Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
GM I don't think I have stretched the interpretation of chickens coming home to roost. That saying describes a mistake which incurs adverse consequences at a later date. Defined benefit schemes are perfect because they do what they are supposed to do - provide security for employees in old age. DC schemes do not do this. That may suit the private sector, as responsibility has largely been shifted away from companies who do not care what happens to their employees when retired. The government clearly has a much greater degree of responsibility. The CARE scheme is a halfway house and in some ways is fairer than final salary but it is still a cut and existing members would need to agree to change. Why would they agree? New candidates will not find the CARE scheme as attractive and this could compromise Guernsey's recruitment and retention abilities even further. This concern was highlighted in the terms of reference.