Unite: The Government must address Royal Mail's pensions

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Unite: The Government must address Royal Mail's pensions deficit

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-forme ... 364486.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Friday, 03, Jul 2009 12:00

Unite the Union has welcomed the decision not to part-privatise Royal Mail but warns that the government must now address the pensions deficit.

The union is concerned that Lord Mandelson has left Royal Mail and its staff in a state of uncertainty, as he has not explained how the government, as shareholder, is going to address the immediate problems of the pensions deficit, regulation and future investment.

In a letter to the union's 11,000 members who are managers at Royal Mail, National Officer, Paul Reuter said:

"The big issue of part-privatisation has been resolved, for the time being, but there are still many issues to deal with.

“The biggest single issue that has prevented Royal Mail from investing in the future is the pension’s deficit. The deficit needs to be addressed urgently. We anticipate that the pension’s trustees will revise their estimate of the shortfall from the current figure of £3.3bn to £10bn and this in turn would require Royal Mail to more than double its annual payments.

"We call upon the Government to spell out in clear and precise terms what actions the Government are going to take to plug the pension’s deficit and protect the business.”

[DGP1]

Unite the union of the strike breaking managers although if privatisation did go ahead the managers would be in serious danger of the chop and the union would lose many subscriptions.

[viking1488]

well the the pension’s deficit is enough to bring a third world country to its kness never mind the royal mail

[BELIAL]

It's been said before ,but the govt has not got a prayer of wriggling out of it's pension obligations. Hot air and empty threats ,scare tactics pure and simple with an interesting added twist of petulance from the Prince of darkness
As a last resort it(govt) is the provider of the pension guarantee scheme,long before that any attempt to default on it's responsibility would trigger a legal challenge, and given the fact that most people are aware that it has been the owner of RM for some time it would be quite a tricky one for Mandy and co to duck out of . And, if by some miraculous legal slight of hand they managed to get their way ,the political and social consequences would be system breaking. It would mean that not one single pension in the land would be safe from legal termination indeed ,any employer still funding one would be at a massive competitive disadvantage, snowball effect kicks in.
So they can threaten and bluff all they like but at the end of the day they will be forced to find a way to fund our pension,and after all,it is peanuts compared with the £800 billion they managed to find to let the fat cat bankers keep getting their £million bonuses

[Night Tonic]

Admire your optimism. We'll soon find out.

[BELIAL]

Optimism doesn't come into it ,it's called the law Course thats not to say they won't try to rewrite it but if they did that RM employees would be the least of their worries

[stokes11eg]

In January, there was a report in the finacial times that suggests we could lose our pensions. it seems there is a small obscure clause in The Hooper report that would allw for this. perhaps T.B.T could do some research on this. According to the paper, the clause is in page 64. I sadly, have no doubt that eventually folks will lose most if not all of their pensions.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

In January, there was a report in the finacial times that suggests we could lose our pensions. it seems there is a small obscure clause in The Hooper report that would allw for this. perhaps T.B.T could do some research on this. According to the paper, the clause is in page 64. I sadly, have no doubt that eventually folks will lose most if not all of their pensions.

The Hooper report does contain this section on Page 67

The implications of restructuring aid for Royal Mail would depend upon
the circumstances in which aid was given and approved by the European
Commission. Based on the Commission’s guidelines and decisions made
in other cases, its conditions could well include:


1. An accelerated rationalisation programme involving extensive
closures across Royal Mail’s network of mail centres and delivery
offices.

2. The forced introduction of other measures to reduce Royal Mail’s
costs, such as closure of the final salary pension scheme to existing
members and contracting out parts of the delivery chain.

3. The sale of subsidiaries such as GLS and Parcelforce.

4. Compensatory measures to benefit competitors. Examples include a
withdrawal from upstream bulk mail activities in favour of direct
access operators, the closure of new commercial activities such as
logistics and document management, and restrictions on future
investment outside its core mail business.

But the Hooper report has no basis in law its just a recommendation. Its the Postal Act we need to keep an eye on - just off to look at that

[RobertT]

In January, there was a report in the finacial times that suggests we could lose our pensions. it seems there is a small obscure clause in The Hooper report that would allw for this. perhaps T.B.T could do some research on this. According to the paper, the clause is in page 64. I sadly, have no doubt that eventually folks will lose most if not all of their pensions.

The story in the FT is here:
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/01 ... -pensions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Hooper report is here:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49389.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pension Protection Fund was set up to protect workers if their employers go bust. The Hooper report has no power to change the law. PPF info here:
http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/index/faqs.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under current rules no employer has to pay into a pension for it's workers at all,so the fact that we have got a retirement fund at all is a bonus not a right. The amount of pension we get in the future will no doubt go down and I'm not particularly
happy about that,but the days of 'gold plated' pensions are realistically over and we will all have to provide for our own old age instead of relying on others to do it for us.

Personally I've been with RM for over 20 years and I'm still in my 40's and I'm quite scared as to what my financial future holds, but I'm also a big saver and am determined not to work after 60 if I can possibly help it.

I realised in my 20's that the RM pension wasn't that good and wasn't going to provide me with the money I need to do what I want and that certainly hasn't changed!

[stokes11eg]

I can take on board the bit about the P.PF. but this seems to cover only the defined benefit pension scheme, which, to the best of my knowledge, we are no longer part of?

[RobertT]

I can take on board the bit about the P.PF. but this seems to cover only the defined benefit pension scheme, which, to the best of my knowledge, we are no longer part of?

The career average scheme that was introduced is still a form of defined benefit. Instead of your pension being based on you final salary,it's based on your pay for each year you're in the scheme.

If the CARE scheme does close as is suggested and we get given a defined contribution scheme then we're at the mercy of the stock market.

[stokes11eg]

Exactly!

[k979aaa]

Unite and thier managers will not fight for us for 90% have no balls and the other 10% is up the DOM'S ass!.