Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

7upfree · 10-01-2015 3:11pm

Beaner1 wrote: »

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

Must be getting to you. Get down off that high horse and come into the real world will you?

barneystinson · 10-01-2015 7:28pm

7upfree wrote: »

Must be getting to you. Get down off that high horse and come into the real world will you?

If the Waterford crystal workforce and their union reps had heeded that advice over the years, they might still have jobs there...

Beaner1 · 10-01-2015 7:31pm

Mr. 7up.
Im a free market capitalist. Why would I be in favour of private bank bailouts?

You would be the person most likely to support banking bailouts given that you're in favour of socialising private losses.

7upfree · 10-01-2015 8:04pm

Beaner1 wrote: »

Mr. 7up.
Im a free market capitalist. Why would I be in favour of private bank bailouts?

You would be the person most likely to support banking bailouts given that you're in favour of socialising private losses.

Wouldn't be in favour of either TBH. But after what has gone on here I would be 100% with the Crystal Workers. Every time.

The word "capitalist" has a very hollow ring to it after the rules were changed for banks.

Beaner1 · 10-01-2015 8:13pm

7upfree wrote: »

Wouldn't be in favour of either TBH. But after what has gone on here I would be 100% with the Crystal Workers. Every time.

The word "capitalist" has a very hollow ring to it after the rules were changed for banks.

That's not capitalism. You'd be fully in favour of everyones bank deposits being wiped out then? Plenty of old biddies faces losing their life savings.

7upfree · 10-01-2015 9:21pm

Beaner1 wrote: »

That's not capitalism. You'd be fully in favour of everyones bank deposits being wiped out then? Plenty of old biddies faces losing their life savings.

But you are arguing that the Crystal workers should be wiped out. Which is it? The fundamentals of Capitalism are you succeed or you fail. All the rules were changed for banks. This is the reality.

Curly Judge · 12-01-2015 9:05pm

7upfree wrote: »

But you are arguing that the Crystal workers should be wiped out. Which is it? The fundamentals of Capitalism are you succeed or you fail. All the rules were changed for banks. This is the reality.

Boiled down to it's essential essence, your argument seems to be;
The banks robbed the taxpayers of this country so it seems only fair that we allow W C workers to rob the very same taxpayers?

7upfree · 12-01-2015 10:50pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

Boiled down to it's essential essence, your argument seems to be;
The banks robbed the taxpayers of this country so it seems only fair that we allow W C workers to rob the very same taxpayers?

Yep. Why not? Faceless, inept, corrupt entities were refunded their bet - but Irish workers can't have the same treatment afforded to them?

deise blue · 13-01-2015 1:50pm

Some people are like a dog with a bone !

The simple fact is that successive Governments failed to legislate for a pension protection scheme , Glass workers & Unite took a case to the EU court which found in their favour on all counts .

Subsequently via the good offices of Kieran Mulvey & the Labour Court an equitable solution was hammered out which has now been unanimously accepted by the workers .

Those are the facts & anything thing else is irrelevant & merely deflects from the above accepted legality of the situation.

It merely now awaits the initial delivery of monies which will be a great boon not only to the workers but the City as well.

Curly Judge · 13-01-2015 5:39pm

7upfree wrote: »

Yep. Why not? Faceless, inept, corrupt entities were refunded their bet - but Irish workers can't have the same treatment afforded to them?

Impeccable logic!:rolleyes:

7upfree · 13-01-2015 6:49pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

Impeccable logic!:rolleyes:

Beats impeccable arrogance any day. Are you actually this bitter and begrudging? Seriously?

fiachr_a · 13-01-2015 6:50pm

deise blue wrote: »

It merely now awaits the initial delivery of monies which will be a great boon not only to the workers but the City as well.

How much will these former workers get on average?

deise blue · 13-01-2015 7:41pm

fiachr_a wrote: »

How much will these former workers get on average?

The entire package is worth 178 million euro & there are approx 1,700 employees who will benefit .

In addition it should be pointed out that such employees will become or already are also entitled to the state old age pension.

deise blue · 13-01-2015 7:45pm

7upfree wrote: »

Yep. Why not? Faceless, inept, corrupt entities were refunded their bet - but Irish workers can't have the same treatment afforded to them?

Of course you are correct.

If the State can arbitrarily bail out our failed Banking system then why in the name of God wouldn't they protect the pensions of the Glass workers as required
by EU legislation which as a State we were required to enact ?

