Union Legal Action Over Pension ?

[rockytony67]

Well I got a reply

Dear Tony


Thank you for your e-mail dated the 24 March, can I first apologize for the delay in responding-this is due to the volume of work in the department at this time.

The merger of the schemes you refer to in you e-mail which took place in 2000 was for funding purposes only there was no actual merger of the schemes as far as benefits structures were concerned. In fact, as you are more likely well aware, the section A and B schemes closed to members in 1987 and the section C scheme (POPS) was launched at the same time. To reduce the operational cost of running the two separate schemes as far as the investment portfolio was concerned, it was agreed that for the ease of managerial cost the schemes should be merged. In the year 2000 this was carried out as both were declared as being in deficit at that time.


Additionally you make two other points, the first being the pension holiday incurred by the Post Office staff superannuation scheme. You are right to raise this particular issue although I would indicate to you that firstly the Union did challenge the right of RM to take the pension holiday and our legal advisers at the time indicated that was no grounds for us to press any legal challenge as far as the issue was concerned.

Secondly, as far as the POPS scheme was concerned, this has always been in deficit including at the time of the merger.

Finally, at the start of consultation procedure which has recently concluded the Union did seek legal advice. Our legal advisers, Mayor-Brown indicted to us that RM were carrying out and working within the scheme rules and trust deeds. Therefore the actions that they were able to take and are continuing to purse, as far as the pension reform is concerned, are legally compliant.

I do hope the above goes someway to providing you with the clarification you are seeking. If you require any further clarification or information please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely

Dave Ward

[dvbuk55]

Well I got a reply

Dear Tony


Thank you for your e-mail dated the 24 March, can I first apologize for the delay in responding-this is due to the volume of work in the department at this time.

The merger of the schemes you refer to in you e-mail which took place in 2000 was for funding purposes only there was no actual merger of the schemes as far as benefits structures were concerned. In fact, as you are more likely well aware, the section A and B schemes closed to members in 1987 and the section C scheme (POPS) was launched at the same time. To reduce the operational cost of running the two separate schemes as far as the investment portfolio was concerned, it was agreed that for the ease of managerial cost the schemes should be merged. In the year 2000 this was carried out as both were declared as being in deficit at that time.


Additionally you make two other points, the first being the pension holiday incurred by the Post Office staff superannuation scheme. You are right to raise this particular issue although I would indicate to you that firstly the Union did challenge the right of RM to take the pension holiday and our legal advisers at the time indicated that was no grounds for us to press any legal challenge as far as the issue was concerned.

Secondly, as far as the POPS scheme was concerned, this has always been in deficit including at the time of the merger.

Finally, at the start of consultation procedure which has recently concluded the Union did seek legal advice. Our legal advisers, Mayor-Brown indicted to us that RM were carrying out and working within the scheme rules and trust deeds. Therefore the actions that they were able to take and are continuing to purse, as far as the pension reform is concerned, are legally compliant.

I do hope the above goes someway to providing you with the clarification you are seeking. If you require any further clarification or information please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely

Dave Ward

And thats yer lot.

[BELIAL]

Well I got a reply

Dear Tony


Thank you for your e-mail dated the 24 March, can I first apologize for the delay in responding-this is due to the volume of work in the department at this time.

The merger of the schemes you refer to in you e-mail which took place in 2000 was for funding purposes only there was no actual merger of the schemes as far as benefits structures were concerned. In fact, as you are more likely well aware, the section A and B schemes closed to members in 1987 and the section C scheme (POPS) was launched at the same time. To reduce the operational cost of running the two separate schemes as far as the investment portfolio was concerned, it was agreed that for the ease of managerial cost the schemes should be merged. In the year 2000 this was carried out as both were declared as being in deficit at that time.


Additionally you make two other points, the first being the pension holiday incurred by the Post Office staff superannuation scheme. You are right to raise this particular issue although I would indicate to you that firstly the Union did challenge the right of RM to take the pension holiday and our legal advisers at the time indicated that was no grounds for us to press any legal challenge as far as the issue was concerned.

Secondly, as far as the POPS scheme was concerned, this has always been in deficit including at the time of the merger.

Finally, at the start of consultation procedure which has recently concluded the Union did seek legal advice. Our legal advisers, Mayor-Brown indicted to us that RM were carrying out and working within the scheme rules and trust deeds. Therefore the actions that they were able to take and are continuing to purse, as far as the pension reform is concerned, are legally compliant.

