ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Royal Mail pension news and discussion.Please note the advise given in this forum is unofficial, please use the links we have for a more detailed response or see an independent financial adviser.
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72561
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

http://www.pensions-expert.com/DB-Deris ... es?ct=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The perennial question of whether it is possible to keep defined benefit schemes open to accrual has resurfaced after Royal Mail Group said it could not afford to keep its DB scheme open beyond 2018.

DB pension schemes open to accrual are becoming increasingly rare, although the trend to closures has levelled off. Latest figures from the Pension Protection Fund’s Purple Book, covering nearly 6,000 DB schemes, show that more than half are closed to new entrants, with another 34 per cent of schemes closed to future accrual.

In its 2015 analysis of DB provision among blue-chip companies, professional services firm KPMG said just 54 of the FTSE 100 companies still offered DB schemes and predicts that by 2018 fewer than 40 of them will be open to employees.

Royal Mail’s position is unusual in that it is a public organisation turned private, but the reasons for its proposed closure mirror those seen at many companies.
Darren Redmayne, Lincoln Pensions wrote:Every company operating a DB scheme is having to think about whether or not it remains affordable

Interest rates are prohibitively low

In its latest half-year results, the postal service provider hinted that the scheme cannot remain open in current market conditions with continued low interest rates.

“Current economic conditions would suggest that keeping the defined benefit scheme open to accrual beyond 2018 will not be affordable,” Royal Mail stated in a report.

A spokesperson from the company later added: “Royal Mail has started discussions with the trustees and [the Communication Workers Union] over what happens beyond 2018. These discussions will extend into next year.”

It had previously said that maintaining the DB scheme would be difficult even after the pension fund’s £37.5bn past-service liabilities were handed over to the government in 2012 to make way for Royal Mail’s privatisation.

But for pension rights accrued since then, and subject to certain conditions, the plan was to be kept open until March 2018 “at least”.

However, with its latest announcement Royal Mail has made it clear that no extension will be possible if the state of the economy and low interest rates see no change.

Impaired competitiveness

Darren Redmayne, head of covenant adviser Lincoln Pensions, said running a DB pension scheme can cost a company as much as one-third of salary, making it an expensive benefit.

He said it is “increasingly challenging for a number of companies to remain competitive”, particularly in sectors where margins are tight and competitors do not provide DB.

“Every company operating a DB scheme is having to think about whether or not it remains affordable,” he said.

Redmayne said there are several reasons why DB is costly, including lower investment returns and increased longevity, but added that what could change the narrative of the expensive DB scheme is a recovery in gilt yields, which could “dramatically increase the funding position of a large number of schemes”.

He added: “I always find it sad when a DB scheme closes to future accrual because I think that they’re an excellent benefit and also an arrangement that really is a kind of pension arrangement rather than a tax-efficient savings pot.”

But Simeon Willis, director at consultancy KPMG, said even if interest rates went up it would not recreate the environment that existed 20-30 years ago.

Employers could make schemes more affordable by removing the “double whammy of having salary rises and accrual” and moving from a final salary arrangement to a career average revalued earnings scheme.

Willis added defined contribution schemes can provide a “high probability” that a certain pension income will be achieved.

He said: “There are some examples where there are fantastically generous DC schemes, where the employer’s contributing 15, 20 per cent.”
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
westham000
Posts: 106
Joined: 17 Nov 2011, 18:44
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by westham000 »

The reason I voted for Dave Ward is to protect my terms and conditions as well as my PENSION. I know Dave, he is a person who will not back down. And I fully expect him to fight to protect the above conditions. I could've left the job years ago, but the pension was the deciding factor that kept me from going. It is a very important benefit . It was disappointing when they went from final salary to career average, which is the next best pension. Now Royal Mail are planning to stop that in 2 years time. Even though we are 3 billion in surplus . DIGUSTING ! If we let this happen that will be the start of them slowing dismantling our terms and conditions. I for one will be the first on the cobbles and will be voting for strike action.
RobertT
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 6645
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 14:26
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by RobertT »

I agree that the pension is an important benefit and something a lot of posties don’t appreciate enough in my opinion.
But as with the change to the CARE scheme, RM can do this if they want to and legally I think all they need to do is allow a 60 day consultation period.
Whether the CWU fight it and we possibly vote for industrial action remains to be seen.
Links to all RM pension related websites are here
nataddick
MAIL CENTRES/PROCESSING
Posts: 362
Joined: 10 Jun 2010, 09:47
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by nataddick »

