Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

dzilla

Beaner1 wrote: »

You can't so just cut your losses and move on. But no, papa Ireland will jump in and pay for all your problems despite having nothing to do with your private pension arrangements.

Good Old Papa Ireland. I hear hes wearing a big red suit and had a big white beard with a sack of cash last week. Ho Ho Ho

Deise67

Beaner1 wrote: »

You can't so just cut your losses and move on. But no, papa Ireland will jump in and pay for all your problems despite having nothing to do with your private pension arrangements.

take it up with Europe ! directive ignored case taken we won QED

sparkling sea

Curly Judge wrote: »

My dear, dear boy,
I don't expect you to do anything!

sparkling sea

Beaner1 wrote: »

You can't so just cut your losses and move on. But no, papa Ireland will jump in and pay for all your problems despite having nothing to do with your private pension arrangements.

Its hardly a comparable analysis, "Papa Ireland" had a responsibility to legislate and protect the workers pension but he didn't, so all his children must now bear the brunt.

Beaner1

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its hardly a comparable analysis, "Papa Ireland" had a responsibility to legislate and protect the workers pension but he didn't, so all his children must now bear the brunt.

So you want the state to micro manage every private pension scheme? If they did then they would have discovered that the scheme was actuarialy unsound and that pension deductions needed to increase to 30% of salary. Would the workers have liked that at the time?

Now they get a bumper pension that they never paid for, all courtesy of the rest of us plebs.

sparkling sea

Beaner1 wrote: »

So you want the state to micro manage every private pension scheme? If they did then they would have discovered that the scheme was actuarialy unsound and that pension deductions needed to increase to 30% of salary. Would the workers have liked that at the time?

Now they get a bumper pension that they never paid for, all courtesy of the rest of us plebs.

No I want the state to do its job and implement any directives it is legally obliged to implement, that way we are all protected from situations like this one. I don't want anyone making excuses for them and blaming others.

I don't want laziness and sloppiness, I don't want some of the people moaning when others choose to fight for their legal entitlement. I really don't want the wrong people to be blamed, when they are not blame worthy.

This was an issue successive governments ignored, its a legislative issue and the our sloppy politicians have again managed to set one group of people against another and we all have to carry the can, except them.

7upfree

TheQuietFella wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-guarantee-culmination-of-years-of-mistakes-not-just-by-government-banking-inquiry-hears-30844109.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/24-civil-servants-pocket-more-than-160k-plus-pension-30843784.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mary-lou-faces-rap-over-ansbacher-row-30843498.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/eu-girds-loins-for-legal-battle-with-ireland-over-apple-tax-probe-30842739.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/ulster-bank-takes-loss-of-more-than-45bn-as-it-sells-loans-to-us-investor-30842737.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-now-sits-17th-in-global-perceived-corruption-index-30843019.html

All from todays Indo' I wonder who will be paying for all these????????

We're gone up to 17th in the list of perceived corruption index!!!!! What a surprise there.

Ah ya can't be posting truths like that now!;):D

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

Au contrair, mon ami.
Your exercise in logic fails at the first hurdle.
Whereas you and your friends are only interested in the welfare of 1780 people, I, and my friends, are concerned for the welfare of the whole taxpaying public.

Actually, as a taxpayer, I'm interested in anyone who should have been protected by Government. Oh, wait. These aren't bankers, "developers" and the like. Sure that can't be right.

7upfree

By the way, your ARE aware that there is an estimated €300 BILLION hole in provision for public sector pensions?

Which we are borrowing for on a weekly basis.

Kinda makes that €170 MILLION pale in comparison.

Beaner1

7upfree wrote: »

By the way, your ARE aware that there is an estimated €300 BILLION hole in provision for public sector pensions?

Which we are borrowing for on a weekly basis.

Kinda makes that €170 MILLION pale in comparison.

Yeah the public sector pension ponzi scheme will come tumbling down soon but that figure looks too high. It's partly why I left. All of these defined benefit schemes are complete baby boomer scams.
At least the public sector workers have a proper legal expectation that their employer has to cover their contractual obligations or should we expect our pensions to be funded by the EU for their failure to monitor the state.

robtri

Deise67 wrote: »

ever try suing a dead man ?

while you cant sue a dead man, you can sue his estate... been done many many times

robtri

7upfree wrote: »

By the way, your ARE aware that there is an estimated €300 BILLION hole in provision for public sector pensions?

