Posted by
A Palmer on 07
December 2000 at 19:07:13:
Here is a copy of my letter which was sparked by the excellent one
from Dave Mitchell...........
Mr. J. Lamb
Office of the Chief Executive
IBM United Kingdom Limited
South Bank
London 7 December 2000
Dear Mr. Lamb,
In your recent letter to Mr. Mitchell, you make claims about IBM's
position and
actions relative to C Plan pensioners in particular.
This is, firstly, to say that this pensioner's concerns have not
"been
allayed" by the Barclays judgement. Barclays gives limited RPI increases
to
its contributory pensioners, IBM does not. Barclays openly informed its
pensioners. IBM did not and does not. As one who initially deferred his
pension, I do not even receive the newsletter that is or was sent to all
other
pensioners. The recent discretionary increase, set against the £20
million or
so taken out of the C Plan by IBM, only served to emphasise IBM's
disregard
for its pensioners as compared to its shareholders. Overall, on this
point, it
should not have been necessary for either the Barclays or the IBM case
to go
to the ombudsman. As you claim to believe, IBM and Barclays only got
where
they are today by the efforts of those who are now most likely
pensioners.
Secondly, there is, at least some dispute currently about whether or
not
IBM has paid all the pension it should do to all of its pensioners. I
know I am
not alone in asking what has happened to re-payment of pension excess
that
arises from pensions that are capped by the C Plan maximum. Mil 582,
which
was recently sent to me as a useful guidance document by Kevin Waller
Pensions Services Manager, states that any excess will be held on
account
then released year by year "to increase the pension in payment in line
with
Inland Revenue guidelines". My pension was capped by over 10%. It is my
understanding that the Inland Revenue allows companies, which have only
paid the small increases IBM has, to supplement those increases, as
stated in
Mil 582, but I have not noticed any such increase coming my way. I am
currently awaiting a reply, from Kevin, on that point.
There are other examples of IBM's poor attitude to its pensioners,
especially those who had deferred payment for a while but who are now in
receipt of it, which show how small minded it can be. We have to pay £25
per
year to be associate members of the IBM retirees club. We do not get
access
to the IBM PC shop even though others can buy a PC for anybody. We do
not
get access to discounts of many sorts. We are not called "IBM
Pensioners",
presumably we are thought to have in some way snubbed IBM by not taking
our money straight away. These items are very small in their financial
effect
as compared to the ones I mentioned earlier, but they really seem to
show
precisely how IBM wants us to feel.
Yours sincerely, Alan Palmer 069590
Posted by
Alan Murphy on 10 December 2000 at 22:43:42:
In Reply to: re capping & Dave Mitchell's letter to J
Lamb posted by A Palmer on 07 December 2000 at 19:07:13:
Jim Lamb has now replied to a second letter by Dave Mitchell - see
the link below. I found it difficult to read anything between the lines!
Please let us know if you get a reply to your letter.
Posted by Colin Blanks on 10 December 2000 at 11:18:53:
In Reply to: Re: Letter From Jeff Rooker MP Minister
of State posted by Robin D'Souza on 28 November 2000 at 11:32:51:
When The Ombudsman's decision was overturned in the High Court I
e-mailed Jeff Rooker - on 27/11/00
----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your e-mail to DSS Ministers.
A full reply will be sent to you. We have a target of replying to
correspondence within 20 working days.
Tim Elms
Private Office
------------------------------------------------------------
For the attention of Jeff Rooker MP
You recently wrote to my MP Eileen Gordon about the measures you have in
place to protect the interests of members of pension schemes.
ref: POS(2)3735/71
In view of the Pensions Ombudsman being overturned by the High Court I
am not reassured by your letter.
Do you have any comment ??
Colin Blanks
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 22 2000
Posted by
Brian Marks on 12 December 2000 at 20:41:18:
In Reply to: Dave Mitchell's Second letter to J Lamb
posted by Alan Murphy on 10 December 2000 at 22:43:42:
We should not be surprised by the brevity of Jim
Lamb's latest reply. If any of us got a letter
that suggested we were associated (knowingly or
unknowingly) with something of doubtful legality
then we would be cagey in replying.
Dave was right to point out the strength of
feeling this issue has raised. He was also right
to acknowledge that if an IBMer expresses an
opinion we should presume it genuine, and be very
reluctant to think it "in denial" or devious.
With respect to the Trust, as opposed to IBM UK,
I have found the pension management folk at North
Harbour more willing than I feared they would be
to discuss the general situation over pensions.
Common ground on the context of our concerns would
reduce the part of the disagreements that comes
from having different starting points. It will be
bad news if communication is shut down by distrust.
Posted by
R D'Souza on 30 January 2001 at 16:09:12:
In Reply to: re capping & Dave Mitchell's letter to J
Lamb posted by A Palmer on 07 December 2000 at 19:07:13:
Could you please post MIL 582 which you say was sent to you by
Kevin Waller. It would seem to be an important link in the trail
of evidence that the C Plan Cap was not in the original prospectus
and was covertly added later.
|
