Pleased to see that the deficit in the Social Housing Pension fund (SHPS) has been reduced in the last 2 years from £283 million to £180 million. Many Housing organisations subscribe to this pension fund; it has about 53,000 members in some 700 schemes, many of which will of course be Unison members.
However, I must admit to feeling exasperated (to say the least) that many social housing organisations (e.g. RSL’s, Housing associations or voluntary groups) were apparently advised to either leave the SHPS or pick an inferior scheme in the last two years because this terrible “deficit” and supposed long term increased payroll costs. The original deficit had very little to do with any increases in people living longer.
Many UNISON members have either been refused access to a decent final salary scheme or had their existing scheme radically downgraded. For what reason?
Pensions are long term saving plans, usually over 20-30 even 40 years. Stocks markets almost by definition go up and down. Why was there this “panic” to reduce benefits from traditional and sound 1/60th final salary schemes to grossly inferior 1/70th; CARE schemes or even group personal pension schemes?
Since funded pension schemes assets will go up and down in line with stock market volatility, my point is that it is wrong to change your staff pension scheme on the basis of short term valuations, especially if you are a socially responsible organisation. Housing organisation often also employ local people and residents. Elder poverty is one of the greater evils in our society and it is simply wrong for housing organisations to contribute to this poverty for short time gain. Come on finance directors and boards - you know what the decent thing is! Save your existing Final Salary Pensions Schemes and if you have changed it, change it back.
No comments:
Post a Comment