PENSIONS UPDATE

[Poshpost]

Has anyone else noticed that the union fighting changes to the pension plan at Grangemouth is Unite? The same union that our managers belong to, will the fight at Grangemouth have any bearing on how Unite confront what is a very similar situation in Royal Mail?

[Night Tonic]

Thats a good 'un Vulcan. Are you saying that the pension trustees (of which the CWU are part of) have comitted fraud now? Your argument gets weaker by the minute. Wise up, all pensions are under pressure and lots dead already. Why should the country bail OURS out?

[Tman]

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.

So on that basis, if RM invited you to be a trustee, would that instantly transform you into a duplicitious individual ready to enter into underhand dealings from your (presumably) present legal and honourable personality?

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?.

It's not top secret, is it? The meetings are minuted somewhere, presumably?

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?

You're going down the same route again. If you were that trustee, and were called to the AGM where the state of the fund was explained in detail and changes were proposed by the independant financial advisors and auditors appointed for just this purpose, would you then say that you couldn't vote for these changes because the unions wouldn't like it?
You don't think you'd be told that it wasn't your role to say who would like what, but your presence was to there to ensure fairness and impartiality?

[Vulcan]

Thats a good 'un Vulcan. Are you saying that the pension trustees (of which the CWU are part of) have comitted fraud now? Your argument gets weaker by the minute. Wise up, all pensions are under pressure and lots dead already. Why should the country bail OURS out?

If you read my post properly, I didn't say RM Trustees have commited fraud. All pensions are under pressure, are they? Who says they are, is it the companies that want to cut their contributions and are using that argument as a lever?

If all Pension Funds were suffering the same you might have a valid argument, but it seems that the upper management/MP's pension funds are not suffering the same. And don't come out with the excuse that they have fewer members,therefore don't suffer as much financially as funds with larger numbers of members.

Why is it that all pension reform equates with a cut in benefits to the members & gains to the company?

[Vulcan]

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.

So on that basis, if RM invited you to be a trustee, would that instantly transform you into a duplicitious individual ready to enter into underhand dealings from your (presumably) present legal and honourable personality?

So what happened to you when you accepted RM employment? Did you forgo your principles to accept employment, if as you say you have financial security, are you in the pension scheme?

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?.

It's not top secret, is it? The meetings are minuted somewhere, presumably?

Is not one aim of the Trustees to carry out the wishes of the members? As well as ensuring financial responsibilty, does the social ethic not come into the equation or is it all down to money?

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?

You're going down the same route again. If you were that trustee, and were called to the AGM where the state of the fund was explained in detail and changes were proposed by the independant financial advisors and auditors appointed for just this purpose, would you then say that you couldn't vote for these changes because the unions wouldn't like it?
You don't think you'd be told that it wasn't your role to say who would like what, but your presence was to there to ensure fairness and impartiality?

So where is the fairness & impartiallity, in agreeing to RM's proposals carte blanche? Even that doesn't happen in government, when they propose reform/changes, amendments are made to try and placate ALL Parties.

[Tman]

So where is the fairness & impartiallity, in agreeing to RM's proposals carte blanche?

How do you know they did? Equally, it wouldn't be RM's proposals, but the auditors etc.
RM doesn't run the pension scheme, it's independant. A fact which seems to have escaped many.

[DGP1]

So where is the fairness & impartiallity, in agreeing to RM's proposals carte blanche?

How do you know they did? Equally, it wouldn't be RM's proposals, but the auditors etc.
RM doesn't run the pension scheme, it's independant. A fact which seems to have escaped many.

[Vulcan]

So where is the fairness & impartiallity, in agreeing to RM's proposals carte blanche?

How do you know they did? Equally, it wouldn't be RM's proposals, but the auditors etc.
RM doesn't run the pension scheme, it's independant. A fact which seems to have escaped many.

So how come the auditors have issued no statements to the pension members? If RM is independant how can it propose change?

