Would you like to have the choice of taking higher take-home pay at the expense of less-generous pension contributions? https://t.co/XDecEiapZ6
— Civil Service World (@CSWnews) July 31, 2024
The government should scrap success profiles and offer civil servants the choice of having higher take-home pay at the expense of less-generous pension contributions, the Institute for Government has said.
The Whitehall-focused think tank has presented Keir Starmer with a 20-point plan to address problems with the civil service that have dogged his prime-ministerial predecessors…
One such measure it puts forward is giving officials the opportunity to choose how pay and pension entitlements are balanced in their reward package as a way to counter the falling value of real-terms pay. It says departments could potentially offset some recruitment difficulties if they were able to give staff the chance to have higher take-home pay at the expense of less-generous pension contributions.
The LGPS already has a 50/50 scheme which allows members who can’t afford full participation to get partial benefits for 50% of the required monthly contribution.
The Civil service equivalent is called Partnership, you can read the details here
Neil Walsh of Prosect points this out on X
Civil servants already have this choice. They can join Partnership, pay no contributions, increase take-home pay, employer pays lower pension contributions.
I do not recommend doing this (if opting for Partnership at least consider if you can afford matching contributions). https://t.co/koQU8kKHmn
— Prospect Pension (@ProspectPension) August 1, 2024
Those who like the idea of Government de-risking its off balance sheet liabilities will favor a flex approach like 50/50 or Partnership. That use of these flex-options is limited suggests that the appetite for better pensions is stronger than for immediate gratification.
But that a leading think-tank has no idea these options exist, suggests that they are low on civil-servants and other public sector’s agenda.
The answer to the question in the title seems yes and no. Yes people want options but “no” they’d rather have better pensions thank you.