Royal Mail Union Threatens Strike to Protect Pension Plan

[heapsy]

It amazes me that members will fight for a pay rise of a couple of percent but won't fight a pay cut of around 30%, that's what this is, the fact that it's a pension pay cut doesn't stop it being a pay cut, you could be trying to live off that pension longer than you've been working.

This isn't about the company being able to afford the pension, it's about the company increasing shareholder returns, the irony is a great deal of royal mail shares are held by pension funds so you could be sacrificing your own pension income to boost the pension income of someone already on a superior pension as well as lining the pockets of a pension fund manager.

Sadly the CWU didn't keep its promise to "defend the final salary pension". That is what Dave Ward said when he came out of ACAS late one night during the last dispute.

[aiden01]

very good post Robert t why can't cwu put it in simple terms like you have just done.

[westham000]

Well said Dingo. The pension scheme is hugely important, and we should do all we can to protect it.

[tpost]

It amazes me that members will fight for a pay rise of a couple of percent but won't fight a pay cut of around 30%, that's what this is, the fact that it's a pension pay cut doesn't stop it being a pay cut, you could be trying to live off that pension longer than you've been working.

This isn't about the company being able to afford the pension, it's about the company increasing shareholder returns, the irony is a great deal of royal mail shares are held by pension funds so you could be sacrificing your own pension income to boost the pension income of someone already on a superior pension as well as lining the pockets of a pension fund manager.

Sadly the CWU didn't keep its promise to "defend the final salary pension". That is what Dave Ward said when he came out of ACAS late one night during the last dispute.

Quite right, I was a rep at the time and was disgusted when our final salary pension went. Sorry but it is now getting the best deal we can, striking will only cost jobs

[heapsy]

It amazes me that members will fight for a pay rise of a couple of percent but won't fight a pay cut of around 30%, that's what this is, the fact that it's a pension pay cut doesn't stop it being a pay cut, you could be trying to live off that pension longer than you've been working.

This isn't about the company being able to afford the pension, it's about the company increasing shareholder returns, the irony is a great deal of royal mail shares are held by pension funds so you could be sacrificing your own pension income to boost the pension income of someone already on a superior pension as well as lining the pockets of a pension fund manager.

Sadly the CWU didn't keep its promise to "defend the final salary pension". That is what Dave Ward said when he came out of ACAS late one night during the last dispute.

Quite right, I was a rep at the time and was disgusted when our final salary pension went. Sorry but it is now getting the best deal we can, striking will only cost jobs

I agree. We have to look at this with open eyes. Look at our pay compared to the 90's. If people cannot afford to put a little extra away into AVCs or something then it is their fault. The pay is really good compared to some places.

[GRS]

The CWU are really going to have to work hard here to get as Robert says the best possible deal for us. Had a quick look round our office today and out of 50 people I reckon only 20 odd are going to be affected by this so getting a 'Yes' in any industrial action ballot is going to be very difficult if these sort of numbers are reflected in other offices and RM will know this. Many people have joined since the new scheme came in, others have (foolishly) taken their pension at the earliest possible opportunity, one or two aren't in any pension scheme and having spoken to people in the past I know that some couldn't give a s**t about the pension. It is quite staggering how little notice people take of their pension and how little they care about it - again RM know this and will use this to their advantage and yet as has been said people will jump up and down about only receiving a 2% pay rise and yet you say to them that they face 30+% cut in pension contributions and they couldn't give a fly. God knows what people think they will live on in their retirement especially as most are agreed that they won't be working until the state pension kicks in a 67. Let's hope and pray the union come up trumps because this is one of the biggest crisis we face as employees.

[jetblack]

Proposals re. the pension scheme, put forward by the CWU would have to be of a nature that they included and benefitted not only those in the DB scheme, but those on the DC scheme also, which, judging by comments on here would seem to be the majority. The proposals would, therefore, need to drag up the pension rights of those on the DC scheme.

Then we might have a bit of solidairity.

Looks to me that the CWU needs a few lessons in strategy - cos at the minute we are being taken to the cleaners by chess players.
If we can't stand together for our common good then we have nothing - and we never will.

[nataddick]

Let's be quite clear about RM closing the RMPP to future accrual post March 2018 - this information has been out there in the public domain since 2013 and so should not come as a shock to the CWU or scheme members. The facts were in the Company's previous Pension Proposal document and specifically stated that keeping the plan open beyond that date would be subject to certain conditions. The recent letter from John Millidge refers to these on several occasions. I have previously posted what these are but they are in the Proposal document if anyone cares to look.

