OUR PENSION vs THE ROYALMAIL PROPAGANDA

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 25 Apr 2008, 12:49

Robbery, theft, mismanagent, incompetence, all words used to describe the change to pensions but the fact is, they are changed and Mr Hayes isn't going to help on this one. Bit quiet from CWU HQ? You bet. With the union already stretched financally, it couldn't afford to engage in what it sees as a lost cause, so its not fighting - simple as that.

You might like to ask the CWU how many have left since last year - five or six? a hundred? a thousand? Payroll says the numbers paying CWU dues has dropped 'significantly' (I asked!). Without enough paying members, the CWU will be stretched to breaking point. It was close to bankruptsy not so many years ago and it won't be keen to go there again.

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 14:20

[/quote]
How do you know the money not paid in during the pensions holiday wasn't used for something "worthwhile"?
It may well have been used for new "machinery" at that time. There were NP4000s, OCR V2s and V3s, plus CFCs being installed at that time, and 1000 + new machines at between Â£300,000 and Â£650,000 a throw, plus ancillary equipment, is not small change.
Also, "robbed blind" intimates something done against someone's will, but both the pension trustees and RM agreed to the holiday. You may feel it was wrong in hindsight, but hardly robbery on any level.[/quote]

Well when the Trustees were not paying a penny into the scheme and RM were not paying a penny into the scheme, but I and thousands of other people were, and we were not given a say in how the scheme was run, and now I find myself in the position of losing Â£1800 per year, maybe you can understand my anger and the use of the term robbery, please could you kindly give me a more appropriate word Thanks in advance

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 25 Apr 2008, 14:33

[

Well when the Trustees were not paying a penny into the scheme and RM were not paying a penny into the scheme, but I and thousands of other people were, and we were not given a say in how the scheme was run, and now I find myself in the position of losing Â£1800 per year, maybe you can understand my anger and the use of the term robbery, please could you kindly give me a more appropriate word Thanks in advance

I can't give you a more appropriate word, it depends on your view of the whole situation. It's worth bearing in mind although you may feel "robbed" RM still puts in roughly 60% of your net contribution (ie twice) the amount you do, so although you may not get as much as you thought when you retire, you're still getting more than if the pension was funded entirely by you.
BTW the trustees never have and never will pay a penny into the pension fund. It's not why they're there.

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 25 Apr 2008, 14:37

rockytony67 wrote:

How do you know the money not paid in during the pensions holiday wasn't used for something "worthwhile"?
It may well have been used for new "machinery" at that time. There were NP4000s, OCR V2s and V3s, plus CFCs being installed at that time, and 1000 + new machines at between Â£300,000 and Â£650,000 a throw, plus ancillary equipment, is not small change.
Also, "robbed blind" intimates something done against someone's will, but both the pension trustees and RM agreed to the holiday. You may feel it was wrong in hindsight, but hardly robbery on any level.[/quote]

Well when the Trustees were not paying a penny into the scheme and RM were not paying a penny into the scheme, but I and thousands of other people were, and we were not given a say in how the scheme was run, and now I find myself in the position of losing Â£1800 per year, maybe you can understand my anger and the use of the term robbery, please could you kindly give me a more appropriate word Thanks in advance[/quote]

The official line is had RM paid in the contributions , they'd have been absolutely hammered for tax by the then Conservative Government , it appears the Government had made sure the system worked against RM .

One interesting thing in the background was the Tory Government were dead set on privatising RM Group , splitting it into nice manageable portions was a certainly a step on the way to .

Don't get me wrong , I'm not condoning anything that RM has or hasn't done for a minute .

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 14:51

Norbert, that's the party line, I would like the Union and RM to publish a booklet with all the details of the pension fund and what has gone on over the last 25 years, if they've got nothing to hide it will shut people like me up

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 14:59

Tman wrote:[
Well when the Trustees were not paying a penny into the scheme and RM were not paying a penny into the scheme, but I and thousands of other people were, and we were not given a say in how the scheme was run, and now I find myself in the position of losing Â£1800 per year, maybe you can understand my anger and the use of the term robbery, please could you kindly give me a more appropriate word Thanks in advance
I can't give you a more appropriate word, it depends on your view of the whole situation. It's worth bearing in mind although you may feel "robbed" RM still puts in roughly 60% of your net contribution (ie twice) the amount you do, so although you may not get as much as you thought when you retire, you're still getting more than if the pension was funded entirely by you.
BTW the trustees never have and never will pay a penny into the pension fund. It's not why they're there.

I have been in the pension scheme for 23 years, I had no choice my contract said I had to join it, it also said that RM would pay the 60% you say, well for 15 years of that time RM did not pay a penny into the scheme, what word could I use for that, Deceit maybe, would that be appropriate

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 15:16

Tman wrote:[
Well when the Trustees were not paying a penny into the scheme and RM were not paying a penny into the scheme, but I and thousands of other people were, and we were not given a say in how the scheme was run, and now I find myself in the position of losing Â£1800 per year, maybe you can understand my anger and the use of the term robbery, please could you kindly give me a more appropriate word Thanks in advance
I can't give you a more appropriate word, it depends on your view of the whole situation. It's worth bearing in mind although you may feel "robbed" RM still puts in roughly 60% of your net contribution (ie twice) the amount you do, so although you may not get as much as you thought when you retire, you're still getting more than if the pension was funded entirely by you.
BTW the trustees never have and never will pay a penny into the pension fund. It's not why they're there.

Also It wasn't what I thought I would get, it was what RM told me I would get, for 23 years I have received the RM pension plan annual report, and you know what, it never once mentioned that in 2008 it would cut my pension by Â£1800 per year, funny that

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 25 Apr 2008, 16:03

One can only assume the crystal ball was cloudy. How else could the future be foretold?
Norbert's right in his post too. It was said by both RM and the trustees, and the trustees didn't and don't have axes to grind either way.
Anyway, I was offered the option of joining the scheme even if you weren't. Thankfully I chose to join.....

