Pensioners
Thomson Reuters
Monday 04 April 2011
I read with interest the article relating to Thomson Reuters being one of the top employers [● Thomson Reuters rated one of Britain’s top employers] and also being voted a very ethical company by some outfit in New York [● Thomson Reuters again rated one of world’s most ethical companies]. I especially note the statement “exceptional for its strong ethics and social conscience”. All seems a bit odd to me as being a Reuters pensioner and not having a pension increase for the last three years because the company won’t provide any additional funding despite their strong financial position.
I am getting the feeling that the articles published above are all a bit meaningless and should be taken with a pinch of salt as they do not reflect what is actually happening where the pensioners are concerned. How come the pensioners never get a mention in these glowing company appraisals?
Perhaps Tom Glocer and David Thomson would like to comment.
Peter Howse
I am getting the feeling that the articles published above are all a bit meaningless and should be taken with a pinch of salt as they do not reflect what is actually happening where the pensioners are concerned. How come the pensioners never get a mention in these glowing company appraisals?
Perhaps Tom Glocer and David Thomson would like to comment.
Peter Howse
Pension increases
Friday 10 December 2010
With reference to Tom Glocer’s promise of a more permanent method of increases for Reuters pensioners [● Tom Glocer: We’ll end uncertainty over pension increases], I look forward to his words being translated into deeds and hope it will not take too long.
Ernesto Mendoza
Ernesto Mendoza
Pensioners' lunch
Wednesday 02 June 2010
The Digger and others speak very eloquently for those of us who have been denied the chance to meet up every two years at the pensioners' lunch to renew acquaintances with former colleagues, who, though not necessarily close friends, shared a common goal in maintaining Reuters' high standards in the business of news.
Tom Glocer's "reluctant" decision to axe the lunch won't cut any ice with the cynical of us who scoff at the "can't afford it" line. What about cutting back on some first class air travel for the Thomson Reuters hierarchy?
Lawrie Morrison
Tom Glocer's "reluctant" decision to axe the lunch won't cut any ice with the cynical of us who scoff at the "can't afford it" line. What about cutting back on some first class air travel for the Thomson Reuters hierarchy?
Lawrie Morrison
Pensioners and former employees
Thursday 20 May 2010
Has Thomson Reuters abandoned their pensioners and former employees?
They would claim not, however recent actions do paint a different picture. Most people are aware of the reneging of the previous policy to pay annual discretionary cost of living increases to UK pensioners. Although not formally written down, it was a previous custom and practice which every UK pensioner was aware of and was reassured by. However in 2003 Reuters decided to change this as a way of saving money. Pensioners now see the real value of their pensions dropping year-on-year as a result.
A few years ago Reuters started a group named the Reuters Alumni Network. At the first meeting Tom Glocer stated that the purpose of the group was to provide a forum for former Reuters employees to keep in touch and to be kept up to date with some of the latest Reuters strategy. Three or four meetings were held in London with guest speakers but the forum now seems to have been quietly dropped without any notification to the Alumni members.
It was also a tradition for Reuters to host an annual pensioners’ lunch in London. Some years ago this was changed to a two-yearly event to reduce costs. However the lunch that was due to be held this year (usually in May) hasn’t happened and it now appears that the lunch has also been quietly abandoned.
What should pensioners and former employees make of such decisions and the way they were implemented? From my perspective I think the saddest aspect of the above is that Thomson Reuters management do not feel any need to contact pensioners and former employees to advise them of these decisions. It seems such decisions are taken behind closed doors and those directly affected only find out when they ask direct questions to TR. I do think this displays a lack of courage by those in charge. Of course, there are times when such decisions may be justified and necessary, but please do the decent thing and have the courtesy to advise those impacted in an open and honest way. After all, we are real people who put a huge amount into our working life to help make Reuters become a great company with great values. Or so we thought at the time – things do now seem to have changed for the worse.
Nick Farrow
They would claim not, however recent actions do paint a different picture. Most people are aware of the reneging of the previous policy to pay annual discretionary cost of living increases to UK pensioners. Although not formally written down, it was a previous custom and practice which every UK pensioner was aware of and was reassured by. However in 2003 Reuters decided to change this as a way of saving money. Pensioners now see the real value of their pensions dropping year-on-year as a result.
