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.
RobertT wrote:
The argument really is should RM or indeed any other employer be responsible for ensuring an individual has a decent retirement?
That is the question Robert. But an ancillary to that is that if the employer doesn't (through deferred pay) provide for a decent retirement, then the burden falls on the state.
It has to be said also that the burden of risk, with the CWU proposal,to provide for a decent retirement income is shared between the employer and the employee.
I think we all know why the employer would prefer all the risk to be on the employee - but is it right that the employer, to whom we give our working lives and who harness their profit from our labours, should bare no responsibility at all ?
RobertT wrote:For the record I will be voting YES for strike action.
I still don't see what my pension has to do with a pay rise or later starts or sick pay etc. If they want to discuss my pension and how it is 'currently' unaffordable then fine, I am open to suggestions. If they want to discuss my terms and conditions then they are my employer and I'll have to listen. But I am not prepared to bargain one off against another in a lose lose situation.
P.S. for the record, the Union's pension proposal is not whimsical but could in theory work. It is not an ideal proposition for RM but neither is their proposal for me, they are a basis for negotiation - something RM is not prepared to do.
But ultimately it’s up to the individual to ensure their own provision is enough.
but if you don't know what your company pension is going to be then how can you plan properly. A defined benefit scheme however good or bad gives an employee an idea of what they will getand they can plan accordingly. A defined contribution is total guesswork what you will get and therefore it is very difficult for an employee to plan what they may need to top it up
I think the only real solution to the pensions impasse, whether it be a workplace pension or the state pension age, is for everyone to die within 18 months of starting to receive their pension.
This would be a win-win situation, or rather a win-die situation, but at least it would be affordable and everyone could plan accordingly.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker wrote:I think the only real solution to the pensions impasse, whether it be a workplace pension or the state pension age, is for everyone to die within 18 months of starting to receive their pension.
This would be a win-win situation, or rather a win-die situation, but at least it would be affordable and everyone could plan accordingly.
Sounds like Logan's Run a 70's TV series but someone must earn the money for all the CEO'S of this world perhaps she could all euthanize us as so it fits her O'great one's save on pensions IHR and redundancy so she can have a nice time thinking about us all! NOT
I think we should get a lump sum quote of what's currently in our individual pension pots and then be allowed to place it with a pension provider of our own choice
TheTrolleyMan wrote:I think we should get a lump sum quote of what's currently in our individual pension pots and then be allowed to place it with a pension provider of our own choice
Whether it's good thing to do would depend on the transfer value and an individuals circumstances. But in general transferring out of a DB pension with it's guaranteed index linked income for life, in favour of a DC scheme with no guarantees, won't be the best choice.
Spedley wrote:I still don't see what my pension has to do with a pay rise or later starts or sick pay etc. If they want to discuss my pension and how it is 'currently' unaffordable then fine, I am open to suggestions. If they want to discuss my terms and conditions then they are my employer and I'll have to listen. But I am not prepared to bargain one off against another in a lose lose situation.
Good point Spedley. Perhaps the threatened industrial action might concentrate some minds on the subject. Perhaps the CWU and RM could run some sort of Parallel Discussions? As you point out start times, sick pay & pay rises aren't necessarily joined at the hip with pensions.
Either way I'll be voting YES , and I'm glad that for once we seem to have got the timing right, with a Strike on the build up (and possibly over) Christmas. Instead of waiting until the most profitable period is over and then Striking in the Doldrums of Jan-March.
Like all Wage Slaves, he had two crosses to bear: The people he worked for and the people he worked with! (Stephen Vizinczey.)
Spedley wrote:I still don't see what my pension has to do with a pay rise or later starts or sick pay etc. If they want to discuss my pension and how it is 'currently' unaffordable then fine, I am open to suggestions. If they want to discuss my terms and conditions then they are my employer and I'll have to listen. But I am not prepared to bargain one off against another in a lose lose situation.
Good point Spedley. Perhaps the threatened industrial action might concentrate some minds on the subject. Perhaps the CWU and RM could run some sort of Parallel Discussions? As you point out start times, sick pay & pay rises aren't necessarily joined at the hip with pensions.
Are you suggesting we decouple pensions from the current talks?
History repeating itself?
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
So lets get this right, we've got large multi national companies that make billions every year telling its workforces that their pensions are no longer affordable, right?
We've got a cheap minimum pension scheme created by Government that is the cheapest and shittiest pension scheme you could imagine and no law saying you can't close your existing pension scheme and put you on a inferior pension scheme.
Lots of MP's who have money tied up in these companies and they want to make more profit for themselves.
Has the penny dropped yet????
The truth is that these Final Salary/ DB schemes are affordable but the company you work for wants to use a chunk of that money for profit - Simple! It's not f***ing rocket science, it's day light legalised robbery.
And remember, the ones at the top, the MP's and more they don't give a f**k about you!
OMG it's the sign of the times the paper that just keeps on taking advertisements in every paper soon as you click on it pay for news even FAKE NEWS old news is good news in fact any news is good if you can get anyone to pay for it even if it is FAKE NEWS!
better minds on here would know.
"Even if Royal Mail did agree to a less generous DB plan, holding equities, why should it use any surplus to give increases to members, rather than simply reducing its annual cash contributions for new pension promises"
Is the Author suggesting that even though we contribute to our pensions, any profit we generated should go to RM to reduce its costs to the pension?
Confused... You won't be, after the next episode of. SOAP
I think the info I’ve seen on WinRS suggested they’d be a panel of people from RM, the CWU and some actuaries who decide what percentage increase, if any, would be applied each year.
But RM being RM, in my opinion they’d always be the potential for them to deny us any increase because it saves them money, despite there being enough in the pot.
I believe the best way to judge the new db compared to the current db, is to see how much you'd get if you were a new starter in 2008 and just scraped in the current db scheme.
The illustration I received today, based on a 30 year old with 10 years pensionable service next April and a £30,000 basic (logistics) would loose £9,300 a year.
It shows how poor Royal Mails pension proposal is.
This is far too much and royal Mail need to do a lot more to get closer to the current db scheme.
