[Closed] Public Sector and their pensions

oh god, no!

just look up TandemJeremy and half the threads he's been on to save having yet another unproductive discussion on this.

dont expect any sympathy from anyone regarding my pension
i pay 11% of my salary to my pension and have done for 22 years, the government have now decided i need to pay 14%
ok, not good, but along with the pay freeze ive agreed to ill pay the extra 3%.
Then they decide that the pension is too expensive, so they will change the conditions and make me work another 5 years for the same benefit
wooooaahhhh, hang on a minute, ive planned my pension and finances on the fact that i work a agreed period of time for an agreed pension. I think its unfair to start changing those conditions and expect us to take it on the chin.
Can you spare a £5

I've missed all that, i'll have a look!

[url= http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5063/5619037564_f9459edcf5.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5063/5619037564_f9459edcf5.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/bucklevision/5619037564/ ]tj-signal[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/bucklevision/ ]j.buckle[/url], on Flickr

Can i spare a fiver??? You must be having a laugh!! Ive got school fees and a SIPP to top up....eggs in one basket and all that! 🙂

It's all me, me, me nowadays, eh!

Pensions are something that we have been lied to through the years. Governments can no longer afford to carry the investment risk.

With life expectancy continuing to rise and investment returns looking like they will take a tumble as global economic growth splutters as a result of crisis after crisis, pensions are looking more and more unaffordable for the provider.

We can all greet and moan about it, but the economics no longer stack up.

frankly if i make it to 68 i'll be overjoyed.. i 'd much rather be alive and scrapping by than have a fantastic pension but not see anything of it..

I and my colleague had to carry a load of gear to a patient through thick clay mud to reach a casualty on Sunday. It was about a mile or so from the nearest access point, I then had to stay and treat the patient in snowy conditions at temps of about only about 3C whilst my colleague liaised with another crew. Luckily the person fell at the point right next to a dual carriage way flyover, we found this out when we for there, and the lane she was closest to was closed for repairs. So we got the other crew to drive the wrong direction up there to get near the casualty. We still had to carry her on a stretcher for about 200 metres through slippery mud and lift her over a 3' high fence.

Now I'm still relatively fit and young, as I currently stand I can retire at about 58 with a reasonable pension after 42 years of service. The changes mean I'll be working at least until I'm 68 maybe more by then and for slightly less money. I can't see me be able to do the job much past 60 never mind 68 and no it's not what I signed up for.

What ever happened to the utopian dream of us all having wonderful lives with early retirement and loads of leisure time I was told would happen when I was at school?

Anyway what's a pension plan again?

Haha yes PePPeR and investing in the banks was always a safe bet!

Anyone who spends their whole working careers with one employer to retirement age in this day and age is going to have seen their terms and conditions changed significantly over time.

No point arguing.
Everybodys f........

Thing is the public sector it's different to the private sector and not wholly comparable on every point. Better on some, worse on others. I think the main objection is the blatant misinformation put out about the old and new pension scheme proposed and the opportunistic nature of the changes when financially the majority of savings come from the rpi to cpi enforced change currently being challenged in the courts. The latter equates to c20% reduction from the previous pension paid into based on the rpi factor. Surely anybody would object to that when the Hutton report confirmed the cost of the public sector pensions were falling in the long term. Paid weekends? Yes please..... Not 5 on the bounce tho 🙂

[i]Does anyone feel like that[/i]
Yes, me. I work with a bunch of said moaners. Whine, whine, it's not fair, let's go on strike. Sod what it says in my contract about 'plus whatever hours are necessary to fulfill your responsibilities'. It's called a lunch hour and I'm having all 3600 seconds of it and I'm coming in late because the bus route has a diversion and the earlier bus is just too early.
Bollocks. Look elsewhere if you're not happy. I left the private sector for the public not because of some incredible financial incentives but because the job meant that I could have plenty of job satisfaction and have more of a life outside work. (let's face it, final salary pensions sound nice, but you have to remember that they're calculated from a public sector salary. X% of not very much = not very much).
If you don't like it, look elsewhere. Things change. So what? Change with them, or don't. But don't expect others to support your views.

What is this pension thing of which you speak ?

let's face it, final salary pensions sound nice, but you have to remember that they're calculated from a public sector salary. X% of more than a public sector salary is MUCH better than a private sector pension.

