Latest on news24 re deal

[theargyspy]

I can't believe we will not have a retirement age of 65 in this deal,since Royal Mail have offered 65 retirement age to the Managers.

Managers should retire at 65 IMO coz lets face it, once we have gone out to deliver our 6,7,8 etc bags of mail, what do they do but hang a few bags,ignore phone calls, play pool
and sit around drinking coffee...im not sure if this old body will still be up to doing delivery's when im 60

[alf_wayliner]

Last thing I saw on here they'll close the final salary pension to anyone under 30

Surely if you're already in the Final Salary Scheme and they then take you out of it becuase you are under 30 it is discrimination based on age and therfore illegal?

[LondonUNISON]

Totally agree with the ideas put forward by catch.

I totally agree with the above. 2 of the 5 strike breakers at my office obviously have this oppinion. I'm really dissappointed by them as I liked them and got on well with them, I find it a real shame that I now have to ignore them forever. The both have only months to go until they retire so I'm assuming they will justify their scabbing with this. It's no justification my father has only months left in RM before he retires and he still went on strike with us all!

I'm one of those with only a few years to go, but I was on strike to defend the conditions and pensions of those who will still be in the job when I've retired, as well as to defend the pension that was promised to me 27 years ago when I joined RM.

There were some surprises in out office too over people who stayed behind when we walked yesterday.

They thought we were fools and nothing would come of it but this morning we stayed out again and several of us (me obviously!) attended a mass meetting in E16.

We're back in Sunday night/Monday morning but will be back out fo the door if problems or reprisals arise!

Three great (and in their own way quite moving) posts there.

[strangler]

Last thing I saw on here they'll close the final salary pension to anyone under 30

Surely if you're already in the Final Salary Scheme and they then take you out of it becuase you are under 30 it is discrimination based on age and therfore illegal?

Possibly. I haven`t actually seen any mention of the final salary scheme being closed to those under 30 on here, must`ve missed that thread.

[Rob Ray]

Yeah good post catch.

Thing is the EU/government/RM have been planning the end (sorry, 'liberalisation') of the post office for nearly ten years now, they don't think about this stuff short term, so the workforce can't afford to either. There are going to be battles down the line, some of them are easy to spot, like a second round on pensions, the job cuts which are coming up, likely sell-offs (or indeed a major split) of certain sectors of the business in preparation for privatisation...

Hayes hasn't got the slightest hope of negotiating his way round all this on behalf of the membership. Labour aren't his friends, the AA batterers they've employed have no intention of giving him squat for asking nicely. Catch's point that organisation needs to happen independent of the union leadership is bang on the money - direct communication between workplaces will worry RM more than a legion of Billy's bureaucrats.

[catch]

Last thing I saw on here they'll close the final salary pension to anyone under 30

Surely if you're already in the Final Salary Scheme and they then take you out of it becuase you are under 30 it is discrimination based on age and therfore illegal?

Possibly. I haven`t actually seen any mention of the final salary scheme being closed to those under 30 on here, must`ve missed that thread.

I saw it in one thread, can't remember where and it could be yet another rumour. If it's just new starters it'll be 1. easier to get a positive vote on 2. just as effective at chucking the rest of you out of it later on.

[strangler]

I have to say in all fairness that the arguments several of you have put on here against closing the final salary scheme to new members is a good one.
I`d like to see more of the affordability argument RM make to justify doing this. Am I right in thinking we are the last to have such a scheme? I don`t think the agreement to pay back so much per year into the pension fund was taking into account closing the final salary scheme to anyone,was it?
I`ve read that a lot of big companies (rentokil?) have gone the same way , but that in itself is not a jusifiable argument to do the same to us. Don`t the trustees of the pension fund have some say (or at least an opinion) on all this?
Just one of a number of ways to divide the workforce, local agreements being another one.
Another strategy that bothers me is the general decline in RM staff and the increase in the numbers of agency workers. We all know that`s the way RM want to go. Casual labour that can be used when necessary, no sick pay or holidays to pay, etc. Eventually getting to a stage where a small percentage of the daily workforce are RM staff, take way non union members and what`s left is such a small number that even a strike would have little or no impact.

