New pay offer announced

[fishtank]

blaming those staff for not fighting hard enough to keep the DB scheme open to new entrants when it was £8 billion in deficit and threatening to drag the business and our jobs under is a bit pathetic.

Not really.
It wasn't that we didn't fight hard enough, we didn't fight at all. And it should have been obvious that sooner or later they were coming for us...

The position relayed to us in 2008 was that the pension deficit was in real danger of dragging the company into bankruptcy and taking all our jobs with it. Whether that was true or not is and was beyond my pay grade. Faced with a threat like that and the reality that almost all defined benefit pension schemes have closed to new entrants the only real fight was to try to ensure that the replacement scheme was as good as it could be. I think the union failed on that point but again most posties myself included wouldn't know a good DC scheme if it bit them on the arse.

As for unifying the scheme in 2008, do you really think the union would have the support of existing DB members to downgrade their pension in order to unify a scheme when the employer was offering the status quo for existing members? I like idealism but I live in the real world.

[chrisj]

So the real world in 2007/2008 is a pension deficit that might bring down all our jobs and that was to give up.defibed benefit for new starters...

Some people are too clever for their own good but still very narrow-minded and selfish and not thinking long term.

Fish has just done RM's job for them... RM is now telling us that the pensions scheme as it stands is likely going to drag us into deficit in a few years and yet you want us to vote contrary to the same rationale that existed in 2007/2008.

Haircut time!

[RobertT]

The position relayed to us in 2008 was that the pension deficit was in real danger of dragging the company into bankruptcy and taking all our jobs with it. Whether that was true or not is and was beyond my pay grade.

It was also the reason the government took over the pension scheme(post 2012) because no investor worth their salt would buy shares in a company with a £10 billion pension deficit. A recent report said it had now risen to about £18 billion.
If the company still had that albatross around its neck today, it would have to plough all its profits into the scheme for the next 25 years at least to stand any chance of being on an even keel.

Faced with a threat like that and the reality that almost all defined benefit pension schemes have closed to new entrants the only real fight was to try to ensure that the replacement scheme was as good as it could be.

And yet the CWU are still thinking a DB scheme for all including the 40,000 current DC members, who would effectively be new DB members, can be a reality!

I think the union failed on that point but again most posties myself included wouldn't know a good DC scheme if it bit them on the arse.

It’s not rocket science. The higher the employer contribution, the better.

As for unifying the scheme in 2008, do you really think the union would have the support of existing DB members to downgrade their pension in order to unify a scheme when the employer was offering the status quo for existing members? I like idealism but I live in the real world.

But they weren’t offering the status quo, they were downgrading it from final salary to average salary in 2008 anyway.

[chrisj]

Thanks for that! Unless people have seen into the future and knows the precise ins and outs of RM assets and liabilities then it is time to get real.

Those on DB will still have protection of what they have paid into the DB so far... And they are even being offered a bribe of an extra 1% contribution of the DC scheme.

We should not wait for the Pension scheme to get into a deficit in such uncertain times before we realise what is good for us.

And he also confirmed that the scheme was being closed left right and centre in 2007/2008 then those in the scheme have had a good innings.

The conditions could easily be like 2007...

[sweepster70]

Thanks for that! Unless people have seen into the future and knows the precise ins and outs of RM assets and liabilities then it is time to get real.

Those on DB will still have protection of what they have paid into the DB so far... And they are even being offered a bribe of an extra 1% contribution of the DC scheme.

We should not wait for the Pension scheme to get into a deficit in such uncertain times before we realise what is good for us.

And he also confirmed that the scheme was being closed left right and centre in 2007/2008 then those in the scheme have had a good innings.

The conditions could easily be like 2007...

Is loosing £7000 a year good for you.
As far as I'm aware the WINRS pension was taken back 20 years and still produced good returns.
I understand that the one we're in now is failing, Interest rates need to go up, but people can't stop spending money they don't have.
The main reason companies want to change from a db to a dc is pure greed. That wasn't enough for Royal Mail, they want to also attack our pay and terms and conditions. If we don't make a stand now, the future looks very bleak.
I also hope the MC'Donalds workers get close to what their after as that would have a massive impact on low pay. I don't know how many are in the Union, but I can't see many, which is a shame as numbers and unity is strength.

[chrisj]

It is very simplistic to say that the reasons why companies want to change to DC is pure greed. Please better research instead of resorting to clichés.

The current average pensioner benefit exceed the contributions from each individual employee - that is not a big deal if the current contributions can continue to pay out the generous previous pensions.

However, most of the newer staff are part timers on much lower 'pensionable wages', so something will eventually have to give. On top of that pensioners are living longer - this is a problem that had been forecast for a long long time.

Dbs are simply a relic of the past wealth of the country - and since it was final salary, the biggest beneficiaries were the top people. It is sloshing out on the next generation - simple!

We shall be better off fighting that all part wages including overtime and scheduled attendance up to full time is made pensionable and that it attracts the same level of bonuses and other benefits based on average hours worked.

RM actually started the precedent with the shares give away so we can try and nail them on that and more; like doing the job properly and stopping g or slowing down the proliferation of part time contracts.

Do I want to lose £7000 - NO! But I have done so - hence the financial term taking a 'hair cut'. Sometimes you just have to face reality.