Public and private sector earnings
The difference between private and public sector median earnings for full-time employees
decreased between April 2010 and April 2011. Private sector median gross weekly earnings were
£476, up 0.8 per cent from 2010. Public sector earnings were £556, up 0.3 per cent (see Figure 10).
Public sector mean gross weekly earnings (£627) were also higher than those of the private sector
(£598).

At least we have some nice safe, trustworthy banks to invest our money in....

It is not about retiring earlier. It is about retiring when previously AGREED.

It is not about not paying more. It is about paying what was previously AGREED.

It is not about getting less pension. It is about paying what was previously AGREED.

My pension scheme (STSS) was reformed in 2007, and the aim was to make it sustainable for the lifetimes of all members. I have yet to see any evidence that it is now NOT sustainable in it's current form. The Government REFUSE to discuss any of their calculations or show any costed workings.

Until they do I will continue to regard the proposed changes as a blatant tax grab aimed disproportionally at the public sector.

You all had the choice.
You could have been a public servant.
You could have had a poor wage.
You could have had a decent pension.
You chose not to.
You chose to work in the private sector.
You let your pension be crap.

The difference is that public sector pensions are there for the taking, there for politicians and the right wing cockmonkeys to abuse and destroy, there for you to exercise the politics of envy.

I've said it before and will no doubt say it again, but I am amazed that this country and the stupid ignorant people that populate it can begrudge the pension that I have worked for; who would have thought, 20 years on, that the pension of a nurse would create such jealousy?

[i]wooooaahhhh, hang on a minute, ive planned my pension and finances on the fact that i work a agreed period of time for an agreed pension. I think its unfair to start changing those conditions and expect us to take it on the chin.
[/i]

and I planned my pensions around well paid work always been available..., 5h1t happens

You could have had a poor wage. - The facts below seem to suggest that to have a poor wage you'd stand a better chance in the private sector.

Public and private sector earnings
The difference between private and public sector median earnings for full-time employees
decreased between April 2010 and April 2011. Private sector median gross weekly earnings were
£476, up 0.8 per cent from 2010. Public sector earnings were £556, up 0.3 per cent (see Figure 10).
Public sector mean gross weekly earnings (£627) were also higher than those of the private sector
(£598).

[i]You could have had a poor wage.[/i]

I've been doing my job for 25 years, and have become better every year as a result. Look at wages over the last 25 years if you wish to make that comparision; or decide if you would like to be looked after by someone who has no experience or 25 years worth.

If you end up in Intensive Care, what would you choose?

There is cost and there is value, what do you think the difference is?

crikey - Member
You all had the choice.
You could have been a public servant.
You could have had a poor wage.
You could have had a decent pension.
You chose not to.
You chose to work in the private sector.
You let your pension be crap.

The difference is that public sector pensions are there for the taking, there for politicians and the right wing cockmonkeys to abuse and destroy, there for you to exercise the politics of envy.

I've said it before and will no doubt say it again, but I am amazed that this country and the stupid ignorant people that populate it can begrudge the pension that I have worked for; who would have thought, 20 years on, that the pension of a nurse would create such jealousy?

No-one is begrudging you a pension.

It's just the way that it will be calculated will have to change to reflect the increase in life expectancy, the fiscal state of this country and its realistic economic growth prospects.

Crikey, theres no jealousy involved whatsoever on my part. Just confusion as to why the disconnect between what people 'think' they are entitled to and the reality of the situation. Its tough, theres not enough in the pot, times change and like someone said on here...if you really dont like it that much, move and do your own thing.

Yep I planned my final salary pension arrangements as well some years ago and my career path that would allow me to retire in my late fifties still being sane enough to enjoy my retirement.

Unfortunately working in the private sector there is no safety net. I was made redundant from that cosy 'job for life' and have been made redundant from two subsequent jobs and had been made redundant before getting my cosy planned for the rest of my life job, has coloured my view of the working world.

I'd love to have been able to stay with the same employer and quibble over the evolution of my terms and conditions as the world changed, I haven't had that luxury so my sympathy levels for those who have isn't very great.

A deal is a deal.

Meh.

