RAF Pensions to change

[Realist78]

Firstly, what 2 sides to the argument?? Firemen joined the Service to save lives and they had no problem with turning their backs on that!!
Secondly, Firemen are not exactly under paid or worked hard are they??

Lastly, "we" covering for them is very bloody relevant!! I came back from an OOA, only to be dumped as a part time Fireman days later. I certainly thought it was RELEVANT!!!

Firemen = Lazy, greedy, workshy foxes. Nice work if you can get it, but I'd rather be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning, and not wonder whether my strike action cost someone their life.

Not being a professional firefighter, you don't know the details of the circumstances that led to them striking.

That has to be down to Sh1te management either at your section or Stn level. Failing that, life in a blue suit and all that!

Did their action cost lives? Impossible to know IMO.

 

[Leckie1]

Not being a professional firefighter, you don't know the details of the circumstances that led to them striking.

That has to be down to Sh1te management either at your section or Stn level. Failing that, life in a blue suit and all that!

Did their action cost lives? Impossible to know IMO.

Not sure either, but that's why I said "wonder whether my strike action cost someone their life".

No I'm not a professional fire-fighter, but I did a pretty good impression of one!! Would like to see the little cherubs get on a plane to Iraq and do my job. (Not bloody likely).

What rubbish are you spouting out anyway?? They were striking because their greedy union told them to, nothing more and nothing less. And it was their decision to follow their union’s advice. Please don't give it the "I don't know why they were striking bollox". I'm not some whipper snapper who doesn't know whats going on.

Or maybe you can enlighten me??

Fire-fighters (and I use that term loosely), had been on easy street for years. 4 days off, fully manned overnight even though the vast majority of fires are in the day and basically taking the pish. So low and behold, their bosses said enough is enough, and decided on big changes. Greedy fire-fighters then asked for £25,000 a year salary (up from about £21,000), and when they didn't get it the greedy barstewards striked.

It might very well have been $hite management at station level or whatever, but the fact remains, the greedy lazy firemen's decision to strike, impacted on allot of people’s lives including over worked members of the armed forces. (Who were earning significantly less than said greedy fire-fighters).

I and my fellow professional servicemen and woman, got on with the job in hand. (And for the record, it's NOT a hard job).

So please don't talk down to me about not knowing the reasons why they striked.

Did you cover the strikes??
I was covering a very busy part of Liverpool for the record, and some of the fire-fighters attitude towards the servicepersons was shocking.
Some of them would not have cared a toss, if people had died. I can say that because I was there and I witnessed it. (Tried to stop us taking one of their appliances to a major fire.........fecking to$$ers)

 

[busby1971]

Off Topic

Off Topic

The Unionisation and strike action of the various Fire Brigades has very little to do with the change on the table for RAF Pensions, feel free to start a new thread or take it to PM.

 

[Leckie1]

The Unionisation and strike action of the various Fire Brigades has very little to do with the change on the table for RAF Pensions, feel free to start a new thread or take it to PM.

You are quite right busby. However, everytime a thread comes up about RAF pensions, certain people take great pleasure it telling us how we are doomed, due to the fact that the fire service have been shafted.

I also see no relevance between the two.

Lastly, you say changes to the RAF pension are on the table......have I missed something ??

Cheers

 

[Realist78]

Not sure either, but that's why I said "wonder whether my strike action cost someone their life".

No I'm not a professional fire-fighter, but I did a pretty good impression of one!! Would like to see the little cherubs get on a plane to Iraq and do my job. (Not bloody likely).

What rubbish are you spouting out anyway?? They were striking because their greedy union told them to, nothing more and nothing less. And it was their decision to follow their union’s advice. Please don't give it the "I don't know why they were striking bollox". I'm not some whipper snapper who doesn't know whats going on.

Or maybe you can enlighten me??

Fire-fighters (and I use that term loosely), had been on easy street for years. 4 days off, fully manned overnight even though the vast majority of fires are in the day and basically taking the pish. So low and behold, their bosses said enough is enough, and decided on big changes. Greedy fire-fighters then asked for £25,000 a year salary (up from about £21,000), and when they didn't get it the greedy barstewards striked.

