Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

Curly Judge

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Snobbery of the highest order. Impossible to talk to selfish people tbh.

I'd prefer snobbery to robbery!

fiachr_a

Curly Judge wrote: »

How much will the Waterford Crystal boyos pay towards my failed private pension?

Nothing, unless you belong to a union and have occupied your place of work in protest!

Pro Hoc Vice

Curly Judge wrote: »

The problem is that the people who should be held accountable for this fiasco won't suffer one iota.
They will wander off into the sunset with their public sector pensions and lump sums unscathed, while the taxpayer picks up the tab for their incompetence.
I think I'm being very generous in offering the workers their money back even though there is no moral obligation on me to do so.
If the government cave in and grant the 89% they are looking for it'll mean some of them will be collecting 840 euro per week pension.... out of my pocket.
I'll never accept that as being morally right...never!

There are lots of payments I don't think are morally right, but in this case morals don't come into it, it's law. So it does not matter what you or I think is moral, in this situation.

CatFromHue

The Pension issue is going to be major everywhere soon.

Alot of people everywhere have their pensions nearly wiped out.

deise blue

The offer by the State to pay 50% of the Crystal workers pension at a cost to the State of some € 100 million is to be welcomed , the fact that the State Old Age pension is excluded from this offer is also of importance.

However I am sure that this offer will merely be treated by the Union & the Crystal pensioners as an opening offer - the view must surely be that an offer closer to 90% is achievable as an appropriate precedent exists.

The Government must surely be aware that there is not a hope in hell of all the effected pensioners accepting this offer .

fuzzy dunlop

Curly Judge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/state-offers-to-fund-half-of-pension-pots-at-waterford-crystal-30115258.html
I hope they pay the bare minimum they can get away with under the law.
And even then it will be too much!

The government is liable. They are responsible for this. It is up to them to monitor the pension funds. It is the law and they are on the hook morally and legally. You might not like it but that is tough ****. These are ordinary people who had their lives ruined by the typical mismanagement that went on in this country and is still going on. If you are one of the people who voted for the status quo for the last 40 years then you are also rerpsonible. I'm guessing now you will say I never voted FF. But the fact is the reason we are in this mess is because of the policies followed and the lack of accountability most voters refuse to hold over their reps including today. So stop acting like you are Lilly White! You're not! This is ione of the few cases where the institutions of the state (courts) are actually protecting the citizens of the country like they are supposed to do and you are on here complaining about it.

Curly Judge

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

The government is liable. They are responsible for this. It is up to them to monitor the pension funds. It is the law and they are on the hook morally and legally. You might not like it but that is tough ****. These are ordinary people who had their lives ruined by the typical mismanagement that went on in this country and is still going on. If you are one of the people who voted for the status quo for the last 40 years then you are also rerpsonible. I'm guessing now you will say I never voted FF. But the fact is the reason we are in this mess is because of the policies followed and the lack of accountability most voters refuse to hold over their reps including today. So stop acting like you are Lilly White! You're not! This is ione of the few cases where the institutions of the state (courts) are actually protecting the citizens of the country like they are supposed to do and you are on here complaining about it.

Another mind reader whose arrogance allows him to reach conclusions beyond his capability.
I'll let you in on one of my little secrets though.
I am not a masochist!

Pro Hoc Vice

Curly Judge wrote: »

Another mind reader whose arrogance allows him to reach conclusions beyond his capability.
I'll let you in on one of my little secrets though.
I am not a masochist!

Shows total lack of reasonable argument if a person has to resort to insults. If you think it supports your thesis to be insulting you are wrong.

Curly Judge

deise blue wrote: »

The offer by the State to pay 50% of the Crystal workers pension at a cost to the State of some € 100 million is to be welcomed , the fact that the State Old Age pension is excluded from this offer is also of importance.

However I am sure that this offer will merely be treated by the Union & the Crystal pensioners as an opening offer - the view must surely be that an offer closer to 90% is achievable as an appropriate precedent exists.