[Rob Ray]

Sadly, the trustees of the pension funds are usually management with token members of the workforce. Apparently managers are deemed exactly the sort of responsible people to look after our retirement funds and not, for example, invest heavily in shaky dot-com companies at the height of the technology bubble, then complain it's all our fault for living too long when that all goes tits up and their companies find themselves liable to pay for it...

[LondonUNISON]

Lots of places still have final salary pension schemes, local government does and as far as I know so do civil servants, teachers etc

How can they justify closing final salary pension schemes on cost when the world economy has been booming for years (the profit rates really are staggering) and city bonuses have gone through the roof, for instance:

Goldman said it had set aside £8.5bn in salaries, bonuses and benefits for 2006 - up 40% from last year's figure - meaning staff worldwide could expect to receive an average of £320,000.

Also you'll notice that MPs and directors never mention stopping their final salary pension scheme.

Agree with you that companies/the government using more and more temporary workers is a big problem in terms of workplace solidarity. Another thing we need to fight against.

[catch]

I have to say in all fairness that the arguments several of you have put on here against closing the final salary scheme to new members is a good one.
I`d like to see more of the affordability argument RM make to justify doing this. Am I right in thinking we are the last to have such a scheme?

No you're not! I just started working at a university three months ago, and there's a final salary pension scheme including new starters - pretty sure it's the same for all universities which means tens if not hundreds of thousands of employees across the country.

I don't know details of everywhere else, but it seems like the [rul=http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/ ... nsion.html]NHS[/url] still does. Looking at the affordability argument just allows them to have the argument on their own terms. It's not in our interest to fix the fact they had a pensions 'holiday' for however many years.

If they can't afford pensions, then they can't afford to pay you, can't afford proper health and safety, regular hours, full time contracts. There's any number of things they 'can't afford'. So if they really, really can't afford it, then we're all f****d and we need to fight tooth and nail against it, if they can afford it, then we need to fight tooth and nail against it.

Just one of a number of ways to divide the workforce, local agreements being another one.

Yep exactly.

Another strategy that bothers me is the general decline in RM staff and the increase in the numbers of agency workers. We all know that`s the way RM want to go. Casual labour that can be used when necessary, no sick pay or holidays to pay, etc. Eventually getting to a stage where a small percentage of the daily workforce are RM staff, take way non union members and what`s left is such a small number that even a strike would have little or no impact.

Yeah again that's more divide and rule, and again the answer is to fight those management imposed divisions (between existing staff and new starters, permanent and agency staff etc. etc.) rather than allow them to to use them to push things through. We just produced this leaflet for agency workers, bilingual English and Polish for that reason. Hopefully there'll still be some picket lines to hand it out on..

[Biggins]

If I were to talk to the people with only a few years to go til retirement, I might add a couple of thoughts...

1. In a few years' time you'll be happily retired, spare a thought for the poor buggers who're following you, one day it might be your great grandkid taking up the postbag.
2. Ask not what your union can do for you, ask what you can do for your union.

Fair comment. These days though the attitude is very much about 'looking after number 1'. I don`t condone it just saying that`s how it seems to be. I`m sure you hear, same as me, people moaning "what has the union done for me" totally unaware or forgetting all that goes on behind the scenes that you don`t hear about. However if those that will be retiring in the near future, or hope to, don`t get the terms at 60 that they would of had, they`ll blame the union as much as anyone else.

I'm one of those with only a few years to go, but I was on strike to defend the conditions and pensions of those who will still be in the job when I've retired, as well as to defend the pension that was promised to me 27 years ago when I joined RM.
And if I don't get what I was promised it will be RM I will be blaming. :lfo :cfo

Good on you Baldrick... You truely are a man of principle!