Voluntary redundancies

[k979aaa]

VR delivery posties not a chance they will work you out the business as for work place coaches they need them the turn over is that high and it is.

[RobertT]

Royal mail have already said there will be voluntary redundancy opportunities in the future.

Have they? All the recent talk is 'natural wastage'. Personally I doubt that any VR packages - even if offered - would be anything like as generous as previously (I'd be ecstatic if they were but the business is in a very very different place now).

In the recent parcel strategy special edition of Courier it did say:

Will there be any job losses as part of the strategy?

We expect that there will be an hours reduction of around 3% each year. This can be delivered through a combination of activities, like reducing use of agency staff and overtime.
We have a good track record of managing change sensitively through natural turnover, redeployment and voluntary redundancy wherever possible. In line with our current agreements, we will continue to deliver change without compulsory redundancies.

It's fair to say that VR's won't be thrown about like confetti, but personally I think there probably will be a relatively small number where there is no other alternative.
They will definitely be looking to explore the other cheaper options first!

As far as I know the maximum 104 weeks pay out still applies, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was under review.

[Woody Guthrie]

The only problem with natural wastage is that it isn't much use when it comes to managing immediate major change. I think that's probably one of the reasons this is a 5 year strategy rather than a faster paced process.

What that does tend to mean though is that there may be a lot more relocation of staff and merging of units involved in this strategy than in the past, a small semi-rural DO that's just lost all its large parcels and tracked might not be able to rely on natural wastage to reset its efficiency level. It might mean closure and merger or it might mean some guys need to move DO.

[antcpfc]

Royal mail have already said there will be voluntary redundancy opportunities in the future.

Have they? All the recent talk is 'natural wastage'. Personally I doubt that any VR packages - even if offered - would be anything like as generous as previously (I'd be ecstatic if they were but the business is in a very very different place now).

In the recent parcel strategy special edition of Courier it did say:

Will there be any job losses as part of the strategy?

We expect that there will be an hours reduction of around 3% each year. This can be delivered through a combination of activities, like reducing use of agency staff and overtime.
We have a good track record of managing change sensitively through natural turnover, redeployment and voluntary redundancy wherever possible. In line with our current agreements, we will continue to deliver change without compulsory redundancies.

It's fair to say that VR's won't be thrown about like confetti, but personally I think there probably will be a relatively small number where there is no other alternative.
They will definitely be looking to explore the other cheaper options first!

As far as I know the maximum 104 weeks pay out still applies, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was under review.

Over 55 and the terms are different. 26. Weeks max. and a enhanced pension payable immediately.

[RobertT]

Over 55 and the terms are different. 26. Weeks max. and a enhanced pension payable immediately.

The terms of the MTSF were changed a few years ago, meaning that option was only available if the total cost to RM was less than 2 years pay.
I saved it onto my computer at the time and I'm sure it's available to view on this site somewhere. Here's the relevant bit:

Further to LTB 350/2015 discussions with Royal Mail on the MTSF review have now concluded.

Attached is the review agreement which has been endorsed by the Postal Executive, together with “Additional guidance on ETE cases” which is a Royal Mail policy document which has been amended in consultation with CWU but does not constitute a formal agreement.

Background

Two elements of the MTSF section of the Business Transformation Agreement of 2010 were “time limited” and subject to review. These were:

The suspension of a “cap” of two years pensionable pay on cost to the business of redundancy (which had the effect of enabling members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan aged over 55 to take a package including immediate payment of an enhanced pension).

An additional two years support and an increase in the cap on Excess Travel Expenses from £1,500 to £20,000 for those in the former Letters business whose travel costs exceeded £1,250 per year following redeployment.

These terms were originally due to cease on 31st March 2013 but were extended a number of times, most recently by the “Joint Statement: Balanced approach to growth, efficiency and incentives” which deferred the review until May 2015.

In addition to this, during 2014 HMRC changed its policy on taxability of buy down of hours payments, to make them reckonable for tax and National Insurance (NI). As part of the Joint Statement Royal Mail agreed to pay 50% of the cost of tax and NI, or provide the option of payment of buy down lump sum into pension, again reviewable in May 2015.

Voluntary Redundancy Cap

It has not been possible to persuade the business to further extend the suspension of the cap. With effect from 1st October 2015 the suspension will be lifted. This does not affect redundancy terms based on the multiplier but will limit the ability of members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan (RMPP) to receive immediate payment of enhanced pension to circumstances in which the total cost to the business does not exceed the equivalent of two year’s pensionable pay.

Where the combined redundancy and pension cost would exceed the equivalent of two years pensionable pay, cash compensation of 104 weeks pensionable pay will be offered instead.

If a redundancy exercise is already in progress and some employees have a last day of service before 1st October and some after, the current terms will apply throughout.

I believe the more recent 4 pillars agreement has since superseded the above and an enhanced pension for the over 55's is no longer an option at all.

[k979aaa]

Enhanced pension was scraped years ago around 2013/2014/2015

[RobertT]

Enhanced pension was scraped years ago around 2013/2014/2015

The terms were changed in 2015 see my post above. But it could have still been a possibility for some had it cost RM less than 2 years pay.

[k979aaa]

Enhanced pension was scraped years ago around 2013/2014/2015

The terms were changed in 2015 see my post above. But it could have still been a possibility for some had it cost RM less than 2 years pay.

It just goes to show you though when you and I started the retirement age was 60 it is now 67 under the DBCBS section C how long before the goal posts will be moved further apart especially if the legislation is not forthcoming in parliament for these pension schemes.

[RobertT]

Enhanced pension was scraped years ago around 2013/2014/2015

The terms were changed in 2015 see my post above. But it could have still been a possibility for some had it cost RM less than 2 years pay.