A few years ago Reuters started a group named the Reuters Alumni Network. At the first meeting Tom Glocer stated that the purpose of the group was to provide a forum for former Reuters employees to keep in touch and to be kept up to date with some of the latest Reuters strategy. Three or four meetings were held in London with guest speakers but the forum now seems to have been quietly dropped without any notification to the Alumni members.
It was also a tradition for Reuters to host an annual pensioners’ lunch in London. Some years ago this was changed to a two-yearly event to reduce costs. However the lunch that was due to be held this year (usually in May) hasn’t happened and it now appears that the lunch has also been quietly abandoned.
What should pensioners and former employees make of such decisions and the way they were implemented? From my perspective I think the saddest aspect of the above is that Thomson Reuters management do not feel any need to contact pensioners and former employees to advise them of these decisions. It seems such decisions are taken behind closed doors and those directly affected only find out when they ask direct questions to TR. I do think this displays a lack of courage by those in charge. Of course, there are times when such decisions may be justified and necessary, but please do the decent thing and have the courtesy to advise those impacted in an open and honest way. After all, we are real people who put a huge amount into our working life to help make Reuters become a great company with great values. Or so we thought at the time – things do now seem to have changed for the worse.
Nick Farrow
Pensioners' lunch
Friday 14 May 2010
"We are undiminished. This decision is tawdry, little and mean spirited in the extreme." [● No more pensioners’ lunches - Tom Glocer].
Good on ya, Digger, and Michael and Howard too. The recent displays of top-level contempt for Reuters traditional values were appalling, if not completely unexpected. The family news agency may have had its failings, but we were all hugely proud to belong.
Long may the Short Lunch Club and the Paris Dinosaurs thrive. They defend the values that matter.
Roger Crabb
Good on ya, Digger, and Michael and Howard too. The recent displays of top-level contempt for Reuters traditional values were appalling, if not completely unexpected. The family news agency may have had its failings, but we were all hugely proud to belong.
Long may the Short Lunch Club and the Paris Dinosaurs thrive. They defend the values that matter.
Roger Crabb
Pensioners' lunch
Friday 14 May 2010
The couple of pensioners' lunches in London that I attended were indeed pleasant occasions and it is sad that the peanuts to which Michael Reupke eloquently referred are being withheld, or rather abruptly abolished [● No more pensioners’ lunches - Tom Glocer]. But surely the more important issue for most pensioners is not the lunch, but the pensions themselves. The lack of reasonable annual increases, more or less in line with inflation, for those who toiled over many years to transform the news agency which I joined half a century ago from an impoverished struggler into a company now able to pay its leaders millions each year is disgraceful. Yes, of course such increases would incur a modest dip into Thomson Reuters profits, especially now with the Pension Fund's income hard hit by external factors far beyond its control. But they are feasible if those now at the top would give due recognition to the very hard labour of those who made their current position possible. Or should we just resign ourselves to saying: "Why did we bother?"
Vergil Berger
Vergil Berger
Pensioners' lunch
Friday 14 May 2010
It hardly seems possible, but Tom Glocer’s behavior has become even more mind boggling. First, he expresses support for Goldman Sachs in a possible government fraud case, and then says Thomson Reuters can no longer afford the Pensioners’ Lunch [● No more pensioners’ lunches - Tom Glocer]. If I’m interpreting this correctly, he is essentially saying that the people who actually built the company’s stellar reputation are no longer worth the price of a meal, even if they are willing to pay most of the cost. It doesn’t speak much for his sense of values.
Howard Luxenberg
Howard Luxenberg
Pensioners' lunch
Friday 14 May 2010
What a Truly, Truly Sad decision on the Pensioners’ Lunch and what a pathetic defence (“Reluctantly for me”) [● No more pensioners’ lunches - Tom Glocer]. For God’s sake, man, at least have the guts to say you went along with it.
Fine on the principal (or is it "ile" – need one of those unsung subs or telex people or news clerks or translators or secretaries or drivers or messengers or fixers or sweepers who always corrected my copy and I always looked forward to meeting at pensioner lunches) of not just London but why not have one for each region? Or just for Thomson and just for Reuters. Or Thomson Reuters. If you had 600 people in each of five regions at 100 euros a head the cost would be a total of 3 million euros. And I reckon most people would at least pay half of their way just to be in touch with Mates from long ago. So maximum cost 1.5 million euros. Frankly, I reckon everyone would pay the whole cost. I've never managed to have the pleasure of being at one of the pensioners’ lunches but it was one of those events out on the horizon where you hoped one day you might get there and pay respect to people you worked with. Why not even only have it very three years or five years or 10 years but keep the tradition unless you think the Tradition isn't worth honouring which is what this decision to bin it does? How Sad.