Private sector pensions have been well and truly dicked over, largely by private sector financial types; that is where the problem lies. The answer is not to drag us all down to the level of the lowest common denominator, it is for those in the private sector to make some noise, to protest, to withold their labour. This would, of course make you some kind of anti-capitalist scum in the eyes of your beloved right wing media and so will never happen.

So you follow, like sheep, and look to criticise the pensions of those who chose, that's [i]chose[/i], to work for lower wages, that's [i]lower wages[/i], for the good, that's [i]for the good[/i], of your fellow citizens.

Whatever. You get the public services you deserve.

Is there really not enough in the pot though? I do think that this may be the case for SOME public sector schemes - I don't want to get involved in pointing any fingers here though - but due to our recent restructuring I cannot see how this is the case for the STSS.

The current plan is a one size fits all approach for a range of schemes that vary considerably. If the truth was told, I think we'd find that some schemes are funded, and some will struggle. There is a considerable demographic variation across the myriad of schemes.

I'm unlucky so I want everyone else to be unlucky too!!!!!!!

let's have a race, to the bottom 🙄

2 observations -

1. It is as if the government are trying to drag down pensions to a lower level - they should be trying to come up with ways to encourage the private sector to offer decent pensions to match the public sector. The problem is that if you save more, then there is less money going into the economy and boosting growth etc. Not going to help consumer spending is it?
2. The press - esp the Torygraph etc - keep pointing out all these sky high public pensions by using examples of senior civil servants on 100k plus. They do not point out what average nursing or admin staff are earning and getting for a pension. There are plenty of private sector examples of people being paid too much, but the 'fat cat civil servants' are easier prey...

it is for those in the private sector to make some noise, to protest, to withold their labour.

That'll work right up to the point they relocate the manufacturing plant abroad......

The world doesn't work the way many of us would like it to, however we have to deal with the realities which is the main difference between the private and public sectors.

In essence he is being made to contribute more to his pot to allow the government to make up the difference. Fine, i understand thats how it works and [b]wants what he's promised. No problem with that.[/b]

Then he started telling me about all the hours he works (50 hours) with weekends and nights included. He asked me how i felt about that and if i had any sympathy for him. I told him 'no'..... [b]My answer was you knew the deal when you signed up, so why now is it such a big deal??[/b]

because part of the deal is being changed. Renumeration is going down, but hours and conditions remain the same. The the former happens the latter is thrown into stark relief, particularly if changes aren't handled very well.

hat'll work right up to the point they relocate the manufacturing plant abroad......

Ah, the threat. Perhaps we should stop being so fast and loose with the employment laws.

right wing cockmonkeys

TroutWrestler - Member
Is there really not enough in the pot though? I do think that this may be the case for SOME public sector schemes - I don't want to get involved in pointing any fingers here though - but due to our recent restructuring I cannot see how this is the case for the STSS.

The current plan is a one size fits all approach for a range of schemes that vary considerably. If the truth was told, I think we'd find that some schemes are funded, and some will struggle. There is a considerable demographic variation across the myriad of schemes.

I had read that some are well funded and others are not funded at all.

It makes me wonder how things have evolved so differently for different department/areas of the public sector 😕

Because the public sector is hugely diverse.

CaptJon - Member
Because the public sector is hugely diverse.

And maybe some people realised that the cost of DB pensions was huge and needed to start setting aside some money to pay for them?

[i]Ah, the threat. Perhaps we should stop being so fast and loose with the employment laws.[/i]

Well it's you poxy public sector lot who've administered these laws, to the disregard of the private sector workers basic 'rights'!

Ferris-Beuller - Member

My answer was you knew the deal when you signed up, so why now is it such a big deal??

Answering your own question aren't you- as you say they knew the deal, now the deal's being changed on them.

I and my colleague had to carry a load of gear to a patient through thick clay mud to reach a casualty on Sunday. It was about a mile or so from the nearest access point, I then had to stay and treat the patient in snowy conditions at temps of about only about 3C whilst my colleague liaised with another crew. Luckily the person fell at the point right next to a dual carriage way flyover, we found this out when we for there, and the lane she was closest to was closed for repairs. So we got the other crew to drive the wrong direction up there to get near the casualty. We still had to carry her on a stretcher for about 200 metres through slippery mud and lift her over a 3' high fence.

