prior to that! As has been pointed out already, an increasing fat population means this will only get worse.

Use it to your advantage, industrial injury claims, medical retirement etc etc…i intend to make sure my Trust’s changes cost them more than the system they have ditched….

….there was a case in the press recently where a copper sued the person she was called out to because she injured herself during the call or on his property (cant remember the details) but it shows the way forward for Ambulance staff who are being asked to manually handle an increasingly fat population while working into their 60s….its laughable and i intend to cream it from the idiots who thought this up.

My goodwill deserted me when my terms and conditions, pensions etc were all changed without my agreement, by all means change things for new starters but for those of us already paying into a scheme it should be honoured.

The firefirghters can exercise their right to strike if they so wish, that is their decision IMO. I think that both sides are being a little disingenuous in this debate but that doesn’t matter. The most important message that unions should be giving out is (1) yes we will fight for our members’ rights but, and more importantly (2) we will utlimately lose. The best interests of their members should be to explain the reality of the pension time bomb. Every worker in the UK, private and public sector alike, needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The correct advice is to ensure that adequate provision is being made and that those who rely solely on the state are likely to be sadly very disappointed.

The public sector also need to recognise that self-funded schemes are not synonymous with sustainable ones. This is the fallacy of the NHS. Successive governments have ensured that with the skulduggery of removing pensions from the UK’s balance sheet. Many public sector pensions have become little more than ponzi schemes relying on demographic patterns and trends that will no longer exist. So this is what the unions “should” be focused on. Listen members, this scheme is basically *********, you had better start making alternative plans. But on this, the silence is deafening!

Well as ‘we’re all in it together’ how do the firefighters feel about accepting the same pension terms as MP’s?

The firefighters have my full support and I wish them the best of luck. Changing the Ts snd Cs of a pension midway through is unfair and wrong.

millions are accepting longer working hours / less pay/ no pay rises/ less generous pension schemes/ later retirement.

Well, frankly, that’s tough titty for those millions.

why? not because the tories says so but because the buffons Blair and Brown blew every penny the country had and will have for the foreseeable future.

So it wasn’t a global financial crisis caused by a lack of strong regulation of the financial sector in several countries and acts of greed and stupidity on a monumental scale by that same sector, after all then?

At least fire fighters don’t need to look for a new career in their later years – most somehow manage to do two careers for their whole working lives as painters, gardeners, builders etc. the income from which typically isn’t declared. None of the FFs I know do self assessment to declare the additional income.

footflaps – Member
Well I’ve lost 7 years of pension due to my previous employer folding, taking their pension scheme with them and I’m not striking……

There is a government scheme now to ensure you don’t loose those benefits. My father had worked for a company for 20 years and same thing happened prior to the scheme sadly.

On the firefighters , they should be expected to get new jobs after retirement from the fire service just like those in the military do with their pensions kicking in at a normal retirement age like everyone else. They of course do valuable work but that doesn’t divorce them from reality

None of the FFs I know do self assessment to declare the additional income.

Plural of anecdote does not equal fact

And this still has the square root of naff all in relation to the reasons for strike

At least fire fighters don’t need to look for a new career in their later years – most somehow manage to do two careers for their whole working lives as painters, gardeners, builders etc. the income from which typically isn’t declared. None of the FFs I know do self assessment to declare the additional income.

This dispute is about pensions. Seem to be a few jealous people who would like to see others at the bottom of the pile, why the rush to get everyone down there?

Tell HMRC of your concerns is you suspect of tax avoidance. I pay tax,NI etc etc on any other earnings.
Having a 2nd job is no different from my neighbour who works during the day and in the pub at night as a barmaid.

I pay over £350 a month its not like we get the pension free. How much are you paying?

they should be expected to get new jobs after retirement from the fire service just like those in the military do with their pensions kicking in at a normal retirement age like everyone else.

when they singed up for something else. Maybe we should all expect to be paid minimum wage and not have a pension. I don’t mind people having different view points but when the arguments are as dull as this it becomes quite hard.

More of this to come whether we like it or not – we’re all doomed and have been for decades…

http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr123/PMYKP804/?h=true

Maybe pensions should be a flat rate for everyone, regardless of what you earned in your former career?

Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?

If they have saved and paid into their pension, then why not?

Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?

If you pay enough into it then yes.

Do people really need and deserve to receive over and above the national average wage in retirement (from either the public or private purse) because they were well paid when they were working?

If they have worked hard for their entire life towards it, and have been paying into a scheme that promised as such, then clearly, yes.

