Hi all-
As someone who is close to retirement who is both following this issue and has been to an information session I’ve decided to weigh in.
I’ll be voting yes in spite of the fact that as someone closer to 60 than 50 it will benefit me very little if at all.
In contrast to previous posters my sense is that
a) it will not particularly benefit those of us close to retirement unless we choose to buy back years of service, which we will have to do at our current earning rate; and
b) once taxes related to pension adjustments etc are accounted for I suspect that the difference in one’s net / take home pay for most people will be negligible;
c) between cost of living raises and step progressions any potential shortfall related to paying down a mortgage would be short lived.
I can’t comment on monetary grounds that it will be disadvantageous for people to work past 65 as I haven’t used that lens to evaluate options, but I can comment that in some circumstances having a top heavy department can be very problematic in that it can
stifle change and contribute to disengagement which in turn can have long term consequences.
I’m a saver and good with money. I’ve maxed my RRSP out every year I’ve worked and I was in a tenure track job at 31 (though I lost some pensionable years leaving my first employer just past tenure). Under the current pension system my income will drop considerably
when I retire. Under the proposed system had I been in it at the start I’d have a much better income at retirement.
Apologies for brevity- sent from my phone. -Ellen.
On Nov 11, 2018, at 3:44 PM, Tamon Stephen <tamon@sfu.ca> wrote:
Dear all,
SFUFA will soon ask us to vote on significant changes to pension plans. I appreciate SFUFA's efforts on this, in particular in identifying issues with the current plan. I've learned a lot from their resources*. However, I believe that we should vote NO in
the referendum.
The proposal will _require_ all current SFUFA members to contribute 10% of salary (7% after taxes) to their pensions. This is a lot to ask, especially given the housing market here. Many SFUFA members have significant mortgages. For someone who is putting
this 7% into reducing their mortgage, moving this to the pension is effectively having them borrow an extra $5000+/year to fund their contribution. Other members are saving for down payments, sending money to family overseas, etc. I do not think that we
should require them to contribute this money to a pension plan instead.
The question in the previous (2015) pension proposal was quite different, as people could opt out. Roughly, in that previous vote, 31% voted yes, 9% voted no, while 60% did not vote. So many people are not paying attention to SFUFA's pension proposals**.
If anything, I feel there has been less discussion this time. I encourage those of you who are not paying attention to 1. learn about what is being proposed* and 2. if you are not sold on this to the extent of _requiring_ your colleagues to invest tens of
thousands of dollars (which they may have to borrow), then please vote NO.
Note that since SFUFA considers this a referendum, they will proceed to implement this on a mandate of half of cast votes. So e.g. 26% for, 24% against, 50% not voting means _required_ contributions from 100% of SFUFA members, including the 24% who voted NO
and the 50% who did not vote.
Best regards,
Tamon Stephen
* SFUFA has posted some resources which I found quite helpful:
<
http://www.sfufa.ca/current-issues/pensions/resources/>
** I expect that those close to retirement are following this very closely, while those far from retirement are paying very little attention. As I understand the proposal, it may be beneficial to someone very close to retirement (esp. people who own homes
outright), but not for younger members (esp. those who have mortgages or plan to).