Troubled Kodak faces U.K. pension woes

Rochester & US employees thought Kodak was a good employer... had great benefits... HA HA

It's now coming out how... MUCH BETTER... Kodak took care of its foreign employee...

This is the UK... Kodak employees in Germany always had MUCH BETTER benefits in comparison to US employees !!!!!

When the current and former US employees find out details... just wait !!! Sad it's too late now to do US employees any good... Truth is... another BIG example of the the real Eastman Kodak

Do not understand comments about preferential pension fund treatment for overseas subsidiaries. Eastman Kodak fund is fully funded but UK fund, for instance, is running at some 505% of liabilities and had been promised massive top ups by EK.

Should of course read 50%

It doesn't matter much now. With the collapse of the company, all pensions are in jeopardy. All payments will probably come to a halt in just a few months.

Kodak Manager wrote:

It doesn't matter much now. With the collapse of the company, all pensions are in jeopardy. All payments will probably come to a halt in just a few months.

I understand 1, that EK fund is fully funded and 2, is ring-fenced from any possible bankruptcy claims and I believe that US colleagues should not see their pensions disappear. Medical cover is another matter. UK retirees are in a different position as our pension fund, as I remarked earlier is underfunded albeit with promises of top ups from EK.

To reassure UK Kodak pensioners, this statement was released today -

Kodak Pension Plan: Insolvency Issues
In reply to a query from Alan Turner, Hewitt’s have responded with the following statement concerning Kodak pensions should the worst happen. Hopefully this will reassure many of you, and thanks for forwarding the details Alan.

In a worst-case scenario and Kodak Limited was to become insolvent and unable to meet the cost of benefits within the plan the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) may step in. The PPF was set up by the Government to provide compensation to members of eligible schemes where the assets were insufficient to cover a certain level of benefits.

In very broad terms, members over the Plan’s Normal Pension Age (NPA)(currently 63 for the majority of members), and members who retired on the grounds of incapacity would receive 100% of their pension accrued or in payment from the PPF.

Members under NPA (whether or not they have retired) and not having retired on the grounds of incapacity will broadly receive 90% of their pension, although in this case the initial rate of pension is limited to an overriding maximum level at the point it comes into payment. The maximum level is set under legislation for benefits coming into payment at age 65 and is adjusted for benefits that come into payment at higher or lower ages. For the year from 1 April 2011, this maximum is set as £33,219.36 at age 65 (before application of the 90%).

Inflationary increases to pensions in payment earned for service prior to April 1997 and life cover during retirement are not protected under the PPF for any category of member.

Further information on the way in which the PPF works can be found at the following website:

www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk

Re:
Rochester & US employees thought Kodak was a good employer... had great benefits... HA HA

Echo's of Marconi (GEC)? Wait till it's over....

why don't you all stop going on about which part is worse off, and realise the managment of this company, is only concerned with bleeding as much money from ALL OF US so they can fill thiere own bank accounts, before they f*"! O*" and do it to another company, it is obvious non of its loyal employees matter, I can not understand why any other company would want to employ any of our top layer of managers, the decisions they have made in the past have ruined a once great company, well done Perez, get your millions, get on your jet and fuck off

why don't you all stop going on about which part is worse off, and realise the managment of this company, is only concerned with bleeding as much money from ALL OF US so they can fill thiere own bank accounts, before they f*"! O*" and do it to another company, it is obvious non of its loyal employees matter, I can not understand why any other company would want to employ any of our top layer of managers, the decisions they have made in the past have ruined a once great company, well done Perez, get your millions, get on your jet and fuck off

THIS HAS BEEN SAID SO MANY TIMES , AND IM SURE THOUGHT BY SO SO MANY OF THE SHOP FLOOR WORKERS. THE JETS HMMMMMMM SAY NO MORE. REDUNDANCY PACKAGES TAKEN AWAY FROM WORKERS THAT SERVED KODAK ( THAT DID TAKE OVER THIS UK COMPANY ) AND STAND TO LOOSE £1000s FOR BEING LOYAL. SQUEEZE SQUEEZE AND SQUEEZE MORE .....BOBBY BALL WAS A COMEDIAN , ALL THE MANAGERS SHOULD BE ON STAGE.

It would be interesting to find out why the Kodak UK Pension trustees agreed to provide a loan to the Parent EK Co [ around £30 million] with an interest rate of just 0.5%!! I get more than 6 X that rate from the Coventry Building Society!!

I love my time in kodak harrow i get anoyed to hear this people moan about there pansion and the company .They were glad to be in a job when kodak were the only company to keep us in work in the 70

Kodak Management's plan has been to go bankrupt all along. Kodak was a one-trick pony, and when the film business dried up, they knew that bankruptcy was the only means to recover losses from hounding creditors and escape with packages for Management. How can a company's CEO and Board of Directors drive a billion dollar company into brankruptcy, and not one damn management person loses their job? Every expert expounds the stupidity of Kodak competing in a weak and dying print market, a clear underdog. The CEO and directors aren't that stupid. They meant for the company to go bankrupt.

Kodak Manager wrote:

It doesn't matter much now. With the collapse of the company, all pensions are in jeopardy. All payments will probably come to a halt in just a few months.

Hummm ...

A company Pension Fund is supposed to be independent from the company itself, and its money shouldn't be invested in the company itself, under UK law.

What may happen, however,is that some of the trustee of the pension Fund could be company executives.

Also, a company could be in arrears in its payments to the pension Fund, and place its functioning in jeopardy. It's the responsability of the trustees to prevent that happening.

Also, some Pension Fund trustees have been unwise in allowing some money to be "lent" to a company.

All this echoes Robert Maxwell and the Mirror Group.

The fact still remains that NO company lasts for ever, and that all company pension funds are theorically at risk, unless they are part of a larger pension contribution fund.

ronan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hummm ...
A company Pension Fund is supposed to be independent from the company itself, and its money shouldn't be invested in the company itself, under UK law.
What may happen, however,is that some of the trustee of the pension Fund could be company executives.
Also, a company could be in arrears in its payments to the pension Fund, and place its functioning in jeopardy. It's the responsability of the trustees to prevent that happening.
Also, some Pension Fund trustees have been unwise in allowing some money to be "lent" to a company.
All this echoes Robert Maxwell and the Mirror Group.
The fact still remains that NO company lasts for ever, and that all company pension funds are theorically at risk, unless they are part of a larger pension contribution fund.

Are your "employees"pensions safe?