-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Union announces 6 strike dates for EMT drivers
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No. The company appears to be altering the terms and conditions. Therefore they are no longer what they signed up for when the joined the company.
I'm sure there is more to this than both sides are letting on.
No, pension contributions can change at any point depending on the state of the fund. Usually it is underfunded and members are given a choice of paying more to get the same benefits, or paying the same for reduced benefits. My own contributions went up by 33% in the years before I retired as I wanted to retain my benefits (glad I did!). There's no free lunch - if it's underfunded you either pay in more or get less out, if overfunded you pay in less and get the same out.
To be in a position of an overfunded scheme where you pay less and retain full benefits is most unusual. In fact the pension trustees are not allowed to let the fund get too big by law, so a reduction in contributions by members and the employer is mandatory.
It's a ludicous excuse for a strike.
And anyway, by the time many of these drivers retire what's the chance of that scheme still even being in existance? The company is unlikely to be around, and the scheme will no doubt get subsumed into another at some stage.
Hence they have the right to leave, after fulfilling their notice period.
D841 Roebuck
Established Member
And their employer has no right to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of their job.
:roll: They aren't. The pension trustees are recommending a reduction in contributions to prevent the fund getting too over funded (which under pension legislation is not allowed). Not only do they have every right to do that, they have an obligation as trustees to do it.
The employee can be sacked and then re-employed under revised T&Cs.
Ivo
Established Member
I know some of you won't like my saying this, but - whilst it seemingly doesn't apply here - some strike action is based around pay cuts. In such situations, they could negate the money lost by, oh I don't know, not paying the Union (i.e. leaving)?
David
Established Member
Personally, I think going on strike over this matter is too extreme, especially if the pension fund is a FTSE 100 tracker.
I've just had a very quick look around and 3 years ago, the FTSE 100 was standing at ~4100. It's now around the 5700 mark. That's just shy of a 40% increase in 3 years. I could probably understand the discontent if the fund hasn't been valued in the last 4 years though.
I've just had a very quick look around and 3 years ago, the FTSE 100 was standing at ~4100. It's now around the 5700 mark. That's just shy of a 40% increase in 3 years. I could probably understand the discontent if the fund hasn't been valued in the last 4 years though.
What happens a lot in today's climate is that employees have to re-apply for their own jobs. Going on strike over that might mean you are not one of the ones in line to get your job back.
Last edited by a moderator:
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,653
If it really was that easy TOCs would have done this already and saved a lot of money.
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
Franchisees come and go, so surely it doesn't matter if 'the company is still around' in the future. As long as the railway companies/company of the future keep paying into The Railways Pension Scheme it should continue. I can't see that any company could get away with pulling out of the scheme, especially not for drivers, as the strikes would be crippling.
My view is that nowadays, given how heavily used our railways are, the railway pension scheme and the ASLEF/RMT position is too strong to see it shut down for existing members. Also, under the current franchise system, I can't see the TOCs wanting to take up that fight.
Yeah, that'd work... :roll:
I can't believe someone on a railway forum would know so little about the industry to think an idea like that workable!
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,706
Because mass sacking and re-employing under revised T&Cs would be feasible without triggering ludicrous strike action.
And then court cases over your apparent desire to eliminate undesirables simply for being active members of the union.
And then court cases over your apparent desire to eliminate undesirables simply for being active members of the union.
tbtc
Veteran Member
You are right (and rail Unions are far stronger today than they were under BR) - it's going to be one of the very few final salary schemes open to new members left in the UK (ignoring Executive schemes elsewhere - I am talking about ones open to all permenant employees) - as the Local Government/ Civil Service/ Teachers/ NHS etc all move toward Career Average pensions - I think that train staff and MPs will be almost the only ones with gold plated schemes.
And how viable do you think that will be? Everyone else living in the real world where gold plated pensions are a thing of the past, and rail workers and MPs still on gold-plated schemes largely paid for by all those real world folk on non-defined pensions (MPs through taxation, rail workers through elevated train fares)?
Once the scales tilt that far (the tipping point will be wholesale public sector pension reform, which is just around the corner and WILL be bloody but WILL happen because it has to) no gold plated defined benfit scheme, even that of MPs never mind rail workers, will exist.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
So (now lets make sure I get this right) because alot of people who work in the rail industry (myself included) are bad people because we have a well run, well balanced scheme that is doomed to failure...hang on last time I checked the Railway pension was actually doing pretty good, when times were bad we paid in more (thats why I really do not understand this strike), I know we were asked to pay more a few years ago..and we did the majority of us understood why, and thats how a well run pension should be. Just because numerous final salary pensions have gone bust due to poor management and a reluctance to pay more from its members it does not mean the railway pension will do so, It is well well run and the majority of its members use common sense.
ANG they didn't go bust, they became underfunded and so closed to new members, which means they will die out in time as the existing members kick the bucket.
Read a bit about why defined benefit pensions are a thing of the past and you'll find no evidence of management greed causing it (since Maxwell, the law protects schemes from robbery by failing managements). What you will find is:
1) People are living far longer than they used to. The days of retiring at 65 and keeling over at 67 are long gone. People are drawing their pensions for 20 or 30 years these days. That depletes the fund faster than it's being grown by those in work and still contributing (along with the much bigger employer contributions of course).
