TATA Steel Agreement and RM Pension Proposal

[BeamishStout]

Just saw this announcement today regarding Tata Steel and their pension plan. Parts of it bear an uncanny resemblance to the possible/likely forthcoming pension changes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-38971675

Namely that the British Steel pension plan (DB) will close for future accrual to be replaced with a Defined Contribution (DC) scheme with maximum contributions of 6% from employees and 10 % from employers. This sounds very familiar....

But compare the one-off pension contribution of up to £10,000 that could be made to employees in their 50s who plan to retire early.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38772770

This all makes the the derisory offer of £750 (in the RM proposal) look extremely scrooge-like but it is payable to all.

[jetblack]

Even if RM did try to bribe me with £10k - they could still shove it up their arse.

"Ceteris paribus" I'll be way more than £10k worse off in my old age if the DB scheme is scrapped.

I'll not even deign to pass comment on the £750 that is currently on the table.

[daveyeff]

how many people are in the tata pension scheme though, and how many are in their 50s. I think there's many thousands more in RM pension scheme. not that i'm condoning the 750 quid off our lot mind. far from it. they can shove it up their f***ing greedy arse.

[BeamishStout]

Another difference in the TATA agreement is that they have agreed to move away from a final salary defined benefit (DB) pension scheme to a defined contribution (DC) contribution scheme in 1 stage, whereas RM moved to what I would call a 1/2 way house 4 years ago with the Career Salary Defined Benefit scheme (CSDB) and now wants to go the whole hog into the DC scheme. CWU needs to extract the maximum amount from RM if, as I fear. this (going to a DC scheme) is going to be inevitable in the long run.

[SW17]

The only reason they have accepted this deal is because their jobs depend on it, TATA will continue production in this country if they take a cut in there pensions or they will move production overseas where labour is cheaper.
They are basically being blackmailed to give up there pensions for their jobs, thankfully we are not in the same position.
Whatever Royal Mail save in pensions will go to shareholders and help cover the costs of all the Evrs and those retired currently enjoying their full pensions.
This is the cost of privatisation, it's not about us it's about the shareholder's.

[rambo1]

The only reason they have accepted this deal is because their jobs depend on it, TATA will continue production in this country if they take a cut in there pensions or they will move production overseas where labour is cheaper.
They are basically being blackmailed to give up there pensions for their jobs, thankfully we are not in the same position.
Whatever Royal Mail save in pensions will go to shareholders and help cover the costs of all the Evrs and those retired currently enjoying their full pensions.
This is the cost of privatisation, it's not about us it's about the shareholder's.

Er, we as a group, are one of the largest majority shareholders going, just thought I'd remind you.

[SW17]

Yes amazing how much influence we have, thanks for reminding me.

[yellowbelly]

Yes amazing how much influence we have, thanks for reminding me.

I know what you mean, but how many postie shareholders bothered to return their shareholder voting cards
which included the following agenda items at the last AGM??????:

Remuneration
2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Policy, the full text of
which is contained in the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the
financial year ended 27 March 2016, as set out on pages 60 to 80
of the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

and

6. To re-elect Moya Greene as a Director of the Company.

[SW17]

Yes amazing how much influence we have, thanks for reminding me.

I know what you mean, but how many postie shareholders bothered to return their shareholder voting cards
which included the following agenda items at the last AGM??????:

Remuneration
2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Policy, the full text of
which is contained in the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the
financial year ended 27 March 2016, as set out on pages 60 to 80
of the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

and

6. To re-elect Moya Greene as a Director of the Company.

If our union feel that by using our vote as shareholder's will help to influence things for the workforce then we should be advised to do so when we have the chance.
Most of us have become shareholders not by choice with some purchasing extra and wouldn't have the faintest idear on voting, why can't we agree to let the union act on our behalf on these issues, surely an 11%+ stake can make some impact.

[yellowbelly]

Yes amazing how much influence we have, thanks for reminding me.

I know what you mean, but how many postie shareholders bothered to return their shareholder voting cards
which included the following agenda items at the last AGM??????:

Remuneration
2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Policy, the full text of
which is contained in the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the
financial year ended 27 March 2016, as set out on pages 60 to 80
of the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

and

6. To re-elect Moya Greene as a Director of the Company.

If our union feel that by using our vote as shareholder's will help to influence things for the workforce then we should be advised to do so when we have the chance.
Most of us have become shareholders not by choice with some purchasing extra and wouldn't have the faintest idear on voting, why can't we agree to let the union act on our behalf on these issues, surely an 11%+ stake can make some impact.

SW, agree with you totally - RM gifted the shop floor a platform (albeit a small one) at the RM AGM by making employees shareholders in the company.
At most (if not all) plc AGM's a proxy can be nominated to vote on your behalf and I believe ask questions of the board as long as these are submitted in time,
but would the CWU want to do this?

[jetblack]

Yes amazing how much influence we have, thanks for reminding me.

I know what you mean, but how many postie shareholders bothered to return their shareholder voting cards
which included the following agenda items at the last AGM??????:

Remuneration
2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Policy, the full text of
which is contained in the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the
financial year ended 27 March 2016, as set out on pages 60 to 80
of the Annual Report and Financial Statements.

and

6. To re-elect Moya Greene as a Director of the Company.

If our union feel that by using our vote as shareholder's will help to influence things for the workforce then we should be advised to do so when we have the chance.
Most of us have become shareholders not by choice with some purchasing extra and wouldn't have the faintest idear on voting, why can't we agree to let the union act on our behalf on these issues, surely an 11%+ stake can make some impact.

I agree with you in principle - but in practice an 11% stake won't carry any sway against the will of "institutional" investors. After all, their interests and ours as employees are opposed in many ways.
Another 40% stake would make all the diffrence however.

[jetblack]

BTW - where we, as the people who actually operate this company and deliver its profits, have unity, then we also overwhelmingly control this company also - regardless of what the register of shareholders says.


WE ARE Royal Mail.

[SW17]

BTW - where we, as the people who actually operate this company and deliver its profits, have unity, then we also overwhelmingly control this company also - regardless of what the register of shareholders says.

WE ARE Royal Mail.

Well lets hope they see sence and realise this in the current talks but I'm not very optimistic

[fishtank]

I agree with you in principle - but in practice an 11% stake won't carry any sway against the will of "institutional" investors. After all, their interests and ours as employees are opposed in many ways.
Another 40% stake would make all the diffrence however.

"We" don't have an 11% stake.
There is no "we".
Royal Mail employees are individual shareholders.

There is a big difference between trade union representation and attempting to organise a group of individual shareholders into a voting block, a big legal difference. There is no group, organisation or individual who speaks for royal mail employee shareholders so there is no "we" whether "we" have 11% or 100% of the shares.

[jetblack]

51% gives the RM employees a controlling interest. The unions role would be moot. But being as said RM employees (I'm loathe to say "we") only have 11% the whole topic is moot IMO

Of course, where the unions role is not moot, is in promoting unity and galvanising the strength of and amongst RM employees collectively, whatever their individual shareholdings.