FULL AGREEMENT

jemima · Post by **jemima** » 24 Oct 2007, 00:49

Should there even be a vote on the "agreement" if RM and the CWU are already in disagreement over what exactly has been "agreed"? Which version would we be voting on?

Dan Gleebitz · Post by **Dan Gleebitz** » 24 Oct 2007, 04:53

linkinpark wrote:
Dan Gleebitz wrote:
linkinpark wrote:
Dan Gleebitz wrote:
linkinpark wrote:
Dan Gleebitz wrote:Well This morning I couldn't believe what I was hearing, our Union Rep saying the agreement was worth a yes vote.

His words were, " I've read the agreement and it's about 80% good 20% bad.

Like I said in an earlier post, looks like it's time to jump ship brothers.

No it aint its time to FIGHT for your job!

Not if you are going to find another job it ain't.
If you like being BITCH SLAPPED by them thats up to you but if i was going at the end of the week i would still fight them (RM) until i left the door for the last time ( and i would still come down to them whilst they were on the picket line to show support ) if only for my friends that i have had the HONOUR of standing alongside whilst we stood up against people that want to do us HARM.

:lfo :cfo

I don't see anyone BITCH SLAPPING me dude.

In a previous post I stated that until my departure I will support whatever action is deemed necessary. Even if I see little point in fighting for my job, I am quite prepared to fight for the jobs of those who will still be here after i have gone.
If you want to "jump ship" because of "the deal" then you have been forced to leave your job because the employer is bitch slapping or miss treating you. Good luck in your next job!

It's mainly due to the fact I don't like the job.

PostfromNotts · Post by **PostfromNotts** » 24 Oct 2007, 09:18

The SLAVERY remark by Dave Ward was so near to the mark its untrue!!

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:12

"Existing members will be able to take the pension built up prior to April 2010 at age 60 or at any time after that paid in line with current scheme rules. Pension built up after April 2010 will be paid on an actuarially reduced basis if taken before 65 or unreduced if taken at 65."

The above from the RM version. Another good reason to vote no.
I`d like to know RMs interpretation of "consultation". Reading the above it sounds like pensions is a done deal before any consultation let alone the ballot of members. This must be the same method of "consultation"they`ll be using with CWU regarding MTSF, D2D, etc etc..

chromium05 · Post by **chromium05** » 25 Oct 2007, 09:47

JUst emailed this to Dave Ward - probably not the obvious person to send it to....

" Dear Mr Ward,

Any chance of adding a provision into any agreement with RM with regards to the upcoming pensions proposals for a FULL REFUND OF ALL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS should the individual employee disagree with the revised terms?

I find it an absolute disgrace that after all their constant renegotiations on everything from working hours and practices to pay and job requirements, Royal Mail now want to renegotiate our pensions too. And who gets the better deal? Royal Mail do!

I believe that if Royal Mail are once again planning to shift the goalposts by upping retirement age, probably increasing employee contributions whilst trying to reduce their own and offering a different method for the pensions, then the option to opt out of the company scheme with a full refund of ALL employee contributions SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

If I was paying for any other scheme or service, and the whole thing was redesigned, I would be given the option to decide for myself if the new model was acceptable.

If I had been with RM for many years and coming up to retirement age I would not be so angry as I would be entitled to my full pension on the agreed terms.

However, only having 3 years service and being 32 years of age, this redesign will be detrimental to my pension - both in terms of longer working life and financially ( paying in and being paid out ).

The option to opt out should be made available to ALL contributors, without RM's line about having to have replacement pensions to transfer funds to. I made my contributions from my salary. My salary that I earned. My salary is my money. And I have the right to withdraw MY MONEY to my own personal account for MY OWN USE however I see fit. I wish to use my OWN MONEY to use for private investment to provide for my own retirement.

If there is nothing you can do with regards to this, please forward this correspondence to someone who can help.

Regards

*** **** "

Basically, the reform of the pensions and change of terms amounts to being mis-sold something. If you are mis-sold anything you are, by law, entitled to a full refund.

A change now can only lead to another change when RM find another, cheaper, way. What is next? Retire at 70, 75? With below inflation pay rises being the norm, by the time I come to retire my pension won't be worth sh*t.

So, I want ALL my contributions returned and I can then invest that money in real time, at current value.

Par_BS23 · Post by **Par_BS23** » 25 Oct 2007, 10:48

chromium05 wrote:JUst emailed this to Dave Ward - probably not the obvious person to send it to....

" Dear Mr Ward,

Any chance of adding a provision into any agreement with RM with regards to the upcoming pensions proposals for a FULL REFUND OF ALL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS should the individual employee disagree with the revised terms?

I find it an absolute disgrace that after all their constant renegotiations on everything from working hours and practices to pay and job requirements, Royal Mail now want to renegotiate our pensions too. And who gets the better deal? Royal Mail do!

