I write to you because Australia Post is proposing to change their Super Scheme to the detriment of many of the lower paid of its workforce (over half) and they have apparently consulted with you which implies that you have agreed with their actions.
A defined benefit scheme such as Post’s which is based on final average salary pays a disproportionate benefit to those who have climbed the ladder to higher salaries. Those (the majority) operational staff who remain at base level or a few steps up only barely stay in front of inflation with regard to their final benefit being sufficient for their needs in retirement. Scope for additional savings to top up is also limited at these lower salary levels.
This would be why the original designers of the scheme would have included the AWOTE indexation. It would ensure that those who experienced a reduction in salary for super purposes ( ie temporary or permanent loss of penalties) would at least stay ahead of inflation eroding their benefit, while benefits increased exponentially for the few who could promote further up the ladder.
Of the 17000 (over half) of staff Australia Post say will be affected I think Base level operational and women will be vastly overrepresented. Women in particular as they were more likely to have accepted loss of penalties for maternity leave and child care reasons in the past.
At my small centre it all posties affected. 100% hit on the bottom of the ladder.
I myself will not see any above inflation rise in my super salary until 2018 which will drastically affect my retirement outcome.
At the very least super salary should increase by at least the EBA pay rise.
Another example of taking from the poor to give to the rich.
The advice staff have recently received indicates that the decision has already been made and will come into effect 01/07/2014.
I would like to know exactly what “consulted” means in regard to these changes. Does this mean that Post just “TELL” you what they will be doing?
What arguments, if any were put to Post regarding this?
After the “Consultation” was sufficient time allowed for you to gather information and affected staff input, to present arguments and influence the decision maker as required in our EBA section 33 “Employee Consultation”?
Who, if any, affected staff were given the opportunity to influence the decision maker?
Posts claim of sustainability, is a joke when one looks at executive salaries in Post.
I look forward to your response so we could be aware of the ACTU’s position in regard to this rather than relying on Australia Post for information.