OUR PENSION vs THE ROYALMAIL PROPAGANDA

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 26 Apr 2008, 16:28

rockytony67 wrote:"It is is important we safeguard the future of the pension fund for our people, who regard the FINAL-SALARY PENSION SCHEME as a key benefit of working for RM" Adam Crozier Feb 2007

And thats exactly whats been done. It does not mean bail it out in full but RM will still be paying into it for 17 years or so (and a lot more than you will be) to clear the deficit. Some pensions out there have left their members with nothing at all so NO ONE will be sypathetic whether we strike or not. CWU know that too.

Post by **rockytony67** » 26 Apr 2008, 17:04

Night Tonic wrote:
rockytony67 wrote:"It is is important we safeguard the future of the pension fund for our people, who regard the FINAL-SALARY PENSION SCHEME as a key benefit of working for RM" Adam Crozier Feb 2007
And thats exactly whats been done. It does not mean bail it out in full but RM will still be paying into it for 17 years or so (and a lot more than you will be) to clear the deficit. Some pensions out there have left their members with nothing at all so NO ONE will be sypathetic whether we strike or not. CWU know that too.

You say to clear the deficit, but POPS has always been in deficit and that did not stop RM taking a pension holiday, so who's to blame for the situation the scheme finds it's self in, also I would ask you do you believe that contracts should be honored?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 26 Apr 2008, 17:28

As I said, the value of pensions go up and down and contracts for insurance, pensions, loans etc are never entirely secure. If the value of your home drops, should the rest of the country pay the difference? I'm not saying that its RIGHT that pensions should be devalued, but you cannot assume that everyone else will pick up the tab or that YOUR pension is more important than everyone elses.

Post by **rockytony67** » 26 Apr 2008, 17:49

Night Tonic wrote:As I said, the value of pensions go up and down and contracts for insurance, pensions, loans etc are never entirely secure. If the value of your home drops, should the rest of the country pay the difference? I'm not saying that its RIGHT that pensions should be devalued, but you cannot assume that everyone else will pick up the tab or that YOUR pension is more important than everyone elses.

So you are saying it's not RIGHT but we should just take it on the chin, well obviously I don't know if you have a mortgage but how would you feel if your mortgage provider decided that after you had payed it off, turned around and said sorry we know you have kept your side of the bargain, but we've got no money due to our mismanagement of our financial services and as such you only own half your house, would you take it on the chin, and say it's only a contract and they are never entirely secure. Some how I doubt it, I could accept the pension being less then the forecast I have received for 23 years if it was a couple of Â£100, but they want me on a pension Â£12,268(not exactly a kings ransom is it) to take a cut of Â£1800 per year, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me but I do expect my contract to be honoured?

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 26 Apr 2008, 22:23

rockytony67 wrote:
Night Tonic wrote:As I said, the value of pensions go up and down and contracts for insurance, pensions, loans etc are never entirely secure. If the value of your home drops, should the rest of the country pay the difference? I'm not saying that its RIGHT that pensions should be devalued, but you cannot assume that everyone else will pick up the tab or that YOUR pension is more important than everyone elses.
So you are saying it's not RIGHT but we should just take it on the chin, well obviously I don't know if you have a mortgage but how would you feel if your mortgage provider decided that after you had payed it off, turned around and said sorry we know you have kept your side of the bargain, but we've got no money due to our mismanagement of our financial services and as such you only own half your house, would you take it on the chin, and say it's only a contract and they are never entirely secure. Some how I doubt it, I could accept the pension being less then the forecast I have received for 23 years if it was a couple of Â£100, but they want me on a pension Â£12,268(not exactly a kings ransom is it) to take a cut of Â£1800 per year, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me but I do expect my contract to be honoured?

For you "rockytony67" have hit the nail on the head! What royalmail have done is theft pure an simple!. Theft was upon one time punishable by DEATH but we should commute it to stringing by the testical's unlest they have any where up on of with their head would be fitting tribute to our struggle!.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 26 Apr 2008, 23:01

rockytony67 wrote:
Night Tonic wrote:As I said, the value of pensions go up and down and contracts for insurance, pensions, loans etc are never entirely secure. If the value of your home drops, should the rest of the country pay the difference? I'm not saying that its RIGHT that pensions should be devalued, but you cannot assume that everyone else will pick up the tab or that YOUR pension is more important than everyone elses.
So you are saying it's not RIGHT but we should just take it on the chin, well obviously I don't know if you have a mortgage but how would you feel if your mortgage provider decided that after you had payed it off, turned around and said sorry we know you have kept your side of the bargain, but we've got no money due to our mismanagement of our financial services and as such you only own half your house, would you take it on the chin, and say it's only a contract and they are never entirely secure. Some how I doubt it, I could accept the pension being less then the forecast I have received for 23 years if it was a couple of Â£100, but they want me on a pension Â£12,268(not exactly a kings ransom is it) to take a cut of Â£1800 per year, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me but I do expect my contract to be honoured?

Who said you had to take it on the chin? But again, what makes you think that we in particular should get preferential treatment and those outside RM that have lost theirs entirely (of which there are tens of thousands) - are you likely to convince them that YOUR pension is more important? You'll need to justify that one, orat least the CWU will. The analogy/comparision with a mortgage doesn't work in that context either as you HAVEN'T paid off your pension, so it doesn't compare.