I do hope the above goes someway to providing you with the clarification you are seeking. If you require any further clarification or information please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely

Dave Ward

And thats yer lot.

Sorry I'm getting confused . Could anyone let me know who is an RM manager ,and who is a CWU MANAGER ,Crozier, Ward ,Leighton,Hayes,Maden,Keenlyside, they're all beginning to sound exactly the same.
It's going to look a bit farcical when the president of the CWU gets elected by a ten vote majority from a twelve vote turnout of an eight thousand membership.

[Night Tonic]

As I said at the outset, there will be no legal challenge because there isn't one. More to the point, although there will be some committed enough to stand and picket, most won't want to do that for days/weeks on end when in a legal sense, RM have done this by the rules. The CWU are basically stuffed here. I can't see there being a rush of response to 'political pressure' either which will only leave industrial action and if RM just digs its heels in, then what.

[axeman]

You just bend like your prepared to do i guess .....me i will fight whatever it takes as my spine is straight and i have the conviction and gut feeling that what i do will prevail the same conviction that saw my parents give there lives for our generation and thats not to be squandered by yellow bellied cowards

[BELIAL]

As I said at the outset, there will be no legal challenge because there isn't one. More to the point, although there will be some committed enough to stand and picket, most won't want to do that for days/weeks on end when in a legal sense, RM have done this by the rules. The CWU are basically stuffed here. I can't see there being a rush of response to 'political pressure' either which will only leave industrial action and if RM just digs its heels in, then what.

Course there is'nt a legal challenge, gone are the days when the legal framework was based on precedent and set in stone; Law is now rewritten to for expediency ,semantic interpretation and selective judicial selection ensure the required outcome: a very scary situation for all those who give it a seconds thought. The implications go way beyond this minor dispute.
However if RM digs its heels in ,then hopefully no mail gets delivered,and that will be a very costly option For some. CWU stuffed ,no ,capable of stuffing most definitely

[Night Tonic]

You just bend like your prepared to do i guess .....me i will fight whatever it takes as my spine is straight and i have the conviction and gut feeling that what i do will prevail the same conviction that saw my parents give there lives for our generation and thats not to be squandered by yellow bellied cowards

Brave words but meaningless if the support isn't there. Has nothing to do with being 'yellow bellied' or 'being spineless' but it has MUCH to do with being realistic and understanding the limitations the CWU has. If you want to die on your feet, fine, but it will take a lot more than a few people waving banners outside DO's to change the minds of THIS government. I'm a big believer in change brought on by public opinion so don't generalise. What I don't go for is loud words and no substance - hence why we're getting no say on the EU. If we can mobilise more than postal workers drinking out of flasks then we stand a much greater chance of getting a response but otherwise - not a chance.

[Tman]

but it will take a lot more than a few people waving banners outside DO's to change the minds of THIS government. I'm a big believer in change brought on by public opinion so don't generalise.

To change the minds of ANY government, I'd say, and that same public see a "Civil Service" type organisation with a nice sick scheme and a cushy pension at 60 (whether true or not).
Ask some hard-pressed member of the public if he'd pay a little more tax to let the posties retire at 60, while he works on to whatever age after paying in to his poorly-performing private pension. I wonder what the answer would be? Not.

What I don't go for is loud words and no substance - hence why we're getting no say on the EU. If we can mobilise more than postal workers drinking out of flasks then we stand a much greater chance of getting a response but otherwise - not a chance.

Plenty of fighting talk, but little real action in prospect.
As someone should have told Blair and Bush re Iraq and Afghanistan, don't fight unwinnable wars, and this pension fight is the same.
The so-called "Black Hole" would need filling from public funds, and that would be an incredibly unpopular and foolish move by any government. Now if it was the MP's pension fund...............

[norbert]

but it will take a lot more than a few people waving banners outside DO's to change the minds of THIS government. I'm a big believer in change brought on by public opinion so don't generalise.

To change the minds of ANY government, I'd say, and that same public see a "Civil Service" type organisation with a nice sick scheme and a cushy pension at 60 (whether true or not).
Ask some hard-pressed member of the public if he'd pay a little more tax to let the posties retire at 60, while he works on to whatever age after paying in to his poorly-performing private pension. I wonder what the answer would be? Not.

What I don't go for is loud words and no substance - hence why we're getting no say on the EU. If we can mobilise more than postal workers drinking out of flasks then we stand a much greater chance of getting a response but otherwise - not a chance.

