Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
I mean, there's actually no reduction in your hypothetical example, because if you retire at 65 you get an unreduced pension regardless of how long you've worked or how many points you have. But obviously if you only have a few years of service, the pension amount will be miniscule (unreduced or not).
But how does that penalize younger people? Obviously they're going to reduce your pension if you want to retire at 45 or 50 as opposed to retiring at 65 with the same service. The former person would be collecting it for twice as long on average as the latter.
|
Because typically these types of pensions are deployed in organizations with lots of red tape. Individuals who are older are the gate keepers and younger individuals with significantly longer working years are passed by for older individuals above them. I'm not looking at it in a vacuum. Just pointing out it's a part of a bigger issue with how the system is designed for nurses. I've heard these complaints for decades from new nurses and existing nurses.
The pension thing is something that is a common theme for people I've chatted with who work at the city and occasionally nurses. Nurses usually complain about the day to day more though due to the insanity they deal with. They complain the older individuals above them nab the favorable schedules, block reasonable requests for long term improvements because it means that those individuals have to work a little harder, often get to the point of doing very little at work because they "earned it" etc. This isn't even adding in some of the dual title complaints of senior staffers I've heard of.