It just goes to show you though when you and I started the retirement age was 60 it is now 67 under the DBCBS section C how long before the goal posts will be moved further apart especially if the legislation is not forthcoming in parliament for these pension schemes.

The NRA for the DBCBS is actually 65, but can still be used to provide your tax free lump sum without reduction at 60. That applies to sections A, B & C.

The NRA for benefits accrued via the proposed CDC scheme is expected to be 67.

[k979aaa]

Enhanced pension was scraped years ago around 2013/2014/2015

The terms were changed in 2015 see my post above. But it could have still been a possibility for some had it cost RM less than 2 years pay.

It just goes to show you though when you and I started the retirement age was 60 it is now 67 under the DBCBS section C how long before the goal posts will be moved further apart especially if the legislation is not forthcoming in parliament for these pension schemes.

The NRA for the DBCBS is actually 65, but can still be used to provide your tax free lump sum without reduction at 60. That applies to sections A, B & C.

The NRA for benefits accrued via the proposed CDC scheme is expected to be 67.

Thanks for the clarification but state pension ages are rising it was 67 but due to a review is now up in the air https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prop ... -increases" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Does the Royal Mail seek to align this in future because lots of people who work in RM who were born after 6/4/1978 are being told this now nor what our illustrious government has install for them in the future!

[RobertT]

Thanks for the clarification but state pension ages are rising it was 67 but due to a review is now up in the air https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prop ... -increases" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Does the Royal Mail seek to align this in future because lots of people who work in RM who were born after 6/4/1978 are being told this now nor what our illustrious government has install for them in the future!

RM's pension schemes are not linked to state pension age at all.

The CWU's original WinRS pension proposal did have an NRA of state pension age, but that scheme was thrown out by RM during the 4 pillars negotiations.
The CDC pension they actually came up with will have an NRA of 67.

What you've already accrued up to 31st March 2010 still has an NRA of 60, and everything from that date to 31st March 2018 plus the current DBCBS has an NRA of 65. With the proviso that the DBCBS can also be taken from 60 unreduced, as already mentioned.

[k979aaa]

Thanks for the clarification but state pension ages are rising it was 67 but due to a review is now up in the air https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prop ... -increases" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Does the Royal Mail seek to align this in future because lots of people who work in RM who were born after 6/4/1978 are being told this now nor what our illustrious government has install for them in the future!

RM's pension schemes are not linked to state pension age at all.

The CWU's original WinRS pension proposal did have an NRA of state pension age, but that scheme was thrown out by RM during the 4 pillars negotiations.
The CDC pension they actually came up with will have an NRA of 67.

What you've already accrued up to 31st March 2010 still has an NRA of 60, and everything from that date to 31st March 2018 plus the current DBCBS has an NRA of 65. With the proviso that the DBCBS can also be taken from 60 unreduced, as already mentioned.

Thanks RobertT but what could the CDC become in years to come this post is not personally for me but the future of pensions in the UK if these people are let down by our government it will have implications for us all the government is hell bent on making us all work longer so the rich get taxed less it has implications for the health service and social services non more than care homes or ownership of private property!

[RobertT]

CDC aims to provide similar benefits to what we had before with the CARE/CSDB scheme but they'll be no guarantees as with that. If the investments don't perform adequately then our pensions will reduce!

Whether it's the answer to providing decent pensions for RM employees and other workers over the long term, only time will tell – but we're going to be the guinea pigs!

I agree the government whether red or blue, is intent on reducing it's pension budget and putting more of that cost on both employees and employers. Hence the introduction of auto-enrolment and the insistence that every company offers a pension to it's workers.

As the state pension age goes up, generally it will mean people paying tax for longer and receiving the benefit of that for a shorter length of time. Although life expectancy comes into it aswell.

Unfortunately for the normal working man and woman, the generous final salary pension scheme is largely a thing of the past and with the state pension age increasing, the onus is increasingly on the individual to fund their own retirement, with the help of their employers. But with low contribution rates, a decent or earlier retirement is unlikely.

Personally I think CDC has the potential to change that, but whether it actually does remains to be seen.

[k979aaa]

CDC aims to provide similar benefits to what we had before with the CARE/CSDB scheme but they'll be no guarantees as with that. If the investments don't perform adequately then our pensions will reduce!

Whether it's the answer to providing decent pensions for RM employees and other workers over the long term, only time will tell – but we're going to be the guinea pigs!

I agree the government whether red or blue, is intent on reducing it's pension budget and putting more of that cost on both employees and employers. Hence the introduction of auto-enrolment and the insistence that every company offers a pension to it's workers.

As the state pension age goes up, generally it will mean people paying tax for longer and receiving the benefit of that for a shorter length of time. Although life expectancy comes into it aswell.

Unfortunately for the normal working man and woman, the generous final salary pension scheme is largely a thing of the past and with the state pension age increasing, the onus is increasingly on the individual to fund their own retirement, with the help of their employers. But with low contribution rates, a decent or earlier retirement is unlikely.

Personally I think CDC has the potential to change that, but whether it actually does remains to be seen.

Not only that but the state has basically said you cannot hand down your property down to your relatives if you are in the care system also does this apply to pensions and other life cover policy's and bank accounts?

[RobertT]

I'm no expert on this, but you're only allowed to have a certain amount of money, including property, before you become liable to pay for care home costs. Your state pension can also be used to pay for fees, but I'm not too sure about company ones.

According to this website, only about 4% of the over 65's and 16% of the over 85's actually go into a care home.
So hopefully most won't be in the situation that they have to give up virtually their whole wealth to fund their own care.