Read on Twitter
To clarify: there is a win but it is only on pushing the timetable. There is no clear win in *substance* of offer. As many have pointed out, a) DB until April 2019 was guaranteed anyway, b) the Independent Panel is worded as within a) "regulatory framework" and ...ctd.
...b) "affordability". There is no commitment to look at framework ( = assumptions that caused the deficit) or approach the Pensions Regulator/Gov't on that, so deficit is built in (maybe slightly smaller, but still there). So no actual commitment in offer that secures...
DB benefit structure. Additionally: the part that mentions looking at solution "broadly" in line with DB benefits, not a guarantee of any kind - remember UUK thought new DC scheme was broadly in line with existing DB - "broadly" is v broad for them...In sum...
Not a single term of the offer advances any gain of substance. To repeat - the win here is about timetable concession. But we need to nail down substantial guarantee of DB benefits "really" (not "broadly") in line with status quo. The way to do this is ...
to demand our representatives/negotiators return with a counter offer to UUK - before any deal is put to ballot. That counter must be a bullet point/clause demanding employers will guarantee against detriment should panel not be able to address deficit viz. this.... 
If UUK say no! Then we know they have no intention to secure our DB pensions. If they say yes - that's a real win. We must be prepared to continue action for this bullet point, otherwise we are simply stopping action for an offer of no substance - in fact...
even less of detail/substance than the earlier heinous offer we rejected. #NoDetriment must be guaranteed #NoDeflection #NoCapitulation to vagueness and PR
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
