Pensions Latest From The D/MIRROR

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 03 Aug 2007, 16:00

HI STRANGLER YES I DID GET A REPLY AND RAY ELLIS REFUSED TO DENY THAT THE UNION HAD SUGGESTED THE CHANGES TO THE SCHEME. ALL HE SAID WAS THAT THE UNION HAD ACCEPTED THAT CHANGES HAD TO BE MADE. YOU CAN DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM THAT.ALSO HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE UNION WOULD DO THIER BEST TO SEE THAT MEMBERS KEPT THE BENEFITS THAT THEY HAD ALREADY BIULT UP., HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT AWARE THAT BENEFITS ALREADY BIULT UP CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY.BY LAW. QUITE WORRYING WHEN THE PEOPLE YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN DONT EVEN KNOW THE RULES

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 03 Aug 2007, 16:23

Cheers Jafferpants. Quite worrying ain`t it even though I`m many years from retiring.
Mind you if it`s illegal to take away existing benefits, would that just mean in monetary terms or do you think retiring at 60 would also come into the category of 'existing benefits' and therefore remain untouched for those of us in the pension scheme?

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 03 Aug 2007, 18:28

STRANGLER YOUR POINT ABOUT STILL GOING AT 60 WOULD WORK LIKE THIS . THE AMOUNT OF PENSION YOU HAVE ALREADY BUILT UP COULD BE TAKEN AT 60, BUT IF THEY MOVE THE AGE ON TO 65 THEN FROM THE TIME IT'S CHANGED ALL YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE CALCULATED ON THAT AGE.THE STING IN THE TAIL IS THIS BY GOING AT 60 YOU WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN EARLY RETIREMENT AND WOULD BE REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 5% A YEAR THATS COMES TO 30% TO PUT IT IN OUR LANGUAGE STRANGLER THE c***s WILL HAVE DONE US UP LIKE KIPPERS

Post by **Wessex** » 03 Aug 2007, 19:03

jafferpants wrote:STRANGLER IV'E WRITTEN TO DAVE WARD AND I AM WAITING FOR HIM TO EITHER CONFIRM OR DENY THE STORY. AS FOR WORKING TILL YOU'R 65 WHAT IDIOT IF IT'S TRUE COULDN'T SEE A MASSIVE PROBLEM HEALTH WISE WITH MEN AND WOMEN IN THIER 60S WALKING ANYTHING FROM 6 MILE'S A DAY LUGGING BAG'S OF MAIL ROUND THE STREETS. :lfo

Isaw an item of news on Euronews,albeit a year or two ago where French posties of a certain age were complaining of the same thing,many posties approaching retirement age have been done in by years of hard work and sadly what thanks do they get ,luckily the appreciation comes from the communities that they have served,sadly not so much from the Company.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 03 Aug 2007, 19:08

There's a bloke in our office with three years service, but who transfered his pension over from his previous job. He's in his late 50s and has had a letter from RM saying he won't be able to retire at 60.

tomangoe · Post by **tomangoe** » 03 Aug 2007, 19:35

ANYONE KNOW WHY THE "TRUSTEES" HAVE NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO TASK OVER THE WHOLE PENSIONS DEBACLE? SURELY IT 'S THEIR JOB TO MAKE SURE THINGS ARE GOING OK AND IF NOT -DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE THE PENSION SCHEME IS IN THE s**t NOT AFTER.THEY SHOULD ALL BE KICKED OUT AND PUT PEOPLE IN WHO ARE GOING TO LOOK AFTER OUR PENSIONS,WHAT A CUSHTY NUMBER THEY'RE ON!

norbet colon · Post by **norbet colon** » 03 Aug 2007, 19:56

there's idiotic Senior Mgt mods on H******* saying it was correct to take a pensions holiday as RM would have had to pay tax if they contributed, once again the blame culture & two wrongs obviously make a right !?. It would be better if the Morris dancing Mars Bar salesman & the Telegraph Circulation lackey stayed out of things & it the Trustees appointed were taken to task :lfo :cfo