It might very well have been $hite management at station level or whatever, but the fact remains, the greedy lazy firemen's decision to strike, impacted on allot of people’s lives including over worked members of the armed forces. (Who were earning significantly less than said greedy fire-fighters).

I and my fellow professional servicemen and woman, got on with the job in hand. (And for the record, it's NOT a hard job).

So please don't talk down to me about not knowing the reasons why they striked.

Did you cover the strikes??
I was covering a very busy part of Liverpool for the record, and some of the fire-fighters attitude towards the servicepersons was shocking.
Some of them would not have cared a toss, if people had died. I can say that because I was there and I witnessed it. (Tried to stop us taking one of their appliances to a major fire.........fecking to$$ers)

I was playing Devil's Advocate and saying that there is always 2 sides to the argument. I wasn't talking down to you but you have obviously got a bitter memory of YOUR experience during the fireman's strike, live with your chip. However, WTF has this got to do with our pension? Back to that topic for me.

 

[metimmee]

You are quite right busby. However, everytime a thread comes up about RAF pensions, certain people take great pleasure it telling us how we are doomed, due to the fact that the fire service have been shafted.

I also see no relevance between the two.

Lastly, you say changes to the RAF pension are on the table......have I missed something ??

Cheers

To be fair on 'certain people', he's been saying this for a long time, a long time before the financial collapse and the SDSR. He has always maintained that while our pension is protected by legislation, legislation can be changed. I was sceptical at the time but judging by the murmurs coming out of govt, I am beginning to feel he maybe right.

 

[Leckie1]

I was playing Devil's Advocate and saying that there is always 2 sides to the argument. I wasn't talking down to you but you have obviously got a bitter memory of YOUR experience during the fireman's strike, live with your chip. However, WTF has this got to do with our pension? Back to that topic for me.

You had to have a couple of last dig's before signing off, didn't you ?
So I will bite.

Okay, you are probably right, I did see enough to have a dim view of fire-fighters.
No chip though, just pee's me off to have them constantly pointing out that if their pension has been screwed then we are next. It's as if they are wishing it on us.
And as for Bitter memories, unless you were there and covered the strikes, I'd keep my mouth shut. It's the sort of experience that only others who did it, can have any sort of idea of what went on.
Bit like me gobbing off about the Falkland's, wasn't there so wouldn't do it.
Anyway, back to topic hey DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Leckie1]

To be fair on 'certain people', he's been saying this for a long time, a long time before the financial collapse and the SDSR. He has always maintained that while our pension is protected by legislation, legislation can be changed. I was sceptical at the time but judging by the murmurs coming out of govt, I am beginning to feel he maybe right.

metimmee, why keep going on about a pension scheme that is totally different to ours ?? (not you by the way)
I stand by the argument that, if they could have changed ours, they would have done so by now.
I totally agree that the pension scheme offered to future HM Forces personell will be very different to whats on offer right now, BUT I also strongly believe (and I have not seen or heard anything official to the contrary), that our current schemes are safe. IMO.

Now we can all doom monger and say this and that, but the fact remains this, our pension scheme has NOT been touched and the fire-fighters has.

 

[metimmee]

metimmee, why keep going on about a pension scheme that is totally different to ours ?? (not you by the way)
I stand by the argument that, if they could have changed ours, they would have done so by now.
I totally agree that the pension scheme offered to future HM Forces personell will be very different to whats on offer right now, BUT I also strongly believe (and I have not seen or heard anything official to the contrary), that our current schemes are safe. IMO.

Now we can all doom monger and say this and that, but the fact remains this, our pension scheme has NOT been touched and the fire-figfhters has.

I hope you're right Leckie. One thing is for sure, if change is going to happen it'll happen soon since the mood of the people is one of acceptance for cuts.

 

[firestorm]

Who does now?

Depends on the brigade.

