Bring your influence to bear ON THE LAST occasion we met representatives of Unilever, we pressed for the annual pension increase to be based on either average earnings or the RPI, whichever was the greater. We were told quite clearly that the present practice would not change unless the government altered the regulations concerning the basis of increases to occupational pensions. It is worth pointing out that there are company focussed pressure groups, notably the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of Consulting Actuaries, who are arguing that pension increases should only be made if the fund and the company concerned can afford it. Clearly, should such a provision be introduced and allowed to be retrospective, it would in a company’s interest to keep its pension fund constantly in a state of “not being able to afford it”. COUP, together with Occupational Pensioners’ Alliance (OPA) has been vigorously opposing such measures under the various guises that they have been appearing. Various bodies have already urged that improvements to increases should be made to pensions and we suggest that if you attend any political meetings or write to any of your local candidates it would be interesting to ask if they would support such a change. Not only would such a move be to the benefit of every pensioner in the land but it could also have a double bonus as far as we Unilever pensioners are concerned. There is a sound basis for raising such an issue. It is widely accepted that the retail price index does not fairly represent the living costs faced by pensioners. Our outgoings are different. We spend more time at home. Our heating and electricity costs are higher than if we were at work. Though we are getting poorer every year other costs like Council tax and food keep going up.