Future of Royal Mail

[RobertT]

The Pension Surplus is protected fully by Government and Trustees.

Remember the pension surplus would still there if everyone retired tomorrow and got their full pay out.

The pension trustees will decide when they believe it is safe and it is often at the point when they sell it onto an insurance company to administer.

We do not expect this is happen until 2028 at the earliest. When it does then the CWU will get a share of this to go into the employee benefit fund to use to benefit employees which include helping quicken any equalisation pathway or bring the pension age of the new scheme down from 67.

The pension surplus is largely born out of increased interest rates and gilt yields over the past few years.
Are you saying the RMPP members shouldn't benefit from that, but members of a completely different pension scheme should?

[Hyrrokkin]

The Pension Surplus is protected fully by Government and Trustees.

Remember the pension surplus would still there if everyone retired tomorrow and got their full pay out.

The pension trustees will decide when they believe it is safe and it is often at the point when they sell it onto an insurance company to administer.

We do not expect this is happen until 2028 at the earliest. When it does then the CWU will get a share of this to go into the employee benefit fund to use to benefit employees which include helping quicken any equalisation pathway or bring the pension age of the new scheme down from 67.

That money should only be given to members of that scheme.

We must/should get every penny of that surplus - not RM getting half.
We must have a vote on this - not to be left to trustees under pressure from RM/CWU.
Every penny must go to the members who paid into the scheme ONLY.
Anything else is legalised theft.
If the CWU think they are going to use OUR pension surplus money to pay for non legacy staff equalisation then not a chance in hell.
Many employees do not even know about the pension surplus or what is coming if RM/CWU get their way.
But they will

[DGH]

This company is at a fork in the road, it is 9.3 billion turnover company but making virtually no profit or breaking even at best.

The company has been saddled with billions of pounds of debt following the recent take over. That will reduce profits. A cynic might suggest it is entirely in the owner's interests to make as little profit as possible so as to justify more cuts, more selling off of assets and further slashing terms and conditions as well as reducing staff.

Companies doing this regular don’t survive in the same way going forward unless they change.

You can't 'survive in the same way' and 'change'.

USO reform has to be introduced and quality of service restored. The alternative is that we end up with the frequency reduction which is happening in other parts of Europe which will mean thousands of job losses and lead to reductions in mail centres as 3 or 4 day USO options mean that processing and transporting is no longer as time critical.

That's fair enough. But you presume that the ownership actually want to avoid thousands of job losses and reductions in mail centres. I would suggest is that the evidence to date is to the contrary. I would suggest that they are on that road and going about it in a way that will allow them to say 'oh well, we really tried, but...'

The self bogus workforce in Amazon , Evri , DHL and practically every other parcel operator must be given single status right and be classed at employed. The fact that companies are allowed not to pay a wage , national insurance, pension , holiday pay , sick pay , van costs , derv costs , uniform etc is meaning Royal Mail are either losing contracts or they are receiving less money for those contracts.

No argument with that. But how do you think you get there? Currently there is no political party, except possibly the Greens, who are prepared to challenge the status quo.

Reform of Ofcom. The USO should be supported by a levy of those companies like Amazon who will not deliver to the most costly parts of the UK.

The response above applies here also. Ofcom was created so that government wouldn't be expected to make these sorts of decisions.

Growth - There must be a growth strategy in place which is not just built on parcels.

But parcels are the growth area! Much as we might wish otherwise, mail volumes will continue to fall.

Reset - The agreement states that there must be a full employee and industrial relations reset and there is a launch event next week and a lot of joint work has been done in this area.

Lovely. And how (and why) do you believe the company are actually serious about that. I mean they'll tell you anything. I remember when Thompson and before him Rico were men 'the union could work with', who 'seemed serious'. They led the union up the garden path.[/quote]

The challenge must be to get Royal Mail back to being profitable to ensure our members share in that profit and have long term job security.

Big challenge! Especially if the owner can gouge money from the company without returning to profit while citing a lack of profits as the reason why he can't invest in the workforce!

The other path is within three years when the Legal guarantees are up for review is that EP simply say we are only going to deliver the USO which accounts for 11% of all traffic by way of a skeleton workforce and all the other workload we are going to use the self bogus employment model themselves.

This is indeed where any reasonable person can see we're headed. You can make any agreement you like, but if you shake hands with a charlatan you're likely to find your wristwatch missing and your wallet gone.

[k979aaa]

The problem here stems from the CWU allowing a two teir workforce and letting ROYALMAIL walk all over us at the time we all said this would happen at the time. But the thing is the minimum wage has increased and now Royalmail is in the same ball park as other delivery companies who do this and compete for staff. The CWU enabled this by inaction at the time who would think a two teir workforce would be a good idea and selling it to us all and reducing our sick pay pensions and leave and increasing workload. Well done CWU.

[yellowbelly]

The Pension Surplus is protected fully by Government and Trustees.