2) Gordon Brown changed the tax and accounting system so HE could rob private sector schemes. That was the beginning of the end for them.
3) Defined benefit schemes have only been in existance since about the 1950s in most jobs. So for most of the time they were in existance almost every member was paying in and few were drawing out. As time went on and more folk retired the ratio of retirees to to those paying in got less favourable, so the fund was under pressure.
4) In the current and recent economic climate pension fund managers have struggled to find investments that even keep pace with inflation, never mind provide growth in real terms. This causes a shrinking of the pension fund.
The EMT pension appears to be overfunded. That's great for the members. But it may not last for the reasons given above.
Read a bit about why defined benefit pensions are a thing of the past and you'll find no evidence of management greed causing it (since Maxwell, the law protects schemes from robbery by failing managements). What you will find is:
1) People are living far longer than they used to. The days of retiring at 65 and keeling over at 67 are long gone. People are drawing their pensions for 20 or 30 years these days. That depletes the fund faster than it's being grown by those in work and still contributing (along with the much bigger employer contributions of course).
2) Gordon Brown changed the tax and accounting system so HE could rob private sector schemes. That was the beginning of the end for them.
3) Defined benefit schemes have only been in existance since about the 1950s in most jobs. So for most of the time they were in existance almost every member was paying in and few were drawing out. As time went on and more folk retired the ratio of retirees to to those paying in got less favourable, so the fund was under pressure.
4) In the current and recent economic climate pension fund managers have struggled to find investments that even keep pace with inflation, never mind provide growth in real terms. This causes a shrinking of the pension fund.
The EMT pension appears to be overfunded. That's great for the members. But it may not last for the reasons given above.
DavidBusDriver
Member
So, Captain Speaking, in that final statement you have quoted exactly why ASLEF have had a disagreement with the EMT management. The over-funding may not last, so members would prefer to keep contributions as they are so that they can hope for a more stable pension fund. I am sure that if it reaches the mandatory ceiling members shall be advised as such from the pension scheme, but at the moment if they can still keep paying what they are paying it is a wise thing to do, sorry if Mr. Souter can't save some pennies by potentially putting the scheme at risk!
Still seems a tad extreme to strike over six days though.
Isn't that precisely what's happening?
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
I agree. I wonder though whether this is ASLEF firing off a warning shot for the future, i.e. if you touch our pensions we'll really mess you up.
It's extreme to strike over this at all.
Meanwhile, over in Network Rail, employee and employer contributions to the defined benefit scheme are being reduced from July. Rather significantly the benefits are also changing, and not for the better unless you stay in the same grade of job for your entire career and don't mind working an extra 5 years if you are a newbie. Yet Bros Bob'n'Manuel decided to accept the changes without bothering to consult their members.
So what are ASLEF up to?
AlexS
Established Member
The civil service etc final salary schemes at the very least have been closed to new entrants for some years now, I think 2005 - career average only. Don't believe everything you see in the press.
Urban myth. Brown did start taxing dividends earned by pension schemes but on the other hand extended tax breaks for pension contributions. The move away from defined benefit started in the USA in the 70s - not sure how Brown could be blamed for that. Besides - have the coalition reversed Brown's changes yet?
There are fewer and fewer final salary schemes(or gold plated as you call them) around in the railway now and just about every new starter in the railway industry has been on a contribution based scheme since the early00's IIRC. I know I am and my staff are and everyone else who has joined so you're talking out your arse sir.
And it actually offends me somewhat when you lump us all in together with how you view the railway and what goes on as to what actually goes on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this a "final salary" scheme? If so, isn't it unusual for an employer to make defined contributions (double the employee contribution if I've read the ASLEF release correctly)? Is this a particular feature of this scheme? Usually in final salary (defined benefit) schemes the employee's contributions are fixed (I've never heard of a holiday in one) and the employer either has a pension holiday when times are good or makes up the shortfall when times are bad.
Although it is becoming common now for employers to increase employee contributions too; my old employer, HP, is trebling employee contributions and many public servants are having to pay more.
Although it is becoming common now for employers to increase employee contributions too; my old employer, HP, is trebling employee contributions and many public servants are having to pay more.
It's no urban myth. Brown taxed pension scheme dividends (robbed the schemes of their investment income) and instigated accounting rules whereby the pension fund appeared on the books of the company, so it became in the interest of the company to minimise the value of the pension fund.
Final salary schemes were already declining because of demographics. That was nothing to do with the US; if it was happening there as well (and I expect it was) that was independant of the situation in UK. But Brown's stab in the back was the last thing these schemes needed and was what sealed their fate.
Last edited by a moderator:
tbtc
Veteran Member
That was a good move though - the FRS17 legislation meant that shareholders in a company knew about the pension scheme - if a company's pension fund is millions in debt then surely that matters for investors?
Are you saying that these debts (which are often significantly larger than profits etc) should be hidden away?
- Status