In Reply to: Re: Activism - what style of activism? posted by Cynical pensioner on 22 August 2002 at 14:45:16:
Just my reaction to the points raised:
a) I did not say that elected trustees can be effective under a regime that aims to make them irrelevant, and my "brick wall" comment was meant to emphasise that. But we don't know that the trust is going to continue to operate exactly as it did under the previous chairman.
b) On the suggestion that actives would follow an IBM line for fear of reprisal against them, that is a recognised risk; the 1995 Act has a section about employee trustees "Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed". I don't think however that it is a high risk if the right candidates are elected. Those who know Mike O'Sullivan, a current MED and active, would be quick to reassure you of his mental strength. I do think though that there is a different difficulty for MEDs that are employees, and that is the time required to keep up to speed. We have seen in the documentation that the Trust directs towards members a tendency to emphasise what IBM would like us to believe rather than give a balanced picture. No doubt the same tendency applies in board meetings. The time required to get the background to avoid being "snowed" will undoubtedly be a burden to an employee trying to perform in her/his day job.
c) I cannot answer the question about whether I will be a candidate yet, although I am young enough to be eligible. (A significant section of the retirees are not young enough, which is an example of unfair ageism.) The difficulty for AMIPP is that by the time the candidates are known (unless they speak in advance of the ballot package) it is too late to usefully judge whether addition to their ranks might result in better MEDs.
d) On the TV program suggestion, I didn't respond for the usual reason - the Ombudsman has us in limbo. I don't think any TV program maker would show an interest at this time - their lawyers would say "wait and see what the Ombudsman says". That is the same position that MPs, with honourable exceptions, are taking. (I don't mean that to deter approaches to program makers about possible programs, if you have the right contacts, I just mean the climate isn't helpful.)
e) "Cynical Pensioner" asks whether the IBM of ten years ago could have been expected to use its discretion to provide LPI on all service. Many of us believe the answer is yes - it was IBM's declared PIP policy to be competitive with all the companies that were providing LPI, and Pension Matters Three explained in 1993 why affordability was the restraint. IBM was, and had been, competitive in all its other benefits. There is nothing magical about the fraction 7/10. Legally, discretions have to be exercised for the purpose they were given, in our case to provide flexibility in implementing the PIP policy.
f) Underfunding, the MFR, and all that, is a topic that probably needs a website article to provide a basis for discussion.