scottish oil strike

annmaria · #1 (**permalink**) 26-04-2008, 08:32 PM

Am I the only one who thinks it is immoral striking for a pension that they do not even contribute to , and the cheek to be demanding the same for their children future employ, not to mention demanding two thirds of their last salary .............. what a greedy bunch.
Annmaria

Rich_ · #2 (**permalink**) 27-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Perhaps they only want to be able to pay their bills when they retire? They surely contribute to it, the employer will pay the rest surely?

It's the government who was greedy, taxing the dividends earned by pension schemes. Many final salary schemes have been ended because of this, over the last few years & there's little you can do about it really.

annmaria · #3 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 10:56 AM

I know many pensions schemes are in a mess, but the issue here is the strikers DO NOT contribute a penny to their pensions so all the experts on tv keep saying, now that is just crazy.
Annmaria

eeyore · #4 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 12:51 PM

of course the fact that the refinery makes about £3m a day might have something to do with it - and the fact that ineos executives (who also have noncontribittuary pensions), arent being shut out of the scheme - just the blue collar workers, cant see annnyyy reason for anyone to be aggrieved there

Paul mabbott · #5 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 02:45 PM

So, if your employer decided to renege on an agreement for pay or pension then you would just roll over, presumably?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ichlist129.xml

The owner of Ineos has about £3.3 billion (and rising) - and probably has a company pension fund to which he contributes nothing.

The turnover of his empire is around £45 billion - what difference do the pension funds of a few workers matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by annmaria

I know many pensions schemes are in a mess, but the issue here is the strikers DO NOT contribute a penny to their pensions so all the experts on tv keep saying, now that is just crazy.
Annmaria

Paul mabbott · #6 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 03:01 PM

You lose some and ... you lose some more.

Have been paying some insurance today - stiff increase in payments.

It took my mind back a couple of years when the insurance companies (particularly Lloyds of London) were having to put their prices up because of the vast numbers of catastrophes (plane crashes, tsunamis, hurricanes ...).
This year it's different, they're putting up their prices because of ......
"a shortage of disasters'.

Lloyd’s counts cost of not enough disasters - Times Online

annmaria · #7 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 03:38 PM

Eeyore I wish you would stop dancing around getting all excited

You both put up a good fight but it still does not change the principal that getting something for nothing in this life is wrong. The Owner might be a touch greedy but I guess he can decide his own payout. The executives are getting their perks probably because they are capable of taking the pressure, stress and making the decisions that are needed under those circumstances that ordinary workers may not be capable of.
Annmaria

Rich_ · #8 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 03:45 PM

Not knowing that much about the issue, I suspected what you have said may have been the case Eyore. The people at the bottom taking the hit.

If as you say Annmaria, they don't contribute to to the scheme directly, & the company are funding it 100%, this must have been agreed as part of their wage structure in the past. It is the government & companies themselves who have abused these pension schemes that are the main cause of them becoming unsustainable, and I don't think it is greedy to try to ensure you can at least enjoy your retirement a little, in the same way as it would be greedy to ask for an inflation busting pay rise such as the already wealthy award to themselves.

eeyore · #9 (**permalink**) 28-04-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annmaria

Eeyore I wish you would stop dancing around getting all excited

You both put up a good fight but it still does not change the principal that getting something for nothing in this life is wrong. The Owner might be a touch greedy but I guess he can decide his own payout. The executives are getting their perks probably because they are capable of taking the pressure, stress and making the decisions that are needed under those circumstances that ordinary workers may not be capable of.
Annmaria

while what you say about the executives may be true (though the main stress in a lot of executives lives is which golf course to play at during their three hour lunch break)

it is also true that the workers are (or were) getting the same perks due to their having to work in an extremly hazardous environment doing a highly technical job which the executives pronbably arent capable of.

If getting something for nothing is wrong , then it is wrong accross the board - it can't be wrong for the rank and file but okay for the fat cats at the top - and if it is okay for them it should also be okay for the workers too.

Also this isnt about personal greed as the company isnt proposing to take the pensions away from existing workers - just to stop new workers from getting the same benefits - which the union says isnt fair.