Are public sector pensions so easy to understand?

Last week disruption swept Britain as tens of thousands in the public sector went out on strike. The issue: reform to public sector pensions.

I remember commenting to someone that I had trouble fully understanding the public sector pensions debate. The response was a look of pity normally reserved only for Miss USA contestants when they try to sound intelligent. Am I alone? How many of us really do understand the pensions debate?

The art of politics is being able to present complex issues in a simple way. Pithy slogans are the bread and butter of the politician but they do little to enlighten us as to the real debate. To say the question is no more complex than the right to a fair pension seems ludicrous.

So what is the pensions debate really about?

With people living longer we have to work longer and pay more if our pensions are to remain affordable. These reforms are meant to bring this about. Public sector workers are faced with a later retirement, larger contributions and at the end of it a smaller payout for their troubles. This is all on top of a wage decrease in real terms. It's understandable they might be a bit upset.

Two key issues are at stake here: fairness and affordability.

The unions argue the current set-up is affordable. They cite the Hutton Report as evidence of this, but that report assumes changes will be made. So reform does have to take place.

So is the proposed reform fair? Those opposed to reform claim they are fighting for a 'fair pension'. They argue quite persuasively that just because private sector workers get poor pension provision doesn't mean public sector workers should. They believe it unfair that benefits they were promised are now being taken away. They provide services like the NHS and schooling that we all depend on. Often they do jobs that are not pleasant, such as refuse collection. Surely they deserve proper reward?

The response of the reformers is blunt but true: Life isn't fair. It's unfair that public sector workers must now accept a worse deal than they were promised. But why should a worker receive preferential treatment just because he's in the public sector? Private sector workers provide services just as essential as those provided by the state. They often do work just as distasteful as their public sector counterparts.  How then can it be justified that private sector workers should subsidise public sector benefits of which they can only dream?

Can I now say I understand public sector pensions? No, of course not. They still confuse me. Something so complex always will. I'm fine with the basic issues though, or at least I think I am. That's enough for me.