# why are we allowed to get away with those large pensions and greece are not?



## NOAH (19 Nov 2011)

When I read about the exorbitant pensions our public service people are getting paid, eg td's  mary harney 130k,,    b cowen 150k, and so on and then I read that greece have slashed pensions and pay in the public service,  why did that not happen here?  We are borrowing hand over fist to pay these forever but it is a financial impossibility to afford these payouts so why do we persist?

A lot of these pensions would cost in the region of 4-6million and would not be allowed in the private sector.  Surely there must be a way they can be clawed back?  It was all very well when the boom was in place but now with cut backs it follows they should be reduced immediately.   

Is it the scenario that in a few years they will just get nothing!!


----------



## oldnick (19 Nov 2011)

Considering how much our new beloved and much applauded President - the man of the people, the socialist, the spouter of high ideals  - is pocketing I think there's little hope that other parasites - politicians and many public servants - will change.


----------



## Birroc (19 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> Is it the scenario that in a few years they will just get nothing!!


 
Yes eventually there will be no road left for kicking the can. The trick is to retire before that happens.


----------



## ontour (19 Nov 2011)

Cancelling the payment of the lump sums would be a good start.  How many people actually 'need' that lump sum on retirement?


----------



## Knuttell (19 Nov 2011)

I certainly will not be defending Mary Harney,Clowen Aherne etc *however* slashing pensions that individuals have long planned their retirement around is both unfair and wrong...*but* paying Clowen an annual pension of what?135k at 51 is just flat out nuts,no politician or civil servant should be able to receive a pension till they hit 67...

Just like the rest of us.


----------



## ontour (19 Nov 2011)

Knuttell said:


> ..... *however* slashing pensions that individuals have long planned their retirement around is both unfair and wrong...



It is not nice but over the last decade bricklayers made plans based on assumptions about the future, as did students, homeowners, estate agents, hoteliers and developers.  Everyone has to accept change.

By changing retirement age, changing lump sums and possibly capping state pensions at €100k, the cost could be dramatically reduced without putting pensioners in to poverty.


----------



## roker (19 Nov 2011)

They have put a USC on my €6,000 private pension to pay these public service people hugh pensions.


----------



## micamaca (19 Nov 2011)

What about the money going to pay minister's spouses pensions and gratuities to their children until the age of 21? No-one annoyed about that? 

I'm bloody horrified and I'm not even living in the country anymore!


----------



## micmclo (20 Nov 2011)

They are our elites, our leaders and gave their lives to public service so you'll shut up and accept it


----------



## NOAH (20 Nov 2011)

Ha, looks like the indo is taking heed of my post.

we have a lot to thank our leaders for and our great socialist has as always shown true colours.  Am I right in assuming the President lives rent free for 7 years plus expenses and still gets paid 250k,  for what??

noah


----------



## Complainer (20 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> When I read about the exorbitant pensions our public service people are getting paid, eg td's  mary harney 130k,,    b cowen 150k, and so on and then I read that greece have slashed pensions and pay in the public service,  why did that not happen here?


We have already slashed pay in the public service here. We've done it twice in fact. 



NOAH said:


> A lot of these pensions would cost in the region of 4-6million and would not be allowed in the private sector.


There are many, many people in the private sector with equivalent and larger pensions, particularly self-employed and business owners who control their own pensions.



NOAH said:


> Is it the scenario that in a few years they will just get nothing!!


This is a very serious issue for public servants, and is leading many public servants I know to opt out of purchasing additional pension years. These Notional Service Purchase schemes are  saving Govt money in the short term by reducing salary payments. If Govt don't provide more security and reassurance about the future, they will find more and more people opting out, so salary payments will increase.

On the broader issue, there is a very strong case for capping very large pension payments, and cancelling pension rights for those under 65.


----------



## Mucker Man (20 Nov 2011)

When was public sector pay slashed? 
They haven't even stopped paying increments.


----------



## Complainer (20 Nov 2011)

Mucker Man said:


> When was public sector pay slashed?


First cut; http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0203/economy.html
Second cut; http://blog.redoaktaxrefunds.ie/budget-2010-public-sector-pay-cuts/


----------



## Mucker Man (20 Nov 2011)

Wasn't one of them a pension levy on your Rolls Royce pension?
Have increments continued to be paid?