Used to live next door to a fireman, what a w***er he was. Just like my current neighbour who has a high end job in the council and does about 35 hours a week.
And as for a fireman being a dangerous job? Well they know what they are getting into and no one forced them to become a firefighter. The real heroes in this world were the men and women sent to war.

so you knew a fireman who was a **** so they shouldnt strike. **** me thats poor even by stw standards.

This is the politics of envy right here. It is a very sad, base, thing to see.

Sounds terrible but how did this go through, we abandoned on call at night about 8 years ago because it was breaking working time regulations.

i suspect its breaking Working Time Directive rules, but the union put it to the vote and it went through. gaffers came round and touted that there would be redundancies and the brigade would go pretty much retained if we didnt accept. personally i thought they were bluffing and voted no, but obviously enough feared for their jobs and it still went through.
ive now been labelled a bit of a troublemaker for questioning it and had it held against me im afraid. pretty disillusioned with the job these days, but theres nowt i can do. not that easy to find anything else these days…..

People haven’t paid enough into their pensions and never have, not for the sort of pensions they’ve been promised and expect – that’s the nub of the problem and the crisis the nation faces. The Welfare state and NHS has been a lethal combination of escalating costs we simply can’t afford. Successive governments from the 60’s have failed to tackle this issue and instead chosen, for the sake of trying to carry short term political favour with the electorate, make the problem worse and we may now be in the situation where it is impossible to recover and avoid the inevitable. At worse we’re facing a meltdown that will make Greece look like a minor dispute (our debt levels vs GDP is much worse that Greece). At best, our pensions and savings will be pilfered by the government to bale the nation out.

As a nation we’ve been living beyond our means for decades, and we’ve had a stay of execution over recent years due to low interest rates, but that wont last forever, and when they start to creep up it aint going to be pretty.

I can see why Sadex but ignore the bullies you voted for what you thought was right that’s what a vote is for.

There is a government scheme now to ensure you don’t loose those benefits. My father had worked for a company for 20 years and same thing happened prior to the scheme sadly.

Yep and they are refusing to accept Nortel’s pension fund as the fund debt is something like 10x larger than the government’s compensation scheme, effectively folding the compensation scheme as well…..

that’s the nub of the problem and the crisis the nation faces. The Welfare state and NHS has been a lethal combination of escalating costs we simply can’t afford.

You’re missing the point. Contractually- and if you cast your mind back, you’ll recall that the government had to back down on clawing-back the bankers bonuses, because everything that has any commercial standing needs to stand by contract law- there was an agreement reached that we (that’s the taxpayers, via our proxies, the government) agreed that this pension would be paid.

The nub of argument is not: we’re skint and now we can’t afford it, so you’re getting less. It is: is it fair to retrospectively amend a contract because you can’t now afford it?

Say you employ a builder- you agree a price for a certain type and amount of work- he does the work to your satisfaction- but you then find you’re short of cash to pay him. Is that the builders fault? You had a contract. Is it fair to then shop around for quotes, and you find that a builder down the road would have done to for 30% less, and so thats what you offer as payment?

This is the politics of envy right here. It is a very sad, base, thing to see.

True, but are YOU prepared to pay more in tax to enable the Firemen to retire at their current age/pension?

There is a government scheme now to ensure you don’t loose those benefits.

Yes there is, but I’d suggest you actually go and read the details of how it operates – really only fully protects those who’d already retired, rather than all members of a scheme – and a scheme has to meet certain criteria to be ‘protected’.

And as for a fireman being a dangerous job? Well they know what they are getting into and no one forced them to become a firefighter. The real heroes in this world were the men and women sent to war.

Why? Soldiers knew what they are getting into and no one forced them to become soldiers.

(See? Anyone can come out with disingenuous claptrap).

True, but are YOU prepared to pay more in tax to enable the Firemen to retire at their current age/pension?

if necessary yes, but I’m not sure it is if we would only prioritise certain things over others, like cancelling Trident and scaling back the armed forces even more.

The original FF pension scheme was set up in 1977 after that dispute. There was huge recruitment drive then 000’s taken on due to new shift pattern. Those 000’s of FF contributed hundreds of pounds a month for 25-30yrs into a pension that not many retired from. Fast forward 2005-6-7 onwards they come and tell us there is no money in the pot.
What did the government do with this money? Did they wisely invest it ensuring the monies paid in would be there for the future or did they squander it on other things.

The money I pay in every month is not invested, it pays the pension of those who are retired at present.

