The Case for the Living Wage - Why a Living Wage Pays Dividends

Thursday evening I went to a well attended ShareAction event to mark "Living Wage" week and the launch of their latest "Investor Briefing" on the business case for a Living Wage.

Rhys Moore, the director of the Living Wage Foundation, spoke first about the doubling of employers who now pay a living wage in the last 12 months. It is now £9.15 per hour in London and £7.85 in the rest of the country. The national minimum wage is only £6.50 per hour. The Living Wage is about 70% of the medium national income while the international definition for poverty is 60%. Last year there was only 5 FT100 companies who paid a living wage, now there is 19.

Rhys thinks that a living wage is becoming a norm for responsible employers. Research shows that 25% of workers who earn less than a living wage, do not work in a "low pay" sector. The foundation are about to launch a living wage "consumer movement" to encourage people to "buy" only at living wage employers.

Next speaker was Phillipa Birtwell from Barclays Bank, who is its "Head of Reputational Risk" and told us about their ground breaking agreement in 2004 with the community group TELCO, over cleaners being paid a living wage at their Canary Wharf offices. Even though only 200 workers were involved, the story went  "viral". The benefits of applying a living wage is a fantastic human interest story.

Lisa Nathan from ShareAction spoke about the investor benefits from a living wage such as staff retention and reduction in turnover, reduced absenteeism and improved morale leading to increased productivity.

As well as being a corporate citizenship issue there is also a macro economic growth argument since if those who are paid the least, get a pay rise, they will spend it locally and boost demand.

Finally, there was a panel (see my pretty rubbish photograph above) with Cllr Richard Greening, Chair of Islington Council Pension Fund; Janice Turner, Vice Chair of the Association of Member Nominated Trustees (AMNT); Sarah Smart, Chair of the Pension Trust, James Corah from CCLA and chair Catherine Howarth.

Richard explained how 98% of all its employees are on a living wage, the only major area that they are not is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) providing residential care. As a member of LAPFF they are also trying to control executive pay. He believes that the living wage campaign is now at a tipping point and becoming main stream.

Janice from the AMNT talked about an exciting new initiative which could have an significant impact on the living wage. At the moment the vast majority of votes at company annual general meetings are automatically voted in favour of management. Fund managers who do this are not held to account. The AMNT in partnership with others, is trying to draw up "Red Lines" voting guidelines. Pension funds of all sizes could agree to adopt a common set of voting instructions on Governance issues. So it could (this is early days) mean that fund managers are instructed to vote against any company that does not have all its staff on a living wage and and no future plans to do so.

Sarah explained that the Pension Trust was a £6 billion pension fund that caters for the "not for profit" sector. While its primary purpose is of course to meet its pension obligations, she doesn't think that companies paying a living wage is a huge investment problem. Pension funds are for the long term and believe in responsible investment. The Pension Trust recently became a Living Wage employer. The contract cleaners in their head office in Leeds had a pay rise of £1 per hour which has made a big difference to their lives.

Last speaker was James from ethical fund managers CCLA who were hosting this event. He quoted sections from the famous classical economic textbook "The Wealth of Nations" which appear to support the arguments for a living wage. He pointed out therefore that both the author Adam Smith and the Bank of England argue for a living wage.

In the Q&A I made a comment that as a pension trustee we believe that we will get better returns in the long run if we invest in well governed and responsible companies.  For example, those who treat their staff well, who do not destroy the environment, bribe public officials etc.  As investors we must be concerned with the substainablity of companies whose entire business model is dependent on paying its staff poverty wages and being reliant on state benefits to exist. 

Our Money, Our Business: Building a more accountable investment system

Yesterday evening I went to the launch of two new reports by ShareAction at the Nuffield Foundation in central London. Chaired by their CEO, Catherine Howarth.

Christine Berry from ShareAction presented on the reports "Our Money, Our Business: Building a more accountable  investment system" and "Engaging savers with stewardship and responsible investment".