----------



## Complainer (20 Nov 2011)

Mucker Man said:


> Wasn't one of them a pension levy on your Rolls Royce pension?
> Have increments continued to be paid?



Increments are paid to those who achieve their performance objectives.

No, the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions. People who get no pension are paying the pension levy.


----------



## Mucker Man (21 Nov 2011)

Fair play Complainer, you have an answer for everything.

The ship is sinking but you're still at the bar trying to get one more free drink before it sinks!!!!


----------



## orka (21 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions. People who get no pension are paying the pension levy.


So if the pension levy was a paycut in disguise and nothing to do with pensions, that means there are many in the public sector who DO get a pension and make no contribution towards it?  That could be an area where the government could get some revenue - asking public sector workers not currently contributing towards their pension to make at least a modest contribution.


----------



## Shawady (21 Nov 2011)

Mucker Man said:


> Wasn't one of them a pension levy on your Rolls Royce pension?


 
To be fair, the previous government were quick to take the pension levy as a cut and say they 'cut pay' 14% to show how tought they were on the public sector.

The pension levy was a fudge. The government could say they cut pay. The unions could say they protected penion entitlements.

Whatever it is, with the pension levy, pay cut and other taxes, the PS wage bill is costing the exchequer a lot less than it did in 2008.


----------



## Complainer (21 Nov 2011)

Mucker Man said:


> Fair play Complainer, you have an answer for everything.


I have this awful bad habit of letting the facts get in the way of a good rant. I promise to work on this for the future.


Mucker Man said:


> The ship is sinking but you're still at the bar trying to get one more free drink before it sinks!!!!


What I'm trying to do is to find serious, credible solutions to our very, very serious crisis - solutions that minimise impacts on public services, and the many, many people who depend on public services.



orka said:


> So if the pension levy was a paycut in disguise and nothing to do with pensions, that means there are many in the public sector who DO get a pension and make no contribution towards it?  That could be an area where the government could get some revenue - asking public sector workers not currently contributing towards their pension to make at least a modest contribution.



You've just made a huge, illogical leap, along the following lines:

Complainer: There's a blue car.
Orka: Ah, all cars are blue, then.

Can I suggest that you educate yourself about the basics of public sector pensions so that we can have a sensible discussion on the subject. Your post above is completely factually wrong. I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on this. Let me know when you've done a bit of research and we can continue the discussion.


----------



## Purple (21 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Increments are paid to those who achieve their performance objectives.
> 
> No, the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions. People who get no pension are paying the pension levy.



I agree that the pension levy was a pay cut, just a dishonest one which (wrongly) didn’t include pensioners but talking about performance objectives as if they have any real impact on the level of increments paid is laughable. Can anyone find out what percentage of PS employees that were eligible for incremental pay rises failed to get them because they didn’t achieve their performance objectives? If the bar is set low enough then everyone can fall over it and if there’s one think unions are good at its setting the bar low.


----------



## Purple (21 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> I What I'm trying to do is to find serious, credible solutions to our very, very serious crisis - solutions that minimise impacts on public services, and the many, many people who depend on public services.


 and yet in nearly 5 thousand posts I have never seen you outline what you think should be done. In fact when asked to do so you decline citing a lack of understanding of the facts by other posters. You are excellent at picking holes in other posters suggestions yet you have never offered your own. 

I hope your attitude is not typical of those working in the public sector. No, I retract that; I am glad that your attitude is not typical of those working in the Public Sector as I believe there has been real progress in reforming now the whole PS operates and that is a result of work done by people with a positive attitude who are willing to engage in constructive discussion. If their attitude was as negative and obstructionist as yours we’d have gone nowhere.


----------



## NOAH (22 Nov 2011)

is it true that no one and i mean no one ever gets dismissed from the PS on poor performance?

noah


----------



## Purple (22 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> is it true that no one and i mean no one ever gets dismissed from the PS on poor performance?
> 
> noah


What's that got to do with pensions?


----------



## Complainer (22 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> is it true that no one and i mean no one ever gets dismissed from the PS on poor performance?
> 
> noah



No, it's not true - another myth.


----------



## Birroc (22 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> No, it's not true - another myth.



Very difficult to get dismissed for poor performance you'll have to admit. Especially if a union member.

