scottish oil strike

[annmaria]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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.

[Blackdog]

They struck oil in Scotland?

That will give the Govornment something else to tax...

[annmaria]

Eeyore if you want to apply one rule for all you might as well become like Russia or China !!
There is no perfect system, like a lot of things in life nothing stays the same and its silly these workers are making demands for people who do not even work there yet.....there may be greed at the top but the strikers are also gulity of this.
Annmaria.
I do not think you will here the workers putting the morally right view and say " oh go on then we will pay the right contributions for our pensions if you bosses will take a cut in your big fat salary'

[gfilmsuk]

[quote=eeyore;268399]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)

Ha, Ha, Ha.

[annmaria]

White flag
I give in
Annmaria

P.S. Hear

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by annmaria

White flag
I give in
Annmaria

P.S. Hear

Well I agree with you, if they were changing conditions for existing workers it might be different but changing things for new employees? That seems nuts....
Final salary pensions finished just as I joined Halcrow but I never saw it as a reason to not join, its just the way of the world all companies are changing in this way why should an oil company be different just because they make more money? - I was happy to have any kind of pension.

There is a risk that if they push to make scottish employees more expensive like this - they may decide to get their employees from elsewhere in the world leaving the union unemployed and who would that benefit?

Sooner or later they will have to accept this change same as the rest of us.

[annmaria]

THANKYOU GILL
Annmaria

[Paul mabbott]

Two interesting points there.

This is exactly the system that you already have in Russia with plutocrats getting their incredible riches by doing nothing constructive but ensuring that their workers live at minimal levels; and with a corrupt political system that allows them to do whatever they (the plutocrats) want. Many Russian people think that a revolution is overdue.

Well, making demands for future generations has, in my opinion, generally been a good thing - abolishing the slave trade, getting the vote for all men, ensuring basic universal education, getting the vote for women, having a free health service at point of use ...; perhaps, if some powers think that women having a vote is a waste of resources, then you might surrender it ... for yourself and women of the future?

Originally Posted by annmaria

Eeyore if you want to apply one rule for all you might as well become like Russia ........... There is no perfect system, like a lot of things in life nothing stays the same and its silly these workers are making demands for people who do not even work there yet..............

[annmaria]

Crikey Paul what planet are you from ! What would happen if every working person demanded a free top rate pension , how would that work then. Its the same silly argument as a free health service........... it no longer stacks up financially but this does not stop people DEMANDING IT !
Actually you are almost right except you are a little confused, it would be a much better idea if MEN GAVE UP THEIR VOTE.........MAYBE THE WORLD IS IN SUCH A BIG MESS BECAUSE MEN HAVE BEEN RUNNING IT FOR FAR TOO LONG!!
Annmaria

[Ukwildlifeo]

They ve got a far better case than the ver striking tube workers - they strike despite being on £30k+ wages for working a 3days a week!

[annmaria]

Good morning UKWildlifeo . I think I mainly get cheesed of with a relatively small group of people making demands which make millions of other people suffer making everyone struggle to pay for fuel, put pressure on millions of hard working people , the same people who DO contribute to their pensions who DO NOT have two thirds of their last salary.


Perhaps the workers should make their union bosses earn their fat salaries, if contracts are being reneged on they could take the case to court.
Annmaria

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Rich_

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.

The demise of final salary pensions was not just the fault of Govt. Employers are partly to blame as well, they pocketed the surpluses which rightly belonged to the members and then took 'employer contribution holidays' for years when they put nothing into the pension schemes.

The result of that was that when the stock market hit hard times and schemes ran up deficits that they could not cover.

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Totally agree wuth the strike action. Companies like these make billions and billions a year and then want to make more money by changing pension schemes, it's totally wrong, at the end of the day companies should care about the employees, but in reality very few do and are only interested in what they can make out of them when they are working there

I don't know the ins and outs of the pension scheme, but usually the company puts in an amount and the employee also does.

[Gill Catton]

I really don't get it though - if you don't like the terms of the new pension, don't start working there!? Where's the issue?

If they were changing the situation out from under existing workers then maybe I could see a point but otherwise I don't really.

Plus oil companies have a lot of changes ahead of them in the next 20 years and it would make sense to start making provisions for the changes now it seems to me.

[eeyore]

I suspect that the union see's theses changes - which renege on a deal previously made - as the thin end of the wedge.

The company says that it needs to make these changes as it needs to spend £750M over the next five years to revamp the site - however the site is currently making in excess of £500M a year profit.

I would therefore question why some if not all of the reinvestment in the site should not come from the profit margins (as is normal in buisness) rather than from cuts to the workers pension scheme.

As to the workers being greedy , have you ever actually seen the inside of a working oil refinery - hot, dirty, smelly, poor for your health, incredibly strenuous, and with the constant risk of industrial accident - these workers earn the pay and benefits they get. Its easy to say if you dont like it dont work there , but if everyone took that attitude there wouldnt be anyone working there and consequently no fuel.

I agree that oil companies need to start facing the changes ahead in the next 20 years but again perhaps they could make most of these changes out of their enourmous profits rather than their workers pay cheques and benefits.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lincs Yellowbelly

I don't know the ins and outs of the pension scheme, but usually the company puts in an amount and the employee also does.

what you describe is a contribuitory scheme - some occupations have non - contribuitory schemes - ie the profit from the company pays entirely for the pension.

these are normally found in occupations which are either highly hazardous, anti social, or where the employer needs to incentivise the job because they dont get enough applicants or to retain skilled staff , or in lieu of other benefits.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

The demise of final salary pensions was not just the fault of Govt. Employers are partly to blame as well, they pocketed the surpluses which rightly belonged to the members and then took 'employer contribution holidays' for years when they put nothing into the pension schemes.

The result of that was that when the stock market hit hard times and schemes ran up deficits that they could not cover.

You are quite right, in what you say about the companies I did mention their neglect in my last reply. Another way they used the pension funds, which I saw myself, was when they wanted to reduce the head count of the workforce, they let a lot of the over 50s retire early on full pension, thus they did not have any redundancy to pay. I know a lot of people who have been retired over 10 years & are not 65 yet. This was a great situation if you were the right age, but there is a price to be paid eventually, especially if there are more drawing out than what are paying in.