On 18 Jun, 16:40, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
LU have recently changed the rules. In the past, if an employee was
medically retired they would receive a full LU pension from the date of
the enforced retirement. LU (actually I think it's TfL) in their
infinite wisdom have now decreed that if a medically retired employee
goes on to find some other paid employment they will forfeit these
pension rights until normal retirement age.

Errr , so what? Either they're "ill" or they're not. If they're fit
enough to be able to do another job then why should they get an early
pension? Sorry , but I can't see an issue with it.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 18 Jun, 14:59, "clyde dempster"
wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

Theres a report in Metro (page 25) that the RMT - aka Bob Crow Inc -
is considing a strike ballot on the tube over pensions. Looks like
they've found a new topic to whinge about after they've flogged the
drivers pay and conditions argument to death.

B2003

There pension is not worth fighting for ???

Why now and not 5 , 10 , 15 years ago? And how come strike action
seems to be the bargaining tool of choice with the RMT? Is it because
they know if they argued their case out it would show it up to be the
slim pickings it really is?

B2003

Maybe 5, 10, 15 years ago there was not a problem.

The question still remains, isnt there pension worth fighting for ?

Regards
Clyde

On Jun 18, 3:58?pm, Boltar wrote:
On 18 Jun, 14:59, "clyde dempster"
wrote:

"Boltar" wrote in message

roups.com...

Theres a report in Metro (page 25) that the RMT - aka Bob Crow Inc -
is considing a strike ballot on the tube over pensions. Looks like
they've found a new topic to whinge about after they've flogged the
drivers pay and conditions argument to death.

B2003

There pension is not worth fighting for ???

Why now and not 5 , 10 , 15 years ago? And how come strike action
seems to be the bargaining tool of choice with the RMT? Is it because
they know if they argued their case out it would show it up to be the
slim pickings it really is?

B2003

Since when did Bob Crowe have the intellect to let a bad argument get
in the way of his strik-first, think-second mentality?

As I understand it, the "issue" being manufactured by him is that, if
an Underground employee has an illness or injury that prevents him
from continuing his same job, he will be expected to work at another
job (even, shock, horror, one that may pay less!) within the
Underground until retirement. Failure to do so would have an impact on
pension entitlement. And, in my view, rightly so! It's called the
"ups and downs of life", and the right to retire at the age of, say
30, on a full pension just because one cannot continue in the precise
same occupation because of injury or illness is fantasy of the sort
only Bob Crowe and his ilk could even attempt to advocate.

Writing as someone who is self-employed and if, for any reason at all
I fail to work I earn nothing at all, I'm with verbena wholeheartedly.

M.M.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 18, 3:58?pm, Boltar wrote:
On 18 Jun, 14:59, "clyde dempster"
wrote:

Since when did Bob Crowe have the intellect to let a bad argument get
in the way of his strik-first, think-second mentality?

I do not think personal attacks contribute much to the argument.

As I understand it, the "issue" being manufactured by him is that, if
an Underground employee has an illness or injury that prevents him
from continuing his same job, he will be expected to work at another
job (even, shock, horror, one that may pay less!) within the
Underground until retirement. Failure to do so would have an impact on
pension entitlement. And, in my view, rightly so! It's called the
"ups and downs of life", and the right to retire at the age of, say
30, on a full pension just because one cannot continue in the precise
same occupation because of injury or illness is fantasy of the sort
only Bob Crowe and his ilk could even attempt to advocate.

TfL Pension Fund - Ill-health pensions now

At present if medical evidence indicates that a member is unfit to do his or
her own job, an ill-health pension would be granted. That pension is based
upon length of fund membership, plus up to ten additional years'service. The
pension may be suspended if the individual recovers to 100 per cent fitness,
or revised to reflect an income. Where an income is earned, if the income
plus TfL pension is greater than that of their previous job, the pension is
reduced so that the individual's overall earnings are not greater.



What TfL management wants to do:

TfL management's favoured proposal would see ill-health pensions split into
two parts: a basic pension and an additional ill-health supplement. If the
individual recovers, the ill-health supplement would be withdrawn, which
would mean that individuals under 50 (or 55 from 2010) would be unable to
continue drawing their basic pension.



Crucially, the test for recieving an ill-health pension would be changed to
an 'all-work' test rather than the current 'own-job' test, which would leave
the majority of those leaving employment due to ill-health facing the
prospect of their pension being stopped because they would not be totally
incapacitated.



A train operator who developed eyesight problems, for example, would be
unable to continue in employment as a train operator but would not receive
an ill-health pension under the proposed changes if he or she remained fit
for some other form of work.



The employers have sought to exploit inconsistencies between the TfL Pension
Fund Office's Guidelines on ill-health pensions and the existing Scheme
Rules. However, the union has proposed that the Scheme rules be amended in
line with the Fund Office Guidelines (which also reflect members' conditions
of service), and that the current rule, 19 (5), which allows review of
ill-health pensions, simply be abolished.

Writing as someone who is self-employed and if, for any reason at all
I fail to work I earn nothing at all, I'm with verbena wholeheartedly.

M.M.

Being self employed was and is your choice. I wish you every success.

Regards
Clyde

On 19 Jun, 17:41, "clyde dempster"
wrote:
A train operator who developed eyesight problems, for example, would be
unable to continue in employment as a train operator but would not receive
an ill-health pension under the proposed changes if he or she remained fit
for some other form of work.

And the problem with that is?

B2003