Unions hit out at pension contribution changes

Public sector employees protested against changes to their pension scheme in 2015

Guernsey's public sector unions have criticised plans to reduce employer pension contribution rates from 10.3% to 7.5%.

In a joint statement they criticised the lack of consultation by Policy and Resources (P&R) for the proposals.

They said since reforms were made to the pension scheme in 2015 "employees have borne all the pain, yet the employer is taking all the gain".

President of P&R Lyndon Trott said: "Our proposals will not in any way impact the benefits available to anyone on a public sector pension scheme".

Mr Trott added: "We are now in a position to propose reduced employer contributions, which crucially would bring a significant annual saving for the taxpayer without impacting public sector pension benefits".

P&R has said the move will save the States around £8m a year.

The statement from unions was written by Prospect, Unite the Union, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Education Union, the NASUWT and the Retired States Employees Association.

In 2015 States employees were moved from a final salary pension to a career average scheme.

The unions said those change had "resulted in States employees working longer and paying more to get less".

'Increased costs'

The unions claimed the States had "failed to learn lessons from history" as the previous reforms were in reaction to a deficit in the public sector pension fund in 2015, then blamed on reduced contribution levels.

The unions said: "We are concerned that by cutting the employer contribution rate the States are once again in danger of causing a future issue for which States employees will, as before, end up picking up the bill."

The unions added that with the public sector pension scheme "in rude health" shown by the recommendation to reduce contributions, there was now no need to move to a defined contribution pension scheme.

They added: "We trust that P&R will shortly advise the States against such a move, which would make it virtually impossible to recruit from the UK or other islands, not to mention vastly increasing - not decreasing - the costs of the scheme to the taxpayer."