Now I'm still relatively fit and young, as I currently stand I can retire at about 58 with a reasonable pension after 42 years of service. The changes mean I'll be working at least until I'm 68 maybe more by then and for slightly less money. I can't see me be able to do the job much past 60 never mind 68 and no it's not what I signed up for.

What about labourers, steel fixers, scaffolders, ground workers etc who do heavy work like that all day, in all weathers everyday? No doubt they get paid less than you do and have no pension.

What is happening to you is s**t especially when those at the top make sure they aren't effected but a lot of people are far worse off than you.

I'm with easygirl. Show me someone else that contributes soon to be 14% to their pension and i'll show you some sympathy

Last year I was working in a bid team for 3 months and one of the guys was banging on about how the bloody teachers and their copper bottomed pensions were outrageous etc etc. then we discovered he was ex services with, wait for it, a copper bottomed pension. No one's happy about their pensions - except for board members of ftse companies.

Usual misinformation on here about this
1) the comparison public sector wages to private alluded to earlier is wrong. when you look at work of equal responsibility / skills / qualifications the private sector pays higher.

2)Public sector pensions are affordable and most have been reformed. For example the NHS pension is in surplus - more is paid in every year than is paid out and it has been like this for a long time, If this money had been invested it would have been the biggest investment / pension fund in the world. Instead it has been spent by the governments.

Even so the pensions have been reformed and are perfectly affordable

Teachers - Government contribution is capped - any future shortfall will either mean higher employee contributions or lower pensions. Legally binding deal.

3) Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa - any cut in this simply means a higher benefits bill to lift the pensioners out of poverty

This is all about divide and conquer and find the enemy within - and making the now viable pensions unviable by making them so poor value people opt out.

There has been a moral panic created by the right wing press and the tories over this with relentless false propaganda for years. Public sector pensions liabilities are due to fall over the next 50 years - not rise

The facts are that the public sector pension have been reformed to make them affordable, they are affordable and it manifestly unfair that contributions are being raised and benefits cut when there simply is no need to do so and very little money will be saved as a result.

the fiscal state of this country and its realistic economic growth prospects.

So basically people should pay more earn less because of somebody else's cockup?

I don't quite agree with that.

This whole debacle makes no sense at all. We have a high unemployment rate so the folks in charge decide to make those in employment work longer? Make them pay more into a pension to get less? Pay less to the unemployed who were probably part of the big plan (Child tax credits etc to encourage breeding) to increase payment to the Govt to fund pensions in the first place! And they think this will kick start the economy?

clubber - Member
oh god, no!

just look up TandemJeremy and half the threads he's been on to save having yet another unproductive discussion on this.

So has anyone changed their views yet?

Well it looks like anybody up here had better make alternative child care arrangements on the 28th of this month, as we are out again. 🙁

The circular 'arguments' of the present government are almost funny, but mostly make me despondent:
1) Country is skint, must make cost savings including on your salaries (frozen for minimum 3 years, falling relative to inflation) and your pensions.
2) You are all opposed to health & social care (and now possibly police) reforms because you are pissed off about your pensions, not because you are better qualified to comment or becuse you have a professional duty of care to raise concerns for the welfare of your [s]patients[/s] customers. Your arguments about [s]privatisation[/s] other reforms are considered null and void because we are in the fortuitous position of cutting your salaries and pensions at the same time.

What luck that they are able to argue these two things at the same time. 👿

juan - Member

the fiscal state of this country and its realistic economic growth prospects.

So basically people should pay more earn less because of somebody else's cockup?

I don't quite agree with that.

As I said at the beginning it's all a bit "me, me, me" when it comes to pensions...

billyboy - Member

A deal is a deal.
Posted 13 hours ago # Report-Post

As I said at the beginning it's all a bit "me, me, me" when it comes to pensions...

The money has gone somewhere, it has not just vaporised. It was the "me, me, me" of key people in banking and fincial services that created this situation, but I do not see this government or indeed other european ones doing much about chasing them. I don't even see our government [i]even trying to create the impression[/i] that they are chasing the 'right' people about this, instead they create 'bogeymen' out of certain groups of (but not all) public servants and chase them, using mis-representative pensions of cheif execs in local authorities and NHS rather than low paid teaching assistants, cleaners (yes our local authority and NHS trusts have not yet farmed all these out to private companies yet), hospital porters, health care assistants and so on.