As usual the government want others to pay for their inept policies.

bruneep, you’ve answered your own question – there is no “pot” so effectively the current government is very sensibly proposing a change to the rules moving forward. Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.

Even with the new scheme rules, FF will still receive much better terms than the majority of people who generate the tax to pay for them.

So shrug my shoulders and carry on as normal or put up a fight to try and protect something myself and the government agreed to.

There have been talks for over 2yrs now nothing has been achieved.

Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.

No so! they are changing many to a new scheme in 2015.

But how much do these other people you speak of currently pay a month towards their pension?

The money I pay in every month is not invested, it pays the pension of those who are retired at present

Yeah, government pensions are Ponzi schemes. If you get in early enough it’s great but those days are long over.

So shrug my shoulders and carry on as normal or put up a fight to try and protect something myself and the government agreed to.

Pretty much the former, you can get all shouty if you want but it won’t change anything:

1. The monies not there at present, it got spent by many governments.
2. Even if you had a fully invested scheme (which you don’t) you still wouldn’t be able to retire that early with that sort of income without massive government (tax payer)subsidy, look at the returns on the private pension schemes.
3. This government won’t be sympathetic to you, especially as the public aren’t.

It’s about time people realised we’ve all been sold a pup when it comes to pension schemes compounded by poor deregulation of pensions and good ol Gordon’s taxes. It’s got nothing to do with rights, expectations or whatever you were promised (you were lied to) and everything to do with hard cold economics, to have a decent self funded pension you need to put in way, way more money than most of us do or can. Government schemes have only been generous in the past because tax payers massively subsidised them.

It’s got nothing to do with rights, expectations or whatever you were promised (you were lied to) and everything to do with hard cold economics

You’re complicating things: its actually much, much simpler than that- its contract law.

Both parties signed up to an agreement that bound both- now one party wants to vary that agreement. There’s nothing more to it than that.

Pretty much everything that we do wrt obligations and reward is governed by contract law, and there’s nothing novel in any of this, contractually.

Do we stand by our obligations or not? As I said earlier: there was a quiet volte-face when the government discovered that to claw back banker’s bonuses would undermine contract law in general and would set a dangerous precedent. But that’s what’s proposed here, and sold to us by a massive media campaign that says we don’t have the money.

Your contract is worthless when your employer goes bust.

Obviously I’m not sure about the fire service but when I joined the NHS the pension was seperate from my employment contract, you have to opt in.

The got have already shafted the police re pensions, so now its time to take on the fire service.
The BIG difference is that firefighters can strike.
I hope they strike and get the pensions they signed up for, the unions are strong, but. Suspec e give won’t budge
Good luck to all firefighters

Your contract is worthless when your employer goes bust.

local steelfirm went bust then they found out all their pension money had be squanfdered on keeping the firm going, then there was maxwell and the printer.

But the fire men are backed by the local councils,so ifthe local councils just say we dont have the money to pay your pensions then what.

Will the unions have all their funds sequestrated,like what happened with the miners, will somebody put forward legal action after their buisness burns down,will al the fire fighters be sacked unless they adopt the new pension structure like what has happened in many other buissneses, but what ever happens its going to get nasty, and then others will be on the bottom steps of the ladder asking for parity in retirement ages.

bruneep – Member

Previous accrued rights will be retained but all future service is subject to the new scheme rules.

No so! they are changing many to a new scheme in 2015.

I think what he’s saying is that what you have accrued under the old pension will still be paid out on those terms when you retire. From 2015 onwards you’ll accrue pension based on the new system, but the changes won’t be applied retrospectively to service prior to 2015. (This was ruled upon under the ECHR if I remember correctly, and accrued pension came under the right to enjoy your property).

That’s certainly what’s happening to mine – 15yrs worth of the 1987 PPS will get me 33%ish of whatever my final salary happens to be when I retire per annum, plus 15-20 yrs worth of the new CARE pension, something like 1/45th of average salary per annum for each of those 15-20 years (I think, not certain about the accrual rate of the new one). The point is, half my pension, and I assume whatever proportion of years your start of service to 2015 is, will still be based upon final salary.

*I am of course making some assumptions that the changes to the Fire Service Pension are similar to the changes to the Police Pension, so apologies if I’ve got it completely wrong!

The police have been royally shafted with pensions
A p.c with 15 years service , overnight will have to work an extra 7 years for the same pension.
I hope the public will be happy with 60 year old officers trying to protect them, and the same aged firefighters pulling them out of burning buildings
It’s a bloody disgrace.

Dixon of Dock Green was 80 when he retired, and he managed just fine.