Curly Judge · 13-01-2015 8:23pm

deise blue wrote: »

Some people are like a dog with a bone !

The simple fact is that successive Governments failed to legislate for a pension protection scheme , Glass workers & Unite took a case to the EU court which found in their favour on all counts .

Subsequently via the good offices of Kieran Mulvey & the Labour Court an equitable solution was hammered out which has now been unanimously accepted by the workers .

Those are the facts & anything thing else is irrelevant & merely deflects from the above accepted legality of the situation.

It merely now awaits the initial delivery of monies which will be a great boon not only to the workers but the City as well.

The rest of us are paying for it but so long as Waterford are doing okay...that's the main thing isn't it?
I hope you all enjoy your ill gotten gains!

deise blue · 13-01-2015 9:01pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

The rest of us are paying for it but so long as Waterford are doing okay...that's the main thing isn't it?
I hope you all enjoy your ill gotten gains!

You see that's the crux of your problem - your " ill gotten gains " are actually funds legally required by EU legislation.

I trust that you don't dispute the fact that the final agreed settlement is based on an EU Court judgement which is legally binding on the State ?

As such the Glass workers while enjoying the fruits of the negotiated settlement can reflect on the fact that such fruits were legally obtained due in no small part to their perseverance.

You really are going to have let this go , the battle is over - the Glass workers & their Union have won legally & no amount of whingeing on your part on the internet is going to change anything .

Curly Judge · 13-01-2015 9:16pm

deise blue wrote: »

You see that's the crux of your problem - your " ill gotten gains " are actually funds legally required by EU legislation.

I trust that you don't dispute the fact that the final agreed settlement is based on an EU Court judgement which is legally binding on the State ?

As such the Glass workers while enjoying the fruits of the negotiated settlement can reflect on the fact that such fruits were legally obtained due in no small part to their perseverance.

You really are going to have let this go , the battle is over - the Glass workers & their Union have won legally & no amount of whingeing on your part on the internet is going to change anything .

Your confused thinking is a wonder to behold.
On one hand you laud the decisions of the Europeans to pressurise the Irish government into bailing out (with public money) the private pensions of a private company.
On the other hand you rail against the injustice of those very same Europeans insisting on bank debt being honoured.
I happen to think that both decisions are equally stupid so, unlike you, I am at least consistent.

the_syco · 13-01-2015 9:21pm

deise blue wrote: »

funds legally required by EU legislation.

I wonder when the next couple of cases will hit the news? Although this would be the biggest, it by no means won't be the last, as I'd say a couple of companies went tits up since the bust with no pension fund to speak of.

deise blue · 13-01-2015 9:45pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

Your confused thinking is a wonder to behold.
On one hand you laud the decisions of the Europeans to pressurise the Irish government into bailing out (with public money) the private pensions of a private company.
On the other hand you rail against the injustice of those very same Europeans insisting on bank debt being honoured.
I happen to think that both decisions are equally stupid so, unlike you, I am at least consistent.

If you can point out where I railed against the Banking bail out I'll buy you a biscuit !

I stated that the State arbitrarily bailed out our inept Banking system - that is a statement of fact and cannot be construed as a criticism !

Let me say that the State decision to bailout the Banks & to fight an unwinnable case V the Glass were both wrong , there's consistency for you !

The Glass pensions were protected by legislation which the State failed to enact , the Bail out of the Banks was a State decision taken on that infamous night - the difference is of course that that Glass situation was caused by a failure to legislate ( now remedied ) & the Bank bailout was purely a voluntary state decision .

Nice attempt at deflection though !

Curly Judge · 14-01-2015 10:44am

deise blue wrote: »

I stated that the State arbitrarily bailed out our inept Banking system - that is a statement of fact and cannot be construed as a criticism !

Nice footwork!

7upfree · 15-01-2015 2:36pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

Your confused thinking is a wonder to behold.

As is your scrooge-like begrudgery.

Beaner1 · 15-01-2015 5:11pm

7upfree wrote: »

As is your scrooge-like begrudgery.

Yeah it's only 300 quid for some strangers underfunded pension that you have my pay.

robtri · 15-01-2015 7:19pm

deise blue wrote: »

The Glass pensions were protected by legislation which the State failed to enact , the Bail out of the Banks was a State decision taken on that infamous night - the difference is of course that that Glass situation was caused by a failure to legislate ( now remedied ) & the Bank bailout was purely a voluntary state decision .

