Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

robtri

deise blue wrote: »

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 ?

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 such as the Glass scenarios do not reoccur.

The Insolvency directive dates back to the early 80's but has been amended since , the last occasion being in 2008.

The insolvency part about pensions relates to 2008 iirc....

the problem was not the government
it was the Management of the pension and the Unions... The unions failed to protect the employees and then blame others when it fails....

But you continue to ignore that fact. the Union and the company failed the employees... and even the employees failed themselves..
it was a complete ineptly run system by three parties.. Company, union and Employees.....


yes we know the court ruling.... yes we know its legal... but it is not morally right...
bailing out the banks was legal, but I am not happy at that and will voice my opinion/concern as a citizen of this country....
sentencing of an old age pensioner struggling to get by day day for not paying a tv licence is legally right but is it right??
There was a legal ruling to sentance 4 men to prision for bombing a pub in guildford... was it right???

many things are legally correct but it doesnt make them right....
and i will voice my concerns about this as i see fit...

robtri

ohhhh and I am sure the pension part was not till 2008

The UNION should be made pay for this

"The protection of employees in the event of employer insolvency is covered by an EU Directive 2008/94 (Insolvency Directive) which requires Member States to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees (and of persons having already left the employer) at the date of the employer’s insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement under supplementary or occupational pension schemes. This becomes an issue for defined benefit (DB) schemes in a “double insolvency” situation – where both the employer and the DB scheme are insolvent."

deise blue

No the initial insolvency directive was dated 20 October 1980 , as court cases were initiated based on such directive amendments were required including the 2008 amendment , however the bedrock remains the 1980 directive as reflected by the fact that Carol Robins won a similar case v the UK in 2007 ( prior to the 2008 amendment )

Please feel free to vent away but don't lose sight of the fact that a hugely beneficial agreement in terms of the employees has been legally concluded & no amount of Internet comment bemoaning the legality or terms of such agreement will change anything.

The reference to the Guildford 4 is a red herring , the issues regarding failure to implement EU legislation was black & white - Even the State stated as much & based their defense on both an inability to pay & a suggestion that the OAP should be aggregated with any pension to be paid.

But as I say continue to butt your head against a brick wall !

robtri

deise blue wrote: »

No the initial insolvency directive was dated 20 October 1980 , as court cases were initiated based on such directive amendments were required including the 2008 amendment , however the bedrock remains the 1980 directive.

Please feel free to vent away but don't lose sight of the fact that a hugely beneficial agreement in terms of the employees has been legally concluded & no amount of Internet comment bemoaning the legality or terms of such agreement will change anything.

The reference to the Guildford 4 is a red herring , the issues regarding failure to implement EU legislation was black & white - Even the State stated as much & based their defense on both an inability to pay & a suggestion that the OAP should be aggregated with any pension to be paid.

But as I say continue to butt your head against a brick wall !

i agree it was a good deal for the workers... the workers of WC
it was a horrible deal for all other workers in this country...

so please feel free to feel good about taking money out of the majority of workers pockets to pay for a few .... mmmmm strangely familiar ring to that..
so please please tell me how this is hugely benifitial to the majority of workers in this country.. how is them having to pay extra for 1700 and odd people to get their money is a good thing for all us workers...

Surely do you not agree that the union should have been sued as well... they gladly took workers monies and failed to protect them as the company squandered their pension

no guildford four is not a red herring, its a stretch but it was to make the point just because it was a legal decision, does not make it right..

Can you point me to anything that shows that article 8 in 1980 contained the requirement for the government to cover DB pensions? as far as I am aware it is 2008...

deise blue

Simply google - Insolvency Dirctive Article 8 , the proof of the pudding is in the eating Carol Robins won a similar case in 2007 v the UK - prior to the 2008 amendment.

Facts are facts , all is done & dusted legally & the workers/Unite's actions ensure that workers in the same situation will not be treated as abominably as the Glass workers.

Any debate to the contrary is a waste of time - the battle is over & all that's left is the celebrations of the victors & the wounded moans of the defeated !

johnsparkexile

"But you continue to ignore that fact. the Union and the company failed the employees... and even the employees failed themselves..
it was a complete ineptly run system by three parties.. Company, union and Employees..... "

Afraid your wrong there,even thou there was a deficit in the WC pension fund, measures had been put in place to rectify that by 2016 if the company had survived, it didn't so the rest is history.

Equally one of the reasons why the pension case could be taken in the first place was because everything was above board with the way the pension fund was being administered. The Government spent 6 years and a lot of taxpayers money fighting that case and if there was anything untoward going on it would have been discovered.

The simple fact is that successive Governments failed to enact the 1983 Directive, Ireland was a named party with the British Government before withdrawing when it became clear that Carole Robbins was going to win her case in 2007 and that during the discovery process for the ECJ case, government documentation stated that they were well aware of their obligation to implement the directive but choose not too.

