belle smith wrote:Where did he say this Daz, by the way it is a con trick! WE WILL GET OUR PENSIONS with or without a yes vote, we have a legal entitelment to them. It wont be decided on the f***ing whim of overlord mandelson, or his holiday companion boy george!!!Big Daz wrote:It was Mandy Pandy that linked modernisation and pension deficit together, he is now being put on the spot to keep his word. Perhaps it was a con trick from the Lord of darkness.
That said there is no modernisation as yet , just a set of words.
He told that to Big Dave and Billy, that is why Big Dave and Billy are pressing him so hard. Did I really just say that?
This is from the CWU time to deliver pension doc
29 To Lord Mandelson there was a practical link between tackling the pensions deficit and modernising the industry:
“The pension scheme represents a major burden for Royal Mail in spite of recent changes made to
address it. In my view, it is inconceivable that the public will accept such a ‘bail out’ without the
government taking steps that the company has a transformed future. The fact is that it has not
modernised sufficiently under present policies. There needs to be a step change, and the public
needs to see this. The new arrangements will also require the approval of the European Commission”. (Hansard 1067 10/03/09).
30 We shall return to the need for European Commission approval in due course. For now, it is sufficient to note that Lord Mandelson says that the public will not accept the government taking on the pension deficit unless the company has a “transformed future”.
31 This is not synonymous with privatisation. Were it so, Lord Mandelson would have so defined it. Rather, a transformed future, must be understood to be about the service and functioning of the industry, i.e. that it is sufficiently modernised.
32 The CWU certainly endorses the need for a transformation of the industry, and its complete modernisation. However, we do not accept that as identical to privatisation. The Compass pamphlet ‘Modernisation By Consent’ clearly demonstrates this.