ROYAL MAIL MOVES TO SLASH PENSIONS AND MAIL CENTRES

johnnyp · Post by **johnnyp** » 25 Sep 2008, 20:07

Crozier has had a total pay of £8.4m since 2002/03

NWpostie · Post by **NWpostie** » 25 Sep 2008, 21:54

The scale of the Pension reductions is shocking and a huge betrayal of years of saving up, I joined in 1987 and was looking forward to a reasonable pension, none of this is our fault, it was the Managment taking a pension payment holiday leading us to this situation, why should we pay the price for their short sighted decision.

They should make good all loses.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 25 Sep 2008, 23:59

I think you'll find it was the government that suggested a pension holiday.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 26 Sep 2008, 00:02

Night Tonic wrote:I think you'll find it was the government that suggested a pension holiday.

Not true. The pension holiday was because GB decided to tax any pension fund that was in surplus (my major problem is that either way the money would go to the government so why not pay it into the fund anyway).

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 26 Sep 2008, 05:44

Dont blame GB for everthing, the payment holiday originated under a CONSERVATIVE government.

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 26 Sep 2008, 08:07

the trutees are legaly obliged to make sure there is enough in the pot to meet its needs and have obviously failed.
It appears to me they had no vision or contingency plan, and before all the "it was the fall in stocks value" brigade get on their high horse to defend the trustees. the fall did not happen, it didnt continue to grow as they had expected and the firm should have been made to make up the shortfall of their domesday scenario £3/4/5 billion pension deficit black hole.

F0zziebear · Post by **F0zziebear** » 26 Sep 2008, 10:49

A couple of things

1. The management of the pension fund is not done by Adam & Al
2. The pension holiday occured prior to them joining RM
3. £8.4M for 5 years work as the CEO of a multi-billion pound organisation is reasonable relative to other privately owned organisations. Does he deserve it based on performance, well I'll let you be the judge of that. All I would say is that his targets were agreed and the ones that he met he got paid for. The same applies to you. It just so happens in RM that you get paid about 80% of your bonus on average so it's not really a bonus when it's almost completely gauranteed. I think Crozier also took a gamble and did not claim all of his bonus, but let it run for three years (can't remeber the exact details) but basically got more because of it.
4. How and where the pension fund has been invested is of a major concern, and wonder if the government will bail it out, if/when you beging to claim against it. As more of you retire and live longer the strain of the fund increases. Existing workers may find the honey jar empty when you retire. Not good reading I know, but best be prepared for the worst.

borders · Post by **borders** » 26 Sep 2008, 11:59

F0zziebear wrote:A couple of things

1. The management of the pension fund is not done by Adam & Al
2. The pension holiday occured prior to them joining RM
3. £8.4M for 5 years work as the CEO of a multi-billion pound organisation is reasonable relative to other privately owned organisations. Does he deserve it based on performance, well I'll let you be the judge of that. All I would say is that his targets were agreed and the ones that he met he got paid for. The same applies to you. It just so happens in RM that you get paid about 80% of your bonus on average so it's not really a bonus when it's almost completely gauranteed. I think Crozier also took a gamble and did not claim all of his bonus, but let it run for three years (can't remeber the exact details) but basically got more because of it.
4. How and where the pension fund has been invested is of a major concern, and wonder if the government will bail it out, if/when you beging to claim against it. As more of you retire and live longer the strain of the fund increases. Existing workers may find the honey jar empty when you retire. Not good reading I know, but best be prepared for the worst.

must take issue with your Point No. 4 ,to refer to our pension fund as some sort of honey jar is poor taste. our pension is deferred wages, not some kind of liitle treat. it has been mis-managed to put it kindly, a similar thing happened to the Miners Pension Fund whereby the surplus was creamed off by the Government of the time and used for other means. surely a pension fund is solely for the benefit of its members , not to be used to bail out other problems. with regards to the numbers retiring, surely the figures are known and if the fund was managed properly there wouldnt be a problem. the problem is the shortfall because of no contributions during the holiday.

F0zziebear · Post by **F0zziebear** » 26 Sep 2008, 13:51

Didn't mean any disrepect with analogy. What I mean is that by the time current workers need to pull from their pension they may well find that others have already taken out what was owed to them and there isn't enough or what was expected for everyone else. I agree that potential mis-management of pension funds is an issue, and also over-promising on what will be there. To not calculate people living longer to me seems inexcusable. I also wonder how much of the fund was invested in banks, and now suffered from the write-downs.

To an extent RM are trying to cut access and dividends from the pension as the chances of that money actually existing seem to be becoming less likely. I am not a pension expert and wonder what insurance has been taken out on the pension fund, and whether the government would be compelled to bail out this pension fund as the hole gets bigger.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 26 Sep 2008, 15:27

To an extent RM are trying to cut access and dividends from the pension as the chances of that money actually existing seem to be becoming less likely. I am not a pension expert and wonder what insurance has been taken out on the pension fund, and whether the government would be compelled to bail out this pension fund as the hole gets bigger.[]

However big the hole, the government won't cover the deficit.
Too many pension funds in difficulty to put more money into a government employee fund; that's politically damaging.
And to think RM staff were "outraged" that potential new employees wouldn't be allowed to join the current scheme...

Still, we all strike in support of our pension rights soon, don't we?

Rommagic · Post by **Rommagic** » 26 Sep 2008, 15:54

In addition Royal Mail are planning the closures of ‘several more’, which the CWU believes means that Royal Mail’s intentions are to close in excess of 20 offices.

Any ideas what offices they want too close?.

Post by **falkor** » 26 Sep 2008, 16:21

disgruntledpostie1 wrote:
Night Tonic wrote:I think you'll find it was the government that suggested a pension holiday.
Not true. The pension holiday was because GB decided to tax any pension fund that was in surplus (my major problem is that either way the money would go to the government so why not pay it into the fund anyway).

It was Norman Lamont ( Conservatives) who made the changes to the pension laws that have led to the defecit the fund has today.

IMO it is the governments responsibility to put it right, it has been legalised theft.

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 26 Sep 2008, 20:50

Mr Brown managed to find £25 billion this week alone to cover the "hole" created by fat cat stock market profiteers

NWpostie · Post by **NWpostie** » 26 Sep 2008, 22:22

BELIAL wrote:Mr Brown managed to find £25 billion this week alone to cover the "hole" created by fat cat stock market profiteers

because it is politically expedient to do so, we small fries don't count for much, GB is only interested in saving his own skin, come the election day

I will make my voice heard !! I will hit him where it hurts, no place for a jobless ex PM in todays market.