I remember a particularly useless and disruptive individual being promoted because it was the only way to get him moved to a new section


----------



## ontour (22 Nov 2011)

Complainer said:


> Increments are paid to those who achieve their performance objectives.



Are all public sector workers subject to performance objectives to obtain increments?

I recall hearing over the last few weeks that a person who receives a review that they did not meet objectives still gets the increment.  I believe that a rating of 3 is meeting objective.  A rating of 2 is a need for improvement but still yields an increment.  There is a rating of 1 which I believe was applied to 11 public sector workers last year.   I would be happy to be corrected that it is the higher achievers that are the recipients of available funds.


----------



## Knuttell (22 Nov 2011)

Birroc said:


> I remember a particularly useless and disruptive individual being promoted because it was the only way to get him moved to a new section





Aren't these numpties normally sent to a rubber room?

To promote such a troublesome individual explains an awful lot about why we are where we are.

My Wife works for the PS and the stories I have heard *just could not* be tolerated in the private sector and yes it is almost virtually impossible to be sacked from the CS/PS.

The Public sector really needs Michael O Leary to go in there and make it efficient,mark my words it will come to that sooner rather than later and honestly most hard working PS workers would be delighted to see someone like him sort out the inefficiencies and sack those that hide behind hard working functioning public servants.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2011)

I think I should preface this post by saying that employees whether public or private should endeavour to do the best job possible.

Having worked across the private sector spectrum I could tell tales of dossing that would make your toes curl - mainly based on consumption of alcohol , gambling , sleeping on the job ( literally ) & attendance at sporting fixtures ( during working hours )

Have I seen people sacked - never , I have seen the very few who were carpeted over various offences reprimanded.

The largest Irish indigenous employers whether public or private have always seemed very forgiving of their less productive employees - perhaps in the hope that maturity , peer pressure & training will improve performance - traditionally firing someone seemed to be the last & little used option.


----------



## shnaek (23 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> is it true that no one and i mean no one ever gets dismissed from the PS on poor performance?
> 
> noah



A certain financial regulator didn't get dismissed for poor performance, but instead ended up with a very handsome payout indeed, and an obscene pension to boot. But maybe the PS definition of poor performance is just different to the dictionary definition.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2011)

shnaek said:


> A certain financial regulator didn't get dismissed for poor performance, but instead ended up with a very handsome payout indeed, and an obscene pension to boot. But maybe the PS definition of poor performance is just different to the dictionary definition.



A payout dwarfed by that paid to Messrs Goggin & Sheedy - perhaps the definition of poor performance is more widespread ?


----------



## shnaek (23 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A payout dwarfed by that paid to Messrs Goggin & Sheedy - perhaps the definition of poor performance is more widespread ?


The culture in the banks and the PS are very very similar. Both are highly unionised. And any time the banks get into trouble the PS move to save them. They may as well be one and the same, both protected sectors.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2011)

shnaek said:


> The culture in the banks and the PS are very very similar. Both are highly unionised. And any time the banks get into trouble the PS move to save them. They may as well be one and the same, both protected sectors.



The rampant greed embedded in our Banking system came to the fore during our boom years when the Banks could not have been seen as anything but Private Sector - that culture could not be more different to the PS who are charged with providing services to the state & it's citizens.

The Government protected the Banks - not the PS.

Both sectors protected - yes but they continue to be hugely culturally diverse.

Messes Goggin & Sheedy were certainly not Union members nor could they ever have been described as Public Sector employees !


----------



## shnaek (23 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The Government protected the Banks - not the PS.


The government is the PS - the ministers are only puppets. Nothing moves without departmental say so. 
But I don't want to come across as anti-PS. There are many fine workers in there. It is not acceptable though, for certain higher PS workers to get payoffs amounting to over half a million upon retirement when we are broke. These are the stories that get highlighted in Europe, and make us look like we are taking the mick.


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2011)

The pay offs to both bankers, top civil servants and Executives in general in the Private, semi-state and public sectors are all disgusting. There is zero accountability when you reach a certain level in this Country. And apparently there is nothing that can be done because they have 'contract entitlements'. Tell that to all the ordinary private and public sector workers who had their t&c's changed. Ask ordinary bank staff who will be lucky to recieve any sort of redundancy package how they feel as the executives in charge waltz off to enjoy their pay offs and pensions. That none of them invested in their own shares I am willing to bet unlike ordinary workers. 