Nice attempt at deflection though !

no the bank bailout where a result of an inept government failing to enforce proper control and legislation over the banks for years before the infamous night.

By the time we had the infamous night, it was too late... any option to choose was going to cost tens of billions to the state and crash the ecomony..there was no right option at the time.
the banks failed due to failure to regulate correctly, and as a result we the tax payers have to pay.... we had a financial regulator who was imept and failed to regulate

the pensions where due to an inept company/union/employer base and now the tax payers have to pay...

robtri · 15-01-2015 7:25pm

when was the EU directive to protect pensions put in place?
and when did the pension fail?

deise blue · 16-01-2015 12:50am

Member States should have implemented Artice 8 of the Insovency Directive by 1983 !

Sure what's the rush when there's a can to kick down the road !

The Glass pension failed in 2009 but like Lazarus has now written from the dead due to the perseverance of the workers & Unite - as legally required by EU legislation .

The Government have rushed in a scheme to cover any such further cases after the stable door has hit them firmly in the arse.

People can complain as much as they want , everything is now done & dusted with the full imprimatur of both the State & the Courts.

Curly Judge · 16-01-2015 11:00am

deise blue wrote: »

Member States should have implemented Artice 8 of the Insovency Directive by 1983 !

Sure what's the rush when there's a can to kick down the road !

The Glass pension failed in 2009 but like Lazarus has now written from the dead due to the perseverance of the workers & Unite - as legally required by EU legislation .

The Government have rushed in a scheme to cover any such further cases after the stable door has hit them firmly in the arse.

People can complain as much as they want , everything is now done & dusted with the full imprimatur of both the State & the Courts.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, we know, we know!
Well paid officials in this country failed to do their job and even better paid officials, sitting in Europe, decide that the ordinary Joe has to stump up from their meagre earnings.
You are obviously delighted with the result, as it obviously meshes in nicely with your socialist ideology, but some of us have other ideas and will continue to voice them.

deise blue · 16-01-2015 11:11am

You may indeed have other ideas but to persist with such ideas in the face of the overwhelming realities of the situation is an exercise in absolute futility !

Voice your ideas for as long as see fit - they amount to naught , the Glass situation is resolved & nothing you contribute to an Internet forum is going to change that - Don Quixote tilting at windmills comes to mind !

As your own ideology , could I suggest that you reflect on the decimated nature of your own pension scheme & contemplate what damage unbridled capitalism has cost you !

robtri · 16-01-2015 8:19pm

deise blue wrote: »

Member States should have implemented Artice 8 of the Insovency Directive by 1983 !

Sure what's the rush when there's a can to kick down the road !

The Glass pension failed in 2009 but like Lazarus has now written from the dead due to the perseverance of the workers & Unite - as legally required by EU legislation .

The Government have rushed in a scheme to cover any such further cases after the stable door has hit them firmly in the arse.

People can complain as much as they want , everything is now done & dusted with the full imprimatur of both the State & the Courts.

yes we can complain and not be happy with paying for Waterford Crystal managment, union and employees problem...

thats the great thing about freedom of speech

the same way u can ignore our complaints if u want and not reply... strange u dont...

the same way u can proudly boast this is a good thing for the workers here (yep great thing that workers have to pay more for other workers, how you can reason that to be morally right in your head is beyond me)

robtri · 16-01-2015 8:24pm

is the EU directive not from 2008??

European Directive (2008/94/EC) relating to employer insolvency, the High Court referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for a ruling.

deise blue · 16-01-2015 9:00pm

Of course you can complain & be unhappy , the reality is of course is that such complaints are pointless whether they be expressed in an Internet forum or elsewhere , as the deal is done & the legalities of the situation sorted is there any real point in debating this further ? - unless you are suggesting that the State break the EU law which after all is binding on the State ?

Due to the failure of the State to implement , as required by EU legislation , a pension protection policy the Glass workers & Unite took a case to the EU court which they won on all counts - but then again you & everyone else knows this , but for some reason you & some other posters cannot get your respective heads around this .

The State failed in it's responsibilities to the Glass workers & as such the subsequent debacle lies entirely at the State's door - any suggestion to the contrary is pure nonsense , thankfully the current Government has moved to remedy this situation in order that future difficulties are ameliorated if the Glass type scenario reoccurs .

The Insolvency directive dates back to the early 80's but has been amended since , the last occasion being in 2008 probably as a result of the Robins case v the UK in 2007.

Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

Comments