
They decided to close their scheme but their trust deeds did not allow it. So they have issued a section 188 notice to the government saying they are intending to dismiss everyone and then offer to re-engage them on condition that they do not join the pension scheme.
Pension’s Week suggest that there may be a problem with attracting investment but that is not what they are telling their workers. I think it is just cost cutting and they want to cut the wages of their employees with a substandard pension contribution which will not be enough to give their workers enough money to have security and dignity in their old age.
I gave a statement to “Pensions Week” (part of the FT group) as Chair of the AMNT Working Group to defend and promote Defined Benefit Pension schemes. Part of which they quoted
“This is a test to the 2006 pensions regulations, which quite clearly state an employer’s consultation with the workforce has to be meaningful,” said John Gray, Association of Member Nominated Trustees (AMNT) committee member.
“Molins appears to in breach of its own ethics policy. Threatening to sack their staff in order to get out of providing them with a decent pension does not appear to us to be anything like the highest standards of ethical behaviour.”
The AMNT has launched a campaign to support trustees of DB schemes under threat of closure.
Current Pension deficits are worked out using a completely artificial and discredited accounting standard called “mark to market”. Due to a double whammy of recent exceptionally low fund management returns and a 200 year low in the yield of gilts make things appear far more negative than they actually are.
Not only that but if you panic and close your scheme in response to these meaningless figures then the company faces having to pay even more into the scheme since the fund rapidly becomes cash deficit and has to invest into low yielding bonds and gilts with no equity premium.
(NB to be clear this post is my own and not necessarily the views of the AMNT)
UPDATE: Professional Pensions has a good article on this case here
Bad taste photo accompanying this post. For those who don't know it, it shows a Saigon police chief shooting a Vietcong fighter in the head at point-blank range. It won a Pulitzer prize for the photographer in 1969 and did much to change the American public's attitude towards the war in Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteTo use it to illustrate a story about workers being forced to leave a pension scheme - however bad that is - trivialises what the Vietnamese people went through.
It does you no credit John and you should remove it.
Hi Gilberdyke
ReplyDeleteI did think beforehand about the ethics of using this photo and again with reference to your comments. But no, on balance I do not agree with you and I do not think that it trivialises what the Vietnamese people went through at all. In fact it brings the experience to a wider audience.
The picture is an iconic picture which I think helps illustrates and captures the awful predicament of those workers in Molins who face possible poverty and misery in retirement - or being sacked.
Most of them have spent all their life working for Molins and fear their futures.
This is not only disgraceful company behaviour but also probably illegal under employment law and also possibly a criminal act under pension consultation regulations.
I was going to title the photo post as "the CEO of Molins negotiates with his staff".
Does this compare to the suffering of the Vietnamese people? No, but I don’t think that the post (as opposed to the use of the photo) says that.
I think you made a bad decision. If you genuinely think the photo captures the predicament of Molins workers then what must you think of the fate of perhaps 5 million Vietnamese dead?
ReplyDeleteAs for bringing the experience of the Vietnamese to a wider audience; really? Come on, be serious.
Using this photo makes what would otherwise be a good post, with an important point, seem absurd.
Hi Gilberdyke
ReplyDeleteWell, that is your view but it isn't mine.
I am glad that you think the post is important.
Hi John
ReplyDeleteI have added your Blog to the list that I am following. I found your post on Molins to be very informative. The question remains why didn't the Company take a loan from the Fund. This did not become illegal until 1997 ?
Hi Jez
ReplyDeleteCrikey, I didn't even realise that they could get loans from the fund before 1997!
I would think that companies would perfer the cash without strings rather than any loan liability.