This post responds to the many posts on activism that have appeared recently.
The AMIPP reasons for concentrating on the Ombudsman mechanism were given in a previous posting, link below. Essentially, the issue is one of getting the "official" mechanisms out of the way. The Ombudsman may find that the law offers no protection for the promises made to us, or may find there was maladministration, or may even choose not to get involved with the crucial issues, but he will (eventually) say something. Until that happens, those we would reasonably seek to influence will naturally say "Let's wait to see what the Ombudsman says". It is immensely frustrating, and prejudicial to our prospects as the events in question fade from people's memories, but now doesn't seem the right time for AMIPP to change direction.
It is reasonable to ask what AMIPP has achieved. I am chairman of a nationwide organisation www.opalliance.org.uk and that organisation is spending thousands on lobbying for improvements (from the scheme members' point of view) in the Pensions Bill going through Parliament. But none of the amendments we proposed (via MP agreement) during the Committee Stage got accepted. In fact, almost nothing that the opposition parties suggested got accepted. Does that make the Committee Stage a failure? By a crude test it does, but the more reasonable test is what would otherwise have happened, and what influence there may be in the future. It could well be that the reasoning put forward by the opposition parties at the Select Committee stage prevented the Bill shifting against scheme members' interests. It could well be that their reasoning will influence the Lords as they moderate the Bill. Likewise with AMIPP, I suggest that what you have to judge is not "has AMIPP yet led to a pensions in payment policy as was promised during my working time?", but "has AMIPP done as much as could be done?".
Obviously, AMIPP thinks it has, or it would have done something else. There are some semi-tangible results. We are a major part of the way through getting answers from the Ombudsman. Whatever the outcome, everyone will learn from the determination more about what actually happened in the time members have been losing out. We have a website generally regarded as informative, and providing a platform for opinion. The AMIPP recommendations for MED voting matched the voting results. (Of course the voting results might have been the same without any AMIPP recommendation - that is for you to judge.) There are some signs that the board of trustee-directors, and the company, have been recognising their obligations more in the years since complaints were first made. Although the annual Members' Reports remain somewhat secretive and patronising, they contain more in recent years than they used to about such matters as complaints and negotiations on increases. The selection of Bob Bridges to replace Jim Ball as an "independent" trustee should be welcomed. Bob's wide experience is not associated with IBM, Jim had a 23 year commercial association with IBM.
It can be argued that "activism" would have achieved more, and the volunteers could be found for that. An association run in parallel with AMIPP would have been possible - AMIPP would have given it publicity in the Newsletters, just as it has publicised organisations of IBM members abroad. The fact that such an organisation has not emerged puts a limit on how much support for it should be guessed at.
AMIPP recognises that if there is a need for noticeable money sums it would be better if the subscribers had more say in what was done by AMIPP. However, asking for subscriptions is a big step and there is no clearcut reason to take the step now. A few more months?
(With AMIPP chairman hat on)