BT – an agreement is an agreement, you ‘crims’

More than 300,000 BT pensioners could have retirement funds capped as firm battles £14bn funding black hole

Even allowing for the MSM use of the word ‘could’, there are still disturbing things in this article:

1. In a tricky-dicky move, retire the old boss and bring in a new, grinning one who “redefines” all previous agreements coz he’s not responsible for what some predecessor agreed to.

2. “BT is appealing to the fund’s trustees and telecoms unions to agree to end accruals in its defined-benefits pension scheme.”

Yes – agreed benefits, ones signed for on the paper.

3. “which BT fears are becoming increasingly unaffordable and threatening its ability to invest in broadband upgrades.”

Yes – agreed benefits, those signed for on the paper. Irrelevant if BT couldn’t run a whelk stall and made bad deals, point is that they made those agreements, they were guaranteed and people planned retirement on that basis.

Irrelevant that Generation X and Millennials moan about it – they were agreed benefits, ones signed for on the paper.

4. “informal talks to try to stop the bill rising further”

What sort of mealy-mouthed double talk is that?  An agreement is an agreement.

5. “It’s about the viability of the business.”

No, it’s about paying what you agreed to.

6. “Many blue-chip companies have sought to reduce their pensions burden in recent years.”

Yes, cap it for newbies, don’t allow new people onto it but what you agreed to pay already – you must pay, in full.

7. “that are already significantly more generous than those available to younger members”

Stuff younger members – an agreement is an agreement.  And what’s ‘generous’ got to do with an agreement?

8. “BT declined to comment.”

No doubt.

Poor service anyway

1. Internet speeds are woeful and I’m on the new super-duper Infinity or whatever they call it – ‘bathtub’ internet I call it.

2. I’ve had not one but three glossy brochures urging me to sign up for something new so they can reduce service further – what is the cost of those brochures UK wide times three?

3. They’re putting sneak charges into the bill for things I never used. I’ve just paid the last one and there they were, these charges, hidden away.

11 comments for “BT – an agreement is an agreement, you ‘crims’

  1. Errol
    May 28, 2017 at 9:24 am

    I don’t understand how it’s possible to renegotiate a pension already in existence. People function on the basis of that income. It’s a legal agreement. If BT can’t afford it, then perhaps they should have planned better.

    I had my pension statement yesterday: I’ll get £250 a month for 8 years worth of payments. My civil service pension will pay double that for 3 years service. It’s my way of getting my taxes back.

    BT – and internet generally in the UK – is rubbish. It’s rubbish because of BT. A complete disinterest in network upgrades, no willingness to offer new products – such as real fibre to the home – crawlingly slow capacity improvements, deliberate asynchronous faffing – why is our upload slower than down? People just think I that has to be, but it is because BT don’t want to interrupt their leased line business.

    As it is, we pay perpetual ‘line rental’ when we could easily pay for these lines over and over again. What we all should have is fibre to the home and then maybe, pay for usage. That’s reasonably fair then.

    What isn’t fair is being charged for phone calls, which are the equivalent of paying for the cost of routing a packet – nothing.

  2. Mudplugger
    May 28, 2017 at 9:25 am

    Agree absolutely.

    But the BT pension trustees will face a threatened Damoclean Sword – BT can easily restructure itself, placing all the old pension liabilities into a separate float-off company (e.g. Phone Box Cash Collection Co Ltd.), then that new company unsurprisingly goes tits-up, forcing the pension fund into the government’s Protection Scheme, a scheme which limits coverage to 90% and has a cap of £35k.

    Alternatively, the trustees can agree to some ‘moderation’ of benefits, still far better than the basic Protection Scheme. You decide.
    Faced with that implied threat, those old ‘agreements signed in blood’ actually count for nothing – just a waste of blood really.

  3. May 28, 2017 at 9:46 am

    “It’s my way of getting my taxes back.”

    This is the issue that subsequent generations conveniently forget if they feel they have to shoulder some of the burden, as it was termed. Every one of those people paid taxes all their working lives.

    • Errol
      May 28, 2017 at 10:46 am

      I don’t mind paying for what I’ve used, but in my lifetime I’ve seen taxes double, services halve. I’ve seen the state tax and waste at a rate that would put an addict to shame. I’ve seen it cheat pensions, steal people’s savings, fiddle the figures year after year to allow it to keep taking our money with impunity. I’ve seen my car, previously lauded and carefully managed get ever more expensive to run as the state has constantly changed the rules.

      I’ve paid my dues thrice over. A personal frustration is one year the bin men went on strike and rubbish just piled up. The council did nothing – well they gave themselves a pay rise.

      Then I have the neighbours downstairs. They litter, scream at their kid, smoke constantly, play music into the early hours. What does the council do? Nothing. It utterly ignores my requests for them to resolve it and they were my last resort.

      I’m paying for those people to exist. £1500 a month of my money is stolen from me and given, without my permission to people who should not have it. Everything I want, I have to pay for – through the nose because of taxes, charges, fees all to fuel lazy, stupid government. Most of the time i am forced to pay to use my own property, such as a car park.

      I apologise, as I appreciate there is much good in society that my taxes provde for but for every good thing there are ten wasters, troughing away whose sole interest is in hindering and costing my life.

  4. May 28, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Pretty well sums it up.

  5. dearieme
    May 28, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Your talking complete crap, Hob: mind-bogglingly ignorant, stupid crap.

    What BT wants isn’t to fanny with the benefits already accrued, but to stop the accrual of new benefits. Since none of their staff was ever promised that the DB pension scheme would exist forever, there’s no “agreement” to break. Huge numbers of DB schemes have stopped new accruals for just the same reasons. If they were breaking an “agreement” they’d be taken to court. They’re not. The “agreement” is a fiction, a sheer bloody invention. And you’re the mug who fell for the con.

  6. Voice of Reason
    May 28, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    On this point, we agree in spades. I have seen company after company in the US steal and reduce pension benefits. Apparently, agreements only apply to the ‘special’ people.

    • dearieme
      May 28, 2017 at 8:27 pm

      An agreement doesn’t exist just because one part really, really wishes it did. That’s just childish.

      • Errol
        May 29, 2017 at 9:49 am

        Except it’s a legal agreement.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 30, 2017 at 12:08 am

        Indeed it is a legal agreement. In the case of my pension, which I am about to receive after 39 years, it is encoded into state law. That hasn’t stopped some legislators from trying to take it away.

  7. May 28, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    If I’m not directly engaging, I’m still reading.

Comments are closed.