I drafted this yesterday but delayed posting, giving time for consideration. I am pleased to see Nick Swannell’s comments which I support.
Following the issue of the recent correspondence (29th April 2016 and 31st May 2016) and HPA Newsletters 17 and 18, I feel that I must express my concerns that some of the proposed actions by HPA could in the end be counter-productive.
HPA exists, rightly, to protect the interests of members of the Halcrow Pension Scheme. Amongst the benefits that HPS provides is the 5% per annum increase in pensions. It seems to me that this particular benefit is the one that HPA are fighting hardest to retain, since other benefits, such as spouse’s pensions, do not seem to be threatened.
The 5% increase is by today’s standards (provided inflation continues to remain low) generous and it is probably unrealistic to think that this can be maintained indefinitely in the future.
It is apparent that whatever agreements CH2M made when they purchased Halcrow, they are either unable or unwilling or both to maintain this commitment and appear to be seeking every opportunity to release themselves from their obligations. They are possibly still smarting from finding after purchase that Halcrow was in a more precarious position than they at first thought. In my view they appear to have no regards for Halcrow, our achievements or the pensioners. There is no mention of Halcrow on their website and at one time they claimed to have been involved in the Victoria Line!
Whilst it is right that every effort is made to ensure that our benefits are maintained, my concern, given CH2M’s approach, is that they may decide to cut their losses and completely abandon any commitment to HPS and thus force us down the PPF route. The HPS2 offered in the letter of 31st May, whilst being less generous than HPS is better than PPF, and appears to be the only offer on the table.
I agree that there are still some questions to be answered but urge some caution in the actions taken as they may not yield the intended results.
I am also concerned about some of the apparent criticism of the HPS Trustees. The ones I know (I worked closely with one of the Trustees in the late 1970s and early 1980s) are men of integrity who I believe will do the best available for HPS members. I suspect that they are not able for legal reasons to openly declare all of the discussions that have been held and further, given the above, it is likely that their hands have been somewhat tied.
In conclusion, I urge caution in any proposed future HPA actions, lest CH2M decide to pull the plug and abandon us completely. HPS2 seems to me to be the best available option. Don’t risk killing the goose that laid, in this case, the papier-maché egg!