So the CWU have been aware of the very real possibility that RM would look to close the RMPP to future accrual from March 2018, since 2013. The CWU compromised on the previous proposal (that included this information) and they also recommended it to members. What have the CWU been doing since 2013 to protect us on this pension issue?

In my opinion, the RMPP will close by March 2018, or before if RM are allowed to get away with it. The best we can hope for, and I prepared to take industrial action to support the CWU and fellow members, is that a few concessions are won on the terms of the 'new' RMDCP. I would like to see RM still pay in the 17.1% that they are saying they can afford and members have the option to pay in up to 10%. Since a spouses or dependants pension would not be a feature under a defined contribution scheme, I think the CWU should be looking to secure an increase in the death in service benefit to somewhere around 10 times pensionable pay. Group life cover is relatively cheap to purchase for a scheme the size of RM's.

I am not impressed with the CWU's record on defending our pensions or their ability to get critical messages 'out there' to members. The changes that are now being planned will have a significant impact on members retirement incomes but very few realise it - why, because the CWU seem to have buried the issue under the carpet for the last 3 years.

[Martin Walsh]

The CWU have a strategy which is to defend the DB scheme whilst improving the DC scheme.

Let's get one thing straight the Current defended contribution scheme will not give a worthwhile pensions for those currently within it especially as the majority of those in the scheme have opted to pay just 4% pension contributions and in return Royal Mail pay 7%.

IN your year pensions booklet is the following

Are you on target ?

Research from the department of works and pensions suggests that if your salary is £23 000 per year you should aim for a retirement income of £15 400 per year.

In a table it shows

Salary up too £12 199 you should aim to have 80% of your salary in retirement

Salaries from £12 200 up too £22 399 you should aim to have 70% of yours salary as a pension

Salaries from £22 400 up too £31 999 you should aim to have 67% of your income.

There has been lots of information in the media stating that DC schemes do not produce an adequate pension scheme unless people work into their 70s. It is hardly likely that many delivery OPGs will be working long into their 50s under Royal Mail's strategy let along 70s.

SO this fight is about not just protecting the DB scheme but fighting for those members who are in DC scheme to have a pension which gives them some dignity in retirement and not condemn them to a retirement in poverty.

Remember the state pension age for women is moving from 63 too 65 in 2020 and than in 2026 to 67 the same as men. HOwever the Government wants to move it too 68 and there is a review in 2017 which will consider this.

So let's be clear unless you have savings and decent pension than you will struggle as the gap between when your work pension is payable and your state pension is moving further away.

Equally for those who say we should recognise we need Royal Mail to make money and the shareholder to get their rewards where do you stop as Royal Mail want

Later starts so they can remove all planes from carrying mail saving 1 million per plan ?

Longer deliveries so so reducing by a third the delivery offices ?

Closing 400 delivery offices after property is booming and we must reward the shareholder ?

Move too mainly part time job saving millions

Introducing one wave plenty of savings their ?

What about outsourcing d2d , lose your supplement and pay for a cheaper workforce who can also do parcels cheaper ??

If you don't fight on pensions what will you fight on ? You don't think Royal Mail are testing you ?

The CWU or UCW or UPW before fought for pensions and gained a good pension scheme , if your not willing to fight on it than don't be surprise if Royal Mail don't believe your than not willing to fight on all those other things they want !

Me I am a fighter and recognize you get nothing from Royal Mail by showing your willing to accept change based on the fact that the shareholder should be paid even when it is at the expense of the workforce !

[jetblack]

The CWU have a strategy which is to defend the DB scheme whilst improving the DC scheme.

Good to hear dingo - but thats the goal, not the strategy. How do the CWU aim to go about achieving their goals when the issues raised on this thread would seem to say that we are pissing into the wind as things stand. The management would appear to have successfully divided the workforce on the issue of pensions, whereby our interests lay in different places. How does the CWU aim to go about uniting us ?

As for the rest of your post, I'm in complete agreement, and well said.

[RobertT]

Personally I think there’s a misconception amongst many workers in the UK, not just RM, that an employer has to give them a pension that’s enough to live on in retirement. When infact it wasn’t even compulsory to offer a pension scheme until auto-enrolment started being phased in from 2012. Up until then it was just a choice companies made.
Employers are now compelled to offer one although their minimum contribution is only 1%, rising to 3% by 2019.

Ultimately it’s your retirement and so it’s up to you to fund it! Just like it’s up to you to fund your life in work.

Let’s say you want to buy a bigger house because your family is outgrowing your current one. You basically have two choices: you earn yourself more money by doing overtime, a second job or perhaps re-training and getting a better job. Or you make do with your lot and stay somewhere that’s no longer fit for purpose. Either way you have to make compromises.