CWU and members will be powerless to stop the inevitable pension scheme changes that will be presented as a Consultative document. RM will slash its pension scheme costs by around 50% and this will please the majority of shareholders. Sadly, as staff with a minority share in the business, we will just have to accept a transfer to the existing Defined Contribution scheme that will be no doubt be offered as an alternative. The best that we can hope for is that the CWU win some concessions, as part of the transitional arrangements. I have done my own calculations and the closure of the existing scheme to future accrual will cost me £670 p.a. which will be reduced by the benefit that will gained from any 'new' pension on offer.
heapsy
Posts: 2949
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 23:40
Gender: Male
Location: Drinking with Gangsters

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by heapsy »

westham000 wrote:The reason I voted for Dave Ward is to protect my terms and conditions as well as my PENSION. I know Dave, he is a person who will not back down. And I fully expect him to fight to protect the above conditions. I could've left the job years ago, but the pension was the deciding factor that kept me from going. It is a very important benefit . It was disappointing when they went from final salary to career average, which is the next best pension. Now Royal Mail are planning to stop that in 2 years time. Even though we are 3 billion in surplus . DIGUSTING ! If we let this happen that will be the start of them slowing dismantling our terms and conditions. I for one will be the first on the cobbles and will be voting for strike action.
I well remember Dave Ward coming out of a late night meeting from ACAS during the last dispute. He came out with the following comment "we will defend the final salary pension". The union FAILED to do that. I feel really let down by the union. I could have accepted a change to the Career Average scheme we have today, but NOT moving the goal posts to an retirement age of 65 AS WELL. As many will know, although some STILL don't, those who are in section C of the pension will LOSE their pension supplement if they continue in service after 60. This for me will be around £2,000 a year. Another bitter pill to swollow after what will be nearly 39 years service when I get to 60. HE let us down and should stand down. Those of us who have done that lenght of service in delivery will be crippled by then.
nataddick
MAIL CENTRES/PROCESSING
Posts: 362
Joined: 10 Jun 2010, 09:47
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by nataddick »

Apologies if I have posted this before but this is an extract from page 28 of RM's latest Annual Report & Financial Statements 2014-5. You cannot say that we were not warned that the actuarial surplus would be around zero by March 2018.

'Under the 2012 triennial valuation of RMPP the Company agreed to pay ongoing cash contributions of 17.1 per cent of pensionable pay until 2018. At that time, this amounted to around £400 million per annum, and reflected the creation of an actuarial surplus of £1.6 billion as a result of the Pensions Reform in 2013. Without this surplus the Company contributions required would have been around £700 million per annum. Accordingly the surplus was expected to decline over time. Since then, market conditions for defined benefit schemes have worsened. However, the position of RMPP has been protected to date by the hedging strategy explained above such that we continue to expect that the RMPP actuarial surplus will reduce to neither a material surplus nor deficit by March 2018.'
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by jetblack »

westham000 wrote: If we let this happen that will be the start of them slowing dismantling our terms and conditions. I for one will be the first on the cobbles and will be voting for strike action.
+1.

Brent crude oil is at $27 per barrel - Royal Mail is one of the companies that is benefitting from this BIGtime. Don't give me extended life expectancy :d'oh! , low interest rates :so there etc etc. - Royal Mail can afford the DB scheme.

We, the postmen and postwomen of this country, are the ones that run this company and make it what it is. We make the profit.

Lets not fatally resign ourselves to pension "reforms" just because its "inevitable". Because it isn't.

And if the CWU exec. also think its inevitable, then they are a part of the problem and need to go.

The times they are a'changin.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
RobertT
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 6645
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 14:26
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by RobertT »

jetblack wrote:
westham000 wrote: If we let this happen that will be the start of them slowing dismantling our terms and conditions. I for one will be the first on the cobbles and will be voting for strike action.
+1.

Brent crude oil is at $27 per barrel - Royal Mail is one of the companies that is benefitting from this BIGtime. Don't give me extended life expectancy :d'oh! , low interest rates :so there etc etc. - Royal Mail can afford the DB scheme.

We, the postmen and postwomen of this country, are the ones that run this company and make it what it is. We make the profit.

Lets not fatally resign ourselves to pension "reforms" just because its "inevitable". Because it isn't.