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:37

Tman wrote:One can only assume the crystal ball was cloudy. How else could the future be foretold?
Norbert's right in his post too. It was said by both RM and the trustees, and the trustees didn't and don't have axes to grind either way.
Anyway, I was offered the option of joining the scheme even if you weren't. Thankfully I chose to join.....

The crystal ball was not cloudy, RM foretold the future every year in our Annual pension report, as for the trustees" All Trustee Directors are appointed and removed by Royal Mail, with the agreement of the Unions and the eligible pensioner membership WHERE APPROPRIATE. Five Trustee Directors are nominated by Royal Mail, four by the Unions and one is selected by a pensioner ballot. The Chairman is appointed by Royal Mail after CONSULTATION with the Unions." Six RM trustees, four from the unions, one from the Pensioner's, now who do you think would win a vote

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:46

How strange we all look at things in a different way! Now ONE of my definations of robbery is someone that promises you a wage ( and or pension the same to me!) in return for work done by you, and after having done the work they then refuse to pay you the wage and or pension! That is what has happened to us with our pensions. Or did i miss the bit at my induction when they said we promise to give you a decent pension at 60 but we dont really mean it and you can work till your 65 for less money? With the way some planks look at life maybe RM should just give us NMW because RM and and the Goverment have been so crap at their jobs they cant afford it and as there are always PR*TS that would think this ok they should just go and do it?
With just two CSEs to my name i aint never going make a lawyer but i know right from wrong and i am not anyones little bitch that is so desperate to suck up to management that i would take a kicking just to tow the line and make the two sh*ts happy!
Oh and as an aside i could not give a cr*p about how Oxford or any other book looks at things because those that have to resort to that pooh are nothing but fools that cant find a decent reason for what has happend to the way they are treated but i am sure you are a decent sort of chap that has the BALLS to stand up both for yourself and others less able to so i would like to thank you for the true decent STRONG person that you are and thank you for sticking up for and looking out for your fellow workers!

That's just a rant; what is your point? IS there any point to it? Any suggestion of a way forward in the pensions mess or just an excuse to sound off?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:49

And Royal Mail pensions are the only ones to face the butcher's knife? Open your eyes.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:51

Tman wrote: That's just a rant; what is your point? IS there any point to it? Any suggestion of a way forward in the pensions mess or just an excuse to sound off?

As this forum is after all called Royal Mail Chat so if he wants to sound off let him don't belittle him.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:55

Night Tonic wrote:And Royal Mail pensions are the only ones to face the butcher's knife? Open your eyes.

just because its happening to other people does not make it right or fair. In fact in most cases they have complained and or took some form of action, is there any reason why Royal Mail employees should be any different.

The strike at grangemouth has been caused because the scheme has been closed to new entrants. They still will have a final slary scheme just with less benefits. So they are willing to strike about their pension why aren't we allowed if we see it as a legimate concern.

If you disagree with the Strike and disagree with the proposals what would your suggested action be. I am interested really interested I am not being sarcastic.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 25 Apr 2008, 18:56

[] The crystal ball was not cloudy, RM foretold the future every year in our Annual pension report,

They must be clairvoyants then. I'd call it a forecast personally, with no guarantee either way. Ever noticed the disclaimer on the TV ads for financial services? "The value of your investment can go up or down"...?

as for the trustees" All Trustee Directors are appointed and removed by Royal Mail, with the agreement of the Unions and the eligible pensioner membership WHERE APPROPRIATE. Five Trustee Directors are nominated by Royal Mail, four by the Unions and one is selected by a pensioner ballot. The Chairman is appointed by Royal Mail after CONSULTATION with the Unions." Six RM trustees, four from the unions, one from the Pensioner's, now who do you think would win a vote [

If voting was the expected outcome in this situation, that is.
Having seen the figures and heard the arguments way back then, why would the union trustees then attempt to block the holiday?
"No, I voted against the pensions holiday, because I thought that it was only right for the pension fund to be liable for tax on it's excess profits. I think Maggie's bunch of losers well deserve the nice little cash windfall from our Pension fund"

Yeah right.

Post by **rockytony67** » 25 Apr 2008, 19:06

Tman wrote:
[] The crystal ball was not cloudy, RM foretold the future every year in our Annual pension report,

They must be clairvoyants then. I'd call it a forecast personally, with no guarantee either way. Ever noticed the disclaimer on the TV ads for financial services? "The value of your investment can go up or down"...?

as for the trustees" All Trustee Directors are appointed and removed by Royal Mail, with the agreement of the Unions and the eligible pensioner membership WHERE APPROPRIATE. Five Trustee Directors are nominated by Royal Mail, four by the Unions and one is selected by a pensioner ballot. The Chairman is appointed by Royal Mail after CONSULTATION with the Unions." Six RM trustees, four from the unions, one from the Pensioner's, now who do you think would win a vote [
If voting was the expected outcome in this situation, that is.
Having seen the figures and heard the arguments way back then, why would the union trustees then attempt to block the holiday?
"No, I voted against the pensions holiday, because I thought that it was only right for the pension fund to be liable for tax on it's excess profits. I think Maggie's bunch of losers well deserve the nice little cash windfall from our Pension fund"

Yeah right.

Yes but as I told you I had NO CHOICE I had to join the scheme, and as I have honoured all my commitment's to my contract do you not think that it's right that RM do the same, also are you saying you know how the trustees voted on the merger of the scheme and the decision to take a pension holiday, if you do please will you post them on the site