I believe that if Royal Mail are once again planning to shift the goalposts by upping retirement age, probably increasing employee contributions whilst trying to reduce their own and offering a different method for the pensions, then the option to opt out of the company scheme with a full refund of ALL employee contributions SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

If I was paying for any other scheme or service, and the whole thing was redesigned, I would be given the option to decide for myself if the new model was acceptable.

If I had been with RM for many years and coming up to retirement age I would not be so angry as I would be entitled to my full pension on the agreed terms.

However, only having 3 years service and being 32 years of age, this redesign will be detrimental to my pension - both in terms of longer working life and financially ( paying in and being paid out ).

The option to opt out should be made available to ALL contributors, without RM's line about having to have replacement pensions to transfer funds to. I made my contributions from my salary. My salary that I earned. My salary is my money. And I have the right to withdraw MY MONEY to my own personal account for MY OWN USE however I see fit. I wish to use my OWN MONEY to use for private investment to provide for my own retirement.

If there is nothing you can do with regards to this, please forward this correspondence to someone who can help.

Regards

*** **** "

Basically, the reform of the pensions and change of terms amounts to being mis-sold something. If you are mis-sold anything you are, by law, entitled to a full refund.

A change now can only lead to another change when RM find another, cheaper, way. What is next? Retire at 70, 75? With below inflation pay rises being the norm, by the time I come to retire my pension won't be worth sh*t.

So, I want ALL my contributions returned and I can then invest that money in real time, at current value.

Well said

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 25 Oct 2007, 14:27

I transferred 30 years pension from a previous employer into Royal Mails because I was so impressed when I started with RM, telling me that theirs was one of the top pensions in the country (in the top 4, I think). Don't you think I have a case for mis-selling if they change it all now?

opgpat · Post by **opgpat** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:14

Trickey one, not a lawyer but if RM act on pensions with the consent of the majority of the workforce (a Yes vote) then they would probablly have a strong case to justify the changes and any claim for compensation could be throw out on the basis of majority consent.

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:20

opgpat wrote:Trickey one, not a lawyer but if RM act on pensions with the consent of the majority of the workforce (a Yes vote) then they would probablly have a strong case to justify the changes and any claim for compensation could be throw out on the basis of majority consent.

Well let's hope this agreement is tossed against the wall rather forcibly!

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:24

opgpat wrote:Trickey one, not a lawyer but if RM act on pensions with the consent of the majority of the workforce (a Yes vote) then they would probablly have a strong case to justify the changes and any claim for compensation could be throw out on the basis of majority consent.

rm do not need any consent of the staff to change pension rules. the law on pension schemes gives them cart blanch to do as they see fit. It 's wrong i know but legal.

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:25

jafferpants wrote:
opgpat wrote:Trickey one, not a lawyer but if RM act on pensions with the consent of the majority of the workforce (a Yes vote) then they would probablly have a strong case to justify the changes and any claim for compensation could be throw out on the basis of majority consent.
rm do not need any consent of the staff to change pension rules. the law on pension schemes gives them cart blanch to do as they see fit. It 's wrong i know but legal.

Bit like the pension "holiday",eh? LOL

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:41

chromium 05 wrote "if i were coming up to retirement and about to get my full pension i would'nt be bothered"

Not so my friend i have 39 years in the scheme and i'm bothered big time for all the poor bastards like you which is why i will fight this all the way what ever it take's. This is a national disgrace made worse by the fact that it's not some back street rag bag company we are talking about. and the matter must not be allowed to go away. I will stand shouder to shoulder with you or anybody else over this pension debarcle. please believe me on that. the guys who know me would be the first to tell you i'm sincere.

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:45

jafferpants wrote:chromium 05 wrote "if i were coming up to retirement and about to get my full pension i would'nt be bothered"

Not so my friend i have 39 years in the scheme and i'm bothered big time for all the poor bastards like you which is why i will fight this all the way what ever it take's. This is a national disgrace made worse by the fact that it's not some back street rag bag company we are talking about. and the matter must not be allowed to go away. I will stand shouder to shoulder with you or anybody else over this pension debarcle. please believe me on that. the guys who know me would be the first to tell you i'm sincere.

Like your fire jafferpants...wish everyone felt the same!

chromium05 · Post by **chromium05** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:55

^ I didn't mean to write that - "I wouldn't be bothered" as that isn't what I meant ( or think) but I guess it's too late now.

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 25 Oct 2007, 16:19

chromium05 wrote:^ I didn't mean to write that - "I wouldn't be bothered" as that isn't what I meant ( or think) but I guess it's too late now.

No probs, i just did'nt want you to think us old gits dont care cos nothing could be further from the truth