tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Industrial action could be something that happens - but as a last resort how times change as now it seems to be his first resort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Sorry you're right, I didn't make it as clear as I would have hoped. The guys on the shoplfloor new we couldn't afford a strike and would play up to this on many occasions, threatening a strike. One particular occasion was in the build up to christmas. I said I couldn't afford any holidays in december prior to the natural christmas break. It was our busiest time (We didn't shut down at all apart from Christmas, so they could have hols any other time of the year. I sat down with the Union in the previous February and they all accepted this was fair. It was pointed out to me a week later that 3 guys had already booked a day off in december, so I agreed to honour them. Come early december 2 chaps tried to book a day off. I said no. Straight in with their union rep 10 mins later saying I was victimising them as I had allowed 3 guys days off already. 30 mins walk out before I got them back to work That's unreasonable behaviour, as you describe it, and not what any TU rep I've ever known would condone. I have never met a full-time TU rep who would support such a case. In my experience from the management angle, you would sometimes get some **** chancer trying to play the game they had heard about in the Sunday papers, but the full-timer would soon put them right. If the local TU rep is playing this game, you might want to have a word with his regional office. If they see you as a responsible employer who is trying to maintain employment and pay fair wages, they will be sympathetic and helpful. If they don't, it may be opportune to ask yourself why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Quite astonishing. The nation with probably the most proud and distinct national identity of any in the EU is signalling a wish to crawl down the dirt road of obedience to the ECB technocrats. Charles de Gaulle, you dopy git, did all your grandstanding lead to this? ...The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said France and Germany must come together to ensure stability at the heart of Europe. In a major speech in the port of Toulon, Mr Sarkozy said he and the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, would meet on Monday to propose measures to "guarantee the future of Europe". He warned that economic convergence would be long and difficult. But he promised that France would not give up its sovereignty. He said the euro could not continue to exist unless eurozone economies pulled together... could see the end of Cameron if this results in a new EU treaty ... even if he can get concessions it would still have to go through the Lords and commons more fun times ahead .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 first place. Not to repeat Snowy's excellent point, did you find, like most, that while defined benefit schemes were closed to the hoi palloi, they were maintained for the directors? Because that seems to be the common experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not at all. Most directors were in exactly the same final salary scheme as the rank and file, and when the defined benefit schemes closed, they were closed to everybody, and all workers and bosses were just lumped into defined contribution schemes. Were they? Would you care to give us details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Was that just a question, or is there a point struggling to surface? well it was a question , hence the "?" at the end , but since you put it so politely I guess my curiosity leads me to wonder that seeing as pensions come out the government coffers and say we lost our AAA rating through having to much debt , we would simply not be able to borrow money at any price, meaning that we couldn't pay these very same "viable "pensions ... so if we have a structural deficit which seems to be what you advocate then something has to give surely ? Consider this, and include the perspective of both private and public pensions in doing so. (Public) Deficits are what happens when the private sector pays down debt. If you understand the basics of national accounts, you know this already; and if you don't, then you may find it better not to comment either way until you have learned something about this. Deficits are neither good nor bad, just a reflection of savings preferences in the private sector. We don't need to "borrow money". Issuing gilts in proportion to government spending is no more than a convention. Its function is to put into the private sector a risk-free source of income; no more, no less. Public sector pensions aren't predicated on selling gilts or having budget surpluses. Their funding is assumed as part of future spending plans, whether or not those plans are good. By the way, if we "lost" our AAA status, we would have several issues for decision. One of which would be whether to carry on recognising the ratings agencies. But our ability to fund our own demands in our own currency would not be in doubt. Because, thankfully, we are not part of the EMU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 We should bomb germany now before its too late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 first place. Not to repeat Snowy's excellent point, did you find, like most, that while defined benefit schemes were closed to the hoi palloi, they were maintained for the directors? Because that seems to be the common experience. A common experience? Any examples to back that up? Her's a couple to be going on with. There's about a million more. I expect that with a little help you will be able to research them for yourself. High Pay Commission New Statesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 2, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2011 To be fair, Peter, those links reveal that 46 per cent of FTSE 100 directors were still accruing final salary benefits in generous schemes that typically pay two-thirds of final salary as a retirement income. So for 54 percent of directors, it's not the case. When a scheme is closed (to the hoi palloi or to directors) there can be 2 stages - firstly close it to new employees, but the existing members stay in it, and secondly close it to everyone. The percentage figures from the links you gave suggest to me that directors are also having their schemes closed and it therefore is certainly (as Risso said) a common experience (more than half of directors from the FTSE 100 not accruing final salary benefits. Of course what your links also show, is that where the directors may have their DB schemes closed they are rather well compensated for this via other provisions from their companies, whereas the hoi poloi in the private sector most certainly don't get an equivalent level of adjustment. I believe it's unarguable that using the proper assessment methodology laid down for reviewing the health of DB schemes, that all but a very small handful are essentially underfunded against their future liabilities, whether they be for directors, hoi poloi or both. This is why they've been closed by the trustees - it's at least partly (mostly) legal thing, though if the Co.s wished to throw enormous sums at them, they could be kept open. By closing them you remove the rolling, forward liabilities, thus scoping the scale of the shortfall to be recovered. I think it was Labour who mandated that schemes needed to be valued in the way that they now are and every 5 years. The change in valuation method revealed the problems there were, and resulted in them being closed and/or people having to pay more in..etc. People not in DB schemes (or public schemes) are in an unenviable position in many ways, and the state (taxes) will end up having to support them in their old age. For public schemes that are notionally fully funded, then there is no justification at all for the Gov't essentially taxing the members to "tackle the defecit". For those that are not notionally fully funded, or for which there is absolutely no figures - it's just the Gov't pays - then there is justification for negotiating with the employees what to do about increasing survival ages and the