PENSIONS UPDATE

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 28 Apr 2008, 18:49

Its fair to say that none of us want these changes to happen - I'm sure Tman will back me on this, its just that we don't see what other possible, realistic solution there is. If you wish to see that as 'towing the RM line' then thats up to you, but I can assure you thats not where I'm coming from at all. I'd far rather hang on to as much of the pension as possible than lose any more or all of it.

I'm not sure yet what the CWU are actually proposing as they haven't put anything concrete down. The thrust of the CWU's point so far seems to be about being left out of the final decision but to be honest, the decision would still be the same regardless unless we want to see it diminish even more. Presumably those of us who told RM what they thought during the consultation, and I did, made it plain that it was far more important to protect what we've got, thats what RM did and put before the trustees. Theres no point in trying to protect pensions of people that don't even work for RM yet - we'd be shooting ourselvesin the foot if we did.

Secondly, and I've said this already in this thread, i DO see why some feel cheated but financially, our pension is in much better shape all round by doing this. No I'm not completely happy, who would be, but I'd be really pissed off if RM and the trustees hadn't made an effort to stop our pensions nosediving.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 28 Apr 2008, 19:27

[

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'

[Sigh]
Is it pensions or semantics? Which subject would you like to misunderstand now?

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

OK, I got it wrong; there obviously IS something else you misunderstand..........

See above in this thread.

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

It was a little ironic comment, but presumably the long-dead mail volume thread still irks you.
Funny that. You'd think someone who worked with figures would know to trust a PC far more than the human element with all it's foibles. Unless you worked with a quill and parchment (unlikely) we'll just chalk it up to another principle which has passed you by...

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 28 Apr 2008, 19:37

So please Tman are you being ironic, sarcastic, truthful, determined etc. You never give any answer any of the questions all you just abuse others and you avoid answering any questions (if I'd said billions you'd have jumped down my throat shouting and screaming that I was wrong)

I think it's better for my health if I don't respond to anymore of your posts because they seem to be made purely to wind others up

Vulcan · Post by **Vulcan** » 28 Apr 2008, 19:48

Night Tonic wrote:Its fair to say that none of us want these changes to happen - I'm sure Tman will back me on this, its just that we don't see what other possible, realistic solution there is. If you wish to see that as 'towing the RM line' then thats up to you, but I can assure you thats not where I'm coming from at all. I'd far rather hang on to as much of the pension as possible than lose any more or all of it.

I'm not sure yet what the CWU are actually proposing as they haven't put anything concrete down. The thrust of the CWU's point so far seems to be about being left out of the final decision but to be honest, the decision would still be the same regardless unless we want to see it diminish even more. Presumably those of us who told RM what they thought during the consultation, and I did, made it plain that it was far more important to protect what we've got, thats what RM did and put before the trustees. Theres no point in trying to protect pensions of people that don't even work for RM yet - we'd be shooting ourselvesin the foot if we did.

Secondly, and I've said this already in this thread, i DO see why some feel cheated but financially, our pension is in much better shape all round by doing this. No I'm not completely happy, who would be, but I'd be really pissed off if RM and the trustees hadn't made an effort to stop our pensions nosediving.

Maybe I could believe your rhetoric if RM were not reducing their % contributions to the proposed pension reform. If the reforms have less % contributions from the employer, of the benefits to members will be reduced. So it is really a cost cutting of liability to RM & an increase in liability to those members who want to maintain their final salary scheme by way of increased personal contributions.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 28 Apr 2008, 20:03

Rhetoric? This pension will matter greatly in 18 months time when I retire. If you're retired, then you will know I stand to lose far more than you. Rhetoric no, realistic yes.

Vulcan · Post by **Vulcan** » 28 Apr 2008, 20:23

Night Tonic wrote:Rhetoric? This pension will matter greatly in 18 months time when I retire. If you're retired, then you will know I stand to lose far more than you. Rhetoric no, realistic yes.

Yes, but you will be more than 95% probably on a final salary pension at least if you retire in 18 months time at 60.
Why are you advocating the NEW pension reform when really they have little effect on you financially?

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 28 Apr 2008, 21:45

Why are you advocating the NEW pension reform when really they have little effect on you financially

Is advocation the same as reluctant acceptance?
Is this forum destined to go around and around indefinitely, or is it possible posters could read and maybe digest what's been written repeatedly?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 28 Apr 2008, 21:55

You beat me to it Tman.

I think I've made it fairly clear that its not a perfect solution but is the best of those attainable. Since no one wants to see their pension eroded, I would expect most to vote against the changes but so far, no one has come up with a better solution either, because there isn't one.

Vulcan · Post by **Vulcan** » 28 Apr 2008, 22:05

Tman wrote:
Why are you advocating the NEW pension reform when really they have little effect on you financially
Is advocation the same as reluctant acceptance?
Is this forum destined to go around and around indefinitely, or is it possible posters could read and maybe digest what's been written repeatedly?

The problems seem to be that the pension reforms have not been clearly explained or members have not properly understood all the bumf that has been sent to them. It is quite tedious to have to read through all the legalese jargon, which is what the intention of RM is, then present the proposed changes in WTLL as a fait accompli to the workforce.

You and NT have not helped with your belligerant attitude to any poster that has disagreed with your posts. If you and NT understood the proposals and the consequences thereof you could have helped explain to RMC members in terms that could be clear, instead you chose not to reveal all the consequences of the proposed pension reform.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 28 Apr 2008, 22:17

Night Tonic wrote:You beat me to it Tman.

I think I've made it fairly clear that its not a perfect solution but is the best of those attainable. Since no one wants to see their pension eroded, I would expect most to vote against the changes but so far, no one has come up with a better solution either, because there isn't one.

Oh will you two just get a room and leave us out of little love in.

Vulcan · Post by **Vulcan** » 28 Apr 2008, 23:06

Night Tonic wrote:You beat me to it Tman.

I think I've made it fairly clear that its not a perfect solution but is the best of those attainable. Since no one wants to see their pension eroded, I would expect most to vote against the changes but so far, no one has come up with a better solution either, because there isn't one.

You seem to have not read my post about RM reducing its % contribution in the new proposed pension reform, and not made any comment, why is that?

What would be the scale of proposed pension reform if RM maintained its % contribution as in the old pension scheme?

You seem to be so well informed, maybe you could ask your sources for an answer?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 29 Apr 2008, 00:29

I can't be here 24/7 - I do have other things to do and have you actually read the explanations at:

http://www.royalmailgroup.com/portal/rm ... d=55200710

Those with fixed ideas won't read it anyway but it does explain it in simple terms without legalese for those that have their own minds.

And Vulcan, "You and NT have not helped with your belligerant attitude to any poster that has disagreed with your posts."

I can say exactly the same of you and others. There are no end of sources that explain what has been done and why - do read them all, on and off RM's site. I found no end of numbers and people to contact that could offer advice. You can ring these up yourself if you still need answers. You can even ring the trustees office.

Vulcan · Post by **Vulcan** » 29 Apr 2008, 10:50

I urge ALL members to read the link in NT's post, it provides some illuminating answers, and sidesteps quite a few questions, but overall RM is reducing its contributions by around 10-12% in the long term (saving it money) while members contributions stay the same. Reducing from fianal salary to Career Average (lower benefits) from April 2008. Shame the Auditors/Trustees can't be conduct coded.