Plenty of fighting talk, but little real action in prospect.
As someone should have told Blair and Bush re Iraq and Afghanistan, don't fight unwinnable wars, and this pension fight is the same.
The so-called "Black Hole" would need filling from public funds, and that would be an incredibly unpopular and foolish move by any government. Now if it was the MP's pension fund...............

This is what the other site have been banging on about and yes the likes of The Sun and the more upmarket Tory papers will do their upmost to turn public opinion against Royal Mail staff. You'll get the usual bitter jealousy , "We've been shafted , we have to work on ( The Sun likes to promote seniors working past 65 ) ; so you'll have to take what we have had too" . . Also you can guarantee there will be propaganda from RM and/or the PR agencies they are using .

[Night Tonic]

Not turnng opinion, just being wholly realistic. Tabloid journalism has its own agenda but get real. With a recession under way, any glimmer of hope of 'bail outs' (not that there were any), will have gone. Old Street is very good at digging its heels in when it has to. Have you not noticed that the areas that put up the most fight are the very ones RM are closing? Coincidence?

All this rubbish about "Yes but I'll go down fighting" means jack poo when the job is gone - all those involved are soon forgotten. You can't fight these kind of battles with clubs and pitchforks any more.

[dvbuk55]

Not turnng opinion, just being wholly realistic. Tabloid journalism has its own agenda but get real. With a recession under way, any glimmer of hope of 'bail outs' (not that there were any), will have gone. Old Street is very good at digging its heels in when it has to. Have you not noticed that the areas that put up the most fight are the very ones RM are closing? Coincidence?

All this rubbish about "Yes but I'll go down fighting" means jack poo when the job is gone - all those involved are soon forgotten. You can't fight these kind of battles with clubs and pitchforks any more.

Sadly NT you are absolutely correct. There is no defence. The Government, who ultimately own RM, The RM Board and leadership, The Trustees - who I might add has CWU members and the CWU itself are FOR the new scheme. Billy Hayes some weeks ago stated that the agenda has moved to a political level and that things could change in the future, erego what's in is in. If your own Generals are against you there is no question of winning a war or any point in a battle. You choose the fights you can win, that's not spineless, that's being realistic.

Think how our position will be if the Tories come to power - that will be a fight worth fighting.

[rockytony67]

The interesting point for me is the sentence when talking about the merger that says"In the year 2000 this was carried out as both schemes were in deficit"

So whats being said is that both POPS and POSSS were in deficit in 2000, but looking at my copy of the Actuary's Report for 2000 it says

" The valuation of section A & B(POSSS) showed that the level of asset cover had increased from 103.5% to 106.1% over the year".

"This SURPLUS has enabled Consignia, in accordance with the Trust Deed and the Actuary's recommendation, to continue the suspension of employer contributions"

So if the scheme has the asset cover of 106.1% and is in surplus, how can it be in deficit. Someone please help me

[dvbuk55]

The interesting point for me is the sentence when talking about the merger that says"In the year 2000 this was carried out as both schemes were in deficit"

So whats being said is that both POPS and POSSS were in deficit in 2000, but looking at my copy of the Actuary's Report for 2000 it says

" The valuation of section A & B(POSSS) showed that the level of asset cover had increased from 103.5% to 106.1% over the year".

"This SURPLUS has enabled Consignia, in accordance with the Trust Deed and the Actuary's recommendation, to continue the suspension of employer contributions"

So if the scheme has the asset cover of 106.1% and is in surplus, how can it be in deficit. Someone please helpe me

Well at a guess I would suggest DW didn't think you had a copy of the 2000 report and that he may have been stretching the truth a bit.

[POSTMAN]

The interesting point for me is the sentence when talking about the merger that says"In the year 2000 this was carried out as both schemes were in deficit"

So whats being said is that both POPS and POSSS were in deficit in 2000, but looking at my copy of the Actuary's Report for 2000 it says

" The valuation of section A & B(POSSS) showed that the level of asset cover had increased from 103.5% to 106.1% over the year".

"This SURPLUS has enabled Consignia, in accordance with the Trust Deed and the Actuary's recommendation, to continue the suspension of employer contributions"

So if the scheme has the asset cover of 106.1% and is in surplus, how can it be in deficit. Someone please help me

Email 'im back.

[johno47]

POSSS was a fully paid up pension when it was closed to new members in 87, so how can it be in defecit, the only reason it was merged with POPS was because POPS was struggling and it was struggling because RM werent paying anything into it.