Some use these people.
http://www.assetco.com/Our-Clients.aspx
London have paid them £9m for a 5 year contract.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/...rket-news-detail.html?announcementId=10104124

Leckie, you say you'd like to see us doing your job? When I look around my colleagues and see the medal ribbons, it appears that many of us have.
4 days off? depends on were you work and what shift you're on. Just remember you've already worked 9 hours of your first day off. The same way you get a 3 day weekend, after all if you have an early knock Friday you'll have worked less than 9. You say its not a hard job yet you did less than 10% of what we do and you did that to a very basic standard, no criticism impliedor intended.
I'm not wishing to see your pension screwed, I'd love to see it enhanced as I've said on this thread many times before.
You went on to say that your pension hasn't been touched but ours has. Well we faced the same changes with transfers to the new scheme at exactly the same time as yours did. Now we're all in the same review by John Hutton at the same time too. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[chiprafp]

Guys,

I follow this thread for information on any proposed changes to the RAF pension and the debate surrounding it, not for a whinge aboout the Fire Service and the rights and wrongs of them striking or what their conditions are. If you want to talk about that please start a thread on it.

Cheers

Chip

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

Back on the original topic for a little while:

A number of posters are concerned that currently serving personnels' pensions may be affected as a result of the Hutton pension review.

Well, it may be the case - and only time will tell - but I'd suggest that it would be unprecedended to attack pension rights accrued already.

To date, as far as I'm aware - no British government has ever directly reduced any public pension for existing members of that particular scheme, whether it's the civil service pension scheme, teachers, NHS, Police or Firefighters, etc.

Most sources I've read over the last couple of months have either ignored that aspect of the debate or have declared that it will only affect future accrual of pension 'pots'.

Spotted this today:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bf8c5d4c-eb2c-4cab-b928-8818e130d741


"In broad terms, the review will consider:

• the gap between public service and private sector pension provision,
• future pension provision and fairness across the public sector workforce,
• how risk should be shared between the taxpayer and employee, and
• wider government policy intended to encourage people to save for retirement in the context of their longer working lives."

"Public sector workers may take a modicum of comfort in the Government’s confirmation that accrued pension rights will be protected. Statute generally protects pension benefits which have already built up – although parties are still free to agree changes to the employment contract amongst themselves – and so Parliamentary involvement will be required for any changes to these benefits. The Government has emphasised its policy aims of protecting lower paid workers, and the review is set to be conducted in this context. The focus is largely on ensuring that future pensions arrangements over the long-term are fair to both the public service workforce and the taxpayer, and it is anticipated that tighter controls will apply to the upper echelons of the public sector workforce."

Although, this only suggests that "Statute generally protects pension benefits which have already built up"....DT_Xtremez_42:

The bottom line is that all this debate is currently speculative at best, divisive at worst - just look back a few posts to see the result of the old adage - "divide and conquer"...

Don't get me wrong - I've no doubt that ALL of the current (and future)reviews will drive for lower costs, let's face it, "they" never make us better off, if they can help it.

I'd be more worried about the Hutton PAY review - that WILL affect everyone in their pockets - straight away...
DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Leckie1]

Back on the original topic for a little while:

A number of posters are concerned that currently serving personnels' pensions may be affected as a result of the Hutton pension review.

Well, it may be the case - and only time will tell - but I'd suggest that it would be unprecedended to attack pension rights accrued already.

To date, as far as I'm aware - no British government has ever directly reduced any public pension for existing members of that particular scheme, whether it's the civil service pension scheme, teachers, NHS, Police or Firefighters, etc.

Most sources I've read over the last couple of months have either ignored that aspect of the debate or have declared that it will only affect future accrual of pension 'pots'.

Spotted this today:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bf8c5d4c-eb2c-4cab-b928-8818e130d741


"In broad terms, the review will consider:

• the gap between public service and private sector pension provision,
• future pension provision and fairness across the public sector workforce,
• how risk should be shared between the taxpayer and employee, and
• wider government policy intended to encourage people to save for retirement in the context of their longer working lives."

"Public sector workers may take a modicum of comfort in the Government’s confirmation that accrued pension rights will be protected. Statute generally protects pension benefits which have already built up – although parties are still free to agree changes to the employment contract amongst themselves – and so Parliamentary involvement will be required for any changes to these benefits. The Government has emphasised its policy aims of protecting lower paid workers, and the review is set to be conducted in this context. The focus is largely on ensuring that future pensions arrangements over the long-term are fair to both the public service workforce and the taxpayer, and it is anticipated that tighter controls will apply to the upper echelons of the public sector workforce."

