PENSIONS UPDATE

[DGP1]

"Chattering classes" was coined by Julie Burchill to describe those who say the same as the last person they spoke to, without thinking whether it was true/accurate/nonsense, which is quite appropriate for a few on here it seems.

Just like you then

[Tman]

Never too far away, is it?
Make your mind up though, as it's normally me alone talking rubbish, and the Bovine Hoards who know what's what.

[DGP1]

Never too far away, is it?
Make your mind up though, as it's normally me alone talking rubbish, and the Bovine Hoards who know what's what.

Others talk rubbish yes but most of the others at least have a propensity to change their minds unlike you who just rattles off RM propaganda without ever thinking about it or changing your mind.

[Tman]

And there we have it (for about the hundredth time) "agree with me/us or you spout the RM line" .

There really must be an alternative you could come up with? This one is worn smooth now.

[Vulcan]

And there we have it (for about the hundredth time) "agree with me/us or you spout the RM line" .

There really must be an alternative you could come up with? This one is worn smooth now.

We don't want you to agree with us, just give your own unbiased view NOT the party line from RM. Most on here are not giving the CWU view (their's is not too different from RM's) but their own view.

[Night Tonic]

Tman's comment holds then. Anything beyond your limitations is RM party line??? Zzzzzz......

[Vulcan]

Tman's comment holds then. Anything beyond your limitations is RM party line??? Zzzzzz......

You must have limited intelligence to come out with statements like that, instead of being a union militant you're a RM militant. If you can't see what's wrong with RM Management behaviour there is no hope for you & I pity your limited outlook on life as it seems to revolve around RM and trying to belittle it's workforce.

[Night Tonic]

Now theres an intellectual retort. They still sell the Beano in some newsagents I believe. You might like to hunt out a copy.

[axeman]

at least the beano was aimed at folk slightly older than the spot , dick and jane ones you read at the anual royal mail conferences

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Phase 1 of the Campaign - Week Commencing 5th May Through to Week Commencing 19th May

This involves a series of communications to all MP’s, influential political bodies,

Wow that is a big mistake. We voted over a month ago to refuse/reject Royal Mails Pension plans yet the Political Campaigning starts on 5 May - 4 days after a major politicial event.

Its not as though the local elections are a surprise and came out of nowhere. I would have thought it would have been better to kick of the campaigning this week so that we could have as much political leverage as possible when or if New Labour get a kicking.

Amateurish at best. I guess Night Tonic is correct when he says we need better and more politically astute leaders in charge.

[Tman]

Tman's comment holds then. Anything beyond your limitations is RM party line??? Zzzzzz......

You must have limited intelligence to come out with statements like that, instead of being a union militant you're a RM militant. If you can't see what's wrong with RM Management behaviour there is no hope for you & I pity your limited outlook on life as it seems to revolve around RM and trying to belittle it's workforce.

OK, 101 times...........

[Tman]

And there we have it (for about the hundredth time) "agree with me/us or you spout the RM line" .

There really must be an alternative you could come up with? This one is worn smooth now.

We don't want you to agree with us, just give your own unbiased view NOT the party line from RM. Most on here are not giving the CWU view (their's is not too different from RM's) but their own view.

"WE" don't want "YOU" to agree with "US"? Please can I be in your gang mister?
Whatever views I've given have been unbiased, but unfortunately as they are at odds with the err, chattering classes, and as those same chattering classes have no real argument other than the same old "yuh yuh, 'es er RM stooge 'e is" then what other views would you like me to make?
There are many critical points I could make re RM, but none have any relevance to postal staff. With regards to the pension problem, it's a far more complex situation than some on here can either understand or admit to, and, as NT says, won't be solved by the old pitchfork and cudgel mentality.
Bottom line is the pension scheme was financially unsustainable long term. Blame who you like, rail at who you like, moan about past events as much as you like, but it changes nothing.
Of course, the other option would be for the trustees and accountants (that's proper accountants, eh Disjointed?) to have said nothing and the whole lot to collapse. Doesn't seem like much of an option to me.

[Vulcan]

And there we have it (for about the hundredth time) "agree with me/us or you spout the RM line" .

There really must be an alternative you could come up with? This one is worn smooth now.

We don't want you to agree with us, just give your own unbiased view NOT the party line from RM. Most on here are not giving the CWU view (their's is not too different from RM's) but their own view.

"WE" don't want "YOU" to agree with "US"? Please can I be in your gang mister?
Whatever views I've given have been unbiased, but unfortunately as they are at odds with the err, chattering classes, and as those same chattering classes have no real argument other than the same old "yuh yuh, 'es er RM stooge 'e is" then what other views would you like me to make?
There are many critical points I could make re RM, but none have any relevance to postal staff. With regards to the pension problem, it's a far more complex situation than some on here can either understand or admit to, and, as NT says, won't be solved by the old pitchfork and cudgel mentality.
Bottom line is the pension scheme was financially unsustainable long term. Blame who you like, rail at who you like, moan about past events as much as you like, but it changes nothing.
Of course, the other option would be for the trustees and accountants (that's proper accountants, eh Disjointed?) to have said nothing and the whole lot to collapse. Doesn't seem like much of an option to me.

Stop being such a pompous ass, as for the pension problem being much more complex, what's complex about RM wanting to cut its contributions to the pension fund to have more profit & not keeping to its original pension aim for its workforce? What is RM's/Government's real agenda? If you are in the same pension fund I can only wonder at your level of tolerance to the changes proposed. If you aren't in the pension fund I'm not surprised at your attitude.

[Tman]

And there we have it (for about the hundredth time) "agree with me/us or you spout the RM line" .

There really must be an alternative you could come up with? This one is worn smooth now.

We don't want you to agree with us, just give your own unbiased view NOT the party line from RM. Most on here are not giving the CWU view (their's is not too different from RM's) but their own view.

Stop being such a pompous ass, as for the pension problem being much more complex, what's complex about RM wanting to cut its contributions to the pension fund to have more profit & not keeping to its original pension aim for its workforce? What is RM's/Government's real agenda?

For God's sake....
This attitude is behind so much of the tosh on here.
"RM wants to keep our pension contributions for itself for profit/what's the real agenda/blah blah blah"

So tell me again, given that the board of trustees are impartial, why would they go along with "hidden agendas"? Why would they collude to deceive the members they represent? Why would RM have a "real (but hidden ) agenda anyway?
Where's the X Files crew when you need them?

[Vulcan]

Tman answer me this, tell me how many trustees of pension funds that members have lost, have been prosecuted for fraud/theft etc. Why do companies use pension funds for other purposes? How was Maxwell able to rob the Daily Mirror pension fund? Was it because no legislation was in force to prevent what he did? Has legislation been put in place to prevent it happening again? How can RM's Pension Fund Trustees can be classed as impartial when the majority are selected by RM? Won't the Trustees know which side their bread is buttered, and therefore respond favourably to RM's proposals to pension reform. Do the Trustees publish the way voting has gone on various proposals? Can this be found out under the FOI (Freedom of Information Act) or is it one the the many exclusions?. How can the Trustees ignore the overwhelming majority votes received in ballots by CWU & CMA members against the changes proposed by RM & still claim to be IMPARTIAL?

Maybe RM Pension Fund needs to employ a different set of Actuarial Accountants because the present lot apparantly completely missed the cost to the pension of the members living longer until very recently (within the last year or so) Wasn't it just the beginning of last year that Crozier wrote to us all saying our pension was safe? No mention of people living longer therefore putting a strain on the pension fund.