Who do you think Senior Civil Sevants were benchmarking themselves against when they kept bleeting on about how under paid they were.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2011)

Sunny said:


> The pay offs to both bankers, top civil servants and Executives in general in the Private, semi-state and public sectors are all disgusting.
> 
> Who do you think Senior Civil Sevants were benchmarking themselves against when they kept bleeting on about how under paid they were.



big +1 to that.


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2011)

shnaek said:


> It is not acceptable though, for certain higher PS workers to get payoffs amounting to over half a million upon retirement when we are broke.


 
As someone who works in the civil service, I agree.
I can't understand either, why senior secetary generals and politicians can retire so early on full pension. Why not calculate on 40 years service like most people in the public sector.
I think there was a case last week of the SG of Education going at 53, although I believe she did not take some severence pay she was entitled to.


----------



## Firefly (23 Nov 2011)

I can't understand either why any civil service worker gets a tax-free lumpsum when they have a pension that would cost over 1m to fund ready and waiting for them.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> I can't understand either why any civil service worker gets a tax-free lumpsum when they have a pension that would cost over 1m to fund ready and waiting for them.



Because that's what they signed up to when they took the job; job security and a great pension but not massive pay. 
I think the pension levy has gone a long way to putting the whole public sector pension issue to bed. It’s still a great deal but not what it used to be.

The very large pay out’s/pay off’s for people like Neary are the exception, not the rule. The same applies to the top brass in the banks.


----------



## Delboy (23 Nov 2011)

ontour said:


> Are all public sector workers subject to performance objectives to obtain increments?
> 
> I recall hearing over the last few weeks that a person who receives a review that they did not meet objectives still gets the increment.  I believe that a rating of 3 is meeting objective.  A rating of 2 is a need for improvement but still yields an increment.  There is a rating of 1 which I believe was applied to 11 public sector workers last year.   I would be happy to be corrected that it is the higher achievers that are the recipients of available funds.



increments are awarded regardless, until you hit the top of your scale and thats that. Then you either get promoted or wangle a regrading, in which case the increments start again depending where on the new scale you've landed


----------



## Delboy (23 Nov 2011)

Knuttell said:


> Aren't these numpties normally sent to a rubber room?
> 
> To promote such a troublesome individual explains an awful lot about why we are where we are.
> 
> ...



you try not to 'promote' them but sometimes it's the only way to get them moved. Maybe get them a regrading.
Or if your lucky, the section your moving them to has'nt done a 'background check'....i.e. Section X has a vacancy and you may have a surplus/someone who refuses to co-operate with new ways of working etc. You convince them that the move is good for them (some agree that it would be, others will only go if there's a regrading but the new section might'nt agree to that). So you ring the boss at Section X and say you have someone that might be of interest that would be worth talking to about the vacancy. You then cross your fingers and hope that the boss of Section X does'nt start ringing around the org. asking questions about what people have heard of the person in question. The good bosses always do ring around, the less interested don't! The move then happens or not.
And so the merry round goes on as eventually Section X gets in a new boss who immediately see's there's a lot of deadwood in the place......!!!


----------



## Bill Struth (23 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> I can't understand either why *any civil service worker* gets a tax-free lumpsum when they have a pension *that would cost over 1m to fund* ready and waiting for them.


If I retired tomorrow, with 40 years service, at the top of my pay scale my pension would be €18,670 per year before tax, minus the state old age pension.

What age are you expecting me to live to?


----------



## Bill Struth (23 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> *increments are awarded regardless, until you hit the top of your scale and thats that.* Then you either get promoted or wangle a regrading, in which case the increments start again depending where on the new scale you've landed


No, they're not. A colleague of mine would testify to that.


----------



## Delboy (23 Nov 2011)

Bill Struth said:


> No, they're not. A colleague of mine would testify to that.



Well, I've never heard of anyone not getting them- it would be a huge union issue and they'd be afraid of setting a precedent.
Maybe if there was serious disciplinary action been taken against an individual...and even then, I have never seen the increments getting stopped in those circumstances


----------



## Bill Struth (23 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> Well, I've never heard of anyone not getting them- it would be a huge union issue and they'd be afraid of setting a precedent.
> Maybe if there was serious disciplinary action been taken against an individual...and even then, I have never seen the increments getting stopped in those circumstances


Just because you've never heard of something happening doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
The person in question got a low grade in their annual review, increment not approved, and unable to apply for promotion (not that that matters with the current promotion embargo.)