I am aware that the frankly enormous military officers pensions would be very harsh to start with under their current ratio of home/war zone deployment, but FFS, even a symbolic commensurate reduction in MP's pensions would be a drop in the ocean financially, but give the impression to some more gullible voters that "we are in this together".

The money has gone somewhere, it has not just vaporised. It was the "me, me, me" of key people in banking and fincial services that created this situation,

Don Simon, no idea who you complain to. But if you had applied for and got a job where your lower wage (relative to qualifications, experience, responsibility and risk of someone ending up dead on your watch) was offset by your pension, retirement age and responsible employer with job security and good track record, you might have more chance of getting your 200k back. Except of course it would be less than 200k because you were doing it in the public sector. You might also have considered paying monthly into a trade union for support in that eventuality.

(edit: there is no NHS pension 'fund' invested anywhere, my pension deductions are spent within the overall health service budget and the budget also pays pensions of those currently in receipt of an nhs pension. Not sure about the teachers though.)

Since part of the problem is increasing life expectancy, and since "public sector workers aren't getting the deal they signed up to" should we not just kill public sector pensioners when they reach the life expectancy that was originally projected for them when they starting working? or at least stop paying pensions to them... 😀

[i]when you look at work of equal responsibility / skills / qualifications the private sector pays higher.[/i]
true that. 20k, a car and share options higher, in my case. But I knew that when I made the move and was happy with that trade-off. I assume most of us in the public sector *knew* that we'd be on comparatively lower pay when we made the choice.

Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa

Is this correct?

Poly, you are Jeremy Clarkson, and I claim my £5.

😆

No, its wrong. He missed a naught off. And on the day they retire they get a solid gold Faberge pineapple and 2 swans. Except dinner ladies who get a special trophy a bit like the FA Cup, but the handles are made into the form of bingo wings

clubber - Member

So has anyone changed their views yet?

I've not changed by view, but when balloted last week on strike action i voted 'no' (which is a change).

For more info on public sector pemsions try reading here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

this gives details on funding (or lack of) and pension averages.

Note that for 'unfunded' ones the money comes out of taxation.

Also FYI: for a private sector money purchase or defined benefit pension (where you contribute into your pot and your 'fund' is everything that you have put in [*and employer contributions if you're lucky]) that (IMHO) that a 'public sector' pension of £3100 would (for a 60 year old male) would require a pot of about £100,000 to get an equivalent deal. (*The later you take an annuity on your pot the higher amount per 100,000 you get)
http://www.annuitydiscount.co.uk/Annuity_Best_Rates_Table.htm

Zedsdead - Member

"Average public sector pensions are around £4000 pa "

Is this correct?

Thought I had better check - I got muddled with local authority

The Hutton report found the average pension payments - including workers and dependents - in 2009-10 were as follows:

Local government worker: £4,052
NHS worker: £7,234
Civil servant: £6,199
Teacher: £9,806
Member of armed forces: £7,722

However this is distorted by a small number on very high pensions. Senior military officers, senior civil servants, nhs consultants and senior managers

Five million employees working in the public sector qualify for pensions, including 1.3m in NHS, 1.6m in local government, 600,000 teachers, 600,000 civil servants, 200,000 in the armed forces, 150,000 police officers and 50,000 firefighters.
The mean average public sector pension is £7,000 [b]but the majority of public sector pensioners have pensions of less than £5,000[/b].

If you want a look at the argument and the figures from the other side have a look at the link. Its quite interesting how many myths are believed because they have been repeated so often

clubber - Member

So has anyone changed their views yet?

Is this correct?

It's certainly true of the local government scheme, which is funded too. That's the problem isn't it? Pension arrangments in the public sector are so varied that this sort of thread is pretty pointless. You wouldn't, for example, describe my pension terms as comparable with David Cameron's.

gusamc -

Note that for 'unfunded' ones the money comes out of taxation.

Not true one of the myths that become accepted

The NHS is unfunded and is [b]in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out [/b]- millions more. Its not our fault that governments have spent this money not invested it for our future pensions.

Make them pay more into a pension to get less?

I wouldn't have a problem paying extra if the money goes into the "pension pot" however the gov have said that any extra we pay in will not go into our pension fund, it will be used to reduce the nations debt.