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 26 Apr 2008, 23:39

"it's much cheaper down in those South American towns ,
where the miners work almost for nothing"

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 26 Apr 2008, 23:50

Night Tonic wrote:
rockytony67 wrote:
Night Tonic wrote:As I said, the value of pensions go up and down and contracts for insurance, pensions, loans etc are never entirely secure. If the value of your home drops, should the rest of the country pay the difference? I'm not saying that its RIGHT that pensions should be devalued, but you cannot assume that everyone else will pick up the tab or that YOUR pension is more important than everyone elses.
So you are saying it's not RIGHT but we should just take it on the chin, well obviously I don't know if you have a mortgage but how would you feel if your mortgage provider decided that after you had payed it off, turned around and said sorry we know you have kept your side of the bargain, but we've got no money due to our mismanagement of our financial services and as such you only own half your house, would you take it on the chin, and say it's only a contract and they are never entirely secure. Some how I doubt it, I could accept the pension being less then the forecast I have received for 23 years if it was a couple of Â£100, but they want me on a pension Â£12,268(not exactly a kings ransom is it) to take a cut of Â£1800 per year, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me but I do expect my contract to be honoured?
Who said you had to take it on the chin? But again, what makes you think that we in particular should get preferential treatment and those outside RM that have lost theirs entirely (of which there are tens of thousands) - are you likely to convince them that YOUR pension is more important? You'll need to justify that one, orat least the CWU will. The analogy/comparision with a mortgage doesn't work in that context either as you HAVEN'T paid off your pension, so it doesn't compare.

N/T surrender monkey?!. one who has given up before the start either one has nothing to lose or one is a fool or both!.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 27 Apr 2008, 00:06

Given up certainly not, and I hope no one does that, but the Shrek 'grab your pitchforks' mentalility without thinking ahead IS foolish.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 27 Apr 2008, 07:23

It's quite obvious that nt ,tea man and canty are in the 'votes for rm' brigade as the tone of postings reflect a complete belief that royal fail are correct in everything they do. Now i'm not saying that there is total agreement from them on the issues but they have no conviction to follow any beliefs that they have or should i say 'gut instinct' as no backbone seems present. howerever they do seem to lambast the like of ''militants'' which by the way seems to be 'anyone who does not think the old st way'. so please do not belittle those that have that self belief and a duty to protect that which is important enough to them or will be when they are of that age to retire it's correct for us to try and retain our final salary pension as most will need it when they retire.
on a persomnal note i have never had occasion to back royal fail in any thing in the lieton,crazier years as it's been a downward path since they got hold of the books (just what can i smell cooking)

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 27 Apr 2008, 08:43

axeman wrote:It's quite obvious that nt ,tea man and canty are in the 'votes for rm' brigade as the tone of postings reflect a complete belief that royal fail are correct in everything they do.

It's a strange thing about this board; if you post a view differing from the "canteen commandos", back comes the same old "you must be a manager/votes for RM/blah blah" invective, as if that either proves anything or is a point-winner.
In reality, it must be the most over-used and questionably limited response ever.
"Choose your battles" as someone famous once said, and as has been said on here many times in many ways, this is one campaign where TV footage of posties holding placards and waving at the occasional tooting car will mean absolutely jack to the rest of society.
It's a duff situation all round, and all the cheap talk and jibes on here mean nothing.
Instead of coming out with tired old line for the umpteenth time, how about arguing WHY IA could work or would be a good idea. Now that WOULD be novel, wouldn't it?

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 27 Apr 2008, 08:59

The veiw is not on one singular issue but the many you and the 'others' have voiced opinions on. None of which goes against the rhetoric of old st as for ' battles there are many and the way royal fail is going it's going to lead to a very militant stance from good union men and women choose your side carefully !!

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 27 Apr 2008, 09:23

[

axeman"]The veiw is not on one singular issue but the many you and the 'others' have voiced opinions on.

Indeed, but then towing the RMC line applies to other threads too..

Never crossed a picket line or scabbed in my life, but that doesn't mean I won't resent being dragged into yet more s**t by people who appear to misunderstand or misread the situation, all the while many RM staff turn up for work because they "can't afford to go on strike there's a credit crunch on you know blah blah etc etc"

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 27 Apr 2008, 09:40

i'm ok my bank account is ..well quite ??? and it's a sad person that 'resents' any action taken after all it's to protect our future is that not worth anything to you ??? you cant be that naive to belive it's a missread situation not every one has there head in the sand

as for credit crunch if you cant afford to pay cash then don't buy it !!! a little something iv'e done over the years

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 27 Apr 2008, 10:16

axeman wrote:i'm ok my bank account is ..well quite ??? and it's a sad person that 'resents' any action taken after all it's to protect our future is that not worth anything to you ??? you cant be that naive to belive it's a missread situation not evey one has there head in the sand
I don't believe it is to "protect our future" at all. I think it's misguided in the extreme, and ultimately not worth anything to anyone, but then I don't believe the CWU will risk a strike over this, heads in the sand or not.

as for credit crunch if you cant afford to pay cash then don't buy it !!! a little something iv'e done over the years[/quote

]

Then tell the people who will scab then. I was quoting the crap excuses likely to be given by blacklegs as a reason for working.