I don't like the expression "through no fault of their own" in relation to eligibility for the supplementary pension.
Good morning, Mr Ghoul - and thanks for endorsing the right to free speech!
On your specific point in relation to
"through no fault of their own" I think you probably are overly apprehensive. Social Welfare payments based on PRSI are administered by a separate Dept., as we all know, and qualifying criteria and administrative arrangements change from time to time (in general, not specifically for retiring public servants). This phrase covers any changes the Dept. of Social Welfare may make at any time - of which there have been several since the scheme for the Supplementary was originally introduced.
For example, a State Pension used to be payable at 65 (the Transition Pension) and Supplementary would have been expected to end after that. Now it is 66 and in a few years it will be 67. So "through no fault of their own" a retiree will not be eligible for a Welfare payment (at least this one) before 67. Supplementary will be payable to 67 at that point.
However, if a retiree didn't bother applying for a State Pension or filled out the forms incorrectly and thus didn't get it for 12 months then it would be their own fault - and they couldn't expect to remain on the Supplementary in the meantime.
Additionally (and purely speculatively) the Dept of Social Welfare could introduce new administrative procedures for drawing the State Pension at any point (eg, register electronically and sign in once a month. This is only hypothetical and not one I think likely). Whatever such changes might be, it would be up to the retiree to satisfy them - they could not claim a Supplementary as they had failed to qualify as a result of not following the new administrative procedures. On the other hand ( and totally unlikely - to impossible) if Social Welfare declared that only private sector PRSI counted towards State Pension henceforth, then a retiree who didn't qualify for a pension as a result would continue to be eligible for Supplementary as it would be "through no fault of their own".
I don't like the idea of signing on for JSB while being retired and not available for work.
Then I don't think you have to. You will, however, have to apply and if you indicate clearly that you are not looking for work then you will be refused Jobseekers. You will not qualify for a Social Welfare payment "through no fault of your own". You can then apply for Supplementary. Just to be aware though that you will not be able to sign for PRSI credits in this event also. This will not disadvantage you financially
relative to a D because in the, probably unlikely, event that your subsequent State Pension at 67 turned out to be below the value of the Supplementary then you would qualify for a partial supplementary to bring you up to this level. However, a PRSI record between 60 and 66 may well give you a higher State Pension. So you could lose out in this way.
I should say that this is from my reading of the documentation and, also, some Union documents. My only direct experience of this (going straight on to Supplementary) relates to a Dept of Ed employee who retired as a D but who had substantial earlier service as an A (pre-1995) that she was able to buy back at retirement. She received an Occupational Pension based on her total service (ie, the A and D calculated separately and then added together), plus a Supplementary based on her A service, as she was not working after retirement. Receiving Jobseekers was not relevant as she retired as a D but she did have to get documentation from Social Welfare confirming she was not eligible for any payment. I have to say that Education seemed to handle all this fairly seamlessly. The relevant section of their website is the clearest on this issue that I am aware of ( Links :
https://www.education.ie/en/Educati...aching-Staff/Supplementary-Pensions/FAQs.html ;
https://www.education.ie/en/Educati...Staff/Supplementary-Pensions/Information.html).
Otherwise, I am aware of some who have taken the Jobseekers and Credits route. They were with smaller employers who, as you say, seemed not to be as familiar with all the issues and some more persistence was required - but there was not denial or direct resistance, However, I would say that the employer's preference seemed to be that the Jobseeker's route be followed first - no doubt because payment of the Supplementary came from their own budget. They would, I think, much prefer still that there was no application for Supplementary at all and the person engaged in work after retirement or stayed in work. But the scheme is there and they must work it. If they really resisted (not that I am aware of same) there is the route of the Pension's Ombudsman. In reality, I suspect most people remain in work post 60 (whether A or D) but I don't have any figures for this.
QUOTE="The Ghoul, post: 1585760, member: 34949"]If Early Riser thinks that getting militant over this is a bad idea then he's entitled to that viewpoint. I somewhat disagree.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the overall scheme is for changing - nor do I think it is a bad scheme in the overall shape of things. However, I do agree that that provision of information (and administrative clarity) is very lacking generally and I think Unions should be pressing employers on this - and should do much more themselves also. This is, in my opinion, where the pressure should be.