A separate vote for the final pension proposal?

[fishtank]

There were 4 pillars and depending on your point of view 3 of them have been addressed to varying degrees and it's really up to the membership whether or not they accept them, In reality we know that the vote will go through because there's cash on offer, the members are fed up with the whole thing and HQ will throw all its smoke and mirrors capabilities at it.

The pension pillar has not been resolved though, it's a little like Brexit in that we know we're leaving but we've no idea how or exactly what the new pension will look like. We have a very sketchy outline but until the regulations are in place no-one, not the union nor First Actual can say for certain what shape it will take. You can't play a game without knowing the rules first.

I think when/if the regulations are finally put in place and the scheme is built around those rules the membership deserve the opportunity to decide whether it's good enough. I think we need a separate vote on the real pension solution and I think reps and members should lobby their branches to put this forward at conference.

#Pensionvote

[slinder123]

it wont happen its all or nothing the yes vote will be carried and we will be on the journey together

[Celgar]

Our union rep said the current forthcoming vote isn't for the pension scheme changes - just for the rest of the changes & the pay rise.

[97gaz]

[

[fishtank]

In reality we know that the vote will go through because there's cash on offer,

I know it's not going to be very accurate but the poll we had on here for the original strike vote was 90% in favour with the actual being 89%.

The current poll for the ballot for this agreement is 66% in favor of rejection on here.

The poll on here while entertaining isn't representative of the membership's actual intentions.

Many people who are unhappy with the deal and voted no in the poll will still vote yes in the ballot for various reasons, money, the belief that there isn't a better deal out there, the belief that our negotiators are useless, they might be convinced by the road show, by management, by union reps, because they follow the PEC recommendations or branch recommendations, because they're worried we'll end up with no deal.

Nobody who is happy with the deal and voted yes in the poll will vote no in the ballot.

[DGH]

I tend to agree with fishtank.

Most part-timers will be tempted by the deal because it up's the hourly rate as well as giving a pay rise. I suspect many over 55s will also be tempted by it, even if it means them taking a bit of a hit on their pension. Those in the 35-55 bracket who are full time are most likely to reject it, I think, and I think a substantial number of them will prefer to have some money now and worry about the future later.

[rambo1]

I tend to agree with fishtank.

Most part-timers will be tempted by the deal because it up's the hourly rate as well as giving a pay rise. I suspect many over 55s will also be tempted by it, even if it means them taking a bit of a hit on their pension. Those in the 35-55 bracket who are full time are most likely to reject it, I think, and I think a substantial number of them will prefer to have some money now and worry about the future later.

Part timers are only getting an increase in hr rate IF full timers get reduced week. And that's still an IF.

[vigilante]

From what i have read it's an all if's agreement. Nothing written in stone, vagueness in the new delivery agreement and changes to methods.
Pay rises reliant on performance.
Totally vague in the changes to pipeline and what LAT will mean to delivery offices.

Pensions have been made ridiculously complicated and not broken down into lay mans terms, purposely.

I am at a meeting tomorrow to hear about it all so I will hopefully get a better understanding of what it all means.

[nataddick]

I am with Fish on this issue - we need a separate vote for the final Pensions Proposal. The CWU’s campaign strategy had to include the Pensions pillar to unite the workforce and, in that respect, it did so with overwhelming support per the 89.1% ballot vote.

However, there is no definitive pension solution to vote on at the moment and in fact the current proposal is very different from the one that the CWU campaigned on, which was for WINR’s DB scheme with a 1/60th Pension accrual rate not a CDC scheme with a 1/80th accrual rate. Hilary Salt from First Actuarial makes reference to this very early on in her presentation. Also, the DC option for RMPP members with an employer’s contribution of 13.6% appears to have been removed without an explanation from either RM or the CWU. I have emailed RM on this point.

So, I would agree that we should vote ONLY on 3 of the 4 Pillars and leave the pension vote in abeyance until the CDC scheme has had clearance by the Government. Or the ballot paper should be worded so as to provide a caveat on the Pensions issue.

[NewPostieUK]

There were 4 pillars and depending on your point of view 3 of them have been addressed

I can't find any point of view from which any of The Four Pillars of Security have been addressed.

The only definite is the pay rise, which doesn't seem to be a Pillar.


1 A PENSION SOLUTION FOR ALL

2 A SHORTER WORKING WEEK
FROM 39HRS TO 35HRS
FOR A FULL-TIME JOB

3 AN EXTENSION TO OUR
LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENTS

4 A RE-DESIGNED PIPELINE

No solution to any of the above is clear definite and guaranteed.

[Aquarius]

I am with Fish on this issue - we need a separate vote for the final Pensions Proposal. The CWU’s campaign strategy had to include the Pensions pillar to unite the workforce and, in that respect, it did so with overwhelming support per the 89.1% ballot vote.

However, there is no definitive pension solution to vote on at the moment and in fact the current proposal is very different from the one that the CWU campaigned on, which was for WINR’s DB scheme with a 1/60th Pension accrual rate not a CDC scheme with a 1/80th accrual rate. Hilary Salt from First Actuarial makes reference to this very early on in her presentation. Also, the DC option for RMPP members with an employer’s contribution of 13.6% appears to have been removed without an explanation from either RM or the CWU. I have emailed RM on this point.

So, I would agree that we should vote ONLY on 3 of the 4 Pillars and leave the pension vote in abeyance until the CDC scheme has had clearance by the Government. Or the ballot paper should be worded so as to provide a caveat on the Pensions issue.

If you get a reply - can you post the response - would be interesting to hear if that has been pulled and why - if it has i have my suspicions

[SpacePhoenix]

If the required legislation fails to get through parliamnent, is there a "Plan B"?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If the required legislation fails to get through parliamnent, is there a "Plan B"?

Probably to keep the inferior pension that starts in April.

[RobertT]

If the required legislation fails to get through parliamnent, is there a "Plan B"?

Probably to keep the inferior pension that starts in April.

According to the mediators report, the DBCB scheme has only got a lifespan of around 5 years, so the plan B is probably DC.

[toomuchcoke]

I can't find any point of view from which any of The Four Pillars of Security have been addressed.

The only definite is the pay rise, which doesn't seem to be a Pillar.

1 A PENSION SOLUTION FOR ALL

The new "defined ambition" pension scheme when/if it arrives would be one pension scheme for everybody.

2 A SHORTER WORKING WEEK
FROM 39HRS TO 35HRS
FOR A FULL-TIME JOB

Well moving from 39 hours to 38 and then to 37 (and yes, I know it's dependent upon various things) would definitely be moving in that direction. And since a 35 hour week has been an ambition of the CWU for some time now I'd say they where making progress.