Strike, we lose business and the DB will still not be restored. T&C and other agreement s are torn up and if we capitulate after people have had enough of the strikes - it is new contracts all around and more Draconian executive action.

I am just a messenger!

[clashcityrocker]

As for unifying the scheme in 2008, do you really think the union would have the support of existing DB members to downgrade their pension in order to unify a scheme when the employer was offering the status quo for existing members? I like idealism but I live in the real world.

Dingo always says if you meet with the members and explain the issues then the members will support you.
A two tier workforce isn't any good now, but it wasn't any good 10 years ago either. It was an accident waiting to happen.
When did Ward and Pullinger have their epiphany?

[jetblack]

It is very simplistic to say that the reasons why companies want to change to DC is pure greed.

The current average pensioner benefit exceed the contributions from each individual employee - that is not a big deal if the current contributions can continue to pay out the generous previous pensions.

However, most of the newer staff are part timers on much lower 'pensionable wages',

I think those two statements contradict one another.

.. so something will eventually have to give.

£0.4 billion profit ?

Do I want to lose £7000 - NO! But I have done so - hence the financial term taking a 'hair cut'. Sometimes you just have to face reality.

Face reality ? Or roll over and have your belly tickled ?
You may have resigned yourself to working longer and/or an old age substantially worse off than you should be, but thankfully most of us haven't.

I am just a messenger!

You are towing the line for a party that wouldn't have you as a member.

[fishtank]

We've had a two-tier pension scheme since the days when section A/B was closed and then became section C. When was that ?, who didn't fight ? Why not ?

What people are doing is looking at the pension changes in isolation. These changes in our pensions have been part of a bigger picture that has seen improvements in pay and job security at a time when job security is almost non-existent elsewhere. I don't like pension changes, I think it's a cowardly way to reduce the pay bill but I'm not stupid enough to miss the fact that they're part of a negotiation process that we've also gained from, part-timers and new entrants included.

[heapsy]

The writing has been on the wall for for nearly 30 years. Back in the 1980's they watered down the final salary pension. Some of those who voted for that got away with it, retiring before the last changes in 2008. Some didn't. The CWU have failed to tackle the issue effectively and as a result, we have a complete mish mash of different schemes. Tbh, people are going to have to realise that if that want a decent pension, they will have to pay MORE. They also need to realise that they NEED to diversify into a stocks and shares ISA. The pay issue will always be a problem. I honestly don't see a 2.5%+ offer on its way any time soon.

[heapsy]

We've had a two-tier pension scheme since the days when section A/B was closed and then became section C. When was that ?, who didn't fight ? Why not ?

What people are doing is looking at the pension changes in isolation. These changes in our pensions have been part of a bigger picture that has seen improvements in pay and job security at a time when job security is almost non-existent elsewhere. I don't like pension changes, I think it's a cowardly way to reduce the pay bill but I'm not stupid enough to miss the fact that they're part of a negotiation process that we've also gained from, part-timers and new entrants included.

The changes came about because of the attitude of the staff who voted for it. This also applies to the last dispute. The changes came in because people only thought about one thing. Themselves. The section C of the pension scheme wouldn't have been so bad, if the retirement age had been left at 60. At least then we would have two schemes we could take at the SAME time, without reductions.

[fishtank]

The changes came about because of the attitude of the staff who voted for it. This also applies to the last dispute. The changes came in because people only thought about one thing. Themselves.

There's a lot of rewriting of history going on and blaming each other which is a bit pathetic.
Every time the pension has been changed including in 2008 and this time it's been under the threat that either the whole scheme would fold or the business would fold. That's a very persuasive argument heapsy and it was nothing to do with looking after number one or screwing anyone over. Members were told accept the changes or potentially lose your job and your pension.

What you also have to remember is that when a decision to close a pension to new entrants is made at that point there are no new entrants, no-one is having their terms changed and no one is losing their benefits. This obviously puts the union in a position of having to defend the terms and conditions of potential members and no matter how solid or militant a membership is you would have to be taking some mighty strong drugs to think that members will strike and lose pay to defend non existent potential members. It's a wonderful thought that it might happen but let's be realistic.

[heapsy]

The changes came about because of the attitude of the staff who voted for it. This also applies to the last dispute. The changes came in because people only thought about one thing. Themselves.

There's a lot of rewriting of history going on and blaming each other which is a bit pathetic.
Every time the pension has been changed including in 2008 and this time it's been under the threat that either the whole scheme would fold or the business would fold. That's a very persuasive argument heapsy and it was nothing to do with looking after number one or screwing anyone over. Members were told accept the changes or potentially lose your job and your pension.

What you also have to remember is that when a decision to close a pension to new entrants is made at that point there are no new entrants, no-one is having their terms changed and no one is losing their benefits. This obviously puts the union in a position of having to defend the terms and conditions of potential members and no matter how solid or militant a membership is you would have to be taking some mighty strong drugs to think that members will strike and lose pay to defend non existent potential members. It's a wonderful thought that it might happen but let's be realistic.

I'd agree with you except for one point. Last time we had a dispute, peoples pension terms were changed, it wasn't just those going forward. We went from FS to Career Average AND the goalposts were moved on pension age.