consequences. What's so worrying is that the alternatives are so poor for everyone. The system is broken, politically and financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not at all. Most directors were in exactly the same final salary scheme as the rank and file, and when the defined benefit schemes closed, they were closed to everybody, and all workers and bosses were just lumped into defined contribution schemes. Were they? Would you care to give us details? What details would you expect me to give, I can't name names obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted December 2, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 2, 2011 The MP's pensions are not being affected, surely their working in the public sector? On Unions, JLR unions have the upper hand.....lol, temp labour all over the place never won a battle since i have worked there, which plant and which Convenor ever won anything? (in the last 20 years) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Out of interest , would things not be much simpler if public sector workers weren't given pensions and were paid the same way as people in the private sector and then responsible for their own pension provisions ? also on the pensions front , I've got some info to get my head around for 2013 as it appears our company will have to start paying 1% (for now) contribution to all staff into a pension fund (NEST ) ... it gets tricky as we employ around 600 people on a ad-hoc basis , some may work once or twice a month some 5 days a week .. BUT the inland revenue have already decreed these people are employees and as such I have to give them holiday pay and could potentially have to start giving them a pension .. we pay them £60 a day (+12% holiday pay which i assume it's due pension contributions) ) so that will mean they accrue 60p for a pension every time they work for us , although if they don't earn a certain amount we don't have to pay them I believe ... I've no doubt someone will tell me how it's only fair and just etc but I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 2, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2011 ...much simpler if public sector workers...responsible for their own pension provisions ? ...I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds And therein is one answer - the winners would be the Pension providers - directors of private companies profiting from millions people getting worse pensions than they are contracted to get. Very Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 ...much simpler if public sector workers...responsible for their own pension provisions ? ...I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds And therein is one answer - the winners would be the Pension providers - directors of private companies profiting from millions people getting worse pensions than they are contracted to get. Very Tory. in fact it's the other way from Jan 2012 doesn't EVERY company HAVE to offer a pension scheme to employees there 1 year or longer AND have to contribute. it is also opt out and if you don't get involved your company gets fined £50k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 What details would you expect me to give. I don't expect anything. I asked if you would care to give some. Some figures comparing the number of DB schemes for employees and directors (separately) before DB schemes began to be closed and figures for each of those groups now, perhaps? Edit: This may well paint the picture that all are being treated in the same manner but I would doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 ...much simpler if public sector workers...responsible for their own pension provisions ? ...I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds And therein is one answer - the winners would be the Pension providers - directors of private companies profiting from millions people getting worse pensions than they are contracted to get. Very Tory. that's a bit selective quoting there Pete I was suggesting it "could" be simpler ... whereby the individual is also in charge of their own financial destiny as a result ... is NEST for example going to be fair or is it going to make some directors wealthy ..or even a bit of both ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 so miss trunchable wants a fiscal unified Europe? hope that doesn't involve us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 2, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2011 ...much simpler if public sector workers...responsible for their own pension provisions ? ...I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds And therein is one answer - the winners would be the Pension providers - directors of private companies profiting from millions people getting worse pensions than they are contracted to get. Very Tory. that's a bit selective quoting there Pete I was suggesting it "could" be simpler ... whereby the individual is also in charge of their own financial destiny as a result ... is NEST for example going to be fair or is it going to make some directors wealthy ..or even a bit of both ?? I know it was selective quoting - I wasn't having a pop, Tony, I just picked up on the one hand your question about wouldn't it be simpler if... and then later on, on a different point you were complaining about how private pension Co.s would be the only winner. The two seperate things just seemed to be a new comment to me. No offence intended. in fact it's the other way from Jan 2012 doesn't EVERY company HAVE to offer a pension scheme to employees there 1 year or longer AND have to contribute. it is also opt out and if you don't get involved your company gets fined £50k The second part isn't true - they get fined if they try to incentivise/or co-erce staff not to join, so that they would save on their contributions. It is fine to opt out. but the first part is a means of trying to improve the risible pension provision for some private sector employees from some companies. And yes, no doubt, again, as Tony says, private pension funds will win from it. On a link Risso put up a page or two back, it quotes Hargreaves Lansdown giving their view on public/private pensions. They made 126 million profit last year. They know where their bread is buttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Pete nobody could ever take offence with you mate ... You know I'm just paranoid :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Out of interest , would things not be much simpler if public sector workers weren't given pensions and were paid the same way as people in the private sector and then responsible for their own pension provisions ? also on the pensions front , I've got some info to get my head around for 2013 as it appears our company will have to start paying 1% (for now) contribution to all staff into a pension fund (NEST ) ... it gets tricky as we employ around 600 people on a ad-hoc basis , some may work once or twice a month some 5 days a week .. BUT the inland revenue have already decreed these people are employees and as such I have to give them holiday pay and could potentially have to start giving them a pension .. we pay them £60 a day (+12% holiday pay which i assume it's due pension contributions) ) so that will mean they accrue 60p for a pension every time they work for us , although if they don't earn a certain amount we don't have to pay them I believe ... I've no doubt someone will tell me how it's only fair and just etc but I suspect the only winners are the managers of these funds So you don’t want people in the public sector to have a good pension because private pensions are not as good. Is that what you want a race to the bottom. What a fantastic argumentenal viewpoint to take, with that attitude its a race to the bottom for everyone. We should be fighting for better pension rights for everyone not worse off for everyone. You just don’t get it do you. These people entered in to a working contract the majority of which well over 10 years ago. You cannot just come along and then decide to alter that contract because it suits your government. ESPECIALLY when it was mainly the bankers that caused this Global economic climate. Why are you doing the Tories work for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts