Sliding-scale pension is what is on the table for public-sector workers

We have realised for some time now that this is looking very unlikely as he falls just months outside of the agreed cut-off date to be able to do so. He now has to work until 67 instead if he wishes to receive a full pension. How can this be a fair system?

For new people entering the States pension scheme now, I understand that the goal posts have been changed and this I agree with if the pension pot is not in a good position. But how can it be fair to change the rules for people in their 50s who have served so faithfully for so many years?

My husband actually transferred his previous pension into this one and now wishes he had left well alone so we could at least retire at 60 with half a pension. I understand that there is not enough cash to be able to fulfil earlier promises, and that's fair enough (although if the States had not been so silly as to stop paying employer's contributions in the good years, then we would not be in this mess – who thought of that clever idea? I bet it's someone who is over the age of 50 and quite happy in the knowledge that this does not affect them and they're OK thanks). Surely a much fairer choice should be given to existing employees. I have two solutions which are fairer:

1. If someone falls 0-24 months outside of the cut-off date, why not allow them to work an extra 12 months and be able to retire at 61 instead? If they fall within four years outside the cut-off date, why not make them work an extra two years so they can retire at 62? And so it would continue up on a sliding scale until the new pension contracts kick in with new staff. That would be fairer, wouldn't it? Fairer to everyone. Come on States, be fair.

2. It has been wrong that States employees have not received statements annually showing their contributions to the pension scheme along with the employer contributions and to give some indication of how the pension is doing. I am glad this is changing. Perhaps, had this been done, we would have all noticed that the States had 'forgotten' to pay their contribution and it could have been corrected. (Surely that is a breach of contract, by the way? The States take a certain percentage of their staff's wages and promise to pay a certain higher percentage themselves, but they can choose not to do so if they feel like it? What other company does this? Why did they not offer their staff the same choice?). So if 'the one big pot' is now changing so that everyone has their own little portion of it (and this is much fairer), why on earth can my husband not choose to pay in extra now until his retirement date to ensure that he can still retire at 60? It wouldn't be much extra admin, surely? Again, give the people a choice. Allow the people to choose if they want to pay more in to ensure they can still retire at 60. Please treat us fairly – that's all we ask.

We understand the reasons for the change. Everyone at all the meetings understands. What everyone is upset about is the way the States are going about the changes. Put yourself in the shoes of your staff and be fair. Staff are happy to compromise if the States are happy to compromise also.

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Chief Minister Deputy Allister Langlois responds: 'Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment on the letter from your correspondent whose husband is a member of the public sector pension scheme.

Your correspondent raises both specific and general matters relating to the pension review.

First the specific.

At the heart of the letter's concern is a belief that a member who was just more than 10 years from pension age will now have to work until 67 instead of 60. This is to misunderstand the pension proposals.

From the information provided, it would appear that the member has sufficient service to consider retiring at a current pension age of 60. While this member would have a pension age of 67 in respect of any service from July 2015, all previous service (including that transferred in) will retain a pension age of 60.

What this means is that the member can still leave and draw benefits from age 60 but, at that age, the benefits would be lower than under the current arrangements. The member would probably have to work until about 62 or 63 to receive the benefits he would have received at age 60 if the current arrangements remained unchanged. Furthermore, the member could contribute extra in order to leave at an earlier date if he so wished. (The member could use his savings from the reduction in his contribution rate from 6.5% to 6% to fund a small part of that cost.)

In other words, your correspondent's proposal for a sliding scale and the option for members to contribute more are already included in the proposals.

I trust the above addresses the specific and personal concern of your correspondent. If her husband would like more details I would ask that he contact me directly or one of my officers at Frossard House.

Now the general.

Your correspondent suggests that States employees are more than willing to compromise on pension reforms if the States will do likewise.

In the last two years, I have twice shaken hands with senior representatives of States employees on proposed new pension arrangements. On both occasions, the agreed proposals were a significant compromise on what the employer wants. In other words, we have moved and moved again in order to achieve a mutually acceptable outcome.

I do so hope that the members endorse the latest compromise proposal their representatives negotiated. If so, I will recommend that the States also endorse the compromise and what both your correspondent and I wish will be implemented.'