And if the CWU exec. also think its inevitable, then they are a part of the problem and need to go.

The times they are a'changin.
Do you really think a blip in the oil price and the short term savings that RM are presumably making will make any serious dent in the amount of money that needs to go into the RMPP to keep it open?

RM is now fully privatised and as such the company is now all about making money and unfortunately for us, the RMPP is a luxury they don’t want to spend money on any more.

Final salary and defined benefit pension schemes have been closing down up and down the country for at least the last 10 years – it is nothing new! Personally I think we got off lightly in 2008 when the CARE scheme was introduced as they could have quite easily bought in a defined contribution scheme for existing employees then instead.

I don’t want the pension to close any more than anyone else does, but it is 99% probable that it will. I’m sure the union will argue our case, but realistically their role is to negotiate the best deal possible.
Links to all RM pension related websites are here
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72561
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

Funny thing though is that the "best deal possible" over the last decade has turned into the Least Worst.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
toomuchcoke
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 18:15
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by toomuchcoke »

RobertT wrote:I don’t want the pension to close any more than anyone else does, but it is 99% probable that it will. I’m sure the union will argue our case, but realistically their role is to negotiate the best deal possible.
If I was looking at this from the Royal Mail's perspective, I would be thinking that every year there will be fewer people in the workforce who are in the defined benefit scheme (be that due to retiring, resigning or being fired) and I would also be thinking that the people in the defined contribution scheme are unlikely (or at least, less likely) to vote for strike action to protect a pension scheme that they can never be part of. I would then plot that rate of change forwards and see how long it would take for >50% of the workforce to be in the DB scheme, and see if the company thought the scheme was financially viable through past that date. Assuming it was, then when that point was reached I would propose closing the DB scheme and use some of the money that would be saved to fund a pay-rise and an increase in the contributions to the DC scheme.

At which point, how would people expect people like me to vote? Vote to strike and lose pay & pension contributions in order to protect a pension I'm not part of, or vote to accept the deal and get a pay-rise and an increase in the amount going into my pension?
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by jetblack »

toomuchcoke wrote:
RobertT wrote:I don’t want the pension to close any more than anyone else does, but it is 99% probable that it will. I’m sure the union will argue our case, but realistically their role is to negotiate the best deal possible.
If I was looking at this from the Royal Mail's perspective, I would be thinking that every year there will be fewer people in the workforce who are in the defined benefit scheme (be that due to retiring, resigning or being fired) and I would also be thinking that the people in the defined contribution scheme are unlikely (or at least, less likely) to vote for strike action to protect a pension scheme that they can never be part of. I would then plot that rate of change forwards and see how long it would take for >50% of the workforce to be in the DB scheme, and see if the company thought the scheme was financially viable through past that date. Assuming it was, then when that point was reached I would propose closing the DB scheme and use some of the money that would be saved to fund a pay-rise and an increase in the contributions to the DC scheme.

At which point, how would people expect people like me to vote? Vote to strike and lose pay & pension contributions in order to protect a pension I'm not part of, or vote to accept the deal and get a pay-rise and an increase in the amount going into my pension?
Yeah - you clearly haven't had too much coke - cos that sounds plausible to me - and thats how these things work.


With regards:- a) the "temporary" low cost of oil b ) RM being floated on the stock exchange and so being run as a "for profit going concern" c) other FTSE 100 companies doing away with DB pension schemes thereby increasing the likelihood of our employer going the same way .....

....well, for one, I think we need some accurate, impartial and independantly auditable figures on the table - not figures put forward by those that have a vested interest in cooking the books.

If the DB scheme is scrapped, in the final analysis, someone is going to have to pick up the tab. It might be (probably will be) the likes of you and I that are going to have to face old age turning down the electric fire to one bar in January.

Or, on the other hand, it could well be the Great British taxpayer who picks up the bill - in other words, the ordinary man and woman on the street will effectively be subsidising Royal Mails owners (who are they now BTW ?) profits. Profits which, as a matter of interest, are being boosted by at least 6% pa at the minute by low oil prices - probably closer to 10%. Thats 10% of 3/4 of a Billion pounds BTW folks.

Lets not forget that the taxpayer has already subsidised the profits of Royal Mail PLC by a) the Govt. selling the company short to the tune of at least 2 billion pounds and b) the Govt. (taxpayer/ordinary man and woman on the street) having wrote off 37.5 BILLION pounds of historic pension liabilities.



