Thank you for submitting your feedback
03 May 2022 Ruth Turner, Membership Officer
Discussion about University pension provision is often a sensitive subject. Whatever the scheme, they all have their challenges. Increasingly, Defined Benefit (DB) pensions are a major battle between costs and benefits – with no apparent winner.
As Defined Contribution (DC) pension provision emerges in the sector, mainly as a solution to controlling costs, is this actually an opportunity to better serve some employees with a carefully considered design? Furthermore, could there be an argument for introducing DC provision, at least as an option, even if cost isn’t the main driver?
Offering a DC option1 could be a really valuable benefit for an often forgotten audience – those employees who have opted out of pension provision. Too often, the prevailing view is, “this is a generous scheme, if they don’t value pensions, then we won’t provide one”.
This ignores the reasons why people opt out of pensions. Some may not value pension due to the raft of negative press, funding ‘blackholes’, general mistrust or just lack of flexibility. For many, the reason is far simpler – they can’t afford it! This has always been a problem. The current cost of living crisis is going to shine an even brighter light upon it.
The problem of those without pension provision becomes even more uncomfortable if you start to look at who those employees are. From previous work with clients across the public and private sector, all too often these people are low paid, part time and female. This is reinforced by DWP data2 on pension participation for eligible employees (aged between 22 and State Pension Age, earning over £10,000 per year). However, there is an interesting quirk in this data. Across the public sector, pension participation is high for part-time female employees, but lower for male part-time workers.
Looking at the DWP data also uncovers another disturbing trend. Participation in pensions across minority ethnic groups is typically lower than that for white employees. The gap in participation between White, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi employees is 20%.
So what do we do about this?
My first piece of advice is not to follow the benchmarking crowd and instead challenge some of the accepted conventions. DC design discussions all too often start by looking at what others are paying. Whilst understandable, other factors should be considered too.
For example; what outcomes would people expect to see at retirement if they spent their working lives here? Who is opting out of pension provision and why?
Matched DC designs, where employers pay more in return for an employee contribution are also commonplace. However, these designs often result in the greatest value of contributions going to older, and higher paid employees. Is this aligned to your principles of equality and fairness?
Have you considered non-contributory designs? This could be offered to those who are currently not members of any scheme where the only alternative is DB.
Or approaches where the employee contributes, but can flex some of their employer pension contribution to other forms of saving, or helping to manage their debt? After all, saving for retirement is not the only financial challenge that your employees face.
Considering these options just might give us a chance to have a more inclusive pension offering that also better supports employees with their financial wellbeing. That’s provided they understand their pension, but that’s another discussion…
Simon Davidge, DC and Financial Wellbeing Consultant, Mercer
1 Advice should be sought on providing alternative pension arrangements – restrictions apply.
2 Workplace pension participation and savings trends of eligible employees: 2009 to 2020 – DWP, September 2021
|Be first to comment on this article, and it will also start a new thread in the discussion board to encourage members to join in the conversation|
|There are no document attached to this post.|
|There are no document attached to this post.|
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Look at the cookies we use below to help you make an informed decision. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information
Microsoft - ASP.NET_SessionId – keeps you logged in for a set period of time, so that you don’t have to keep logging in
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site.
All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance
Please Wait. Loading...