Royal Mail injunction plans

chrisj · Post by **chrisj** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:08

Fishtank, you are right about the pension surplus thanks to the tax payer footing all the pre-privatisation bills and starting with a clean state but there is also caveat:

RM are not making up the possible doom and gloom as regards things going forward. Things can change quickly - markets and profitability and continued commitment to the DB pensions.

At least, I am not just quoting g RM leaflets or RM TV but I do not read them or watch - not all propaganda, imo.

http://www.cityam.com/270097/royal-mail ... il-pension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:21

Yes the taxpayer - us. The same people who will be paying taxes to support people living in pension poverty.

The customers, the company and the taxpayer will all be paying towards our pensions at some point, the argument is where is the best for all. The current changes are probably more costly to the taxpayer in the long run, but cheaper for the business in the short term. Thats why they to change it, but is that better for all in the long-term

chrisj · Post by **chrisj** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:35

We are just a section of the taxpayers. Not every worker gets such a bounty including free shares...

Why would the taxpayers continue to pay for our pensions? They are not paying for mine - I get what I put in plus RM contribution.

I do not understand!

DC simply takes the risk out for employers and it obviously reduces contributions from 40%+ for DB pensions to max of 16% for DC.

If RM goes under, it is not up to the government anymore but the PPF.

Profit: £742million
Pension contributions/payouts. £1.3 approx Billions

dazzlin72 · Post by **dazzlin72** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:45

Is it just me, or hasn't anyone else thought maybe the pension situation is the mess it's in,is because in part the company decided to take a 10yr break from paying employees contributions, but kept paying the golden nest eggs?!
Surely this is embezzlement at least, & someone should be held accountable?!, but this has never been questioned, or investigated.
With regards the injunction, if RM where able to overturn the strike action with caveat loopholes, even tho the Union state they used Acas representation during negotiations when not necessary, it doesn't diffuse the situation, or make it go away. If RM plan is to try & stall & drag out the process to get Christmas out of the way, they have already failed, as the mediation process as I understand is supposed to take 5 weeks, which in my book puts them slap bang into Black Friday/Cyber Monday, & then Christmas pressure which they are trying to avert. Instead of wasting millions in legal costs, show the same energy & commitment in coming to an amicable agreement. By wanting to drag this through the courts, it just shows what the company really think of it's workers.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:55

chrisj wrote:We are just a section of the taxpayers. Not every worker gets such a bounty including free shares...

Why would the taxpayers continue to pay for our pensions? They are not paying for mine - I get what I put in plus RM contribution.

I do not understand!

Probably because you are just looking at the pensions.

But if the pension, including the state pension, isn't enough to live on then its topped up by benefits. Benefits are paid from Tax revenue.

So the argument I suppose is where and how is it best to fund peoples retirement. While they are in retirement seem the most expensive to me.

(just as an addendum - I'll be okay even with these changes, I should be okay and not need Benefits when I retire but not everyone will be)

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 08 Oct 2017, 14:57

dazzlin72 wrote:Is it just me, or hasn't anyone else thought maybe the pension situation is the mess it's in,is because in part the company decided to take a 10yr break from paying employees contributions, but kept paying the golden nest eggs?!
Surely this is embezzlement at least, & someone should be held accountable?!, but this has never been questioned, or investigated.

No the pension holiday of 13 years was legal and the government (or the taxpayer) took on the responsibility for that deficit when we were privatised.

dazzlin72 wrote:With regards the injunction, if RM where able to overturn the strike action with caveat loopholes, even tho the Union state they used Acas representation during negotiations when not necessary, it doesn't diffuse the situation, or make it go away. If RM plan is to try & stall & drag out the process to get Christmas out of the way, they have already failed, as the mediation process as I understand is supposed to take 5 weeks, which in my book puts them slap bang into Black Friday/Cyber Monday, & then Christmas pressure which they are trying to avert. Instead of wasting millions in legal costs, show the same energy & commitment in coming to an amicable agreement. By wanting to drag this through the courts, it just shows what the company really think of it's workers.

Now that I agree with

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 08 Oct 2017, 15:09

the pension holiday of 13 yrs may well have been legal teebs, but we all paid in our contributions for that 13 yrs. what happened to all the money that was continually being paid in. where is it? what have they done with it?.

Post by **cloherty1976** » 08 Oct 2017, 15:16

daveyeff wrote:the pension holiday of 13 yrs may well have been legal teebs, but we all paid in our contributions for that 13 yrs. what happened to all the money that was continually being paid in. where is it? what have they done with it?.

In those days didn't we often make losses!

Post by **RobertT** » 08 Oct 2017, 15:31

daveyeff wrote:the pension holiday of 13 yrs may well have been legal teebs, but we all paid in our contributions for that 13 yrs. what happened to all the money that was continually being paid in. where is it? what have they done with it?.

It was taken over by the government in 2012 along with the £28 Billion worth of assets and £10 Billion deficit, now apparently risen to around £18 Billion deficit. That part of our pensions is far more secure than it ever would be under RM.

It’s the pension from 2012 and beyond 2018 that this dispute is about, amongst other things.

chrisj · Post by **chrisj** » 08 Oct 2017, 15:41

Lots of sidetracking. Why would I be talking about state pensions when that is not really significant to this dispute and the issue of retirement pension and living into old age is not unique to RM workers.

Your state pension is safe and most people that have worked for RM for at least 10 years or more will most likely not need benefits top up on top of RM + State pension.

That again actually shows how lucky we are... It is the younger ones that have very little to look forward to when they get older...

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 08 Oct 2017, 15:44

Robert there is no deficit in the part that the government has taken over, there can't be. A deficit doesn't apply to a government sponsored pension because a deficit would only apply to a pension scheme if it was wound up. The government backed scheme has no assets only on going year on year liabilities.

Post by **RobertT** » 08 Oct 2017, 16:09

I know what you’re saying Fish, but the government took over £28 Billion in assets from the RM pension scheme in 2012. The liabilities of funding our pensions up to 2012 was recently reported as going up to £46 Billion - http://www.cityam.com/270097/royal-mail ... il-pension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So although the assets have been swallowed up, the cost to the government/taxpayer remains and they will over time, have to find a lot more money to fund our pensions.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 08 Oct 2017, 16:19

The liabilities of funding our pensions up to 2012 was recently reported as going up to £46 Billion

As you know that's an entirely hypothetical figure based on 50 years of potentials and assumptions. There's already evidence to suggest that projected increases in lifespan may be optimistic at best so the best you can say is that someone has modelled it probably using worst case scenarios involving mortality rates, lump sums and early retirement and engineered this figure. It's no more real than saying your two bedroom house will be worth a million in 2050.

Post by **RobertT** » 08 Oct 2017, 16:30

It’s not an exact science and no one knows for sure what’s going to happen in 50 years time. But it’s largely irrelevant anyway. As long as the government keep their side of the bargain, our pre 2012 pensions are safe.

Post by **cloherty1976** » 08 Oct 2017, 16:31

fishtank wrote:
The liabilities of funding our pensions up to 2012 was recently reported as going up to £46 Billion
As you know that's an entirely hypothetical figure based on 50 years of potentials and assumptions. There's already evidence to suggest that projected increases in lifespan may be optimistic at best so the best you can say is that someone has modelled it probably using worst case scenarios involving mortality rates, lump sums and early retirement and engineered this figure. It's no more real than saying your two bedroom house will be worth a million in 2050.

But that's the formula they use.
So we abide by them.
End of story