Although, this only suggests that "Statute generally protects pension benefits which have already built up"....DT_Xtremez_42:

The bottom line is that all this debate is currently speculative at best, divisive at worst - just look back a few posts to see the result of the old adage - "divide and conquer"...

Don't get me wrong - I've no doubt that ALL of the current (and future)reviews will drive for lower costs, let's face it, "they" never make us better off, if they can help it.

I'd be more worried about the Hutton PAY review - that WILL affect everyone in their pockets - straight away...
DT_Xtremez_42:

Best post on this thread yet. Accurate and factual information with no doom mongering.

Their WILL be changes to future pension schemes and NO-ONE disputes that, but reletness negativity is not welcome (not by me anyway).

I get quite defensive about this subject because it will have a GREAT effect on my quality of life for many years to come.

Nice work Ex-splitter and proudDT_Xtremez_30:

 

[busby1971]

Now that we are back on topic

Now that we are back on topic

Here's a linky from the FPS about changing from RPI to CPI.

This change is worth over a hundred thousand pounds to a typical early service leaver and within the RAF hurts those leaving at 40 more than those who progress further up the career ladder.

Link to money lost story

Lots of things are being cut at the moment, as there is momentum to do so, nothing is safe within the public sector.

 

[Realist78]

This is one of the reasons why I am looking at banging out, 5 years before my 22.

I have to say that your decision is not an easy one at all. However, that feeling you get when you wake up in the morning of your 22 year point is one of the most satisfying ever, thinking that the pension is in the bag etc, switch to don't give a fcuk mode if that's what you fancy. The trouble is, are we bombproof anymore? Don't know the answer to that one but I do grow more uneasy at every review of the way we do business, they only review to cut!

 

[smallesttradeintheRAF]

Could/would only get away with that on any new pension scheme to be introduced, wont affect anything you already have "Earnt" under AFPS 75 or 05.

Ref gratuities being taxed - this was put through in 2006 for all gratuity accrued after 2006 would be taxable. All accrued before 2006 was non taxable.
This, AFAIR, was abruptly stop in Parliament because of the current conflicts and what effect it would have on moral etc. However, this stoppage was on for a review, which we have yet to see materialize.

Reference the changing of AFPS 75, this 'cannot' be change for those currently on it because of the clause stating it cannot be change by Act of Parliament, only by HM Queen, or words to that effect. This was removed for AFPS 05. All I can say is, poor, poor kids coming on after us as they will not see any of the benefits we all have.

Mind you, they'll possibly see the end of the RAF anyway.

 

[Realist78]

Ref gratuities being taxed - this was put through in 2006 for all gratuity accrued after 2006 would be taxable. All accrued before 2006 was non taxable.
This, AFAIR, was abruptly stop in Parliament because of the current conflicts and what effect it would have on moral etc. However, this stoppage was on for a review, which we have yet to see materialize.

Reference the changing of AFPS 75, this 'cannot' be change for those currently on it because of the clause stating it cannot be change by Act of Parliament, only by HM Queen, or words to that effect. This was removed for AFPS 05. All I can say is, poor, poor kids coming on after us as they will not see any of the benefits we all have.

Mind you, they'll possibly see the end of the RAF anyway.

Any reference to this?

 

[smallesttradeintheRAF]

Any reference to this?

Try this and this a slight reference to this

 

[Realist78]

Try this and this a slight reference to this

Thanks for that.DT_Xtremez_19:

 

[nomad]

Here's the latest rumour that i've seen. It's taken from an email i received yesterday that's been doing the rounds amoung the officer types.

"Pension to become contributary, the figure being discussed at the moment is 6% of your gross pay! However this is for people on AFPS-05 not AFPS-75. The reason being, AFPS-05 was an act of parliament and can be changed, AFPS-75 was by Royal Decree and we hold grandad rights and therefore cannot be changed. The downside is that, if you get promoted, it will be part of the package, to transfer to the new scheme."

Goes on to mention the possibility of gratuity being taxed too. Frightening times guys, 6% of gross pay is about £170 per month for me. No way i can afford the mortgage if that happens!