Pensions Bulletin 3

[nataddick]

I have seen it on this site but not at my place of work which has several hundred members, so the message it definitely NOT getting through to all members. I saw Bulletins 1 & 2 on tables in our canteen but 3 has not got through !

[fishtank]

No joined up message again, there's a surprise.
Prospective divisional reps up here are too busy squabbling over who gets to fill the slot left by the previous incumbent, there's another space at the trough and no time to be worrying about trivial matters like pensions.

[Destiny]

I can confirm my div rep has one in his possession (noticed as he flicked through paperwork) but made no attempt to inform the 20 unit reps at letter meeting!!

[yellowbelly]

Some interesting quotes from Saturdays 'Times' newspaper (no I didn't pay for it, it was in McDonalds - the Times in McDonalds WTF? and it was the
only paper that didn't have dubious smears of 'stuff' on it....) commenting on a Govt report about company pensions:

"There are also worries that unscrupulous employer will deliberately overplay the burden of their pension fund so that they will be allowed to water down their
commitments to staff pensions".

"....the report states there is no evidence that defined benefit pensions are unaffordable for the majority of businesses"

"....pensions deficits are likely to shrink if companies keep up their commitments to them."

"Companies that complain that their pension obligations are too onerous seem to be able to pay shareholders large dividends."

"The report states 'In 2015, FTSE 100 companies paid around five times as much in dividends as the did in contributions to their defined benefit pension schemes' "

These are newspaper quotes, if you're at a loose end the actual Govt report is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ainability

[fishtank]

To be honest it's a short sighted road to oblivion cutting pensions, the less pensioners have to spend the less they spend, that's a simple fact, the impact that has on an economy coupled with the financial burden on tax payers of having to look after more and more dependent older people means that the whole thing becomes self destructive.

Government should be forcing/incentivising/coercing employers to provide better pensions to remove some of the future burden from the state but these career politician can't do long term and have one eye on their own retirement with a job in the city.

[heapsy]

To be honest it's a short sighted road to oblivion cutting pensions, the less pensioners have to spend the less they spend, that's a simple fact, the impact that has on an economy coupled with the financial burden on tax payers of having to look after more and more dependent older people means that the whole thing becomes self destructive.

Government should be forcing/incentivising/coercing employers to provide better pensions to remove some of the future burden from the state but these career politician can't do long term and have one eye on their own retirement with a job in the city.

Couldn't agree more. The problem in our country has always been that of short term thinking. As they will not have to deal with the issue, generation after generation of politicians in this country have put off the decision making regarding pensions, house building, and just about everything else. If anything, pensions have been systematically targeted, in order to force people to work longer. In the U.S.A, people pay for their own state pensions. We don't. As a result, people will have to work longer for their own, unless they save like made. unfortunately, many, including many on this site, don't seem to get it. In particular, your point regarding future costs. this will inevitably mean a longer wait for everyone. We must break the link between the workers having to pay for those already retired, otherwise some will never retire. My answer is simple. Save as much as you can and then get out. Stop work when it suits YOU, not the government. In some ways, I look forward to walking out of my office for the last time, I will wave them goodbye and wont look back. Most will be forced to work on because of their own "head in the sand" approach.

[heapsy]

Just read this. Very depressing if it turns out to be true. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comm ... r-now.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[daveyeff]

an ex rep from the mail centre was at ours today, he reckons RM want to cut their liability to the pensions by a lot more than the 70m dingo mentioned. he says they'll want to reduce it again in a couple more years...then again til its right down. if he's right then this new proposal from the union will hold no interest for them at all. they will have their sights set on their own pension agenda, and our proposal will go down the swannee.... we'll see soon enough then won't we.

[rambo1]

Think the govt just want to make it that hard for us to build any sort of reliable decent pension, they would rather us all have to work till we drop, therefore reducing the amount they have to pay on the state pension.