CLYDE DEMPSTER wrote:

If customer service means me earning less, working longer hours in a more
dangerous enviroment, haveing my pension turned into some mickey mouse
money purchase scheme snip

That's a bad one to argue on. Final salary pensions are in demise all
over the place. The (simple) reason why is that they are effectively a
pyramid scheme which make the assumption that the workforce/their
contributions/the related investments will always grow over time It is
being discovered that they won't.

Personally, I find a money purchase scheme invested in a number of
places to be more secure, even if it won't necessarily give as good a
final figure.

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...

Personally, I find a money purchase scheme invested in a number of
places to be more secure, even if it won't necessarily give as good a
final figure.

Neil

Thanks for the measured response. Sounds as if you have the money to invest.
As a driver i am lucky enough to earn a good salary but there are many on
low salaries that work on both the underground and overground railways. With
little or nothing to pay into the money purchase schemes it seems that they
can look forward to a less prosperous retierment than at present under the
final salary scheme. That dosent seem right to me.

At the last valuation of the scheme i am member of there was a small short
fall which was put right by raising the contibutions over the course of a
couple of years. Although the scheme is in a good financial state they still
wanted to introduce a money purchase scheme. A lot less exspensive for the
company ofcourse. It takes 40 years continuous contributons to get the full
benefit from a railway pension. Thats 40 years, as someone put it, serving
the public. I think railman and women deserve a decent retirement after that
sort of commitment.

There will be those that disagree of course.

Still, i hope your scheme comes up with the goods for you when the time
comes and if you should need a chauffeur or gardner, perhaps you could bear
me in mind, because i shall more than likely be skint.

Regards
Clyde

"CLYDE DEMPSTER" wrote in message
. uk...

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:16:01 GMT, "CLYDE DEMPSTER"
wrote:

A fair Salary

...even though they earn £30k...

Fought for and won by the actions of strong trade unions.
And why shouldnt they earn that kind of money? My only regret is that not
every one is on that figure, still plenty of work for us trade unionists
to
do there i think.

Go see how much money nurses make, then tell me that's a fair wage. Jesus
Christ, man - just because you can get paid that much does not make it
right. I've seen inept people get really high salaries - that does not
automatically entitle everyone to such a wage.

Just for the record im not a member of the RMT but ASLEF. There are 18500
members of ASLEF and we intend to stick up for ouselves and protect our
pay,
our pensions and our conditions.

By ****ing off the people you're supposed to be serving...? Good to
see the spirit of customer service is alive and well, isn't it?

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

If customer service means me earning less, working longer hours in a more
dangerous enviroment, haveing my pension turned into some mickey mouse
money purchase scheme and being sacked on the whim of a manager in a bad
mood you are going to be ****ed of for a long time.

Let me speak for every single traveller on London Underground, if I may -
**** YOU.

YOU chose to work on the underground - we don't choose to travel on it. For
most (if not all), it's the only way we can get around London. If you don't
like having to actually work for your money, go find another job where you
can eat biscuits, drink tea, and moan about the public. You are supposed to
be providing a PUBLIC service. You can't just turn around and go "oh -
don't worry lovely public - we're just using you as a pawn in our sick,
selfish game. We want more money to do less, and we'll claim it's down to
safety, but really we just want a day off"

Regards
Clyde

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:23:09 GMT, "CLYDE DEMPSTER"
wrote:


"James Farrar" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:16:01 GMT, "CLYDE DEMPSTER"
wrote:

A fair Salary

...even though they earn £30k...

Fought for and won by the actions of strong trade unions.
And why shouldnt they earn that kind of money?

I don't say they shouldn't; I'm saying you shouldn't claim it's not a
fair salary.

By ****ing off the people you're supposed to be serving...? Good to
see the spirit of customer service is alive and well, isn't it?

If customer service means me earning less, working longer hours in a more
dangerous enviroment, haveing my pension turned into some mickey mouse
money purchase scheme and being sacked on the whim of a manager in a bad
mood you are going to be ****ed of for a long time.

I know that, as long as tht **** Crow is in charge.

Being in a customer service industry means that if you have to take
industrial action, you do it in a way that doesn't decrease service to
your customers. Unless you're suggesting that it's your customers who
are the problem.

Exactly - look at the bus strikes in Dublin. They operate the exact same
service as usual, only they don't charge the public. The bosses get it in
the neck, and the public get their service for free. THAT'S how you get
public support. I'm sure most Dubliners would take a bullet for the your
average bus driver. Most Londoners would rather beat seven shades of poop
out of the nearest striking LU employee with a bag of frozen dog turd for
punishing them when they need to travel the most.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

"CLYDE DEMPSTER" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...

Personally, I find a money purchase scheme invested in a number of
places to be more secure, even if it won't necessarily give as good a
final figure.

Neil

Thanks for the measured response. Sounds as if you have the money to
invest. As a driver i am lucky enough to earn a good salary but there are
many on low salaries that work on both the underground and overground
railways. With little or nothing to pay into the money purchase schemes it
seems that they can look forward to a less prosperous retierment than at
present under the final salary scheme. That dosent seem right to me.