I have a letter in front of me from Jane Newell OBE Chair of Trustees that states:

It is up to RMG to decide on the level of pension benefits it wishes to offer to its employees in future (notice it does not say NEW Employees), in consultation with its employees and Trade Unions.

However any changes to the Trust Deed and Rules (the document that formally sets out the benefits that the Plan will pay) require the Trustee's agreement. Before the Trustees will agree to any changes to the Plan it has to satisfy itself on two points which are:
* can it agree to the changes? If so
* should it agree to the changes?

So can I take it that this type of change is inevitable for ALL pension schemes? Or do some Pension Schemes have special mitigating circumstances? Such as being for Fat Cats & MP's with their snouts in the trough? In the category of Fat Cats I include the CWU heirarchy.

[Night Tonic]

Well no, this is why Trustees exist. Theres also a constant point being made along the lines of "But RM should pay into the fund". They are and will actually be paying more in than ever to cover present contributions as well as the deficit - straight out of profits. Its important (if you're in the pension) to read about what changes have been made and why - first. No one WANTS this change but I cannot see what choice RM has. The pension can't stay as it is - it would go bust and we'd be left with nothing at all then.

[Tman]

So how come the auditors have issued no statements to the pension members?

Why, are they obliged to?

If RM is independant how can it propose change?

Maybe because it's funded by RM and RM staff?

So can I take it that this type of change is inevitable for ALL pension schemes? Or do some Pension Schemes have special mitigating circumstances? Such as being for Fat Cats & MP's with their snouts in the trough? In the category of Fat Cats I include the CWU heirarchy.[

Who knows , it's "our" pension that concerns me. Why the barrage of rhetorical questions....?

[Vulcan]

So how come the auditors have issued no statements to the pension members?

Why, are they obliged to?

If RM is independant how can it propose change?

Maybe because it's funded by RM and RM staff?

So can I take it that this type of change is inevitable for ALL pension schemes? Or do some Pension Schemes have special mitigating circumstances? Such as being for Fat Cats & MP's with their snouts in the trough? In the category of Fat Cats I include the CWU heirarchy.[

Who knows , it's "our" pension that concerns me. Why the barrage of rhetorical questions....?

The barrage of rhetorical questions is because of the sudden change that is being required to the members pensions, when only last year members were being reassured that 'their pensions' were safe by the Chief Executive. Was he being kept in the dark by the auditors & Trustees?

Why are you & NT the only posters on RMC that seem to agree with RM Pension change proposals? Does it mean the rest of the posters on RMC just 'DON'T UNDERSTAND' the harsh realities in today's economic climate? Even Gordon Brown listened to his Back Benchers over the abolition of the 10p tax rate, even though he said it would cost billions to change it. Was that not a result of pressure that HE said he wouldn't bow to? Does that mean he is just storing up economic misery for us all later just to stay in power, or did he realise he was WRONG to abolish the 10p rate?

[Tman]

[

The barrage of rhetorical questions is because of the sudden change that is being required to the members pensions, when only last year members were being reassured that 'their pensions' were safe by the Chief Executive. Was he being kept in the dark by the auditors & Trustees?

Our pensions are safe, that's the point. That's why there's been additional contributions agreed by RM on-going over the next 17 (?) years, plus a reserve pot of £billions too. You DO read the letters from the pension fund I take it?

Why are you & NT the only posters on RMC that seem to agree with RM Pension change proposals? Does it mean the rest of the posters on RMC just 'DON'T UNDERSTAND' the harsh realities in today's economic climate?

Who said I agree with it? (That's 102, BTW) It seems many just want to believe it's all a dark plot to empty the pension pot and boost RM's profits (even though the pension fund and RM's finances are totally separate) or that many don't seem to understand how the pension has been/will be funded or the role of (ahem) trustees and auditors.

