Union Legal Action Over Pension ?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 10 Mar 2008, 00:38

Totally agree on the 4mph and can't see for the life ofme why we get held back on deliveries when we're ready to go

Post by **rockytony67** » 10 Mar 2008, 12:32

I've emailed HQ so if I get a reply I'll let you all know.

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 10 Mar 2008, 12:39

rockytony67 wrote:The problem is that I don't see how people can make an informed decision on the consultative ballot when, most people haven't got a clue about the history of the pension scheme and the changes to it, and what the legal position is as regards those changes.

Pension rules are a law unto themselves. The sad fact is in law people who run schemes (thats anybody's not just ours) Have the legal right to make changes any way they see fit. People need to understand they do not need our permission. Yes it's a bitter pill to swallow and outrageous but legaly we don't have a leg to stand on. The only case you would have in law is if they tried to do away with the benifits we have already built up but as of now this is not the case.

manchesterblue · Post by **manchesterblue** » 10 Mar 2008, 13:01

What really pisses me off is that if you joined the pension post 1987 you are in a scheme that is worth less, due to the LED (Lower Earnings Deduction) of Â£3,328. That is to say that Â£3,328 of your hard earned basic is NOT pensionable! So this proves that changes can and have been made to the scheme in the past. So why did the union not tell RM to close the scheme to NEW entrants and keep things going for the rest? And why would people want an INCREASE in the death payments, think most would rather have a bit more whilst they were here... don't you think so?

Also, it's ok saying we can now pay up to 45 years into the pension, but as most will know, a lot of peeps join RM after a few years else where, so probably haven't got time to put those years in.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 16 Mar 2008, 20:08

linkinpark wrote:
rockytony67 wrote:Yes K979aaa but what is it? and why have the union not put out a chronological history of what has happened to the pension scheme, so the members can see in black and white what has gone on.
Easy we have been ripped off ( Understand that?)

And IF this goes through royalmail's so called plan for "saveing" OUR pension what is to say in five or so year's they will not do this again! I SAY IT IS OUR PENSION LET US ALL CHOOSE!. IF THIS PENSION IS NOT VIABLE WHY DO WE HAVE TWO OVER PAID TOFF'S MAKEING LIFE CHOICE'S FOR US ALL!. :cfo & :lfo FOR IF I WANT TO HAVE ADVICE FROM A FOOL I WOULD ASK MY MANAGER!. LET US NOW STAND OUR LAST STAND AND LET US ALL STAND TOGETHER AS ONE FOR UNITED WE STAND AND DIVIDED WE ALL FALL!.

krooserman1802 · Post by **krooserman1802** » 16 Mar 2008, 20:10

We shou;d all do a grievance against John Milledge, the bloke who signed the letter we all got a couple of weeks back. Tie the bastards up in paperwork. Lets stop fecking about here..this is taking deferred wages of us. Get the ballot in. The civil service unions beat the government on their pension changes.

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 17 Mar 2008, 12:27

krooserman1802 wrote:We shou;d all do a grievance against John Milledge, the bloke who signed the letter we all got a couple of weeks back. Tie the bastards up in paperwork. Lets stop fecking about here..this is taking deferred wages of us. Get the ballot in. The civil service unions beat the government on their pension changes.

Quite right but you need to remember that the government needs to keep the civil service on side. It dosn't need us!!!!!!

norbert · Post by **norbert** » 17 Mar 2008, 16:58

jafferpants wrote:
rockytony67 wrote:The problem is that I don't see how people can make an informed decision on the consultative ballot when, most people haven't got a clue about the history of the pension scheme and the changes to it, and what the legal position is as regards those changes.

Pension rules are a law unto themselves. The sad fact is in law people who run schemes (thats anybody's not just ours) Have the legal right to make changes any way they see fit. People need to understand they do not need our permission. Yes it's a bitter pill to swallow and outrageous but legaly we don't have a leg to stand on. The only case you would have in law is if they tried to do away with the benifits we have already built up but as of now this is not the case.

