Pensions and Equal Pay (2)
Stefan Cross points out that the 'gender pay gap' normally focuses on the loss of earnings during someone's working career.
But unless equal pay settlements are made on a pensionable basis this 'second class' treatment will continue and get worse into retirement as well.
PENSION DISCRIMINATION
A very useful blog from Mark with some illustrations of the value of making the settlements pensionable - an issue which Action4Equality fought alone.
It used to be that under the Old final salary scheme it was only of value to those who had left or within 3 years of leaving as pension was calculated solely on your final salary (which is why when senior officials got paid off they got a short pay rise to massively increase their pension)
But now the scheme is average salary - this means every year counts so the further we can back date your pension the better.
So often you see stuff about the gender pay gap which refers to career earnings loss but for women the loss is lifetime and gets worse in retirement
We want to do our bit in combatting that.
Stefan
Pensions and Equal Pay 1 (24/01/18)
I promised to say more about the importance of pensions in the fight for equal pay so here's a post from March 2016 which explains how female dominated jobs have been treated much less favourably over the years.
Now this particular example refers to North Lanarkshire Council, where A4ES fought and won a campaign which went all the way to Scottish Ministers.
But the same argument applies in Glasgow and readers can see for themselves the benefits of having an equal pay settlement paid on an pensionable basis.
Because claimant's annual pension and tax free lump sum can both increase very significantly, and make a big difference to a person's retirement income.
But the same argument applies in Glasgow and readers can see for themselves the benefits of having an equal pay settlement paid on an pensionable basis.
Because claimant's annual pension and tax free lump sum can both increase very significantly, and make a big difference to a person's retirement income.
In the case of Mrs A by £43,800 over her lifetime as a result of a £1,537 increase in her annual pension and an additional £4,613 from her tax free lump sum.
Traditional male workers have been retiring on these more beneficial terms for the past 10 years in Glasgow while the City Council's lower paid women workers have been left far behind.
Pensions and Equal Pay (18/0316)
Here's an extract of the appeal letter which explains the scale of the financial loss being suffered by former NLC employees (mainly women) who are not being allowed by the Council to retire on the same basis as their male colleagues doing traditional jobs, such as refuse workers and gardeners.
"21 The following example illustrates the scale of the loss to the Appellants:
"Mrs A has been in service for 20 years and has made a contribution to her pension for the full period of her employment. Prior to the settlement offer Mrs A received £3,838 pension per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £11,512. After taking into account the additional earnings that Mrs A received in the settlement and contributing £960 in additional contributions, Mrs A would receive an increased pension of £5,375.00 per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £16,125. Mrs A would therefore have a gain of £1,537 extra in her pension per year and an additional £4,613 as a lump sum. Over her lifetime Mrs A would stand to gain an additional £43,800 from her increased pension entitlement."
I can't even begin to understand how Labour-run North Lanarkshire can claim to be an equal opportunities employer when the Council is arguing that a retiring woman worker can be treated so much less favourably than a comparable male employee.
In fact, it's a complete disgrace if you ask me and I only hope that Scottish Ministers have the sense to uphold the appeal from A4ES clients.
I'll be writing shortly to all MSPs and MPs in North Lanarkshire with a copy of the appeal letter and will be urging them to support their local constituents by making representations to the Scottish Government.
"Mrs A has been in service for 20 years and has made a contribution to her pension for the full period of her employment. Prior to the settlement offer Mrs A received £3,838 pension per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £11,512. After taking into account the additional earnings that Mrs A received in the settlement and contributing £960 in additional contributions, Mrs A would receive an increased pension of £5,375.00 per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £16,125. Mrs A would therefore have a gain of £1,537 extra in her pension per year and an additional £4,613 as a lump sum. Over her lifetime Mrs A would stand to gain an additional £43,800 from her increased pension entitlement."
I can't even begin to understand how Labour-run North Lanarkshire can claim to be an equal opportunities employer when the Council is arguing that a retiring woman worker can be treated so much less favourably than a comparable male employee.
In fact, it's a complete disgrace if you ask me and I only hope that Scottish Ministers have the sense to uphold the appeal from A4ES clients.
I'll be writing shortly to all MSPs and MPs in North Lanarkshire with a copy of the appeal letter and will be urging them to support their local constituents by making representations to the Scottish Government.