Funding your retirement is similar. Do you pay in the minimum amounts or even nothing at all and then moan you have to work into your 70’s. Or do you be proactive, realistic and sensible and give yourself a better chance to retire at a decent age.

Also, I can understand that many people think they’re entitled to a certain amount in the future because their annual statements say they’ll get £x when they’re 65. But in reality with Defined Benefit pensions, the only thing that’s guaranteed is what you’ve actually built up so far. And if the company in question goes bust, you won’t necessarily get 100% of that.

Unfortunately many people don’t take much notice of their retirement provision until their 50’s. Along the way many opt out because they’re ‘young and pensions don’t matter’ and they’d ‘rather have the money in their pockets now’. I suppose you can understand that when they’re in their 20’s, but when they’re still saying that in their 40’s, they’ve only really got themselves to blame. And they still expect to retire early and be living a life of riley for years to come!

It’s not about just giving in to what RM want and not fighting. We, or at least some of us, are lucky enough to be members of the RMPP which is an extremely valuable asset to have. We should do all we can to keep it open.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think this is one fight we won’t win.

[heapsy]

Personally I think there’s a misconception amongst many workers in the UK, not just RM, that an employer has to give them a pension that’s enough to live on in retirement. When infact it wasn’t even compulsory to offer a pension scheme until auto-enrolment started being phased in from 2012. Up until then it was just a choice companies made.
Employers are now compelled to offer one although their minimum contribution is only 1%, rising to 3% by 2019.

Ultimately it’s your retirement and so it’s up to you to fund it! Just like it’s up to you to fund your life in work.

Let’s say you want to buy a bigger house because your family is outgrowing your current one. You basically have two choices: you earn yourself more money by doing overtime, a second job or perhaps re-training and getting a better job. Or you make do with your lot and stay somewhere that’s no longer fit for purpose. Either way you have to make compromises.

Funding your retirement is similar. Do you pay in the minimum amounts or even nothing at all and then moan you have to work into your 70’s. Or do you be proactive, realistic and sensible and give yourself a better chance to retire at a decent age.

Also, I can understand that many people think they’re entitled to a certain amount in the future because their annual statements say they’ll get £x when they’re 65. But in reality with Defined Benefit pensions, the only thing that’s guaranteed is what you’ve actually built up so far. And if the company in question goes bust, you won’t necessarily get 100% of that.

Unfortunately many people don’t take much notice of their retirement provision until their 50’s. Along the way many opt out because they’re ‘young and pensions don’t matter’ and they’d ‘rather have the money in their pockets now’. I suppose you can understand that when they’re in their 20’s, but when they’re still saying that in their 40’s, they’ve only really got themselves to blame. And they still expect to retire early and be living a life of riley for years to come!

It’s not about just giving in to what RM want and not fighting. We, or at least some of us, are lucky enough to be members of the RMPP which is an extremely valuable asset to have. We should do all we can to keep it open.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think this is one fight we won’t win.

Excellent post. I think many also think they will be able to claim benefits. This may not be the case, but there's always someone in the office who is convinced they will. They grew up with the benefit culture we are now plagued with and I am convinced that plays a big part in this. Even if they CAN claim something, the age at which they will be able to claim will ALSO moved backwards.

[cloherty1976]

Ultimately it’s your retirement and so it’s up to you to fund it! Just like it’s up to you to fund your life in work.

Totally agree

[Martin Walsh]

Why ?? When you joined Royal Mail you were immediately enrolled into the pension scheme. You had to pay 6% and the employer paid their contributions. Your pension was your deferred pay and was part of your contract of employment.

Royal Mail sent you a yearly booklet showing what your pension would be at the age of 60 if your continue to work. This was in all other ways a contract. Why shouldt people be expected to think that Royal Mail would honour their part of that contract and therefore plan on the basis that this would be your pension ??

On the 8th February 2007 the then Adam Crozier give the following brief to employees ::

" Consultations will take place on ways to safeguard an affordable final salary scheme for existing employees. It is important we safeguard the future of pension fund for our people, who regard a final salary scheme as a key benefit of working for Royal Mail. "

Crozier and Leighton lied to the workforce when they closed the final salary scheme. Lets be clear the current management have made a choice that they would rather reward the shareholders than offer a good pension scheme for employers who have served this industry for years.

I don't accept that it is just down to individuals to fund their pension especially those who have week in week out paid their pension due in the expectation that the employer they work for would keep their part of the bargain and pay a decent pension.

[mark.cup]

Daylight robbery springs to mind