Look - if the current owners of Royal Mail ( who are they again ?) can't meet their obligations to those who actually produce their profits then they need to get out of the kitchen and make way for those that can.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
RobertT
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 6645
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 14:26
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by RobertT »

jetblack wrote:With regards:- a) the "temporary" low cost of oil b ) RM being floated on the stock exchange and so being run as a "for profit going concern" c) other FTSE 100 companies doing away with DB pension schemes thereby increasing the likelihood of our employer going the same way .....

....well, for one, I think we need some accurate, impartial and independantly auditable figures on the table - not figures put forward by those that have a vested interest in cooking the books.

If the DB scheme is scrapped, in the final analysis, someone is going to have to pick up the tab. It might be (probably will be) the likes of you and I that are going to have to face old age turning down the electric fire to one bar in January.
Your retirement is what you make it. There is nothing legally binding about your annual pension statement and there is nothing to say your workplace pension has to provide a certain level of income. It provides what it provides!
Or, on the other hand, it could well be the Great British taxpayer who picks up the bill - in other words, the ordinary man and woman on the street will effectively be subsidising Royal Mails owners (who are they now BTW ?) profits. Profits which, as a matter of interest, are being boosted by at least 6% pa at the minute by low oil prices - probably closer to 10%. Thats 10% of 3/4 of a Billion pounds BTW folks.
The fuel bill will be lower by up to 10%(your figures).

The costs of previous years RM fuel bill are as follows (found on this thread): http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ll#p631070" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
2006/07 £136.5m
2007/08 £134.1m
2008/09 £146.2m
2009/10 £154.5m
2010/11 £144.9m
2011/12 £166.3m
2012/13 £179.2m

I don’t know the more recent figures but let’s say it’s £250,000 considering all the extra vans we now have. 10% of that budget is £25 Million, while 6% is £15 Million. Relatively speaking that’s a very small amount, and probably the equivalent of giving us posties a bonus of about £200 maximum.
Lets not forget that the taxpayer has already subsidised the profits of Royal Mail PLC by a) the Govt. selling the company short to the tune of at least 2 billion pounds and b) the Govt. (taxpayer/ordinary man and woman on the street) having wrote off 37.5 BILLION pounds of historic pension liabilities.
And let’s not forget the profits the government creamed off for years while the company took a 13 year pension holiday.
Look - if the current owners of Royal Mail ( who are they again ?) can't meet their obligations to those who actually produce their profits then they need to get out of the kitchen and make way for those that can.
The company now has an obligation to its owners i.e the shareholders! That’s you and me, lot’s of ordinary folk, aswell as the pension funds, etc. And we may well be investing in one or more of those funds via the DC pension scheme, when we’re all members of it!

The problem with DB pension schemes is exactly that. They pay out a benefit defined by certain criteria, usually level of pay and length of service. And as such there is an ongoing cost that can’t be easily measured because nobody knows how long anyone is going to live or how well the investments are going to perform – ultimately they can only make estimates. That funding uncertainty can last for decades and theoretically until the last member or their spouse dies.

With a DC pension on the other hand, the company will just pay in a certain percentage of pay and they don’t have to bother with it anymore! The cost is known upfront and there are no nasty shocks in the future. It pains me to say it, but from a business point of view, it makes sense.

Ultimately RM have no legal obligation to provide a decent pension, they just have to provide one and pay a minimum amount into it. And they do pay in quite a lot more than they have to.
Links to all RM pension related websites are here
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Re: Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by jetblack »

RobertT wrote: The fuel bill will be lower by up to 10%(your figures).

I don’t know the more recent figures but let’s say it’s £250,000 considering all the extra vans we now have. 10% of that budget is £25 Million, while 6% is £15 Million. Relatively speaking that’s a very small amount, and probably the equivalent of giving us posties a bonus of about £200 maximum.
Profits for 2014/15 were £750 mil. 6% of that is £45 mil. Lets not forget other "efficiency" savings and medium/long term savings from automation.

I'm using this as my basis for the 6%.

RobertT wrote:
Lets not forget that the taxpayer has already subsidised the profits of Royal Mail PLC by a) the Govt. selling the company short to the tune of at least 2 billion pounds and b) the Govt. (taxpayer/ordinary man and woman on the street) having wrote off 37.5 BILLION pounds of historic pension liabilities.
And let’s not forget the profits the government creamed off for years while the company took a 13 year pension holiday.
Yes - agreed.