RM senior managers were very defensive when the right wing petty prejudices site had a forum . Just translate Leightonspeak " The legacy from the past " -Latest talk back one is Turkeys voting for xmas -You 'll get no support , bunch of tea leafs rant which means there is a cause for protest ; just look at what RM proposed to impose , just stays on the backburner with RM .

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 17 Mar 2008, 17:37

Drifting off topic here.

I suspect if there WAS a legal challenge, we'd know about it by now and on that basis its fairly safe to assume there isn't one. With the ballot closed ONE day before the whole thing is implemented and judging by the lack of enthusiasm for a continued fight on the last ballot, it will go through. No idea what Hayes calls a continuation of the campaign, but can't see it being strike action - not with his record on negotiations.

Post by **rockytony67** » 17 Mar 2008, 18:04

You may well be right Night Tonic, but it maybe that the CWU has a problem in that there is a legal challenge available for members of the former POSSS scheme but not the POPS scheme, so it doesnt want to divide the membership at this time.

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 17 Mar 2008, 18:37

Night Tonic wrote:Drifting off topic here.

I suspect if there WAS a legal challenge, we'd know about it by now and on that basis its fairly safe to assume there isn't one. With the ballot closed ONE day before the whole thing is implemented and judging by the lack of enthusiasm for a continued fight on the last ballot, it will go through. No idea what Hayes calls a continuation of the campaign, but can't see it being strike action - not with his record on negotiations.

Got to disagree with both points.
It's not at all safe to assume there is no basis for a legal challenge if that assumption is based on lack of CWU activity, how many employment agencies were prosecuted for breaking the law in the last dispute?

Perhaps the "lack of enthusiasm' comment was a reference to CWU leadership,not going to argue that one, but for the sake of clarity support for action from the membership remained overwhelmingly solid at 98% to the final day.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:25

Not sure about last comment since the modernisaton deal was accepted and that didn't equate to 98% in favour of continued action. No hard facts either way there. The pension changes aren't exactly fresh news either and the CWU has had months to examine that one for legal loopholes. Hayes is more centred on 'kicking up a fuss' which is a good thing, but I don't share your optimism on a succesful outcome in our favour. That doesn't mean I think they should get away wth it - I think we both agree on that. Much depends on what the CWU decide to do but the deck is horribly weighted in RM's favour at the moment.

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:35

rockytony67 wrote:You may well be right Night Tonic, but it maybe that the CWU has a problem in that there is a legal challenge available for members of the former POSSS scheme but not the POPS scheme, so it doesnt want to divide the membership at this time.

There is no legal challenge to be had. All RM have to do to reform pensions is get the agreement of the Trustees. There is no legal need to ballot the workforce. Remember that the ballot taking place is by the union. Royal Mail have simply abided by minimum legal requirements (60 day consultation period and now going to the trustees).

The first thing we must to is return a massive YES vote in the ballot ( something i'm sure we'll do - 90%+). i'll finish this post later......... the other half needs help putting daugher to bed :)

Post by **dvbuk55** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:36

We shouldn't forget that the conference is any time now and the gruesome twosome are going to be in the pulpit preaching what a good job they've done in negotiating and how the fight for the pensions goes on - Yep it'll go on to the very end of the Conference and then abject silence. Night Tonic is absolutely right the Leadership ha had more than sufficient time to mount a campaign and have failed to do so. The writing was on the wall in November for all those who wanted to see.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 17 Mar 2008, 19:56

dvbuk55 you're right although I can't see what difference it will make to pensions OR our jobs even if we dragged Hayes through the streets of Liverpool by his toes - just makes us more divided than ever. RM will force this through and I don't see a strike reversing it either. Not pessimistic - just realistic.

ROYALMAILCHAT

Union Legal Action Over Pension ?

OUR PENSION OUR SAY!.