Christine argued that in light of pension auto enrolment we need to revisit ideas such as those expressed in the book by David Pitt-Watson, "The New Capitalists", since there will now be a huge expansion of share owners. However, at the moment share owner governance is a "dead duck" and we need to reassert the legitimacy of shareholders as owners. We also need to counter the idea that no one is really interested in what happens to their savings.

Research by the Pension Trust (whose chair Sarah Smart was sitting in the same row as me) suggested that its members were not that interested in whether their fund was invested in the traditional "sin stocks" (such as tobacco) but were interested in environmental issues and labour rights.

The first speaker was Mark Fawcett from NEST who pointed out that in modern day Direct Contribution (DC) schemes, savers are exposed to all the risk then it is likely that members will have to take a more active interest in their savings (whether they like it or not).

Roger Urwin from advisers, Towers Watson, was concerned that the reports were important but maybe heavy on aspiration and light on what could be catalysts to bring about change.

Charlotte Black, from high net worth private investor manager, Brewin Dolphin, thought this was an important issue and could show the good side of capitalism but her 120,000 investors had never used the proxy share voting system she had put in place.

My question to the panel was that we need to have better and stronger representative democracy by a elected trustee based model. Advisers are very important but they do not have the fiduciary duty or mandate that elected member nominated trustees will have. Saying that, trustees do have to raise their game and become better trained and more assertive but they do need support.

(good luck to Christine who is soon leaving ShareAction for a new job.)

"Save Our Pensions" Community Conference 2013

This is my speech from the Community Conference on Saturday on motion 23 (see text here "Save Our Pensions"). Which is a motion from my branch.

"John Gray speaking on behalf of your Service Group Executive, in favour of this motion and moving this amendment which is intended to update the original motion in light of recent developments.

Conference, please thank Tony (Power - my branch chair) for his excellent speech. From someone who to my personal knowledge has a led a terrific battle to save his pension and that of his colleagues. What I would like to add to the debate here is that no one should be under any illusions about pensions.

The only hope for you and your members have of having a dignified retirement is a well funded and secure employer retirement plan.

You cannot rely on the state pension. The flawed Government plan for a new universal state pension will only provide at best an income just above the absolute poverty line

As a Housing estate officer in the East End of London, I have seen first hand pensioners living in poverty, buying second hand clothes, eating out of date food, huddled in front of the TV in a freezing cold room because they are too scared to turn the heating on. Stuck in this freezing home because they have no money for trips or holidays and shamed that they are too poor to treat their grandchildren.

That is your future, your member’s future if you do not have a decent secure pension from your work.

Pensions are an expensive business. There is an old rule of thumb in the pension’s world that in order to retire on half your pay and a lump sum, you need to save 15% of your pay for 40 years, repeat 15% for 40 years.

Hardly anyone in the best of times can put 15% of their salary in a pension, never mind the times we live in now. That is why your employer will need to put in at least 10% plus into your pension or else it is condemning its work force to retire and die in poverty.

Conference, please remind your employers this when you negotiate over auto-enrollment and ask them the question do they as a responsible employer want their workers to enjoy or endure retirement. Ask them to do the maths. It is quite simple to work what they need to save on your behalf. Are they responsible employers or are they rogue employers?

Yet, what we increasingly find in practice is the exact opposite. As already pointed out by London Housing Associations branch, some employers, who in the past, were good employers and provided access to good quality defined benefit schemes are using the nonsensical and irrational accounting measures as an excuse to close these schemes and replace them with insecure poverty pensions.

They are closing schemes even in the knowledge that there is - as the amendment points out, an urgent government inquiry taking place on ways to change the way we value schemes which could get reduce or even get rid of many deficits.

There is a unholy alliance of the CBI, TUC and National Association of Pension funds who support change. So why has East Thames and Notting Hill Housing associations closed their scheme in recent weeks? why have others such as Barnardos announced similar intentions? what role did the Pension Trust and the Social Housing Pension fund play in bankrupting the charity PeopleCan the organisation Joe mentioned in his speech earlier today?