At any stage after 2008, some form of pension protection could and should have been implemented, the WC victory forced them to do this in 2013 (capped at 50% if my memory serves me right as against an 82% average in the WC case). How much money would that have saved the taxpayer?

Now if only the previous Government had loaned the company that 39 million back in Dec 2008, none of this might never have happened.

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

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.

The majority are delighted with the result. Apart from a few begrudgers. Joe soap is paying - for joe soap. Not some fat cat banker who shouldn't even be in a job.

Curly Judge

johnsparkexile wrote: »

"But you continue to ignore that fact. the Union and the company failed the employees... and even the employees failed themselves..
it was a complete ineptly run system by three parties.. Company, union and Employees..... "

Afraid your wrong there,even thou there was a deficit in the WC pension fund, measures had been put in place to rectify that by 2016 if the company had survived, it didn't so the rest is history.

Equally one of the reasons why the pension case could be taken in the first place was because everything was above board with the way the pension fund was being administered. The Government spent 6 years and a lot of taxpayers money fighting that case and if there was anything untoward going on it would have been discovered.

The simple fact is that successive Governments failed to enact the 1983 Directive, Ireland was a named party with the British Government before withdrawing when it became clear that Carole Robbins was going to win her case in 2007 and that during the discovery process for the ECJ case, government documentation stated that they were well aware of their obligation to implement the directive but choose not too.

At any stage after 2008, some form of pension protection could and should have been implemented, the WC victory forced them to do this in 2013 (capped at 50% if my memory serves me right as against an 82% average in the WC case). How much money would that have saved the taxpayer?

Now if only the previous Government had loaned the company that 39 million back in Dec 2008, none of this might never have happened.

"everything was above board with the way the pension fund was being administered"
Clearly it was being administered brilliantly!
Have you ever thought of taking up writing fiction?

robtri

7upfree wrote: »

The majority are delighted with the result. Apart from a few begrudgers. Joe soap is paying - for joe soap. Not some fat cat banker who shouldn't even be in a job.

the majority???? the majority of who??
workers in this country???
or people in waterford...

robtri

deise blue wrote: »

No the initial insolvency directive was dated 20 October 1980 , as court cases were initiated based on such directive amendments were required including the 2008 amendment , however the bedrock remains the 1980 directive as reflected by the fact that Carol Robins won a similar case v the UK in 2007 ( prior to the 2008 amendment )

being googling as you said
and no I still say u are wrong...

the insolvency directive for the pension part I still believe was only 2008.

"the court criticised the Government for not fulfilling obligations which were imposed following the judgement in favour of an English woman who brought a similar case against the UK in 2007, before the Insolvency Directive was introduced."

This was a Company Union and employees problem... especially the Union.

sitting there smugly saying no point arguing it still doesnt make it right...
it was a wrong decision. so please feel free to bang your head against a wall to convince yourself it was a good thing for the workers of this country...


the employers should have sued the Union. the union was supposed to look out for the employee. the Failed miserably and then pretend its everyones else fault but there ....
laughable and cringe worthy

deise blue

Not much point in providing you or Curly Judge with the additional required oxygen to continue with with what is essentially a pointless debate.

It is a conceit of the highest order to believe that your arguments on an Internet forum are going to achieve anything , the Courts have spoken , the workers & their Union have been totally vindicated & substantial funds are on their way to the City .

The Indo , the Times & the Examiner have praised the courage & perseverance of the workers & by extension Unite , the comments section on all 3 papers & indeed on Journal.ie have reflected a hefty majority of opinion in favour of the decision favouring the workers.

But please do continue wasting your breath on the desert air !

Cheerio .

robtri

deise blue wrote: »

Not much point in providing you or Curly Judge with the additional required oxygen to continue with with what is essentially a pointless debate.

It is a conceit of the highest order to believe that your arguments on an Internet forum are going to achieve anything , the Courts have spoken , the workers & their Union have been totally vindicated & substantial funds are on their way to the City .

The Indo , the Times & the Examiner have praised the courage & perseverance of the workers & by extension Unite , the comments section on all 3 papers & indeed on Journal.ie have reflected a hefty majority of opinion in favour of the decision favouring the workers.

But please do continue wasting your breath on the desert air !

Cheerio .

lol...

johnsparkexile

"everything was above board with the way the pension fund was being administered"
Clearly it was being administered brilliantly!
Have you ever thought of taking up writing fiction?"

The WC pension fund like nearly all pension funds the world over, yours included suffered colossal losses due to the worldwide economic downturn. Fact not fiction.

How the fund was administered on a daily and weekly basis was beyond the control of the ordinary crystal workers. They were provided with a yearly benefits statement detailing how the fund was doing and that was the sole dealings that an employee had with the fund until they reached retirement age. As is the case with the majority of people in pension funds the length and breath of the country.

Over 6 years of fighting this case the State could not point to 1 thing in how the fund was administered that would have allowed them to get the case thrown out of court and they tried, so while it might not have been "administered brilliantly", it was being administered properly. Fact not fiction.