Thanks for the info TJ. I'm genuinley surprised that the majority of local government workers get so little. I'll lend them my support.

If we are quoting the Hutton report then I think this one sums up the reason why public sector workers are being asked to contribute more:

[i]John Hutton said, left as it is, the current system carries a financial risk which is outside the government’s control. It is a risk that a low growth economy, with ever-increasing pressure on the public purse, cannot afford to take.[/i]

The NHS is unfunded and is in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out - millions more. Its not our fault that governments have spent this money not invested it for our future pensions.

TJ, you keep saying this but I'd really like to see proof - mainly because I can well believe it might be true - but from an independent source that I can actually believe. The links I've seen you post before are all from what I would consider biased sources.

The % of gdp that public sector pensions liabilities represent is due to fall not rise.

Its prefectly affordable and the pensions have been reviewed to make this so.

Read this for the view from the other side if you want an alternative to the relentless tory propaganda

<

The NHS is unfunded and is in surplus with more being paid in every year than comes out

[b]at the moment[/b]

Zedsdead - you've been suckered, this statistic is trotted out all of the time, but is little value, bear in mind most people who work for an employer do not spend their whole working lives there. Many of the recipients of public sector pensions only receive a partial entitlement due to shorter service than required to earn the full pension. These drag the average down.

Its prefectly affordable and the pensions have been reviewed to make this so.

Indeed. The word "unaffordable" does not appear anywhere in the Hutton report.

My position is simple: if any of the schemes become unsustainable because we're living longer, then members of those schemes should pay more. But that's not what's happening.

clubber

This shows that this year the civil service pension scheme will be in deficit by £2.1bn; the teachers pension scheme in deficit by £3bn; the armed forces in deficit by £1.6bn; the judicial pension scheme will be balanced; [b]and the NHS pension scheme will be £1.8bn in profit[/b].

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/nov/28/pensions-public-sector-pensions

three is a link to the numbers from the OBR there. that do you? Plenty more good numbers in there including this

I think all the unfunded schemes taken together have a global deficit of around £4bn a year – clearly a lot of money but it has to be looked at long-term. The amount in tax relief contributions for the 1% richest in the country – people earning £150,000 and up - on their pension contributions per annum was £10bn. That puts it in context.

TJ - can you point me in the direction of "Note that for 'unfunded' ones the money comes out of taxation." facts.

I made my statement because on the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446832 it states
"Is the scheme funded or unfunded?
Unfunded. It is paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund."

Regarding the 'paid in' if you are saying there is more tax paid in than pensions taken out I don't consider that fair as EVERYBODY pays tax but only cetain public sector pensions give it back to people. Could you clarify please as I'm trying to understand based on facts.

Ta, will have a read tonight.

gusamic follow the link.

In the NHS the workers pay pension contributions. This raises more each year than is paid out in benefits. This is a surplus - the NHS pension scheme is in surplus and has been for decades. this money has been spent as revenue by successive governemnts not invested. In future there may be a small deficit where contributions do not cover benefits but the scheme has already been revised to take account of this

NHS [b]pension contributions[/b] are greater than NHS pension benefits

NHS pension contributions are greater than NHS pension benefits

But no one in financial management looks at it in that way because future pensions can only be maintained if the workforce grows, if it shrinks they are not enough contributions to pay the pensions of existing pensioners, let alone the poor saps who are contributing. A ponzi scheme works on exactly the same basis. You have to look at the accruing liability and match the contributions to the liability, people contributing today are contributing to their future pensions not someone's existing pension. As there is no independent fund to do this, it is correct to say they are unfunded in general. (There may be specific schemes which are different but this covers the vast majority.)

Bear in mind the old National Coal Board Pension Scheme is one of the biggest funds in the country. If it had been run on the basis you are suggesting, there would be no contributions to pay the pensions.

If the NHS surplus had been invested not spent the fund would be the biggest in the world. So when times are good and contributions exceed liabilities its OK for the government to spend this but when a possible shortfall might acrue then benefits have to be cut? The workers don't get any of the surplus they have paid back?

Remember the scheme has already been revised in the light of this.

You have to look at the accruing liability and match the contributions to the liability, people contributing today are contributing to their future pensions not someone's existing pension.

this is just simply wrong. You cannot have it both ways.