At the last valuation of the scheme i am member of there was a small short
fall which was put right by raising the contibutions over the course of a
couple of years. Although the scheme is in a good financial state they
still wanted to introduce a money purchase scheme. A lot less exspensive
for the company ofcourse. It takes 40 years continuous contributons to get
the full benefit from a railway pension. Thats 40 years, as someone put
it, serving the public. I think railman and women deserve a decent
retirement after that sort of commitment.

There will be those that disagree of course.

Still, i hope your scheme comes up with the goods for you when the time
comes and if you should need a chauffeur or gardner, perhaps you could
bear me in mind, because i shall more than likely be skint.

Then go find a job with a better pension scheme, or find a way to get it
without screwing the very people you're supposed to be helping. Unlike the
passengers on the london underground, YOU have a choice to be there.

Regards
Clyde

In message , Mal
writes

If customer service means me earning less, working longer hours in a more
dangerous enviroment, haveing my pension turned into some mickey mouse
money purchase scheme and being sacked on the whim of a manager in a bad
mood you are going to be ****ed of for a long time.


Was someone sacked on the whim of a manager in a bad mood??

You've read through the 'proposed' new AAW policy yet?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, CLYDE DEMPSTER wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...

Personally, I find a money purchase scheme invested in a number of
places to be more secure, even if it won't necessarily give as good a
final figure.

Thanks for the measured response. Sounds as if you have the money to
invest. As a driver i am lucky enough to earn a good salary but there
are many on low salaries that work on both the underground and
overground railways. With little or nothing to pay into the money
purchase schemes it seems that they can look forward to a less
prosperous retierment than at present under the final salary scheme.
That dosent seem right to me.

At the last valuation of the scheme i am member of there was a small
short fall which was put right by raising the contibutions over the
course of a couple of years. Although the scheme is in a good financial
state they still wanted to introduce a money purchase scheme. A lot less
exspensive for the company ofcourse.

That's the rub. This is not about final salary vs money purchase, it's
about how much the employer is putting in. A money purchase scheme with
the same level of contribution from them as your current final salary
scheme would be just as good as it, wouldn't it?.

That said, my pension's final salary, and the chaps running it seem
convinced that they can keep it that way indefinitely.

tom

--
Don't trust the laws of men. Trust the laws of mathematics.

Let me speak for every single traveller on London Underground, if I may -
**** YOU.

Thanks for that. In fact i dont think you can speak for every traveller on
London Underground but i doubt that will stop you.


YOU chose to work on the underground - we don't choose to travel on it.
For most (if not all), it's the only way we can get around London. If you
don't like having to actually work for your money, go find another job
where you can eat biscuits, drink tea, and moan about the public. You are
supposed to be providing a PUBLIC service. You can't just turn around and
go "oh - don't worry lovely public - we're just using you as a pawn in our
sick, selfish game. We want more money to do less, and we'll claim it's
down to safety, but really we just want a day off"

I dont chose to work on the underground, i dont work on the underground.

I to use the underground to get to work but that dosent stop me from
supporting those that take industrial action in a worthwhile cause.

I dont understand your last sentence. How does striking over safety result
in more money? As a regular passenger on the underground i would have
thought you would have an interest in being safe whilst travelling. If its
all about money why lose a days pay on a strike that dosent result in any
more money? Then you say its because the strikers want a day off. Why
wouldnt they just go sick for a day on full pay if they are that desperate
for a day off and money is so important?

It dosent add up.

Regards
Clyde

"d" wrote in message
k...
"CLYDE DEMPSTER" wrote in message
. uk...

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:16:01 GMT, "CLYDE DEMPSTER"
wrote:

A fair Salary

...even though they earn £30k...

Fought for and won by the actions of strong trade unions.
And why shouldnt they earn that kind of money? My only regret is that
not
every one is on that figure, still plenty of work for us trade unionists
to
do there i think.

Go see how much money nurses make, then tell me that's a fair wage. Jesus
Christ, man - just because you can get paid that much does not make it
right. I've seen inept people get really high salaries - that does not
automatically entitle everyone to such a wage.

I agree with you about nurses, they do not get a fair wage. If i was able
to assist them by takeing industrial action i would. I do attend marches and
demonstrations like the fire fighters march, and going further back, the
miners. My union branch contributes money to campaigns such as these both
from branch funds and from collections at the meetings. Ordinary people
doing what they can with monetary and moral support.

Hope to see you at these events in the future.

Regards
Clyde

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, CLYDE DEMPSTER wrote:
That's the rub. This is not about final salary vs money purchase, it's
about how much the employer is putting in. A money purchase scheme with
the same level of contribution from them as your current final salary
scheme would be just as good as it, wouldn't it?.


No Tom i dont think so. A final salary scheme pays you a percentage of your
final years salary guarranteed, a money puchase scheme depends on how much
pension your savings can buy at your time of retirement. It could be higher
than your last years salary and it could be lower. Id rather not gamble.

An interesting thing i have recently found out is that whatever type of
scheme your in you have no binding rights to your money until you have
drawn the first payment from it. Bit scary that i reckon.

Regards
Clyde