While our members are in a whole variety of pension schemes, this is important since our UNISON e-survey late last year found that 35% of our members are in Defined Benefit (DB) guaranteed pension schemes

DB guaranteed pension schemes are NOT a thing of the past. UNISON recently won access to the Local Government Pensions Scheme for new starters at South Lakes Housing Association. Wrekin and Telford Housing are offering all staff the LGPS as well.

Due to the behaviour of some employers and pension providers we also should welcome the call in this motion for the wider Labour movement to look into whether, we the unions, should be involved in providing decent pensions provision, as they do in many other countries.

Conference, while we welcome the plans to smooth valuations and replace them with more accurate estimates it is important that the government accepts and implements these accounting changes without delay and that our employers who are disgracefully still rushing to destroy their employees future when they know this inquiry will report soon, should pause and stop.

Conference please support this amendment and the motion. Thank you. (update UNISONactive take on conference)

Save Our Pensions (Do you want to be Old and Cold?)

This is one of my branch motions to the UNISON Community conference in March 2013. Which was amended at the last weekends Service Group Executive meeting at York (see last point).

"This conference notes:-

That the Social Housing Pension Fund and the Pension Trust have announced plans to stop many Community employers from offering a decent defined benefit scheme to our members.

They are also trying to massively increase pension contributions to such an extent that many employers are planning to close schemes to future service or pass on these contribution rises onto members. This will make them unaffordable and members will be forced to leave the schemes which will in turn then fail.

The reasons given for taking this action by SHPS and the Pension Trust are that they must protect the fund against rising “pension liabilities”. This is a completely nonsensical argument. It is well known that due to outdated and deficient rules called “Mark to Market” accounting, the “costs” of defined benefit pensions have risen in a totally artificial manner. Schemes usually have to price their costs according to the return on Government loans called gilts. Due to the abnormal economic conditions these gilts currently have negative returns and are at a 200 year all time low. This has meant that pension schemes appear to have high deficits when in fact this has nothing to do with their underlying strengths or weaknesses.

The government has committed to act on this issue but has just failed to do so. The Pension minister Steve Webb promised to do something about what he called this "nightmare" which is "killing" perfectly good pension schemes and that he would "not idly stand by" and let this happen.

Properly run and regulated defined benefit pension schemes are as affordable today as they have ever been. Most defined contributions schemes will not result in members getting adequate benefits when they retire. Our members will die in poverty and the taxpayers will have to subsidise bad employers for their poverty pensions.

Auto enrolling of pension is an organising opportunity for the union as well as a means to fight for better pension provision. .

This Conference calls upon the Service Group Executive:-

To lead a campaign to save our pension schemes from closure. To encourage our employers to stand up to the Pension Trust and SHPS and make them understand that they do not have to destroy peoples pension futures to safe guard the scheme. To also reopen existing closed schemes.

To lead a campaign to ensure that if employers do not stand up to the Pension Trust and SHPS then they should pay the extra contributions which the schemes are unreasonably asking for and not staff.

To lobby the Pension Trust and SHPS to modernise their schemes. For example why does the better off pay less (after higher rate tax) in pension contributions then basic rate taxpayers?

To lobby the Government to change “Mark to Market” accounting.

To examine the case for employers to be encouraged to seek alternative defined benefit provision in our sector and what role the Labour movement can play in this provision. In many other countries trade unions provide pensions.

To consider how to organise effectively around auto-enrolment in our sector and ensure that any defined contribution schemes match NAPF Quality standards plus".

SGE Amendment:

"New point 8

"To campaign for all Community employers and pension providers currently proposing to close their defined benefit schemes or raise contributions, to suspend changes following the announcement by the Chancellor George Osborne in the Autumn Statement of a government enquiry into new ways of valuing pension fund deficits. Some commentators believe this could lead to a reduction in deficits by up to 40%".

"The Emperor has no clothes": but still killing retirement hopes and dreams

This cartoon is from Friday's "Inside Housing" Magazine about the £5 billion Pension Trust which is forcing out, for no good reason, many third sector employers from its defined benefit scheme, while pricing out others due to huge rises in contribution rates.