As for taking up writing fiction, who knows what the future holds, might write a book on my time in WC, but then again that would be fact not fiction.

johnsparkexile

"the employers should have sued the Union"

The union didn't administer the pension fund so why would the employees sue them.


"the union was supposed to look out for the employee"

They did by spending nearly 3 million euro fighting and winning this case and by forcing the state to introduce the 2013 pension act they have looked after the employees of other companies both union and non union.

Beaner1

Why did the fund go bust and how was the Irish state to blame?

7upfree

Beaner1 wrote: »

Why did the fund go bust and how was the Irish state to blame?

When did banks go bust and how were the Irish citizens were to blame?

7upfree

robtri wrote: »

the majority???? the majority of who??
workers in this country???
or people in waterford...

The majority of people that I have spoken to. And on social media. Yep, there are a few cranks and begrudgers, but so tiny is their figure that it is of little consequence.

Beaner1

7upfree wrote: »

When did banks go bust and how were the Irish citizens were to blame?

How can somebody get 4 years for stealing and thus person gets 12 months for sexual assault?

robtri

7upfree wrote: »

The majority of people that I have spoken to. And on social media. Yep, there are a few cranks and begrudgers, but so tiny is their figure that it is of little consequence.

amazing that, the majority of people I have spoken to dont think its a good idea.... there are a few peter pans, who are away with the fairies alright who say they support it but they are so tiny .... strange that

johnsparkexile

"Why did the fund go bust and how was the Irish state to blame?"

The fund went bust because the company went into receivership,with the company gone and the workers having lost their jobs there was no one to pay into the fund.

When the fund was wound up it was worth 120 million euro but pension law at the time protected those who were already in receipt of a pension ie pensioners, over those who were members of the pension fund but who hadn't received their pension yet ie deferred members. So 40m euro had to be set aside in order to continue paying the pension of the pensioners which left 80m in the fund.

The assets (80M) weren't enough to cover the liabilities ( the pensions of the deferred members ) so the fund had to be wound up. The assets only covered between 18 - 26% of the deferred members pension entitlements.

The state weren't to blame for the fund collapsing but their failure to implement the EU directive on pension protection left them liable to compensate the workers. The 2013 pension protection legislation finally brought that directive into law 33 years later.

Beaner1

To summarise then, it was an underfunded ponzi scheme that collapsed when no new mugs came in to pay the pensions of the old members. Luckily the Union found a legal loophole to apportion the tiniest bit of blame on the state and they became the bottom rung mugs of the scheme.

johnsparkexile

No it was a pension scheme funded by its members, who had put in place measures to reduce its deficit,which was regulated by the Pensions Board and found to be administered correctly, that collapsed because WC went into receivership.

Their was no loophole, the State had failed in its duty as judged by the ECJ to protect workers pensions so are liable. The 2013 pension protection legislation is the States admission of their failure.

johnsparkexile

From a statement issued by the The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, T.D.,

'' The protection of employees in the event of employer insolvency is covered by an EU Directive 2008/94 (Insolvency Directive) which requires Member States to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees (and of persons having already left the employer) at the date of the employer’s insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement under supplementary or occupational pension schemes. This becomes an issue for defined benefit (DB) schemes in a “double insolvency” situation – where both the employer and the DB scheme are insolvent.''


No loophole,plain and simple, the failure of the State to implement that directive left them liable.

You can criticize the workers and union all you like , they had every right to sue the State. They won on each and every point that they argued, you don't agree with that but that won't stop the workers receiving their settlement.

Beaner1

The scheme was insolvent. The government did not cause that. Legislation would not have changed that.

johnsparkexile

Beaner1 wrote: »

The scheme was insolvent. The government did not cause that. Legislation would not have changed that.

The scheme was in deficit like the majority of pension schemes in the country, it only became insolvent when the company closed.

You could argue that the failure of the Government to loan the company 39m in 2008 brought about the collapse of the company so they were at fault.

The scheme was governed by State pension legislation and regulations and was addressing the deficit. In 2008 months before the company collapsed measures were put in place in consultation and with the agreement of the Pensions Board to bring the fund back into profitability by 2016, so in 2008 the state was happy that matters were being addressed.

Beaner1

It was always insolvent if it required new staff to pay the pensions of older members. The government had nothing to do with that.

johnsparkexile

Beaner1 wrote: »

It was always insolvent if it required new staff to pay the pensions of older members. The government had nothing to do with that.

So using your logic,all company pension funds are insolvent then

ec18

johnsparkexile wrote: »

So using your logic,all company pension funds are insolvent then

in the case of defined benefit yes

johnsparkexile

Apologies, should have specified that.

Beaner1

johnsparkexile wrote: »

So using your logic,all company pension funds are insolvent then

Most are because they promise too much with people paying in too little. They are not underfunded because of bad investments (look at investment averages over the past 30 years). Unions were kept quiet with overly generous pensions despite them having contributing a fraction of the actuarial value.