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> I think the pension levy has gone a long way to putting the whole public sector pension issue to bed. It’s still a great deal but not what it used to be.


 
The was a rumour a couple of budgets back that the lump sum was going to be taxed (17.5% I think). Many PS workers I know still think it could come in down the line.
Coupled with new entrant's pensions going to be paid on career average rather than final salary, the pension may not be the rolls royce pension it is often qouted by the media


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> I can't understand either why any civil service worker gets a tax-free lumpsum when they have a pension that would cost over 1m to fund ready and waiting for them.


 
Where are you getting the 1 million figure?
Take someone on a reasonable salary of 60K.
Their lump sum would be 90k and annual pension 30K, which would mean they would have to be retired for 30 years to hit the 1 million mark.
In my case I would have to live to be 97!


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2011)

If I could draw a personal comparison - I am a member of a DB private sector scheme , I was able to retire ridiculously early , I derogated a portion of my final pension & together with the maximum statutory redundancy garnered a six figure lump sum and still emerged with a pension slightly in excess of half of my final salary - I then claimed jobseekers allowance for 18 months & as long as I sign on for credits can eventually claim the OAP ( God willing ) - I should also point out that I received the first tranche of 3% under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 & am due a further increase in April next.

All for salary contributions roughly equivalent to 1/4 of those currently paid by Public Sector employees.

And yes I know I am extremely fortunate - as are the thousands of current pensioners in the scheme.

I am posting this not from any sense of boasting but to show that excellent pensions are also paid to some private sector employees


----------



## Firefly (23 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> I think the pension levy has gone a long way to putting the whole public sector pension issue to bed.



I'm not sure bosco. The recent primetime investigates program on pensions showed a pension of 1m+ would be required in the private sector to match what a typical Garda would receive when retiring.


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2011)

Members of the garda can retire on full pension after 30 whereas civil servants must work 40 years to receive full pension.


----------



## Firefly (23 Nov 2011)

Shawady said:


> Where are you getting the 1 million figure?
> Take someone on a reasonable salary of 60K.
> Their lump sum would be 90k and annual pension 30K, which would mean they would have to be retired for 30 years to hit the 1 million mark.
> In my case I would have to live to be 97!



Hi Shawady,

As per later post, it was shown on Primetime a few weeks back, that someone in the private sector would have to have a pension fund worth over 1m to provide the same pension income as a typical Guarda retiring. There was a lady who had a fund of approximately 200k if I remember correctly and this would only produce 93 euro a week if she retired at 61. I might have the figures out a bit but that was the jist of it.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> Hi Shawady,
> 
> As per later post, it was shown on Primetime a few weeks back, that someone in the private sector would have to have a pension fund worth over 1m to provide the same pension income as a typical Guarda retiring. There was a lady who had a fund of approximately 200k if I remember correctly and this would only produce 93 euro a week if she retired at 61. I might have the figures out a bit but that was the jist of it.


 
Another factor is that the lady you refer to above will in all probability qualify for the OAP on reaching the appropriate age - the Garda won't.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> If I could draw a personal comparison - I am a member of a DB private sector scheme , I was able to retire ridiculously early , I derogated a portion of my final pension & together with the maximum statutory redundancy garnered a six figure lump sum and still emerged with a pension slightly in excess of half of my final salary - I then claimed jobseekers allowance for 18 months & as long as I sign on for credits can eventually claim the OAP ( God willing ) - I should also point out that I received the first tranche of 3% under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 & am due a further increase in April next.
> 
> All for salary contributions roughly equivalent to 1/4 of those currently paid by Public Sector employees.
> 
> ...



Can you say what sector you worked in?


----------



## Delboy (24 Nov 2011)

Bill Struth said:


> Just because you've never heard of something happening doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
> The person in question got a low grade in their annual review, increment not approved, and unable to apply for promotion (not that that matters with the current promotion embargo.)



and just because you've heard of 1 person, that does'nt mean it happens in any way near significant numbers across the civil/public service!


----------



## Sunny (24 Nov 2011)

Purple said:


> Can you say what sector you worked in?


 
I am going to assume banking.


