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
John Glyde on 14 December 2000 at 09:23:55:
The definition of pensionable earnings for the E plan members
was:
"Pensionable earnings means your total IBM taxable earnings plus
any Social Security benefit deducted under the terms of the IBM
Sickness and Accident Plan"
Under this definition Company Variable Pay should count as
pensionable - but it is excluded. I have had unsatisfactory
explanations and I would like to exchange experience with other
E plan members.
Posted by Anne
Uther on 15 December 2000 at 12:49:42:
In Reply to: E PLAN Members - PLEASE MAKE CONTACT
posted by John Glyde on 14 December 2000 at 09:23:55:
The N plan definition was the same but has the same exclusions I
think.
I have asked for a complete list of exclusions and inclusions.
This is not to fight it personally - it would be even more
galling to find I could have got almost the same pension under
N plan as C plan without paying for it, but because my wife has a couple
of N plan years added to her C plan, which makes the arithmetic very
messy.
(Anne Uther and wife? Yes its a pseudonym!)
Posted by A
C Planner on 15 December 2000 at 18:49:07:
In Reply to: Re: E PLAN Members - PLEASE MAKE CONTACT
posted by Anne Uther on 15 December 2000 at 12:49:42:
But that is the whole purpose of the current policy to make non-pensionable
remuneration at least 10 percent of total remuneration.
The effect of this is to make the C plan less attractive than it was
such that the pension accual rates are similar between the N/C plans.
The C plan has a higher percentage accrual rate but on a lower base.
The benefit to IBM is of course they pocket the employees' 4%
contribution - not directly of course, but though the extension to the
company's pension contribution holiday that these "unnecessary" payments
create.
Posted by
N.E. One on 20 December 2000 at 20:27:47:
In Reply to: E PLAN Members - PLEASE MAKE CONTACT
posted by John Glyde on 14 December 2000 at 09:23:55:
For information and comparison, the definition in the 1993 version of
the Pension Handbook for the N Plan was:-
Your N Plan pensionable earnings are your taxable earnings including any
Social Security Benefit deducted under the terms of the IBM Sickness and
Accident Plan.
It does not include:
- expenses incurred by you and reimbursed by IBM
- any payment made under the Customer Satisfaction Share Plan
- any payment made under the Discretionary Cash Bonus Plan
- any payment made under the Business Achievement Incentive
- any allowance paid in lieu of a motor car
- any ther fluctuating emoluments
For the C Plan it was:
Your basic annual salary excluding overtime and bonuses (or 100%
salary if you are on commission)plus London Allowance where payable.
|