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 03 Aug 2007, 20:02

norbet colon wrote:there's idiotic Senior Mgt mods on H******* saying it was correct to take a pensions holiday as RM would have had to pay tax if they contributed, once again the blame culture & two wrongs obviously make a right !?. It would be better if the Morris dancing Mars Bar salesman & the Telegraph Circulation lackey stayed out of things & left it to the Trustees appointed. :lfo :cfo

The stupid sods. They probably think Thatcher stopping funding into Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was a good thing to do. Royal Mail managers would sell their mother to the white slave trade if they were told to by someone higher up. Gutless scum.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 04 Aug 2007, 08:10

jafferpants

STRANGLER YOUR POINT ABOUT STILL GOING AT 60 WOULD WORK LIKE THIS . THE AMOUNT OF PENSION YOU HAVE ALREADY BUILT UP COULD BE TAKEN AT 60, BUT IF THEY MOVE THE AGE ON TO 65 THEN FROM THE TIME IT'S CHANGED ALL YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE CALCULATED ON THAT AGE.THE STING IN THE TAIL IS THIS BY GOING AT 60 YOU WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN EARLY RETIREMENT AND WOULD BE REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 5% A YEAR THATS COMES TO 30% TO PUT IT IN OUR LANGUAGE STRANGLER THE c***s WILL HAVE DONE US UP LIKE KIPPERS Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad

Thanks for that I for one will be singing this nugget from the rooftops. Now will the strike breakers take notice. I know striking is not just about pensions but even the thickest must see sense now

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 04 Aug 2007, 15:21

TOMANGOE IT'S NOT THE TRUSTEES THAT ADVISE ROYAL MAIL OVER THE PENSION IT'S THE PENSIONS ACTUARY. IN THIS CASE WATSON WYATT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY RM CAN CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE ADVISE. AT THE RISK OF REPEATING MYSELF HAVING TOLD THIS ON ANOTHER LINK. YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD TWO SEPERATE SCHEMES AND ONE WAS LOSING MONEY RM PAID THE ACTUARY APP- ONE AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING THE TWO SCHEMES TO COVER UP THE SHORTFALL IN ONE. THE ACTUARY SAID UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD RM DO THIS. GUESS WHAT THEY WENT AHEAD AND DID IT ANY WAY. THATS THE SORT OF TWATTS YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

Post by **baldrick** » 06 Aug 2007, 22:57

jafferpants wrote:STRANGLER YOUR POINT ABOUT STILL GOING AT 60 WOULD WORK LIKE THIS . THE AMOUNT OF PENSION YOU HAVE ALREADY BUILT UP COULD BE TAKEN AT 60, BUT IF THEY MOVE THE AGE ON TO 65 THEN FROM THE TIME IT'S CHANGED ALL YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE CALCULATED ON THAT AGE.THE STING IN THE TAIL IS THIS BY GOING AT 60 YOU WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN EARLY RETIREMENT AND WOULD BE REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 5% A YEAR THATS COMES TO 30% TO PUT IT IN OUR LANGUAGE STRANGLER THE c***s WILL HAVE DONE US UP LIKE KIPPERS

Jafferpants you seem to know how the pension works, would the above apply to those who have left and had their pension deferred till they reach 60. Will they also have it reduced by 5% per year if they still take it at 60?

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 07 Aug 2007, 08:11

SENIORMAN ONCE YOU HAVE LEFT THE THE JOB THE PENSION BECOMES DEFFERED. EG- IT WILL GO UP EVERY YEAR AT WHATEVER THE RPI IS (RETAIL PRICES INDEX) UNTILL IT REACHES IT'S PAY OUT DATE. IN YOUR CASE 60. NOTHING THAT RM DO NOW CAN HAVE ANY AFFECT ON YOUR PENSION AS CHANGES THEY MIGHT MAKE CANNOT BE RETROSPECTIVE. REST EASY MY FRIEND

IT'S US NUMPTY'S THAT NEED TO WORRY

Post by **baldrick** » 07 Aug 2007, 08:26

Thanks for that! But I was asking for a friend of mine who took VR and had her pension deferred.
I am one of the numpties still in the job who was hoping to be able to retire at 60, but now may have to stay on till 65 if the leaked proposals are true

.