----------



## Firefly (24 Nov 2011)

Bill Struth said:


> If I retired tomorrow, with 40 years service, at the top of my pay scale my pension would be €18,670 per year before tax, minus the state old age pension.



If you take away 11,960 (state pension of 230 x 52) from 18,670 that  leaves 6710 or 129euro per week. Considering the example of the lady in  the prime time report had amassed a fund of 200k yet would only receive  93 euro a week, means that she would need a fund of 280k to match your  pension. In any case, the pension figures you have provided are unlikely  to break the bank. The prime time report based the 1m+ pension value on  a typical Garda retiring after full service.



Bill Struth said:


> What age are you expecting me to live to?



As long as you can like the rest of us!


----------



## Shawady (24 Nov 2011)

Firefly said:


> Hi Shawady,
> 
> As per later post, it was shown on Primetime a few weeks back, that someone in the private sector would have to have a pension fund worth over 1m to provide the same pension income as a typical Guarda retiring. There was a lady who had a fund of approximately 200k if I remember correctly and this would only produce 93 euro a week if she retired at 61. I might have the figures out a bit but that was the jist of it.


 
Could be right but the thing about the garda pension is that they are only contributing for 30 years rather than the norm of 40 years in the civil service. Even in my previous job in private industry the pension was based on 40 years service.

In a general example take two people aged 20. One starts in Garda and retires on full pension at 50 and lives to be 80.
The other starts in civil service and retires on full pension at 60 and lives to be 80.
The garda has had 30 years in work and 30 years in retirement. Whereas the civil servant has 40 years in work and only 20 years in retirement so the garda pension would cost much more to fund.


----------



## Bill Struth (24 Nov 2011)

Delboy said:


> and just because you've heard of 1 person, that does'nt mean it happens in any way near significant numbers across the civil/public service!


 I never said that it does happen in significant numbers.

You said that it _*never*_ happens, I merely pointed out that you were wrong.


----------



## Delboy (24 Nov 2011)

Bill Struth said:


> I never said that it does happen in significant numbers.
> 
> You said that it _*never*_ happens, I merely pointed out that you were wrong.



touché!!!


----------



## NOAH (26 Nov 2011)

and now we hear the ex president gets a pension based on pay before the reductions!!  wow i would have loved to work in an evironment like that.  oops I forgot it is our money theyare thwowing away and we know how we are perceived by those in government .. idiots, tell them anything and they will vote for you.

How can any pension department worth its salt not realise that a pension is assessed on the salary applicable at the time of retirement and not one that was in place 2 years ago.

It beats me how they get away with and now I hear that other individual CARDIFF is saying we should have outside  supervision, how droll, he did not say a lot about outside supervision when he was in situ.

very worrying and we are heading towards a society where its all about money and morals just go out he window.

A pension of 160,000 is an awful lot of reward when those salaries rocketed under false pretences.


----------



## Complainer (26 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> How can any pension department worth its salt not realise that a pension is assessed on the salary applicable at the time of retirement and not one that was in place 2 years ago.


I share your concern about these outrageous pensions, but don't blame the administrators. They don't make the rules.


----------



## NOAH (27 Nov 2011)

I would like to see the rule that states if your pay is reduced 2 years before you retire don't worry we will ensure your pension will be based on the highest salary possible for as you know its not our money really and we don't care!!  I don't believe such a rule exists but there is a cancer at the heart of our institutions that has one rule for themselves and sod the rest of us.  All those salaries were awarded in a time of largesse and pay back time should be now. 

noah


----------



## Complainer (27 Nov 2011)

NOAH said:


> I would like to see the rule that



You can find all the rules at ; http://cspensions.gov.ie/


----------



## NOAH (29 Nov 2011)

that is called a made up rule i.e it was concocted on the spot as a cop out,  bear in mind the government at the time knew full well the country was in the mire but old habits die hard, viz well we wont be in power much longer but lets make sure we get as good a deal as possible.  The pension rule that should have been applied was that that was contained in their contractual terms before 2009. 

It is for behaviour such as this that all our TD'S would fight tooth and nail to prevent fiscal unity as they could no longer pull strokes such as this.

The reduction on higher pensions announced today by the current group,  I refuse to call them a government they are not worthy,  is no doubt because of pressure from the IMF and the 20% is only a start.  Just imagine a german reading of those pensions and  then being asked to bail us out!!

thanks for link


----------