RobertT wrote:
Look - if the current owners of Royal Mail ( who are they again ?) can't meet their obligations to those who actually produce their profits then they need to get out of the kitchen and make way for those that can.
The company now has an obligation to its owners i.e the shareholders! That’s you and me, lot’s of ordinary folk, aswell as the pension funds, etc. And we may well be investing in one or more of those funds via the DC pension scheme, when we’re all members of it!
Robert - you are an intelligent man who is well versed in these matters - so could you please, if possible, let us know who today has the controlling stake in Royal Mail ? I personally (and it isn't for want of trying) don't have the faintest idea. That is, who do we work for, and to whom does the overwhelming profit of our labour now fall to ?
RobertT wrote: The problem with DB pension schemes is exactly that. They pay out a benefit defined by certain criteria, usually level of pay and length of service. And as such there is an ongoing cost that can’t be easily measured because nobody knows how long anyone is going to live or how well the investments are going to perform
Yes - you hit the nail on the head there as far as I can see. Because, since the credit bubble of 2008 burst, the pension funds investments are looking decidedly shaky (anyone putting money into the Zurich Growth Fund ? - hows that going the last couple of years ? ). They are not performing well. And it isn't going to get any better any time soon (today Japan implemented negative interest rates !!).

So - who is going to pay the price for the credit fuelled Ponzi scheme crash that the bankers (and our Government) have brought about ? The bankers themselves ? The hedge funds etc etc ? No - their losses have been met out of the public purse, they have been bailed out by you and I.

So who is going to pick up the tab ? Why, you and I of course. How ? By facing an impoverished old age after having worked our arses off for the last 40 years.

It isn't right - and it isn't inevitable either.


RobertT wrote:It pains me to say it, but from a business point of view, it makes sense.
It pains me to say it, but zero hours contracts make a lot of sense from a business point of view also - whereas maternity/paternity/sick pay doesn't. Nor do permanent contracts, legally recognised trade unions, final salary/defined benefit pension schemes - nor a couple dozen other workplace rights and benefits that we as Royal Mail employees enjoy.

Business sense - or a race to the bottom ?
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do
RobertT
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 6645
Joined: 09 Sep 2007, 14:26
Gender: Male

Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by RobertT »

Fuel costs
Sorry I don’t understand your logic on this one. If there’s a reduction of 6% in the cost of fuel, then the profits increase by whatever that amounts to in money terms. So 6% of my guestimate of a £250 Million total fuel bill would mean an increase of £15 Million in RM profits.

Other things will obviously increase the profits further, like loss of more full time jobs, etc. But that isn’t what you said in your earlier post.

Ownership of Royal Mail
I’m not sure if there’s likely to be a list of all the major shareholders, or if there’s any point, considering the shares can be bought and sold in the time it takes to click a mouse.

But as far as I know it’s us the employees who have the largest stake collectively, although obviously we all have our own individual allocation. While I think a few fund managers have around the 4-5% mark, with Neil Woodford being an example: http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/248326/ne ... mail-stake" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. His fund had a £7.4 Million dividend cheque 6 months ago.

Ultimately we work for Moya and her cronies and they and their advisors decide how much is paid out in dividends and how much is spent on operational costs, investing in automation, etc. Nobody has a controlling stake as such.

Investments
I have various stock market investments via pensions and ISA’s including the Zurich Growth fund and the aforementioned Neil Woodford fund. Since the last crash in 2008, markets have recovered and personally I’ve had good returns. Things have slowed over the last year or two, but that’s perfectly normal – it’s what shares do. There is never going to be continued growth!

The Zurich Growth fund has increased 40% over the 3 years to June 2015 and 70% over the 5 years to June 2015, and you think that is bad? Yes it has dipped a bit more recently but as I said, that’s normal.

Equity investments are long term things and there will always be ups and downs along the way, you only have to look at Royal Mail shares to know that. Personally I’ve experienced two major drops and it’s quite scary at the time because on paper you ‘lose’ a lot of money, but that is the time to buy because you get more for your money. Over about 16 years of investing, mainly in funds, I have made a lot more money than I would have done if I’d just put my money in a savings account.

Japan did indeed drop their interest rates to -0.1% but the stock markets of the world went up as a result. The FTSE100 rose about 127 points.

