14 Mar 2017, 16:01
14 Mar 2017, 17:18
.... the new scheme would review investment performance once a year, and assess whether it could afford to increase pension payments in line with inflation.
14 Mar 2017, 19:19
14 Mar 2017, 20:34
RobertT wrote:As far as I’m concerned there isn’t really anything new about the CWU’s proposals compared to any other DB pension scheme, other than the asset allocation. Any shortfall from below than expected investment returns will still mean a potential deficit and so higher contributions from RM and/or the workforce.
So in my opinion the CWU’s pension idea is more LOSRS rather than WINRS, and personally I can’t see anything other than the proposed DC scheme being implemented, with perhaps a few minor tweaks.
14 Mar 2017, 21:19
RobertT wrote:So in my opinion the CWU’s pension idea is more LOSRS rather than WINRS.
14 Mar 2017, 21:34
Phantom wrote:The DC scheme will not pay out enough to live on and the company will walk away leaving you to rot and it will be the workforce who are the LOSRS and RM will be the WINRS.
15 Mar 2017, 09:54
jetblack wrote:The CWU's pension idea means that we will still have a pension scheme.
The alternative is an ISA [with RM directing a percentage of our pay into it (which may or may not be taxed back at a later date)].
If you think that the CWU proposal is without merit/unaffordable etc then you need to put some meat on the bones.
15 Mar 2017, 15:20
15 Mar 2017, 17:28
15 Mar 2017, 17:40
fishtank wrote:I'm sorry to say that the CWU proposal is just a box ticking exercise, they had to come up with a counter proposal
fishtank wrote:Basing a pension scheme around increased investment risk is not only frightening to the business and shareholders,