Remember the pension surplus would still there if everyone retired tomorrow and got their full pay out.

The pension trustees will decide when they believe it is safe and it is often at the point when they sell it onto an insurance company to administer.

We do not expect this is happen until 2028 at the earliest. When it does then the CWU will get a share of this to go into the employee benefit fund to use to benefit employees which include helping quicken any equalisation pathway or bring the pension age of the new scheme down from 67.

The pension surplus is largely born out of increased interest rates and gilt yields over the past few years.
Are you saying the RMPP members shouldn't benefit from that, but members of a completely different pension scheme should?

Wasn't a previous sum from the RMPP paid out about 3/4 years ago to fund a lump sum payment within an agreement (to ALL employees at the time) and to kick start the CDC?

So if I'm recalling that correctly, there's some history of funds under a closed pension scheme being passed in one way or another to 'newer' employees.

It's up to the trustees in consultation with CWU, the employer isn't it? If that's the case and I felt strongly enough about it, I'd be making representation to the trustees. From what MW says about it in the above quote, they're happy for it to go to current employees into equalisation/bringing the retirement age down in the new scheme.

Found it - RMPP report dtd 31 Mar 2024, I stand corrected, they were RMG's employer contributions, not increase in value of assets, but even so they were given to 'newer' employees.

Contributions
Contributions to the Plan (excluding AVCs) amounted to £305 million
during the year and were received in accordance with the schedules of
contributions as shown in the Trustee’s Summary of Contributions
on page 39.

Following agreement between RMG and the Trustee, RMG’s contributions
that were previously due to the Plan in respect of accrual benefits from 1st
September 2017 to 31st March 2018, have been accumulated in a fund
which is not part of the assets of the Plan. A full escrow arrangement was
set up in October 2019 which held these assets. In June 2023 the Trustee
reviewed the funding position and made a decision to release the
escrow, at the request of RMG and the CWU. The RMG Section is well-
funded and the additional support offered by the escrow was no longer
deemed necessary. £126m was released by September 2023 and
used by RMG for a special lump sum to its employees.

In March 2024 the Trustee and RMG agreed a new schedule of
contributions where employer contributions in respect of the
period from 1st February 2024 to 30 June 2024 will be paid to the existing
escrow fund. The Trustee also agreed for the RMG Section to
transfer an amount equal to these contributions to the DBCBS.
The escrow assets amount to £89m million as at 31st March 2024 (2023:
£196 million).

[Saturn1]

Nobody knows the future of Royal Mail other than Daniel Kretinsky and EP Group.

We can safely assume they will want a return on their investment at some point. But that being the case, if they want to make money then so should the staff.

We can't keep following this same narrative of "oh the company is broke, we can't give you a proper pay rise". At some point in time the company will be very profitable again like in previous years.

[yellowbelly]

The Pension Surplus is protected fully by Government and Trustees.

Remember the pension surplus would still there if everyone retired tomorrow and got their full pay out.

The pension trustees will decide when they believe it is safe and it is often at the point when they sell it onto an insurance company to administer.

We do not expect this is happen until 2028 at the earliest. When it does then the CWU will get a share of this to go into the employee benefit fund to use to benefit employees which include helping quicken any equalisation pathway or bring the pension age of the new scheme down from 67.

That money should only be given to members of that scheme.

We must/should get every penny of that surplus - not RM getting half.
We must have a vote on this - not to be left to trustees under pressure from RM/CWU.
Every penny must go to the members who paid into the scheme ONLY.
Anything else is legalised theft.
If the CWU think they are going to use OUR pension surplus money to pay for non legacy staff equalisation then not a chance in hell.
Many employees do not even know about the pension surplus or what is coming if RM/CWU get their way.
But they will

Not a member of the scheme in question, but if I was I'd be pretty cheesed off too and as you say it's legal and I think this managing of surplus pension funds has been made easier in a recent parliamentary bill that has just passed.

As I've said in another post, I'd be making representations to the trustees and the union - but if the union want some of the surplus to sweeten the equalisation process, what chance do you have?

Serious question - if the surplus was to be distributed amongst members only, would that only be living members? What about the descendants of members? How do you assess when the surplus was accrued? If a member retired when there was less surplus/no surplus what do they get now?

What if I'd been in that scheme for only two years say and a member who'd been in it for ten years. Do I get a fifth of what the ten year person gets as a lump sum?

Is it paid as a lump sum or invested in more assets which could potentially fall in value?
I'd hate to see the result of having to assess all the options!

[taurus88]

There’s no point arguing with the union brass anymore, they’re on the same side as RM ever since they were threatened during the last dispute. They’re fighting for their continued existence, and the staff are collateral.

We went on strike, and didn’t even get back what we lost in wages for our strike days in the surrender deal. Then within months, RM took punitive measures in making walks bigger across the board - the union was predictably silent.

