From the Message Board - 3 October 14 October

Posted by Peter Hill on 03 October 2000 at 13:49:38:

I am getting a little confused about who the main players are in this serious Pension situaton. Could someone with knowledge list for me who are on our side ie. the "Pensioners" trying to get their just desserts and then the "Others" trying to prevent this happening. As an example who's side is Bryan Balfour on? IBM, The Board of Trustees,(Could be the same as IBM!)A devil's advocat, C Plan Pensioner or what? Most of the time it is easy to catagorise the players writing notes on the Message Board but Brayan Balfour confuses me.
Peter Hill

Posted by Bryan Balfour on 05 October 2000 at 10:17:56:

In Reply to: Dramatis Personae posted by Peter Hill on 03 October 2000 at 13:49:38:

For the record; I'm a C plan retiree (I hate the word pensioner) who took a package in '93 after 23 years service in IBM. Since that date that company has given me my 'just desserts' every month on time and in full just like they said they would. Indeed the payslip that arrived yesterday bares this out with a 2.3% 'discretionary' increase.
Does that mean that I don't have some concerns about the future? No it doesn't, but I'm not prepared, on the evidence presented so far, to accuse IBM of theft nor am I prepared to accuse the Board of Trustees of 'dereliction of duty' over the matter of the transfer of funds from the C to the M plan.

Posted by Pete Warren on 05 October 2000 at 12:53:17:

In Reply to: Re: Dramatis Personae posted by Bryan Balfour on 05 October 2000 at 10:17:56:

But consider this: when the surplus has gone what will be used to
provide the discretionary increases? And how will a fixed
pension look in, say, 10 years time?

No doubt you have received formal notice of the pension increase.
Read, and read again, the "disclaimer" at the bottom of the letter
Could this "appropriateness" mean that if there is no surplus then
no increase?

If you deposited money at the bank and the bank moved
some of the cash to another account, using the pretext that it
was all the same bank anyway, wouldn't you be upset?

I have heard a rumour from two disconnected sources, and it is
just a rumour at the moment, that discretionary increases are to
be stopped on instructions from the U.S. The basis behind this
is that U.S. retirees do not receive increase so why should the
UK.

Posted by Richard Phillips on 14 October 2000 at 08:13:09:

In Reply to: Re: Dramatis Personae posted by Bryan Balfour on 05 October 2000 at 10:17:56:

But, Bryan, given the size of the surplus, the discretionary increases they pay could be much larger, and at least the full rate of inflation. As it is, they are not arriving annually any more. I know they are not obliged to pay them, so it is time a change in the law made them have to do it, especially when they are using money from our fund to pay inflation-proof pensions to others because the law says they have to.
Unless the law insists, the US company can prevent IBM UK paying any increases at all in the future, and the word is that that is what they would like to do.
If inflation takes off again because of an oil crisis, how quickly will your pension be worth a fraction of its value now?

Posted by Bryan Balfour on 14 October 2000 at 17:02:38:

In Reply to: Re: Dramatis Personae posted by Richard Phillips on 14 October 2000 at 08:13:09:

I agree entirely with what you say, Richard. In an earlier thread, I advocated the need for a government review of the rules governing the pensions schemes in place before the new legislation was introduced to bring them in line with this legislation. What I was objecting to was the tone of some of the messages on this BB.