Pensions

Post by **RobertT** » 09 Jan 2017, 06:00

Your payslip will tell you which scheme you’re in. RMPP for pre April 2008 or RMDCP for afterwards.

japost · Post by **japost** » 17 Jan 2017, 12:27

Just had my 'illustration'. Before change Just over 10k a yr retiring at 60. After changes just under 6k a year . thats a difference of £4500 a year !! £4500 a year worse off .

Zicomurphy · Post by **Zicomurphy** » 17 Jan 2017, 14:11

Over £6000 a year worse off for me if the changes come in. I'm nearly 50 and I thought these changes were going to effect younger guys more so I hate to think how much worse off some will be. Don't think we will succeed in keeping the scheme how it is now but it's certainly worth fighting for an improvement on what they are proposing. Over £100 a week is a serious amount of money to lose.

Rommagic · Post by **Rommagic** » 17 Jan 2017, 16:19

Why no nationwide cwu meeting about this yet?.

banner · Post by **banner** » 17 Jan 2017, 16:30

First they will drop to 10% contributions and then in a number of years it will be dropped to 5%.

Rommagic · Post by **Rommagic** » 17 Jan 2017, 16:38

Cwu must hold meetings to let people know the truth.

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 17 Jan 2017, 17:37

The Union has announced on Facebook and there is letter going out that Pensions is linked to 3 other issues The Shorter Working Week , Extension of the Legal guarantees and the Change to the pipeline.

On Pension it is rejecting Royal Mail's proposal and have got a proposal with the assistance of one of the leading pension experts a counter proposal for Royal Mail which is a united DB scheme for all postal workers so those in the DC scheme will have a much better pension and those in the DB will have a significantly better pension than Royal Mail are proposing.

The communication link has been sent to Branch's and Divisional Reps and there will be a commmunication going out to the members !

robsbelly · Post by **robsbelly** » 17 Jan 2017, 17:53

Will I lose my final salary pension that IV built up from 1991 to 2012 under the new proposal.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 17 Jan 2017, 18:10

robsbelly wrote:Will I lose my final salary pension that IV built up from 1991 to 2012 under the new proposal.

Final Salary was only till 2008 the rest is in the DB scheme the bit from 2008 till 2012 is backed by the UK government when it stole the pension assets so it could sell RM!

Post by **RobertT** » 17 Jan 2017, 18:24

k979aaa wrote:
robsbelly wrote:Will I lose my final salary pension that IV built up from 1991 to 2012 under the new proposal.
Final Salary was only till 2008 the rest is in the DB scheme the bit from 2008 till 2012 is backed by the UK government when it stole the pension assets so it could sell RM!

Everything up to 2012 is backed by the government and that part of our pensions is now effectively paid for by the taxpayers of the UK.

You can argue against the reasons why RM was privatised. But the government/taxpayer actually took on about £38 Billion of RM pension liabilities but only about £28 Billion of assets, so that pre 2012 pension is actually more secure than if it was still under RM's control. Do you really think RM would be able to fund that £10 Billion?

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 17 Jan 2017, 18:39

RobertT wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
robsbelly wrote:Will I lose my final salary pension that IV built up from 1991 to 2012 under the new proposal.
Final Salary was only till 2008 the rest is in the DB scheme the bit from 2008 till 2012 is backed by the UK government when it stole the pension assets so it could sell RM!
Everything up to 2012 is backed by the government and that part of our pensions is now effectively paid for by the taxpayers of the UK.

You can argue against the reasons why RM was privatised. But the government/taxpayer actually took on about £38 Billion of RM pension liabilities but only about £28 Billion of assets, so that pre 2012 pension is actually more secure than if it was still under RM's control. Do you really think RM would be able to fund that £10 Billion?

It probably would of could have if it did not axe 100,000 job's over the last 15 years and replaced most of the full time staff with part time staff. But you still need too pay out those who contributed but with less staff and hours means less paying in but in years to come what then? Are you suggesting because a business makes decisions based upon short term greed that we should all suffer for evermore at the drop of a hat from the top by someone who is vastly overpaid and yet under employed and has a history of doing the same thing to even her own countrymen/women!

Post by **RobertT** » 17 Jan 2017, 18:53

I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was just putting you right on the government ‘stealing our pension assets’.

I’ve read several people on here suggesting that if there was more members paying into the RMPP then it wouldn’t need to close. But that would also mean increased liabilities for RM, and so we would have probably found ourselves in the position we now face far sooner.

mbavelja · Post by **mbavelja** » 17 Jan 2017, 20:20

dingo wrote:
On Pension it is rejecting Royal Mail's proposal and have got a proposal with the assistance of one of the leading pension experts a counter proposal for Royal Mail which is a united DB scheme for all postal workers so those in the DC scheme will have a much better pension and those in the DB will have a significantly better pension than Royal Mail are proposing.

But worse than they would have under the current DB pension scheme?
Marginally or significantly worse?

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 17 Jan 2017, 20:33

mbavelja wrote:
dingo wrote:
On Pension it is rejecting Royal Mail's proposal and have got a proposal with the assistance of one of the leading pension experts a counter proposal for Royal Mail which is a united DB scheme for all postal workers so those in the DC scheme will have a much better pension and those in the DB will have a significantly better pension than Royal Mail are proposing.

But worse than they would have under the current DB pension scheme?
Marginally or significantly worse?

What got us into this position was de-coupling the pensions issue in 2007 from the whole problem and now it's biting our arse we should have fought tooth and nail so we never gave that Final Salary scheme away for such a pittance. And we are now surprised when they came back for the rest of OUR PENSION!

Rommagic · Post by **Rommagic** » 18 Jan 2017, 17:04

Cwu listen ups ASAP.