The government and ultimately the people of the UK have, as you say, bailed out the bankers, etc. But they also bailed out the Royal Mail pension and made it more secure for you and I and the rest of our RMPP colleagues. I know that was one of the costs of privatisation, but RM would never have been able to fund that massive pension deficit without government intervention.

Race to the bottom
You seem to think that taking away one benefit will automatically lead to further cuts to pay, permanent contracts, etc. I understand what you’re saying, the thin end of the wedge and all that, but I don’t agree – they are all separate things!

The pension is one way the RM can save a lot of money easily and in all honesty they do have a good case, due to the recognised and real costs I’ve already mentioned. As Toomuchcoke said, the employee membership of the RMPP is going down and those who started working for RM after April 2008 won’t want to take any sort of industrial action for something that doesn’t affect them. But is that the reason RM want to close the pension? No, it’s because it costs too much.


As I’ve already said, I don’t want the RMPP to close anymore than I wanted it to change from final to average salary. But even if it gets a reprieve in 2018(highly unlikely) logic and finances say it is bound close sooner or later.
Links to all RM pension related websites are here
jetblack
Posts: 974
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 12:54
Gender: Male

Royal Mail closure plan flags pulldown effect of low rates

Post by jetblack »

The cost of petrol (at least) has decreased over the last few years from a peak of £1.42 in April 2012 to £1.00 today - that isn't a 6% reduction, thats around a 32% reduction in fuel costs. I expect diesel is pretty much the same. Furthermore, there is no indication at this point that oil prices have done falling yet - nor, indeed, that this is going to be a short term abberration. The 6% figure that I mentioned upthread was the projected growth figure in dividend payouts ie. profits, though, as I said also upthread, this figure seems a little on the low side to me.

Re. ownership of Royal Mail. Moya Greene et al are employees just the same as you and I. The paymaster is the one(s) who has a controlling majority shareholding/voting rights at the Royal Mail PLC AGM. I will say this for fact - the controlling party is not the 10% shareholding that you/I/we hold as employees, not by a long stretch. If we had any clout at all then our troubles would be over very quickly indeed. (can I just say also that the projected growth figures [as yet unfinalised] in the dividend on my puny free shareholding upon abolition of the DB scheme will in no way compensate me for the £ 000's I'll be down in old age )
No-one knows who runs this company anymore, no-one knows even where they are located (their nationality) - that is the truth of it.



Re. stock market investments being long term investments/ Zurich Growth fund growth / stock markets closing up after news of negative rates in Japan etc etc - it does kind of beg the question then, if everything is as rosey as you seem to have painted it above Robert, and all thats required is a steady nerve to ride the troughs, why on earth does it look likely that RM are going to axe the defined benefit scheme at all ?
It strikes me that over the last 10 years, taking into account stock market returns, asset prices, property prices, interest rates/bonds, inflation etc etc that if you are breaking even then you are doing well. I reckon that in real terms most people are today worse off than they were 10 years ago. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but I am just speaking generally.


Anyhow - the gist of what I'm driving at is that RM is profitable. In fact more profitable today than it has been for a long time. Therefore, slashing the DB pension scheme is greed on the part of Goldman Sachs - or whoever it is that owns this firm now.
This isn't free market economics - this market is rigged. It was rigged from the day RM was sold off, and its rigged today. And its you and I (and those that follow) that are getting shafted.


This is not, I repeat, inevitable. Nothing is set in stone - and there is always a choice, always. Nor is it a case of the fair rule of the market economy law. The odds are stacked heavily against the ordinary man and woman and they always have been.

The Union needs to step up to the mark here and take a lead - it is , after all, one of the largest unions in the country (with members largely in one business). And, to be fair to the leadership, its time for the rank and file members to stop accepting every erosion of their rights as "inevitable" or, indeed, sound business sense - its not sound business sense for the Jetblack household, nor for the families of the other 143,000 employees of Royal Mail.

How about taking the bull by the horns, getting the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn on board, and pushing for a re-introduction of the Final Salary scheme. And if they can't do that - Goldman that is - then we renationalise :nana

How about arguing the case of, not the asset stripper and his dividend, but the postie and his 60 year old knees.

The employer does have obligations and responsibilities to the workforce - simply because the (very lucrative) profits of this firm are made off our backs - and not the backs of those that have somehow been allowed to buy into this firm at a ludicrously low price.
Good security means trying to limit the damage a Trusted role can do