But why should they..... My point is if they have worked for 25 or 30yrs in service to the public in this role that I don't think many take the time to grasp the magnitude of, or how valuable these men and women are in our society then why can they not retire at 55?
The benchmark of 60 is all well and good but when you take into account the physical and mental pressure this role requires then I cannot understand why it is not seen as acceptable to allow them time to carry on.

Look at army pensions and how they compare...
When you join the Armed Forces, you will automatically be enrolled into the scheme - and you won't be asked to pay a penny
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65
Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension linked to their final salary, a tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army and a second lump sum when they turn 65
The pension scheme will change on 1 April 2015 and from this date Reserve Forces will also be automatically enrolled'

That's whether you have seen active service or not...

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20101.aspx


The current Armed Forces pension scheme has two main sections, for those who joined between 1975 and 2005 and those who joined afterwards.

In both cases the normal pension age is 55.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that only 2% of those who serve in the Armed Forces do so until that age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19070222

There aren't enough fire prevention jobs for every firefighter over 55 is my guess, the are able to still 'retire' from service but the pension will not be payable till they reach 60.

The army has been cut to the bone by this government. I don't see a whiney thread about that... and like the police the army isn't allowed to strike. The army has absolutely ****-all to do with this thread or this topic.

Don't insult me please, it's relevant due to to the shared issue of having their pension age moved recently by this government, yes they have been cut to the bone; I didn't say it was right... but they are the provisos for pensions for them.
The firefighters are in a position to have a body who can negotiate terms, it's not a disgrace they do, it's a disgrace the police and the army don't.
Note though the discrepancies, full pension following 18yrs service, there are no pension contributions at all.
I would never suggest that one service is more deserving than another, the government however have I feel devalued the work the fire service do due to this treatment.

Oh Kizzy, for someone so rude, you're so sensitive!

You chose the army. I wonder why...? Why not the police? The Police can retire at 55 and do retire at 60, much earlier than civvies and the police had a body to fight for them. The army has no relevance on this topic at all but you drag them in. You have all day long to Google this stuff, I'm surprised you don't put up a better argument.

I'm not being drawn out here livia, if you don't want to debate the topic you don't have to comment.
There's no need to read into my posts things that aren't there.

Is that so.

"Before 2010, firefighters already contributed one of the highest proportions of their salary towards their pensions (11%), and in April this increased for the third year running.

"Firefighters typically now pay over £4,000 a year from a £29,000 salary, and the government has announced they will impose further increases in 2015," said the union.

The FBU said increasing numbers of its members were considering leaving the pension scheme as a result of its decreasing affordability, posing difficult questions over its sustainability.

Under the government's proposals, firefighters who are forced to retire before the age of 60 as a result of ageing will have half of their pension taken away, according to the FBU.

The fact that they are contributing annually shows this is not free money they receive as a pension is it? If during service between 55 and 60 they are injured then they are no longer entitled to a full pension... is that right or fair?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...nment-pensions

You could start one if you feel strongly about it I suppose :shrug:

Making a thread about a current news topic can hardly be described as "whiney".

I think whether it is the Armed forces, the Police or the firefighters,this pathetic excuse for a government has simply made an almighty mess of virtually all of its dealings and plans for them too.
As I mentioned in a previous post,in dealings with special services particularly but indeed with everyone, being dismissive,authoritarian and arrogant is not ever,in all probability,going to bring positive results.

I think what this government has done as to the armed forces borders on betrayal of them and the obscene,despite the warnings from those in the know they just dismiss it all as they do with the firefighters too.

How I think it will play out, it's how it's playing out for other uniformed services...

1They change the pension age then announce 'redundancies'
2 the staff on the contracts with the lower pension age are removed affecting their pension
3 there is a recruitment drive.

You can't fill a position that's been made redundant (legally)... The position MUST cease to exist. If you're made "redundant" and then someone is hired in your place then you're pretty much guaranteed a large amount of compensation if you take the organisation to court. I have a friend who faced this recently, they made her redundant when she became pregnant presumably to avoid maternity pay - but then immediately hired a replacement. They ended up having to pay her full maternity pay plus a year's salary as a lump sum.

Although, it's the government, they usually don't bother playing by their own rules.

Hold on a second... I was under the impression that these pension contributions were voluntary! This sort of changes the situation from my perspective... Workplace based pension schemes are crap. All of them are crap! No one should have one if at all optional - TAKE that money and use it specifically to ensure that you're set up for retirement. Private pension schemes are better... Or if you're not thick... Simply investing well for yourself is better.

Build your own retirement fund and then retire whenever you feel like you're set to do so.

That is the solution here. They should tell them to jam their pensions scheme up their arse, invest £4000 a year for themselves, and retire whenever they feel like it.

This may be over simplistic based on the fact that most people have little to zero knowledge of how to conduct their own finances properly and would like a simple work based solution but... Well... It does erode my sympathy slightly.

995 army personnel were made redundant recently, yet they are recruiting on the streets of Leeds.. It may be coincidence, who knows. Not really for discussion in this thread I guess.
Not sure what your sympathetic stance is or was but as with many employers you have the option to contribute to your pension, as it's the government you would've expected them not to fleece them... seems not, so yes they are leaving to secure their own pensions by the looks of things.

I can see your point here, the only problem being, as of now their employers are paying nigh on double the same amount into the scheme for them.
Anyone not on a final salary pension would however do very well to sort out their own pension finances, with the aid of a decent financial advisor if need be.

So it's a way of getting more for their money... By compromising the safety of serving firefighters?