Hello, 

We will be publishing a newsletter in the next few weeks, but we thought it best 
to forward this mail, sent to Meg Whitman (CEO Hewlett Packard) and others, 
to bring you up to speed with what we are doing.

If you know nothing of the background to this mail, we advise you to look at our 
website, in the "Pension Increases" section - it is all explained there.

HP UK declined to give us any detail about how and why we ended up with another 
zero review, but we have managed to build up a picture of how the process works.

Hence this mail to Meg Whitman. 

Regards 

HPPA Steering Committee 

Ian, Scott and Steve


Dear Ms Whitman,

It is with considerable regret that we are writing to you again.

In July, we received a letter from Hewlett Packard UK HR, telling us that there will 
be no increase granted to HP Retirees, following the Discretionary Pension Review.

It is difficult to explain just what a crushing blow that is, considering the protracted 
nature of the review process - this following our extended correspondence with 
Elaine Beddome last year.

Strangely, it is not so difficult to explain what this means to the HP Retirees in this 
country, standing, as far as we can see, almost alone in Europe. The attached graph 
shows the impact on so many people who are not receiving what they believe to be 
a fair deal, and certainly not what they signed up for. That particular point may yet 
have further implications for HP UK.

We have tried to find out just how and why the decision ended up where it did, and 
have been given generalities of affordability, protection of existing benefits etc. It has 
taken a considerable amount of effort for us to find out that there is, apparently, a 
shadowy (shadowy to us anyway) Treasury group which sits in judgement over these 
matters. We can only assume that they are measured purely on expense control, 
and not the business or human impact of their decisions. The graph clearly shows 
that this is not a one-off decision based on one year's performance, but is a policy 
which has been set by a person or persons unknown, for the past 10 years. Those 
10 years have seen what is effectively a 30% reduction in income for Retirees, and 
this has caused real hardship for some.

What certainly is true, is that the reputation of Hewlett Packard in the UK is slowly 
but surely being shredded. As the pre-Retirees find out what is happening and the 
word spreads throughout the IT industries (there is a 4:1 ratio of pre-Retirees to 
Retirees) there is a growing feeling that HP is being unreasonable. Clearly, it is 
difficult to measure the business impact of this situation, but it may already be 
significant.

What saddens us, in the Hewlett Packard Pension Association (HPPA), is that it 
does not have to be this way.

The attitude shown by the Treasury group is at total variance to that shown to us by 
the all the people we have dealt with over the past two years. The business folks we 
interface with clearly see us as an asset, and we are working on several global citizen 
projects, such as volunteering, together. We believe strongly that this is the way it 
should be.

We would appreciate your involvement.

We will be publishing this mail on the HPPA website.

Best regards, 
Ian Young (Hewlett Packard Pension Association)

Note: www.hppa.org.uk (username: hpway password: to play)