Now, those walks that are mostly unachievable are going to become busier, heavier, and you’ll be working longer days, albeit for a few extra Saturdays. I don’t know what happened to health and safety, but I guess it’s easier not to care what happens to your members on the ground when you’re not doing the job yourself.

I’m all for unions, and it would be a step too far for me even to leave this one, much as they probably deserve it. But what an absolute disaster they have been for long-serving staff across the last five or six years, consistently outmanoeuvred by an employer that thinks in years, while they think only in minutes.

RM’s strategy of asking for the most ridiculous deal would strike most people as being quite cunning and Machiavellian as a baseline, but the CWU always ends up giving them more than they ever expected, so maybe they really are just being serious from the start and we don’t realise.

[Mr Rush]

The other path is within three years when the Legal guarantees are up for review is that EP simply say we are only going to deliver the USO which accounts for 11% of all traffic by way of a skeleton workforce and all the other workload we are going to use the self bogus employment model themselves.

Oh, wow. I wasn't expecting a ray of light! I volunteer first to go back to doing nothing but letters

[DGH]

We must/should get every penny of that surplus - not RM getting half.
Every penny must go to the members who paid into the scheme ONLY.
Anything else is legalised theft.

Much as it pains me to say this but:

Had the pension plan been in deficit, RM would have had to make up the loss. Members would not have lost anything. So RM can fairly argue they took all the risk, which they did, and therefore are entitled to have a say in how that surplus is distributed.
Royal Mail made substantial contributions to the plan. Now fair enough, one can argue that their contributions were essentially a payment to the members, and I don't disagree with that. Nonetheless they can make a decent case that a good portion of the surplus is theirs.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see those who contributed get the surplus distributed between them. But I can see why that could be argued otherwise quite reasonably.

[claretandblue]

We must/should get every penny of that surplus - not RM getting half.
Every penny must go to the members who paid into the scheme ONLY.
Anything else is legalised theft.

Much as it pains me to say this but:

Had the pension plan been in deficit, RM would have had to make up the loss. Members would not have lost anything. So RM can fairly argue they took all the risk, which they did, and therefore are entitled to have a say in how that surplus is distributed.
Royal Mail made substantial contributions to the plan. Now fair enough, one can argue that their contributions were essentially a payment to the members, and I don't disagree with that. Nonetheless they can make a decent case that a good portion of the surplus is theirs.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see those who contributed get the surplus distributed between them. But I can see why that could be argued otherwise quite reasonably.

You couldn't be more wrong, the fact that there is a massive surplus, shows that it was the wrong decision to close the pension fund when they did.

[postmanplod2026]

i think the cwu need to look in the mirror constantly defending the company rather than the members who pay them their wages, royal mail dont need to plead skint the CWU do the job for them, always pleading their skint , yes their that skint they are overstaffed with managers getting lots of bonuses , bonuses wouldn't exist if the company was struggling, we are not all thick. It was the same nonsense we heard last time around covid when the company split all their winnings with share holders instead of growing the company, just fear storys to cause this delusion that u must accept their proposals for this new model because theirs no other alternative in their mind. Posties are fed up being overworked I expect the vote to be a BIG fat NO regardless of how much fear u try install into ur members

[Hyrrokkin]

We must/should get every penny of that surplus - not RM getting half.
Every penny must go to the members who paid into the scheme ONLY.
Anything else is legalised theft.

Much as it pains me to say this but:

Had the pension plan been in deficit, RM would have had to make up the loss. Members would not have lost anything. So RM can fairly argue they took all the risk, which they did, and therefore are entitled to have a say in how that surplus is distributed.
Royal Mail made substantial contributions to the plan. Now fair enough, one can argue that their contributions were essentially a payment to the members, and I don't disagree with that. Nonetheless they can make a decent case that a good portion of the surplus is theirs.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see those who contributed get the surplus distributed between them. But I can see why that could be argued otherwise quite reasonably.

Had the pension plan been in deficit, RM would have had to make up the loss. Members would not have lost anything. So RM can fairly argue they took all the risk, which they did, and therefore are entitled to have a say in how that surplus is distributed.
As is their legal obligation under the terms of providing a DB pension scheme - surplus or deficit makes no matter-that is the terms they/we agreed to.

Anyway it is a little while away and seeing as i do not trust RM/CWU well let us see how this one plays out.
I get the feeling this is going to get heated when the time comes.

[DGH]

You couldn't be more wrong, the fact that there is a massive surplus, shows that it was the wrong decision to close the pension fund when they did.

I never said I agreed with the policy being closed. All I'm saying is that the legal case for any surplus being given to those who paid in is sketchy whatever anyone may think the moral case may be,

[DGH]

As is their legal obligation under the terms of providing a DB pension scheme - surplus or deficit makes no matter-that is the terms they/we agreed to.

Yes. And our legal entitlement is what the scheme says we are owed. Not dependent on what any surplus or deficit may be. It works both ways, sadly,