TA...Pensions.....why not???

After a small conversation in another thread, I've been given some great advice by "paymaster" who appears to think that we should fight our corner........I'm sure it's been discussed before here, but it is worthy of keeping the issue alive....for the press if no-one else :twisted:

with regards to pensions....

"If TA rates of pay are based on Regular pay minus the X factor AND Regular pay is set by the AFPBR, who set the pay and reduce it (currently by 7%) to take into consideration the AFPS. Then effectively it might be argued that the TA are paying for a pension that they are not receiving."

(We are currently considered, after a recent court ruling, that the TA are "Casual Labour" therefore do not qualify as "Part-Time" workers under European Union Legislation.)

However, that said.....

Holiday pay......

The TA are entitled to Holiday Pay, if they have worked for 117 days in any pay year. (PSAO's take note)

Quite apart from the 117 day limitation, why would those soldiers who qualify as "Part-Time workers" for holiday pay, not also qualify for Pension Contribution from the government, even in the same way that we get pension contribution whilst on "operational" duty.

Discuss....'cos I can't get my head around that one at the moment....

Resurgam is right - be very careful that you do not upset the apple cart too much...some dogs really are best left sleeping... ;)
Micky there are several claims in at the moment and several court cases. Read the pensions bit in the TA thread. Don't bother our regular brethren with the problem as it is far to far beyond their understanding (as Resurgam has just demonstrated).



See this site, question 20 for MoD answer. In essence, minimum TA commitment gives a 'trivial' pension of £100 per annum. More service or FTRS allows you to join scheme, brief I received suggested you would receive 1/70th of your earnings for each year served. Ie, do 140 days service and receive pension worth two days pay! Regular pension worked out in 37ths - ie service from 18 to fifty five gives you a full pension, eighteen years gives you 18/ 37ths.

Led to understand that there was little appetite for a comprehensive review of TA terms and conditions in order to avoid, for example granting you a pension but eroding other benefits.

I am a Regular officer, we do care, but you might wish to read the briefs first....


I agree that TA should get a pension (not the same size as Regular Army however).........but that it should be based upon how many times you turn up. There are those in the TA who give it their all and work their nads off and there are those who see it as a social club. Any pension should reflect what camp you are in (no pun intended).
Mushroom why has Resurgam demonstrated a lack of understanding?

It is perfectly feasable that should the TA get a benefit of one sort it may lose another. There is only so much money in the MOD kitty.

Perhaps the pension could only be payable to those who did more than what was considered part time say (just guessing here so correct if i am wrong) all TA soldiers who did 180 days.

You lose your holiday pay at 117 days, and get a pension at 60. Would you like that?

Another little truth for this thread...You can't have your cake and eat it.
PS I don't actually disagree with the TA lads getting some form of pension, especially as Biscuits_AB says for those lads that turn up every weekend, exercise and drill night. And who also put alot of effort in when not at TA also.
TA can already earn a pension. All they have to do is contribute more than 2 years (aggragated) on FTRS. Obviously the more they do, the bigger the pension.

So whats the problem?
I know taht ,but this seems to be a thread on pensions for TA not on Ops or similar, jsut for the part time bit.
Choccie, the whole issue of TA pensions is very difficult. I have been in more than thirty years and certainly never even thought about a pension until this sad excuse for a Government started bringing in a whole raft of legislation on employment law, which had a great effect on my business. I looked at the figures and sold up because to make a living I would have had to break the law. I don't see why HMG can set one lot of rules for business and then break those rules for itself. Saying that the MOD haven't got the dosh so shouldn't pay is unacceptable. On another thread someone stated the HMG position is that for most Territorials a pension would be worth less than the cost of administering it. We pay a lot of money every year to employ people to design workable legislation, and a damn sight more on Members of Parliament (why is it whenever I meet an MP I am instantly aware of why we call them Members?) who are supposed to scrutinise proposed legislation and they still can't seem to work out the 'what ifs'.
I never said it was easy or that you do not deserve a pension or some kind of pay out for what you do.

However when resurgam pointed out that you may lose something, possibly even more than you get, to allow somthing such as pensions in you accused him of being clueless, because he is regular.

Is he a reg?

Is he clueless about the whole thing?

Not neccesarily holiday pay, but what if you do get a pension? They could chop your annual bonus.

I know what you are saying in terms of the government obeying the laws that they themselves pass, but would a pension be worth setting up? I don't know about the exact costs of running a pension scheme, even if it is run alongside the existing AFPS but I can't see the TA soldier getting much out of it at the end of the day.

One thing to remember. AFPS 75 is being replaced by AFPS 05. Although in someways 05 is better, for example if I die under the old system the Mrs stops getting paid a widows pension if she remarries, but under 05 she would continue to receive a pension. But in all but 1 scenario I have put in to the pensions calculator I am generally between 30 - 50 grand less well off under the new scheme than the old one.

As Resurgam said, be careful what you kick up in order to get a pension, you may find that the reward at the end of the day is not worth it.
Snapped at what I thought was Stab baiting. Apologies to resurgam if he feels offended.

Stop thinking about this as the Army and start thinking about it as any other employer. Recent tribunals have interpreted changes in employment law to mean that certain groups of employees who were deemed part time now have to have the same terms and conditions as their full time counterparts, only pro rata. The law doesn't state that there is a let out because the employer can't afford it or because it isn't worth very much to the people getting it, the law says it must be paid.

It is about time that certain elements within MOD realised that Section 10 no longer applies. When our fart faced excuses for politicians have a bright idea for buying votes, someone somewhere should cost it and add it to the budget. Within the next ten years pensions are going to be the biggest issue facing politicians. Public service pensions are already a huge burden and will get more so (No I am not against the Army pension, you deserve every penny) and Browns raids on private sector pension funds will start to have an effect.
Wait for the TA Rebalancing paper currently in draft before an October submission to APRC. Pensions will be a feature of a revised TACOS (including planned health and dental) that will impact every area of TA life. It's all about to get very serious.................

Similar threads

Latest Threads