While I am pleased that Inside Housing has led this debate in our sector and had a news article, analysis and editorial on this subject, it has hasn't quite got it right about some pretty important issues.

1. Why is the Pension Trust writing to employers threatening to force their their workers out of a decent pension scheme on the basis of discredited "mark to market" accounting measures? Why are they increasing contribution rates on this basis to such levels as to force even more schemes to close.?

2. Why is the Pension Trust not talking to the Pension Regulator about extending its deficit repayment period to take into account the 200 year abnormal gilt yields, which are making schemes seem to be in trouble, when they are clearly not? Other social pension funds have done so successfully, why hasn't the Pension Trust?

3. The Pension Minister Steve Webb MP himself has recognised "mark to market" is a nightmare which is killing perfectly good pensions schemes and has promised to do something about it. Why force schemes to close when change is likely to happen soon?

4. Why isn't the Pension Trust thinking about asking the highly paid to pay more? They already pay less than the low paid due to high rate tax relief? Why aren't they encouraging or looking into salary sacrifice, contribution "caps and shares", changes in retirement ages, hybrid schemes or investment fund merger?

5. Was the Housing Charity "People Can" forced into administration by the Pension Trust, discredited pension accounting measures or Government cuts? What are the real reasons? Who is really to blame?

6. The Pension deficit is not "the result of poor returns on government bonds in which the scheme had invested heavily" (page 12).  The problem is not investment returns it is the way you calculate the cost of pension promises (liabilities) which are currently based on government bond yields.  This is absolutely crucial for people to understand. The deficit has increased in the last 3 years even though the scheme investments have increased in value.

7. What has changed? Have people suddenly started living longer in the last 3 years? No, the only thing that has changed is that gilt yields are at a 200 year low due to reasons completely unrelated to the real cost of a pension.

8. So "The Emperor has no clothes" the deficit is not real. So why close and force people out of decent pensions for no good reason?

9. It is a fact that closed schemes become more mature and are forced to have smaller and smaller levels of equities and more and more traditionally low return bonds and cash holding. While at the same time paying the same level of huge fees and commissions.

10. Closing schemes does not get rid of any deficits, in fact they can make things much worse.

TUC Pension Trustee Conference 2012: Making Pensions Work For People

Picture is of Pension minister, Steve Webb MP, address the opening of the 2012 TUC Trustee conference at Congress House.

Steve spoke about his recent discussion paper on "Reinvigorating Workplace Pensions" which I will post upon another time.

He thought that auto enrolment had been a success so far with far less "opt outs" than feared (Great news).

He wants reform to allow people who build up small "pension pots" with a number of different employers to have the "pots follow the member" and consolidate into big fat pots (Good idea).

The new state pension scheme must be above the means tested income support level or people will not have the confidence to save for their pensions in case it is all eaten up by reductions in benefit (yep).

He tried to explain what his big pension idea "defined ambition" will mean in practise. While he would prefer pensions to be guaranteed and salary related, what can be done if employers don't want to offer such schemes? (you can force them Steve thought I).

In Q&A my question was about his comments in Pensions press in June this year, that accounting standards in defined benefit schemes were "a complete nightmare" and "killer" for pension schemes. While he also promised to "not stand idly by" and do something. Yet today schemes such as the Pension Trust are still using these completely artificial standards, to justify kicking employers out of schemes and forcing the closure of decent pensions for no good reason. These so called pension "deficits" do not exist.

Steve answered by saying that he wouldn't quite agree that the deficits did not exist, he had not forgotten his words but he cannot say anymore at the moment except that he hasn't forgotten what he has said. He also said that he had met with a number of big charities recently to talk about their difficulties with the Pension Trust.

Well, wait and see I think. I am told that it is Vince Cable as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is responsible for addressing such accountancy standards ("Mark to Market" and "Smoothing").  I don't know and frankly don't care who does what as long as something is done. Perfectly good pension schemes are going to wall every week in this country, while those responsible appear to wring their hands as ordinary workers are being cheated out of a decent retirement!

