Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 15:59:53 GMT
Universities are running a huge black hole in their pensions as well! I suppose the the answer is their pensions will have to be cut to what the fund can afford. If things pick up they can be raised again, but as we all know there is no magic money tree I think most employers with defined benefit pension schemes have similar problems. The difference for C&RT was it had the opportunity to resolve BW's black hole five years ago. In other words it could have insisted that the BW scheme was closed to future accrual (being replaced by a defined contribution scheme) and government funded any pension deficit as a condition of accepting the waterways into its care. Instead it accepted the liability in return for £25m cash and the freeholds of Wood Wharf and Paddington Basin used as security for the pension black hole. The cynic in me says the BW 'fat cats' were more interested in protecting their own pension benefits than sorting out the black hole. under TUPE arrangements I doubt they could have done that at the time for existing staff but I believe they could now. For new staff starting after the inception of the trust they possibly could have closed the the old BW scheme (and did surely?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 16:05:23 GMT
I think most employers with defined benefit pension schemes have similar problems. The difference for C&RT was it had the opportunity to resolve BW's black hole five years ago. In other words it could have insisted that the BW scheme was closed to future accrual (being replaced by a defined contribution scheme) and government funded any pension deficit as a condition of accepting the waterways into its care. Instead it accepted the liability in return for £25m cash and the freeholds of Wood Wharf and Paddington Basin used as security for the pension black hole. The cynic in me says the BW 'fat cats' were more interested in protecting their own pension benefits than sorting out the black hole. under TUPE arrangements I doubt they could have done that at the time for existing staff but I believe they could now. For new staff starting after the inception of the trust they possibly could have closed the the old BW scheme (and did surely?) That is exactly so, but does not make such a juicy story line. |
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 28, 2017 17:20:48 GMT
even if CaRT does not exist in name, there will still be a waterways board looking after the waterways. won't it just be them morphed into the next thing, probaly with the same personnel. The best thing would be for it to be put out to tender. for any charity/company to run. But with the goverment owning the fixtures and fittings and to run with government oversight. mush like leisure centres and such are done. In the first instance, crt would be taken over by the waterways minister or under secretary. I think that's lord Gardiner at the moment. Some at IWA feel they are the only capable ones to take over, but with their membership dropping quite heavily, I don't see that happening. For me the last thing I would want is the IWA running the show they seem incapable of running themselves and the membership is secondary in any of their views |
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Aug 28, 2017 18:00:12 GMT
I think most employers with defined benefit pension schemes have similar problems. The difference for C&RT was it had the opportunity to resolve BW's black hole five years ago. In other words it could have insisted that the BW scheme was closed to future accrual (being replaced by a defined contribution scheme) and government funded any pension deficit as a condition of accepting the waterways into its care. Instead it accepted the liability in return for £25m cash and the freeholds of Wood Wharf and Paddington Basin used as security for the pension black hole. The cynic in me says the BW 'fat cats' were more interested in protecting their own pension benefits than sorting out the black hole. under TUPE arrangements I doubt they could have done that at the time for existing staff but I believe they could now. For new staff starting after the inception of the trust they possibly could have closed the the old BW scheme (and did surely?) Under TUPE the defined benefit scheme could have been replaced by a defined contribution scheme subject to certain safeguards (in particular, no loss of benefits accrued to date). The BW scheme was not made available to new starters but continued for staff and directors who transferred. Staff on the BW scheme were transferred to the C&RT scheme in October last year. A recent staff pay claim uses as part of its justification that pension is deferred salary and transferring staff between schemes is reducing salary. |
|
