Pension Review

Post by **max49** » 06 Jan 2017, 17:07

Why are examples given on the earnings of £25,000 when my basic pay is £412.30 a week which is £21,439.60 for a 52 week year? In addition the pension benefits have been inflated by including the state pension so this further confuses how much pension from RM you may get.

Post by **RobertT** » 06 Jan 2017, 17:52

It also uses the full rate of the 'new state pension' which won't necessarily apply to everybody.

mark.cup · Post by **mark.cup** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:05

It's all utter Bullsh#t to pretend that we aren't being totally screwed over why else give an example based on more than most earn plus give figures then saying you retired at 60 including the full state pension which lots won't get due to us being opted out for a long time.... And the fact that for me personally if I retired at 60 I wouldn't be getting the figure shown until 67

It's been designed to fool and confuse by people far more knowledgable on pensions than us who would clearly know this is very misleading information

BeamishStout · Post by **BeamishStout** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:06

max49 wrote:Why are examples given on the earnings of £25,000 when my basic pay is £412.30 a week which is £21,439.60 for a 52 week year? In addition the pension benefits have been inflated by including the state pension so this further confuses how much pension from RM you may get.

Are RM quoting the inner London pay? I get £22,685.22 (inc delivery supplement) but I am a F/T who does not work much overtime.

Re the state pension they do state in the print that it doesn't kick in until you are ...... but why not be upfront and state figures without state pension kicking in? Because %-wise the change (DB to DC) does not look so bad

mark.cup · Post by **mark.cup** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:13

But most don't understand pensions so will look at the 1st big box and go oh it's hardly any different then bin it as many said they had today

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:51

hopefully the union will get pension experts in to tell it like it really is and state our total justification to reject RMs proposals.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:54

I have no doubt in my mind that some ''tunnelled vision'' employees will just focus on the 750 quid offered to accept their proposals and vote for it though.

mark.cup · Post by **mark.cup** » 06 Jan 2017, 19:28

daveyeff wrote:I have no doubt in my mind that some ''tunnelled vision'' employees will just focus on the 750 quid offered to accept their proposals and vote for it though.

The 1st thing I thought when I read it in work was half of these idiots will take £750 minus tax and NI and be 10's of thousands worse off in retirement

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 10 Jan 2017, 15:59

been talking to a few lads today and they said they WOULDN'T be voting for strike action as they were already in receipt of their pension, and the driver that calls up from the mail centre said that's the view of a lot of people who are already getting their pensions. ask the young'uns and they seem to just shrug their shoulders with a 'couldn't care less attitude'. some even said the 750 quid will be nice!! (jeeesus). the lino said he wouldn't be voting either because he's taking his in 3 years when he's 55 so wouldn't be losing THAT much anyways, and stressed he couldn't give a monkeys about the younger generation. apparently a pensions expert in one of the tabloids reckons we will struggle to get a mandate for strike action saying more or less the same things I've been hearing. and I've heard Moya's been saying it doesn't matter if we do go on strike, it WILL close no matter what as they have the shareholders to consider. THEY come first in all of this. does anybody else out there have an opinion on this. I think if we lose a strike vote then the union is down the swannee.

vmaxv4 · Post by **vmaxv4** » 10 Jan 2017, 16:27

Spoke to a manager today regarding his thoughts on the pension proposals.
He informed me that his career has only been since 2008 & would not need to worry as he & many others with a similar or less career in RM don't know any better..
If this is correct, then the apathy shown by the "Newer entrants" must be a real concern to CWU Hq ?

scoobiemandan · Post by **scoobiemandan** » 11 Jan 2017, 16:37

daveyeff wrote:some even said the 750 quid will be nice!! (jeeesus).

That's alright, £750 is more than enough to cover, say, the loss of £5k every year when they retire eh!

Once again, we're being screwed over! I see that if you work for RM longer (65 instead of 60) you get even MORE screwed and lose MORE money in retirement.....work more, lose a greater amount!

Post by **stephen500** » 11 Jan 2017, 17:11

It is not the CWUs fault if they lose a strike ballot. But I have to agree with others that over 50/55 (myself excepted) don't seem to care, along with those who joined after 2008 and are in the new dc scheme. Division by chopping up pensions into different time frames has already been acheived. Section B is better off the A. Post 2008 are not affected and 30-40s are left out to dry. We are not united that's for sure. Tory Britain and it's people summed up as a selfish nation and peoples nicely