You can check my twitter posts of the whole conference here  It was probably one of the best TUC ones I have attended. I will try and post more during the next few days. Its a busy time for pensions. 

Some good news on housing workers pensions! But...

This is a rather rare title for a post on pensions! However, well done to Housing Association Plymouth Community Homes who have decided to keep their 60th Defined Benefit scheme with the Social Housing Pension Scheme (SHPS) open and absorb the extra costs imposed by the SHPS.

There are still some changes which UNISON members are unhappy about such as move from RPI to CPI and the charging of pension contributions while on maternity leave.  But PCH obviously care about their workforce and take their duties as a responsible employer seriously.

They do not want their employees to retire and die in poverty. Unlike some it would seem who not only want to close their Defined benefit (DB) scheme but replace it with a pittance of a Defined Contribution (DC) scheme. In a recent report by a leading Actuary, in a DC scheme you would need to invest 22.9% of your pay to get 53% of final salary pension (twice as much as a DB scheme!).

Yet some employers are proposing to pay only the new national legal minimum of 3%. This will mean as mentioned above that their staff will not only die in relative poverty in their old age but the taxpayer will also have to subsidise their pensions to keep them out of absolute poverty.

SHPS and its parent organisation, the Pension Trust, tries to justify increases in contributions by pointing to a supposed rise in "liabilities" (the future expected costs of giving members pensions) yet even the Pension Minster, Steve Webb MP, recognises that the way we calculate pension costs is practically meaningless and is destroying perfectly good pensions schemes.  He has committed to change.

Employers need to get a grip and challenge the assumptions being made and the contributions they or their employees are being expected to make. I am not at all convinced that this contribution rate increase requirement by the SHPS is at all necessary and I hope they seriously take this up with them.

I am dismayed that SHPS are not engaging with UNISON's proposals about practical alternatives to contribution rises. The Local Government Pension Scheme is very similar to many SHPF schemes but has been able to avoid increases in contributions for most of its members by working in a partnership with the trade unions and employers. This has brought about radical but thoughtful and intelligent change.

There was no consultation with the trade unions whatsoever by the SHPS before they decided what they wanted to do and no interest shown in any real partnership working.

One of the irony of ironies is that a major reason why some SHPS employers want to close their scheme to existing members is because they have closed it to new members joining. Quite rightly pensions contributions have to be increased if a fund is closed. SHPS have to charge more (I think 3%) since in any closed scheme the investment returns will be lower and the costs higher. This is just madness. Why condemn your staff to a miserable old age for nothing? Cut costs and re-open those schemes to new blood.

Closing your DB scheme does not make it any better, it does not get rid of any deficit (real or otherwise) it just makes it worse. Increase contributions on your staff by too much and they will just walk away from it, the scheme will then fail and the employer will be left to carry the can.

UNISON has recently published an excellent guide on the proposed changes to SHPS and later this week we are holding a national training event in London on it. 

Pensions: Wakey, Wakey Community and Voluntary sector!

This initial advice below was sent out yesterday by UNISON Community national officer, Simon Watson. We met up with the Pension Trust last week (with Unite and the UNISON pension officer
Alan Fox). 

"Pensions: Auto enrolment and scheme changes

UNISON is aware that many employers are reviewing their position in light of the forthcoming auto-enrolment of staff into pension schemes, and recent valuation of some pension schemes. Some employers are considering raising contribution rates, or even closing schemes.

UNISON believes that some employers are panicking unnecessarily, and the outcome of the LGPS negotiations shows that high quality defined benefit pension schemes remain a viable and realistic option for the community and voluntary sector.

We recently met with the Pensions Trust to discuss the schemes that they administer (including the Social Housing Pension Scheme) and we are preparing advice on both what to do if an employer proposes changes, and on “auto-enrolment” into pension schemes. Look out for these soon.

Employers are legally obliged to consult with current and prospective members of the pension scheme before making changes, under regulations from 2006 (www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/349/contents).

