Pensions merited

Pensions merited

Pensions merited

First published in Letters by

IT would appear that letter writer Keith Chapman thinks that our police, fire brigade and ambulance service should have the same pension provision as our armed forces.

That’s fine if they really are as fit as our soldiers, are prepared to fly off at 24 hours’ notice to anywhere in the world and are not allowed to call strikes.

While we have the armed forces in mind, if York Castle Museum is running articles on the First World War, could they please show pictures of modern men in uniform that accurately depicts the smart, well-turned out military men of the time.

Not some scruffy individual with several weeks of unkempt facial growth and clueless on how to wear a uniform (The Press, August 19).

Ernest Sawdon, Whernside Avenue, York.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:03pm Mon 25 Aug 14

BAJNY says...

Is it not up to the police, and their union if they have one, to negotiate the level of pensions. If Mr. Sawdon thinks the TOTAL compensation level including pension costs is too high that is one thing & he should make his case, but the proportion of that compensation cost going into pensions is not really his business.
Is it not up to the police, and their union if they have one, to negotiate the level of pensions. If Mr. Sawdon thinks the TOTAL compensation level including pension costs is too high that is one thing & he should make his case, but the proportion of that compensation cost going into pensions is not really his business. BAJNY
  • Score: 3

6:50pm Mon 25 Aug 14

ak7274 says...

Of course it's his business. He along with millions of others pay into the Government coffers to subsidies all Public sector pensions.
Whether he is right is another matter. I agree with him by the way.
Of course it's his business. He along with millions of others pay into the Government coffers to subsidies all Public sector pensions. Whether he is right is another matter. I agree with him by the way. ak7274
  • Score: -3

9:50pm Mon 25 Aug 14

BAJNY says...

What I said is that the allocation between pensions and other forms of compensation is the business of the individual and his union, if he has one. Clearly the TOTAL amount which the city or other public employer pays out is the taxpayer's business; I never suggested otherwise.

It is not correct that "e along with millions of others pay into the Government coffers to subsidies(sic) all Public sector pensions." There is no subsidy in public-sector pensions: just an allocation of the total compensation package.
What I said is that the allocation between pensions and other forms of compensation is the business of the individual and his union, if he has one. Clearly the TOTAL amount which the city or other public employer pays out is the taxpayer's business; I never suggested otherwise. It is not correct that "[h]e along with millions of others pay into the Government coffers to subsidies(sic) all Public sector pensions." There is no subsidy in public-sector pensions: just an allocation of the total compensation package. BAJNY
  • Score: 1

5:29am Wed 27 Aug 14

ak7274 says...

Go on then, do explain....I would like to know where the employers part of public sector pensions come from if not the tax payer.
Go on then, do explain....I would like to know where the employers part of public sector pensions come from if not the tax payer. ak7274
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 27 Aug 14

BAJNY says...

I thought I had offered a simple enough explanation. Obviously not, so let me try to simplify the issue even more.

When the city, or any other public employer establishes or negotiates the total amount to be spent on public employees’ compensation, it faces a second follow-up problem: how much of the package is to go to pensions and other benefits, and how much remains for salary.

If ak7274 thinks the whole package is too high, i.e.. that public employees are over-compensated, he may be right and he should make his case. I certainly do not have enough facts to argue the point; I wonder too whether he does.

The problem is that ak7274 is not saying that. He is saying that public pensions standing alone are too high. The logic(?) of his position is that if pensions stayed the same but salaries were halved, the taxpayers would still have a problem. That is absurd on its face.
I thought I had offered a simple enough explanation. Obviously not, so let me try to simplify the issue even more. When the city, or any other public employer establishes or negotiates the total amount to be spent on public employees’ compensation, it faces a second follow-up problem: how much of the package is to go to pensions and other benefits, and how much remains for salary. If ak7274 thinks the whole package is too high, i.e.. that public employees are over-compensated, he may be right and he should make his case. I certainly do not have enough facts to argue the point; I wonder too whether he does. The problem is that ak7274 is not saying that. He is saying that public pensions standing alone are too high. The logic(?) of his position is that if pensions stayed the same but salaries were halved, the taxpayers would still have a problem. That is absurd on its face. BAJNY
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree