Fair and Equitable?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair and Equitable?
ABC Airlines is cutting staff numbers.
It offers ground staff a lump sum, plus pension at 55 (ten years early...normal pensionable age 65).
It offers pilots a lump sum (only after a fight) and maintains their pension date is 55 (no change...normal pensionable age is 55!).
They say the package offerred to pilots is the same package as offerred to other staff.
Question: What is wrong with this picture?
It offers ground staff a lump sum, plus pension at 55 (ten years early...normal pensionable age 65).
It offers pilots a lump sum (only after a fight) and maintains their pension date is 55 (no change...normal pensionable age is 55!).
They say the package offerred to pilots is the same package as offerred to other staff.
Question: What is wrong with this picture?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Question: What is wrong with this picture?<hr></blockquote>
Apart from fighting for the lump sum? Absolutely nothing.
All sorts of Inland Revenue rules come in to play plus the company has to consider the impact of early redundancy on the pension fund.
What do you think is wrong?
Apart from fighting for the lump sum? Absolutely nothing.
All sorts of Inland Revenue rules come in to play plus the company has to consider the impact of early redundancy on the pension fund.
What do you think is wrong?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Inland Revenue have no rules against early retirement on pension. The airline in question has used this kind of mechanism several times in the last ten years to get rid of pilots when it suited them.
The pension trustees have no objection because the pension is in surplus.
The company in question is attempting to sack nearly a hundred junior pilots and needs to convince an arbitrator that the redundancies are really necessary. If there was a mass uptake of the early retirement option by older more senior pilots then their case would be destroyed.
They simply want to save themselves the cost of promotions on junior pilots to replace those seniors who might leave.
Tailscrape, I have no intention of stopping working right now. I simply want to choose where and for whom I work in future. I have an entitlement here that I've paid for with my own money and there is no reason why it can't be OKd, except for the duplicity of the management concerned.
PS The picture is in the minds of those with a mind to see. I think anyone under 35 is probably disinterested...please ignore and go back to chasing skirt. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
The pension trustees have no objection because the pension is in surplus.
The company in question is attempting to sack nearly a hundred junior pilots and needs to convince an arbitrator that the redundancies are really necessary. If there was a mass uptake of the early retirement option by older more senior pilots then their case would be destroyed.
They simply want to save themselves the cost of promotions on junior pilots to replace those seniors who might leave.
Tailscrape, I have no intention of stopping working right now. I simply want to choose where and for whom I work in future. I have an entitlement here that I've paid for with my own money and there is no reason why it can't be OKd, except for the duplicity of the management concerned.
PS The picture is in the minds of those with a mind to see. I think anyone under 35 is probably disinterested...please ignore and go back to chasing skirt. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