Please get in touch with UNISON if you hear of any changes to your pension scheme – email pensionsm@unison.co.uk."

"Landlords hit with extra £30m in pension costs"

"Inside Housing" magazine today reports that the Pensions Trust has told 700 employers who are part of the Social Housing Pension Fund (SHPS) that they are facing a rise in

pension contributions of £30 million.

The Pension Trust runs schemes for "over 2,400 charitable, social, educational, voluntary and not-for-profit organisations". I imagine that all their defined benefit scheme employers will be receiving similar messages.

I posted the following comments in response on the Inside Housing website:-  

"What employers should be saying to the Pensions Trust is why should they pay more when this so called "deficit" is a completely meaningless figure based on a discredited and outdated accounting standard? Which even the Government pensions minister describes as a "nightmare" and has promised to change?

Why isn't the Pension trust looking into the alternatives to simply raising contributions and threatening the long term sustainability of the scheme?

Why aren't they following the lessons learnt from the new Local Government Pension Scheme 2014 on how to keep contributions down but still offer a first class defined benefit scheme?

John Gray
Branch Secretary Greater London UNISON Housing Association Branch".

"Pensions, Pensions and more Pensions"

(This is an article I wrote last week for my Branch Stewards newsletter).

"Let’s face it. Many members probably consider Pensions to be a pretty boring issue and something that they would prefer to put off thinking about too much until another day (or preferably never). Well, whether you like it or not, in the coming months, all UNISON members and in fact nearly all employees will have to wake up and start thinking about pensions. 

For those of us in the Local Government Pension Scheme there is an ongoing consultation process at the moment by UNISON on a new look scheme. LGPS 2014 agreed last month with the unions, LGA employers and the Government. You will be balloted on the scheme at the end of the month. Have a look at what is being proposed on the UNISON website http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/lgps.asp

While members in the Social Housing Pension Scheme (Pensions Trust) will need to be aware that their employers have been sent letters about the deficits in their pension schemes which is causing some employers to panic and start talking of closing the scheme or massive increase in contributions. There has also been some outrageous scaremongering by some financial “advisors” to schemes. UNISON is arranging an urgent meeting with the Pensions Trust. In the meanwhile if your employers start talking of any changes to your pension scheme please contact the branch immediately and ask your employer to send us copies of what is being proposed.

Remember – the current pension so-called “deficits” are valued in a completely discredited and inaccurate manner which even the current Pensions minster has recognised is wrong and needlessly “killing” good pensions schemes. Remember closing a pension scheme does not get rid of any deficit - in fact it can make things worse.

Finally, for those of you who are not in the LGPS or SHPS please be aware that “auto-rolling” is kicking in at the end of this year. Nearly all employees who are currently not in a pension scheme will be automatically enrolled into the employer’s scheme or a state scheme.

Now this is “good news” for those not in a scheme but what we are concerned about is that some employers who currently have decently funded defined contribution schemes (also known as DC, Group personal pensions, Group Stakeholders, money purchase etc) may be tempted to cut existing employer contributions, since they are worried about an increase in the pension bill from more people being in it.

We have to fight this as well. Pensions are expensive. Employer’s have to realise that unless they want their staff to retire in poverty they have to fund pensions properly.

Pensions are obviously not boring nor are they as complicated as you think. We need to have at least one UNISON Pension Champion (or rep) in every employer. If you are interested in being a “Pension Champion” let the branch office know and we will sort out some training for you on the role in the very near future".

John Gray
Branch secretary

"Housing bodies fight to protect staff pension pots"

Today the Social Housing Magazine "Inside Housing" led with a report that housing organisations are to challenge a threat to their workers' pensions.

The Pension Trust which administrates the Social Housing Pension Fund (and many other Community and voluntary sector pension funds) is being blamed for attempting to force employers to close decent defined benefit schemes and force them to open less secure defined contributions schemes. This is supposed to be about rising pension "deficits".