[Vulcan]

[

The barrage of rhetorical questions is because of the sudden change that is being required to the members pensions, when only last year members were being reassured that 'their pensions' were safe by the Chief Executive. Was he being kept in the dark by the auditors & Trustees?

Our pensions are safe, that's the point. That's why there's been additional contributions agreed by RM on-going over the next 17 (?) years, plus a reserve pot of £billions too. You DO read the letters from the pension fund I take it?

Why are you & NT the only posters on RMC that seem to agree with RM Pension change proposals? Does it mean the rest of the posters on RMC just 'DON'T UNDERSTAND' the harsh realities in today's economic climate?

Who said I agree with it? (That's 102, BTW) It seems many just want to believe it's all a dark plot to empty the pension pot and boost RM's profits (even though the pension fund and RM's finances are totally separate) or that many don't seem to understand how the pension has been/will be funded or the role of (ahem) trustees and auditors.

Obviously your version of 'safe' and mine differ, safe to me means no reduction in benefits. I suppose you could say a reduced pension is better than no pension. Wasn't the 17yrs additional contributions to make up for the pension holiday RM took.

What is the reserve of billions? last I heard it was £1.3 or so billion, thats not billions 'plural' in any language. And even that is currently under scrutiny by EU as maybe being an illegal subsidy.

I don't believe it's a dark plot to empty the pension pot and boost RM's profits, just a way to reduce RM's liability to the pension fund.

Would the role of the auditors/trustees be the same as the role of the Enron or Maxwell auditors/trustees?

What does the (That's 102, BTW) signify?

[Tman]

[

Obviously your version of 'safe' and mine differ, safe to me means no reduction in benefits. I suppose you could say a reduced pension is better than no pension.

I do, and it's a lot more than some poor buggers have got, and hopefully since it's been rejigged, it's future (our future!) is now secure.

What is the reserve of billions? last I heard it was £1.3 or so billion, thats not billions 'plural' in any language. And even that is currently under scrutiny by EU as maybe being an illegal subsidy.

I'm not going down the semantic route of what constitutes "billion/billions"

I don't believe it's a dark plot to empty the pension pot and boost RM's profits, just a way to reduce RM's liability to the pension fund.

Reading the interminable posts on this subject, you'll see that many do, if not you.

Would the role of the auditors/trustees be the same as the role of the Enron or Maxwell auditors/trustees?

Obviously not, as Enron etc were "allowed " to pillage thier pension fund. I rather doubt the CWU etc trustees will allow that.....

What does the (That's 102, BTW) signify

See above in this thread.

[DGP1]

[

Obviously your version of 'safe' and mine differ, safe to me means no reduction in benefits. I suppose you could say a reduced pension is better than no pension.

I do, and it's a lot more than some poor buggers have got, and hopefully since it's been rejigged, it's future (our future!) is now secure.

We were promised a better pension but because RM declined to pay into it we're now getting reduced benefits.

What is the reserve of billions? last I heard it was £1.3 or so billion, thats not billions 'plural' in any language. And even that is currently under scrutiny by EU as maybe being an illegal subsidy.

I'm not going down the semantic route of what constitutes "billion/billions"

That's it, whenever someone asks a question that you don't like then it's 'I'm not talking about that'

I don't believe it's a dark plot to empty the pension pot and boost RM's profits, just a way to reduce RM's liability to the pension fund.

Reading the interminable posts on this subject, you'll see that many do, if not you.

RM have said that they couldn't afford to keep paying into the pension fund and that they needed to reduce the payments.

Would the role of the auditors/trustees be the same as the role of the Enron or Maxwell auditors/trustees?

Obviously not, as Enron etc were "allowed " to pillage thier pension fund. I rather doubt the CWU etc trustees will allow that.....

CWU trustees are in the minority which is why whenever RM want a change to the pension scheme then they get it.

What does the (That's 102, BTW) signify

See above in this thread.

Can you name them or does your computer say it's 102 and you just blindly believe it