Pay offer

[cloherty1976]

That fills me with hope fishtank and as you say they made a mistake in 2009 things can only get better this time and were be on a winner

[fishtank]

As for the pension proposals, I understand why it's been rejected as in "we don't like it" but has the CWU or anybody else proposed an alternative solution?

I think Royal Mail has so far failed to make the case that it's necessary.
That's why the union wants a detailed look at the pension "books".
You can only put forward a serious alternative if you know what the problem is and Royal Mail are being very vague about exactly what the problem is.

[nataddick]

Agree with Fishtank.

I was told by the RM Trustees that the Full Report and Accounts would be available to download this week from the RM Pensions Website at :-

http://www.royalmailpensionplan.co.uk/5 ... d-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet, it comes as no surprise that only last year's version 2011/2 is currently available. I have been checking the website each day so that I could read through the document and provide additional feedback on the Pensions Consultation which of course closes tomorrow BEFORE the latest accounts are available for viewing - making the whole Consulation process a sham.

I understand what is being proposed but not how or why RM and the Government got us to this point after all the reassurances that have been given in the past.

How can anyone be expected to provide constructive comment about the Pension Proposal or present alternatives when the Plan's financial and valuation information, which we are told have led to the need for change, remains unknown ?

I will be writing to the RM Trustee Chair and the Pensions Regulator on this issue.

[borders]

well done Nat.

[Brain Fury]

For what it's worth I think the communications on the pension issue are some of the worst ever issued by RM. I spent quite a bit of time researching the pension arrangements during the first "crisis" and feel I have a reasonable grasp of the schemes etc but I was completely confused by what we were told in this case. To be honest I just put it down to poor communication rather than an effort disguise the facts - perhaps i was naive. However, there is no doubt that the performance of government "gilts" on which pension funds rely has plummeted in the last two years so it makes some sense that if, as is expected, they don't recover quickly there would be a funding issue in the future. In this case simply saying we don't like the proposals isn't enough.

Also doesn't the CWU have representatives on the Board of Trustees? What's their role in this?

[Brain Fury]

Agree with Fishtank.

I was told by the RM Trustees that the Full Report and Accounts would be available to download this week from the RM Pensions Website at :-

http://www.royalmailpensionplan.co.uk/5 ... d-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet, it comes as no surprise that only last year's version 2011/2 is currently available. I have been checking the website each day so that I could read through the document and provide additional feedback on the Pensions Consultation which of course closes tomorrow BEFORE the latest accounts are available for viewing - making the whole Consulation process a sham.

I understand what is being proposed but not how or why RM and the Government got us to this point after all the reassurances that have been given in the past.

How can anyone be expected to provide constructive comment about the Pension Proposal or present alternatives when the Plan's financial and valuation information, which we are told have led to the need for change, remains unknown ?

I will be writing to the RM Trustee Chair and the Pensions Regulator on this issue.

I assume the Royal Mail Statutory Pension Scheme Annual accounts 2012-13 isn't what you want then? It can be found at: [/url]http://www.official documents.gov.uk/document/hc1314/hc01/0149/0149.pdf[/url]

[Martin Walsh]

For the record it was Royal Mail who first communicated the closed offer after we announced the result of the consultation ballot. once they did this the CWU revealed the offer.

Now the new closed offer only improved the offer by 0.2 % roughly 40 pence and had the same strings. It was rejected as it should have been !

[cloherty1976]

Well done dingo so they would probably except 3% as they have offered 2.8% in he first year. By your calculations I suppose that's 80 pence...

[fishtank]

I assume the Royal Mail Statutory Pension Scheme Annual accounts 2012-13 isn't what you want then? It can be found at: [/url]http://www.official documents.gov.uk/document/hc1314/hc01/0149/0149.pdf[/url]

No.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/do ... 9/0149.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link above relates to the pension liabilities transferred to government under state aid in 2012.RMSPS is a closed defined benefit scheme.
Our pension (post 2012) is known as RMPP section A/B or section C and it is those accounts that are relevant given that this is what both the employer and employee pays into and the scheme that is allegedly "in trouble" and requires extra future funding/reduction in liabilities...although not in deficit.

[nataddick]

Thanks Brian

I went through the RMPSPS Accounts for 2012/3 about a week ago - the most interesting point is on page 4 :-

'The total pension scheme liability increased, from the date of transfer on 1 April 2012, from £30.547 billion to £33.378 billion at 31 March 2013.'

So at least we should be pleased that the liability no longer remains with RMPP. Any increase in liabilities will now be met through general taxation as the scheme is not funded.

The issue for me is quite simple. After European Stated Aid approval was gained, the majority of the Plan's assets and liabilities were transferred to HM Government. So a decision must have been taken to divide those assets and liabilities between the RMSPS and the new RMPP. There are lots of questions that need to be answered about that decision and given the need to change the RMPP so quickly thereafter, you would have to ask whether they got it wrong. This is why I was hoping that the latest Report and Accounts might shed some light some light on what actually happened. CWU lawyers should be on the case in this respect.

I understand the issues relating to pension scheme funding and the uncertainties that fund managers face controlling defined benefit schemes. However, RM are now trying to renage on promises previously made in relation to the final salary link for pre-2008 service. That promise was reaffirmed during the last consultation - members pensions for service pre-2008 would be based on final salary at the time of retirement.

Whilst I would prefer for our pension scheme to continue unchanged in the future, I am realistic enough to know that in all probability it will be closed and changed to a defined contribution scheme from 2018, if not before. RM like many other pension scheme sponsors want to remove the unknown risks that go hand in hand with providing defined benefit pensions. Where I have a real issue is retrospective change - which is an the heart of the current debate as pensions are a form of deferred pay.

The £2 billion of assets left in RMPP were there to fund the final salary link (i.e. to fund the the difference between future salary increases and future RPI) The proposal is to use these assets for an alternative purpose - the rationale being put forward (in my words not their's ) is that keeping the scheme open to all members for 5 years is better than honouring a promise made to members with pre-2008 service and closing the scheme earlier.

The recent letter from the RMPP Chair reminded us of the Trustee's role which is to 'take advice and consider carefully whether it believes agreeing to the proposal would be best for the membership as a whole in the circumstances. This is a fact and provides a clue to where this will end !

Sorry, I have waffled on a bit and moved away from Pay but the pension issue is closely related.

[cloherty1976]

Nataddick absolutely brilliant what you say and not waffle. I would also want the offer of it kept open for another 5 years but I am realistic in knowing that if even there is not enough Money in the pot it will be closed and there is nothing we can do to stop that in my opinion.