Which we are borrowing for on a weekly basis.

Kinda makes that €170 MILLION pale in comparison.

pale in comparison or not, doesn't make it right either....

johnsparkexile

"Where did the money go? Maybe they should sue those that took it."


If you followed the case then you would know that no one took it. The WC fund like all other funds at the time had lost money in the previous years and the management and union had finalized a deal in 2007 that there could be no more early retirements from WC until 2016 at the earliest. One of a number of steps that both management and union were taking to reduce the deficit in the fund. The company had agreed to increase their level of contribution and a wage rise due to the employees was instead being paid into the fund. In fact during the so called Celtic Tiger years, pay rises were few and far between in the company and a lot of them went into bolstering up the fund and not into the employees pockets.


Waterford Crystal went into receivership in January 2009, the workers were made redundant, so neither the workers or the company could continue to pay into the fund. The trustees had no option but to wind up the scheme in March 2009 as a number of employees were approaching retirement age and paying them a pension at that stage would dilute the money that was in the fund at that time.

Pension Law in 2009 dictated that when a pension fund is wound up, priority has to be given to those who are already in receipt of a pension, everyone else is classified as a deferred pensioner. In the WC case, 40 million euro had to be set aside to cover the existing pensions which left 80 million to be divided amongst the deferred members.

So in March 2009 there was 120 million euro in the WC pension Fund,which unfortunately wasn't enough to cover the liabilities of the scheme.

Curly Judge

johnsparkexile wrote: »

"Where did the money go? Maybe they should sue those that took it."


If you followed the case then you would know that no one took it. The WC fund like all other funds at the time had lost money in the previous years and the management and union had finalized a deal in 2007 that there could be no more early retirements from WC until 2016 at the earliest. One of a number of steps that both management and union were taking to reduce the deficit in the fund. The company had agreed to increase their level of contribution and a wage rise due to the employees was instead being paid into the fund. In fact during the so called Celtic Tiger years, pay rises were few and far between in the company and a lot of them went into bolstering up the fund and not into the employees pockets.


Waterford Crystal went into receivership in January 2009, the workers were made redundant, so neither the workers or the company could continue to pay into the fund. The trustees had no option but to wind up the scheme in March 2009 as a number of employees were approaching retirement age and paying them a pension at that stage would dilute the money that was in the fund at that time.

Pension Law in 2009 dictated that when a pension fund is wound up, priority has to be given to those who are already in receipt of a pension, everyone else is classified as a deferred pensioner. In the WC case, 40 million euro had to be set aside to cover the existing pensions which left 80 million to be divided amongst the deferred members.

So in March 2009 there was 120 million euro in the WC pension Fund,which unfortunately wasn't enough to cover the liabilities of the scheme.

I wonder what percentage of their fat defined benefit pension they will now have to pay towards their mates in order to lessen our contribution?
More than I'll be forced to pay..... or less?

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of their fat defined benefit pension they will now have to pay towards their mates in order to lessen our contribution?
More than I'll be forced to pay..... or less?

Your begrudgery just drips off the screen.

Good luck to them all.

Beaner1

Great so we've established that nobody took the money. They got what they were entitled to based on the cars remaining. They had a scheme that promised the sun, moon and stars but the money was never there for this.

Curly Judge

Beaner1 wrote: »

Great so we've established that nobody took the money. They got what they were entitled to based on the cars remaining. They had a scheme that promised the sun, moon and stars but the money was never there for this.[/QUOTE

It's a case of heads.... the unions win.
And tails....everyone else pays.
It was ever thus.

johnsparkexile

Originally Posted by Curly Judge View Post
I wonder what percentage of their fat defined benefit pension they will now have to pay towards their mates in order to lessen our contribution?
More than I'll be forced to pay..... or less?

Can't give you an exact figure, but the pensioners lost any indexation attached to their pensions.Choosing to have their pension index linked meant they had to forgo some of their lump sum, so they have contributed far more then you'll ever have too.

As for your belief that they all have "fat defined benefit pensions", the majority of employees were non craft where they earned around 28,000 per annum, which wasn't going to provide a gold plated pension.

