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