To be fair to the Pension's Trust I have had conversations with people closely connected with the Trust and they say that they are fully committed to keeping these schemes affordable and open.

This morning I posted these comments on the Inside Housing website.

"While it is good news that Housing organisation are going to fight to protect their pension schemes it is absolutely vital that everyone understands that these “deficits” are frankly meaningless.

The cost of pension schemes is measured by a discredited and outdated accounting system called “Mark to Market” which even the Pensions minister Steve Webb described as a “Nightmare” which is “killing” perfectly good schemes. He has promised “not to stand “idly by” and to do something.

All employers and defined benefit pension schemes must not panic or over react. They should be working jointly with the trade unions to resolve this temporary problem. Remember closing the scheme will not get rid of the deficit. It can make it even worse.

Modern defined benefit pension schemes are as sustainable and affordable now as they have ever been. 

John Gray Branch Secretary UNISON Greater London Housing Association Branch"

UNISON NDC 12: What to do if your employer wants to close your pension scheme?

This picture is of me supporting the call for the TUC demo on October 20th was in the Friday morning edition of "London Calling" which is our regional conference new sheet. Next to it was this article I had written about:-  

"What to do if your employer wants to close your pension scheme?"

Tomorrow’s debate on the future of the traditional public sector pension scheme will be very important. But we must also remember the current threat to UNISON members in the Community and Private sectors.

Some employers have started consulting our members who work in Charities and housing association about getting rid of their pension schemes held with the Pension Trust and the Social Housing Pension fund. While the contractor Sodexo (which provides many privatised town hall and hospital services) is at this moment trying to close one of its defined benefit schemes.

If you are aware of any attempt to close your pension scheme you must get in touch with your branch ASAP. Do not believe the misinformation being put out about by some employers about how their pension fund deficits means they have no choice but to close. This is rubbish! In nearly all cases such “deficits” are completely artificial. Its "funny money". As everyone knows due to the recession the stock market is depressed and government bonds (which are used to measure such deficits) are at a 200 year historic low.

Most importantly, if you close your pension scheme it does not mean you get rid of the deficit. It is still there and could make things even worse since a closed pension fund has to sell its long term investments to raise cash to pay out existing pensions. 

I am writing a guide on what trustees and members should do if their employer tries to close your pension scheme. This should be out soon.

If the new look LGPS 2014 is accepted I hope it could become a model and beacon for all pensions schemes and lead to a rebirth of guaranteed defined benefit schemes - especially for the 60% of private sector workers who get no pension whatsoever from their employer".

Engaged Investor Awards 2007 (and possible pension industrial dispute)

First “pension” awards ceremony I have ever been to and I really enjoyed it. A sign of age maybe, but I now tend to know a few people at such events which makes a difference. There was no “hard sell “by sponsors either.

It was held on the “Silver Barracuda”, Savoy Pier, a London Thames restaurant ship.

Everything seemed to go off smoothly despite the bombs found early on that morning in central London. It did pour down with rain at the start and I got soaked walking to the ship from Temple underground.

Picture of top UNISON Pension trustee and national treasure, Stan Edwards ,(above right National Grid Pension scheme) who was judging in the award. Also, next picture (below left) is of Pete Davis from the Prudential who is on the national (TUC nominated) Pension Trustee panel. They meet up on a regular basis with the Pensions minister (who we are still waiting to be announced due to the reshuffle). Next year we ought to organise trustees to make nominations to such awards.

On my table I sat with Peter Vercoe who is a trustee with Carnaud Metal Box group. He won the runner up award for Trustee of the Year. There were also two members of staff from the Pensions Trust who were very pleasant and knowledgeable. Even though I did upset them somewhat about my dismay over the Social Housing Pension Fund (SHPS - which is part of their group).

I am holding a meeting next week with UNISON members of a housing association where they are trying to replace the SHPS 1/60th final pension scheme with a vastly inferior CARE (career average) scheme. Trouble at Mill – I am certain that my members will not be happy with accepting what amounts in the long run as a massive cut in their terms and conditions. Watch this space.