FBU win return to pre 2012 pension

[heapsy]

Some interesting point made here. I think the biggest issue are around discrimination against delivery staff who wont get to 67, unlike their mail centre counterparts who have got it easy. And also whether its right to move the age goal posts for people who might have reached middle age when the changes happened. A better solution would have been for those already in the pension to have been able to retain the right to an NRA at 60, as with their previous schemes. But the CWU don't seem to get it, as most of us know.

With respect you’d be amazed how many MC staff die within 12 months of leaving after retirement.

Maybe, but that can happen to anyone, regardless of job. My point is that delivery staff don't get to their NRA in many cases, due to injury brought on by their job. That rarely happens in other functions within the business.

[Jefferson Starfish]

As I understood this it was an age discrimination thing. Older members, approaching retirement, were allowed to stay in the old scheme and continued to contribute. Others were moved to the new scheme in tranches over a period of years dependent upon their age, not length of service. Younger members were discriminated against based upon their age and no other criteria. There is absolutely no parallel with RM.

I was 47 in 2008 and had paid in for 28 years at that point. Planning to hopefully retire at 60 on a maximum 40 years pension. Maybe it was an age discrimination thing at RM as well

So did you do anything in 2008 to counteract the closure of the final salary scheme, or did you just wait 14 years to moan about it?

I’m certainly not moaning. I’m just asking questions as it also relates to members future pensions.


14 years later I get to retirement age and realise it could have been better. Maybe in 2008 after I took industrial action with everyone else, I decided the new scheme was better for the CWU members younger than me. So I took a hit and voted yes without realising my future pension would be so much less. Nobody could have predicted the outcome some 14 years later, not even my crystal balls

But you would have got statements every year, didn't they give you a clue?

[RobertT]

As I understood this it was an age discrimination thing. Older members, approaching retirement, were allowed to stay in the old scheme and continued to contribute. Others were moved to the new scheme in tranches over a period of years dependent upon their age, not length of service. Younger members were discriminated against based upon their age and no other criteria. There is absolutely no parallel with RM.

I was 47 in 2008 and had paid in for 28 years at that point. Planning to hopefully retire at 60 on a maximum 40 years pension. Maybe it was an age discrimination thing at RM as well

So did you do anything in 2008 to counteract the closure of the final salary scheme, or did you just wait 14 years to moan about it?

I’m certainly not moaning. I’m just asking questions as it also relates to members future pensions.


14 years later I get to retirement age and realise it could have been better. Maybe in 2008 after I took industrial action with everyone else, I decided the new scheme was better for the CWU members younger than me. So I took a hit and voted yes without realising my future pension would be so much less. Nobody could have predicted the outcome some 14 years later, not even my crystal balls

But you would have got statements every year, didn't they give you a clue?

Personally I would say it was quite easy to predict the basics of what was going to happen once the final salary scheme closed.
As it was clearly replaced with an inferior scheme, which was based on providing a pension for each individual year of membership, using wages earned during that year, rather than being based on salary at the end of your service.
Plus the obvious introduction of 65 as the NRA for post 2010 accrual.

I'm not sure anyone could have predicted the 2014 changes, the introduction of the DBCBS and the impending CDC scheme. But as final salary schemes had already been closing all across the country before 2008, in my opinion it would have been unrealistic to think we wouldn't have been affected in some way.

Personally I first took an interest in my pension in the mid 90's when I was in my 20's, which is probably much younger than most. I realised then that it wouldn't enable me to retire when I wanted to, and that was when it was all still final salary with an NRA of 60!

A pension is all about paying in while you're working to ensure you have enough to live on when you don't want to work any more. As has already been said, we get a statement every year and that is a simple method of telling us whether we're on track or not.

The problem on the whole is apathy and an unwillingness to engage with pensions when we're younger, which ultimately means it might be too late when we do.

As far as I'm concerned, hoping the FBU case will trigger a return to final salary for RM employees, is totally unrealistic. But debate is always a good thing!

[heapsy]

Your last comment regarding apathy is very true. I'm one of the more senior staff in my office, both in age and seniority. I've been telling the younger ones for ages about this and they just laugh, which proves yours and my point. It really is easier if you get organised earlier. It also enables you to diversify, which helps you cope with changes to schemes such as those mentioned. Diversifying also gives you more options later in life. That's why I added a S&S ISA to my investments. It gives you other options should you need or want to finish work earlier, perhaps as in the case of ill health retirement. In my case, I could retire and live about 10 years without touching my pension, if needed. OK I wouldn't be as well off as I would have liked, but in a desperate situation, I could survive financially if I had to.

[RobertT]

I've had similar conversations with younger staff at my DO, and told them to start saving as soon as possible. But they all say 'I'm too young to think about pensions' or they want to 'live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes'.
It's obviously a personal choice, but for me they're totally missing the point about pensions and sooner or later tomorrow always becomes today!

I agree with your comment about giving yourself options.
Having savings gives you the choice to give up at least full time work when you want to, or to cope with unexpected life changes or mitigate increases in pension NRA, etc if they arise.

I know everyone can't save huge amounts of extra money and even if they can, many fail to see the long term benefits of doing so. But with the new CDC scheme having an NRA of 67, the need to think ahead will become even more important.