SAVE OUR PENSION SCHEME / PETITION

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 11 Nov 2007, 17:34

THOUGH PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS INTERESTING!?

Dear fellow pension contributor,

Please find attached vote of no confidence in the Trustees of our pension scheme, this is in direct response to the proposed changes to our pension and the poor response from the said trustees. Clearly this is not a union campaign but has been set up by concerned postmen and women who are now looking at reduced pensions after years of contributions.

We are only emailing this through the CWU contact list as we can be assured that each unit or workplace will receive one, therefore we ask the receiving branch official to take up the challenge and ensure that every person in the pension scheme signs it, and here are a few reasons why we believe everyone will want to sign.

1. The pay deal and so called shares are reliant on the withdrawal of Royal Mail from the present scheme.

2. This is now the third time Royal Mail has â€˜dippedâ€™ into our pensions.
a) The POSSS was closed and POPs put in its place (at that time we were told we were members of the third richest scheme in the country)
b) A few years after POPs failed to live up to expectations so the two schemes were merged.
c) Royal Mail then takes a 17 years pension holiday.

Each person now has to work until 65 until he/she can draw on their full pension, the government wants people to work till they are 67, is it the case that in a few years time postmen and women or postal managers will have to work that long before they can draw the Royal Mail pension.

The new age limit does not take into account how many years you have paid into the pension, so you could have to work 5 extra years without adding any benefits to your pension.

Finally we are saying that the name Trustee implies a degree of trust by the members of the pension and we are now saying no one on that Pension Board has our trust or confidence whether they are from the Unions side or independent financial advisors, or from the Royal Mail Board.
It is important that these forms are returned before 30th November 2007
So we can present them to the chairman of the board of trustee.
Please return the forms to:-

The Save Our Pension Campaign.
The Union room
Hemel Mail Centre
Hemel Hempstead
Herts
HP1 1 AA

We the undersigned being paying members of the Royal Mail pensions no longer have trust or confidence in the Trustees of the Royal Mail pension scheme.

We therefore instruct the Chairman of the pension board of trustees to accept the resignation from all trustees and financial advisors at present sitting on the said board. Once the Chairman has received the resignations he/she is commanded to initiate the appointment processes for new trustees less libel to the influences of Royal Mail Senior Management.

The outgoing trustees will not receive financial rewards known generically as severance agreements, golden parachutes, handshakes or other financial rewards above any salary owed.

name signature name signature

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 11 Nov 2007, 17:59

Nice one Lovejoy. Is this something that must be done by branch official/union rep with names to be put to it as a petition or or could individuals on here print off sign and to send the address given?

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 11 Nov 2007, 18:06

strangler wrote:Nice one Lovejoy. Is this something that must be done by branch official/union rep with names to be put to it as a petition or or could individuals on here print off sign and to send the address given?

I think anyone can do it mate, as long as they're CWU members / pension scheme members

Geordie · Post by **Geordie** » 11 Nov 2007, 18:53

Why are we trying to sack the trustees when it's CWU HQ that have agreed the changes?

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:05

Geordie wrote:Why are we trying to sack the trustees when it's CWU HQ that have agreed the changes?

From what i can gather the 'advice' and direction taken by the union was influenced by the trustees.

After the 60 day consultation RM only need the trustees agreement to make changes even if we vote no.

I guess the aim is to put people in place who would say no to the changes if we disagreed with them.

I would have thought though if the vote comes in at NO it would take a brave CWU trustee to agree changes ....................

Geordie · Post by **Geordie** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:14

Surely we should be trying to influence the current trustees rather than sack them?

Of course it would be helpful to know who they are...

the shark · Post by **the shark** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:29

Great idea Lovejoy! do not let royal mail undermine your pension! there should be a 0 tolerance attitude taken from the C.W.U. on this matter!!!! VOTE NO! IN THE FORTHCOMING BALLOT

Poshpost · Post by **Poshpost** » 12 Nov 2007, 15:28

In answer to the question "Who are the Pension Trustees"

Pension Trustee Directors as of 31st March 2007

Chair: Jane Newell OBE JP BA FRSA, Company Director and Independent Trustee.

Mark Ashworth MA FCIS, Director of, and represents, Law Debenture which is a professional independent trustee of pension plans.

Graeme Cunningham, Executive Council member of UNITE-CMA.

Jonathan Evans OBE, Company Secretary of Royal Mail Holdings plc and its main subsidiary companies.

Martin Gafsen BA Solicitor MBA, Property Director at Royal Mail Group.

Jobs for the boys and girl, they meet ten times a year.

Paul Kennedy, Midlands Divisional Representative for CWU.

Geoff Lindey BSc FFA, Formerly Strategic Adviser for the National Association of Pension Funds.

Alwen Lyons BA ACMA, Head of Mails and Retail Marketing in Post Office Limited.

Lionel Sampson, Pensions Policy Adviser, Postal Department, CWU.

Kevin Shaw, Formerly National President of the CWU.

Bon Wilde FCMA, Pensioner Trustee Chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds Yorkshire Group.

jafferpants · Post by **jafferpants** » 12 Nov 2007, 16:17

lovejoy wrote:
Geordie wrote:Why are we trying to sack the trustees when it's CWU HQ that have agreed the changes?
From what i can gather the 'advice' and direction taken by the union was influenced by the trustees.

After the 60 day consultation RM only need the trustees agreement to make changes even if we vote no.

I guess the aim is to put people in place who would say no to the changes if we disagreed with them.

I would have thought though if the vote comes in at NO it would take a brave CWU trustee to agree changes ....................

Dear old lovejoy ever the optomist. Ive got another piece of info for you . the actuarys have already got the final papers printed up and waiting for the end of the consultation period so they can get them sent out asap to let you know what your options are NOW THAT THE FS SCHEME HAS GONE!!!!

Geordie · Post by **Geordie** » 12 Nov 2007, 17:35

Thank you Poshpost.

As I see it, that's 3 CWU trustees and 3 from the Post Office, who will cancel each other out.

That leaves the CMA/Unite EC member, who'll vote for the changes, and 4 city people with more money than sense.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise, that spells disaster for our pensions.

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 13 Nov 2007, 21:20

jafferpants wrote:
lovejoy wrote:
Geordie wrote:Why are we trying to sack the trustees when it's CWU HQ that have agreed the changes?
From what i can gather the 'advice' and direction taken by the union was influenced by the trustees.

After the 60 day consultation RM only need the trustees agreement to make changes even if we vote no.

I guess the aim is to put people in place who would say no to the changes if we disagreed with them.

I would have thought though if the vote comes in at NO it would take a brave CWU trustee to agree changes ....................
Dear old lovejoy ever the optomist. Ive got another piece of info for you . the actuarys have already got the final papers printed up and waiting for the end of the consultation period so they can get them sent out asap to let you know what your options are NOW THAT THE FS SCHEME HAS GONE!!!!

its not my petition jefferpants, it was sent out by branch on email system after they got it from HP.

I was just replying to the question from the position of the objectives of the petition.