On a day when we're boasting analysts are saying a 52-week high, to announce this smacks so much of churlish retribution for criticism of the Goldman defence that it cannot be ignored. It also smacks of a deliberate effort to write "Reuters" out of "Thomson Reuters".
That ain't the Reuters way. That ain't the way we earned our reputation and respect. We've stood up to countries that bullied us and our people and I hope to God we stand up to one of our own who is now bullying us.
Thanks to Mary Norsworthy/Barry May/George Short/Steve Somerville/Bernard Edinger and countless others as well as we ourselves as pensioners we have our own lunch and our own communications network and our own Soul and Pride.
We are undiminished. This decision is tawdry, little and mean spirited in the extreme.
It must not stand or at least in the next company report be highlighted – "In a major cost saving measure Pensioners’ Lunch abolished."
Brian Williams
Fine on the principal (or is it "ile" – need one of those unsung subs or telex people or news clerks or translators or secretaries or drivers or messengers or fixers or sweepers who always corrected my copy and I always looked forward to meeting at pensioner lunches) of not just London but why not have one for each region? Or just for Thomson and just for Reuters. Or Thomson Reuters. If you had 600 people in each of five regions at 100 euros a head the cost would be a total of 3 million euros. And I reckon most people would at least pay half of their way just to be in touch with Mates from long ago. So maximum cost 1.5 million euros. Frankly, I reckon everyone would pay the whole cost. I've never managed to have the pleasure of being at one of the pensioners’ lunches but it was one of those events out on the horizon where you hoped one day you might get there and pay respect to people you worked with. Why not even only have it very three years or five years or 10 years but keep the tradition unless you think the Tradition isn't worth honouring which is what this decision to bin it does? How Sad.
On a day when we're boasting analysts are saying a 52-week high, to announce this smacks so much of churlish retribution for criticism of the Goldman defence that it cannot be ignored. It also smacks of a deliberate effort to write "Reuters" out of "Thomson Reuters".
That ain't the Reuters way. That ain't the way we earned our reputation and respect. We've stood up to countries that bullied us and our people and I hope to God we stand up to one of our own who is now bullying us.
Thanks to Mary Norsworthy/Barry May/George Short/Steve Somerville/Bernard Edinger and countless others as well as we ourselves as pensioners we have our own lunch and our own communications network and our own Soul and Pride.
We are undiminished. This decision is tawdry, little and mean spirited in the extreme.
It must not stand or at least in the next company report be highlighted – "In a major cost saving measure Pensioners’ Lunch abolished."
Brian Williams
Pensioners’ lunch
Friday 14 May 2010
The style is becoming ever clearer. Salaries of millions are easily paid. The cost of a lunch, a handful of peanuts, is portrayed as too expensive [● No more pensioners’ lunches - Tom Glocer].
Perhaps I am just too old-fashioned and European. Some might even describe me by that most damning of epithets, liberal or, horror of horrors, even socialist.
Yet, like Simlizissimus wandering a world in turmoil, I sometimes wonder at what I see. Communism failed and crashed in the 1980s amid symphonies of triumphalism from the Capitalist world, yet it spawned more millionaires than ever before. Capitalism failed without as much fanfare over about the same period in 2000-2010, and is spawning an equal cloud of millionaires, who likewise did not earn what they received.
Please let's have a handful of peanuts for the faithful workers who created the wealth that morphed into Thomson Reuters.
Michael Reupke
Perhaps I am just too old-fashioned and European. Some might even describe me by that most damning of epithets, liberal or, horror of horrors, even socialist.
Yet, like Simlizissimus wandering a world in turmoil, I sometimes wonder at what I see. Communism failed and crashed in the 1980s amid symphonies of triumphalism from the Capitalist world, yet it spawned more millionaires than ever before. Capitalism failed without as much fanfare over about the same period in 2000-2010, and is spawning an equal cloud of millionaires, who likewise did not earn what they received.
Please let's have a handful of peanuts for the faithful workers who created the wealth that morphed into Thomson Reuters.
Michael Reupke
