Pension question

"Richard Buttrey" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Not sure - public sector final salary schemes have different actuarial reduction factors (issued by central government) for women compared to men owing to longevity, e.g. for retiring at 60: 33% for males, 27% for women - this is because women live longer so the money is 'clawed back' over a longer period. The example you've cited does seem unfair - though of course the state allows women to draw their state benefits at 60, men at 65 (due to be rectified from 2010).

You have that the wrong way round.

It isn't whether there is legislation under which it would stand up, but whether there is legislation specifically outlawing the practice.

And AIUI, there isn't.

"Richard Buttrey" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

does the reduction bring the pension in line with that of a woman's or does it reduce the payment to less than a woman's , if the latter then that's likely to fall under equal rights or sexual discrimination legislation , in fact men should receive a higher payout as they lives are shorter

It reduces a man's pension to less than a woman's - given that they both have the same length of pensionable service and both retire on the same salary.

Rgds

Richard Buttrey __

Thanks for that.

Just to confirm, are you saying that you know of no legislation which specifically mentions discrimination in the context of pensions, or are you saying that no aspect of the more general and various 'rights' legislation that we've seen over recent years would apply.

Rgds Richard Buttrey __

There is legislation regarding discrimination in pension rights, but not AFAIK that applies to the age at which it may be taken, or any penalties that may apply for taking it early.

"Richard Buttrey" wrote

Ignore all the other replies to your post, and look up the "Barber Judgment" - eg in Google.

E.g. :- Equalisation rules In terms of an occupational pension scheme the European Court of Justice has ruled that since the Barber Judgment of 17 May 1990 men and women must have equal rights to join employer pensions and that occupational pensions earned from service must be equal for men and women.

The Barber Judgment established the equal-pay-for-equal-work Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty of Rome that if an occupational pension scheme does not contain an equal treatment rule shall be treated as including one. This means that if a scheme member of opposite sex is employed in similar work, or work of equal value, then the benefits to both sexes must be the same, unless the scheme trustees can prove that the inequality is due to a factor that is not sex related.

Note, though, that this only applies to that part of the service after

17/5/1990 - you need to work out which bit of the pension was earned for service in which years.

This means that, virtually all schemes "equalised" pension ages for men & women in the few years after Barber. Suppose they "equalised" from

65/60(male/female) to 65/65 on 17/5/1995. Then the benefits from service before 17/5/90 can be reduced for a male retiring at age 60, but the benefits deriving from the service between 17/5/1990 and 17/5/1995 *cannot* be reduced. The period from 17/5/90 to 17/5/95 can be called "interim" service, and although the male retirement age was still stated as 65, his pension benefits for this service cannot be reduced if he subsequently retires at the female pension age of 60.

If the scheme has never "equalised", then *all* service after 17/5/90 is classed as "interim" and hence the lower female retirement age of 60 will still apply.

I don't want to quote Tim's excellent reply in full, but I just want to confirm that what he has said is correct.