Should we accept the test of ‘adequate’ or like the living wage, we have campaigned for, shouldn’t pensions be about providing a ‘living’ pension rather than an ‘adequate existence’ in our retirement?
Should we accept turning the clock back decades (if not in fact by over a century) by transferring poverty in work to poverty into retirement by failing to address the critical issue of affordability – not for employers but for employees.
Any two tier scheme will not provide equity but will simply mean that many will retire with inadequate pensions and be forced into reliance on ever-decreasing top-up benefits.
And where or where or where is any serious trade union analysis of the impact of career average schemes on women workers?
The pension analysts will have you believe that career averaging will transfer some of the pension pot from the highest pensioners to the lowest paid and the ‘medium fliers’ will not be affected a great deal. A flattening out of pensions in comparisons to the contributions made and proportion of income. It all sounds good. But we have yet to see how this will work for women who have taken career breaks, worked a substantive part of their careers on a part time basis or are in jobs where the greater proportion of income relies on over-time payments, often excluded from the pensionable pay calculation.
Until we have a concrete analysis of these issues we should avoid being seduced by the language of fairness.
Remember the profile of UNISONs members, women in both full time and part time work, is markedly different to that of other public sector unions. First and foremost we should be representing ALL OUR MEMBERS interests. Trade offs on career average schemes may well fall short of that critical test.
Anna Rose