Curly Judge

johnsparkexile wrote: »

Originally Posted by Curly Judge View Post
I wonder what percentage of their fat defined benefit pension they will now have to pay towards their mates in order to lessen our contribution?
More than I'll be forced to pay..... or less?

Can't give you an exact figure, but the pensioners lost any indexation attached to their pensions.Choosing to have their pension index linked meant they had to forgo some of their lump sum, so they have contributed far more then you'll ever have too.

As for your belief that they all have "fat defined benefit pensions", the majority of employees were non craft where they earned around 28,000 per annum, which wasn't going to provide a gold plated pension.

I was referring to the people who had been awarded pensions before the company collapsed. I probably didn't make that clear enough...apologies!
If you were referring to that cohort in your above post I don't understand how their lump sum could have been affected as it was, presumably, handed out many years ago?

johnsparkexile

"If you were referring to that cohort in your above post I don't understand how their lump sum could have been affected as it was, presumably, handed out many years ago?"

On reaching retirement age or having taken voluntary redundancy, you normally have a number of different options available to you. A lump sum and a set pension for the remainder of your life or a reduced lump sum in order that their weekly pension would be indexed linked by 2% per annum. The indexation of their pensions was stopped when the fund collapsed so any former employee who was in receipt of their pension is at the loss of that money. One man I know who availed of the option is down 15,000.

TheQuietFella

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ptsb-shareholders-may-get-500m-30890318.html

And here comes Michael with €500 million to the party!

Austerity really costs, doesn't it!

Gael23

TheQuietFella wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ptsb-shareholders-may-get-500m-30890318.html

And here comes Michael with €500 million to the party!

Austerity really costs, doesn't it!

Most of these are elderly people who put there lifes savings into banks and lost it all. Maybe this is a little too generous but those people lost every penny they had to their name.

Beaner1

ryanf1 wrote: »

Most of these are elderly people who put there lifes savings into banks and lost it all. Maybe this is a little too generous but those people lost every penny they had to their name.

So if your investments work out you get to keep the dosh but if it goes tits up the state will give you back your stake. Capitalism Irish style.

robtri

Beaner1 wrote: »

So if your investments work out you get to keep the dosh but if it goes tits up the state will give you back your stake. Capitalism Irish style.

banks, bind holders, pensions.....
for fcuk sake, next we be gauranteeing people betting on horses in Paddy Power.....

7upfree

Beaner1 wrote: »

So if your investments work out you get to keep the dosh but if it goes tits up the state will give you back your stake. Capitalism Irish style.

Seems to have worked for the banks and the bondholders. But now there's a problem when the man in the street avails of it?

Beaner1

7upfree wrote: »

Seems to have worked for the banks and the bondholders. But now there's a problem when the man in the street avails of it?

Worst. Argument. Ever.

False dichotomy.

I've seen scores of idiots pull this on the last few years.

Gael23

Beaner1 wrote: »

So if your investments work out you get to keep the dosh but if it goes tits up the state will give you back your stake. Capitalism Irish style.

To a limited extent, when you invest every penny you have to your name. I don't agree for one minute about them getting repaid in full but maybe a few years expected interest in a lump sum or something

7upfree

Beaner1 wrote: »

Worst. Argument. Ever.

False dichotomy.

I've seen scores of idiots pull this on the last few years.

Usual BS response which is regularly trotted out. This country was bankrupted by idiots. Idiots in power then decided to pour billions into failed businesses. Then more idiots converted this illegal "debt" into a sovereign debt.

And idiots then defend it on a regular basis.

These are brainwashed, gormless morons who continue to defend the alteration of the basic fundamentals of the capitalist "system". A system which allows businesses which should not be trading to repossess homes under rules which they themselves did not - and do not - adhere to.

Good luck to the crystal workers. It cost a fraction of what was quoted above. And is going to Irish people. Not German and French banks, who shouldn't even be trading.

7upfree

robtri wrote: »

banks, bind holders, pensions.....
for fcuk sake, next we be gauranteeing people betting on horses in Paddy Power.....

We already did. Except it wasn't Paddy Power. It was a "property market".

Beaner1

That went right over your head then. Please stop having an opinion.