This is a follow-on from previous week summaries and they should be read first.

AMIPP WEBSITE AND FORUM

Use of the forum remains high but that is unlikely to prove to be a problem as we have agreed with our host on removing any bandwidth limit.

Experiments are being made to see whether Phorum’s polling facilities could be useful.

Themes on the website tended to be reactive during the month after 07/07. There are now some more reflective contributions, some with resignation, some with oversight of the company’s future. We are also seeing suggestions of how to make the most of a bad situation if the proposals go through unimproved. While careful not to be taken as technically financial advice, these contributions point to actions that employees might want to take soon. [www.amipp.org.uk]


TIMETABLE

The remaining time line being adopted by IBM is as follows;

(The consultation has started. There may be minor delay to the schedule shown because of the way it was started.)
Sat 3rd October - End of 60 day consultation
Mon 5th October - IBM finalise proposals

The time line after 5th October will be dependent on the decisions taken by IBM following the consultation period. However, it has been suggested that the Company consideration of the output from the PCC will last one week, after which the Company will announce its decisions. It has also been indicated in the Q&A\'s on the Wiki that the Company will open a month long window during October - November for employees to submit requests to take early retirement.

REACTION TO IBM COMMUNICATIONS.

A great deal of material has appeared on IBM’s internal wiki. Questions on the forum indicate that it is not always clear what the material means. In particular, information on the new policy for approval of early retirement is sparse, calling into question whether IBM met its obligation to describe, before the consultation started, the potential impact of the proposals. What the employees want, and is not provided, is an authoritative calculator with which they can explore scenarios that relate to them individually.

THE AUTHORITIES

Nothing further is to be expected from The Pensions Advisory Service until they are approached by individuals with complaints that the Pensions Ombudsman might consider.

There has been no response from the Regulator to complaints about the setup of the consultation process. (Although obviously the Regulator did not act on requests to stop the election process.)

There has been nothing further from the Pensions Trust since the 9 July statement on its website.

THE LEGAL ASPECTS

A few contributors write in terms of executives in the dock but the majority see the legal reasoning as an influence on IBM’s proposals, rather than leading to court action.

The themes remain:

- Bad faith in proposing these changes so soon after the 2006 commitments.
- Bad faith in the disparity of treatment between those who chose DB and those who chose DC.
- Automatic ranking, with the lowest ranked “managed out”, is seen as constructive dismissal.
- History is considered to have established implied conditions in employment contracts, relating to retirement.

UNION ACTIVITY

Unite organised a meeting in a hotel close to the M3. The room was booked to accommodate 100. Accounts of attendance vary but 200 or so is most quoted. Forum accounts initially expressed disappointment at a perceived lack of commitment by the two union speakers to helping in the current emergency. Later accounts took a balancing view – the union is an “us” not a “them” and will be needed more and more.

The numerical success of the meeting has enthused Unite. Several further meetings are planned. (And will be noted on AMIPP’s home page.)

ACTIONS

A blog has been established [aarmonkaardvark.blogspot.com], written by somebody close to the action. (It is eight days since anything changed on this blog, which is causing concern that it might not be operating as freely as one would hope.)

The PCC has surveyed employee attitudes, related to age. The higher ranked concerns are \"Loss of early retirement option\", \"Reduced Benefit\", \"Forced Retirement\", \"Loss of Trust\", and \"Financial Uncertainty\".

There is a weekly letter. (I am not recording here how to get it because the authors restrict it largely to employees. AMIPP will reproduce from it..)


LEGAL AND ACTUARIAL ADVICE FOR THE PCC

Some advice is being provided to the PCC by the firm Pi [www.piconsulting.co.uk] This is advice about the pensions world and how the PCC might behave. It is not providing legal or actuarial information about the proposals. IBM is determined to maintain the advantage it has in information, and has refused a PCC request that it funds the PCC acquisition of independent information. It is not known what IBM spends on obtaining advice and information, but as a measure of what is involved, the IBM UK Pensions Trust spent over £1M on such external professional fees in 2008.

The PCC has fund raising plans. Also it is asking about the Trust’s involvement with the proposals.


SUMMARY OF SUMMARY

The cohesion and activity that tended to centre on Hursley and C-Planners now extends to all of the PCC members and sections. Communications from there to employees are good. Consultation time passes with the PCC at an immense disadvantage.

The surge of union activity continues, focussed not so much on the immediate events, but more on the separate track of giving employees some power and protection in their working lives.

NOTE

Please say if you regard this summary as a travesty, or it omits a point you consider major. I can edit it.

See also:
C Plan blog [armonkaardvark.blogspot.com]
Yahoo Group [finance.groups.yahoo.com]
Union starter [www.amipp.org.uk]'



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09 October 2009 10:02AM by admin1.