The Government must surely be aware that there is not a hope in hell of all the effected pensioners accepting this offer .

I just hope the government stick to the 50% and say, "Right lads ...take it or leave it".
The ECJ ruling does not require them to go above 50%.
What are the WC workers going to do?
Leave us short of fancy decanters?

Curly Judge

infosys wrote: »

Shows total lack of reasonable argument if a person has to resort to insults. If you think it supports your thesis to be insulting you are wrong.

Are you for real?
Up until now it's been your mates Deise and Dicky who have been making the personal attacks.

Pro Hoc Vice

Curly Judge wrote: »

Are you for real?
Up until now it's been your mates Deise and Dicky who have been making the personal attacks.

I don't know Deise or Dicky, I have made no personal attacks, and only noticed your one. It is Sunday much easier just to be nice. BTW I am real, I even gave myself a pinch to confirm.

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

I just hope the government stick to the 50% and say, "Right lads ...take it or leave it".
The ECJ ruling does not require them to go above 50%.
What are the WC workers going to do?
Leave us short of fancy decanters?

Ah but you see there is a precedent where 90 % of the expected pension was awarded - I really cannot believe that the current Government would relish a further challenge/appeal to the European Court.

The current offer by the Government is an interesting opening position - half the expected pension including a substantial lump sum of arrears plus the OAP in due course to those who have yet to achieve the appropriate age - I would imagine however that the view shared by such pensioners & their Union is that such offer does not meet their expectations.

I am delighted to note that you have at last realised that what you feel is an appropriate payment to the Crystal workers is not achievable & you have therefore rowed in behind the Government's offer.

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

Are you for real?
Up until now it's been your mates Deise and Dicky who have been making the personal attacks.

More than a hint of paranoia on your part , I certainly feel that your argument is based on a level of begrudery based on the fact that your personally funded pension was ravaged & that your arguments fail on the legal basis adjudicated on by the European Court but I never descended to personal abuse.

Indeed you were the one that was asked to behave in a civil manner by a moderator.

jo06555

Great .. more money for the hard working taxpayers to fork out ....! Was the poster who said some of these pension payments could go as far as 840 a week right??? If so they should not expect a good reaction from the people who will be paying them I.e : Normal people all ready struggling to make their own lifes sustainable. . And having to pay for mistakes of others , this country is a different place now and I do not see how some should live as if its still the boom times , im all for people getting what they paid to a pension but if they are looking for lots more in these times of struggle they will get no sympathy .

fuzzy dunlop

Curly Judge wrote: »

Another mind reader whose arrogance allows him to reach conclusions beyond his capability.
I'll let you in on one of my little secrets though.
I am not a masochist!

There is no arrogance except in your mind. You obviously have a serious chip on your shoulder about it and its obvious to see its unjustified. This is why we appont judges and have a judiciary so that every bitter nobody can't indulge in their pet hates. Their is plenty of things to get outrage about but this isn't one of them. They had their day in court along with the government and the government lost. Suck it up!

Royal Legend

jo06555 wrote: »

Great .. more money for the hard working taxpayers to fork out ....! Was the poster who said some of these pension payments could go as far as 840 a week right??? If so they should not expect a good reaction from the people who will be paying them I.e : Normal people all ready struggling to make their own lifes sustainable. . And having to pay for mistakes of others , this country is a different place now and I do not see how some should live as if its still the boom times , im all for people getting what they paid to a pension but if they are looking for lots more in these times of struggle they will get no sympathy .

Sorry but I could not agree with you. I am not an ex-crystal worker, nor do I have close friends that were. I moved to Waterford over 20 years ago and my first experience of the crystal was the strike that was going on at that time.
Most other people at the time in Waterford had not got much sympathy for the glass workers then, as they were on seriously big wages. There was also a very militant part of the union, some of the main ones involved then are now big players in the trade union movement.
Over a period of years the management broke the union. one item I always remember is that one year Waterford Crystal won brand of the year, beating competition worldwide such as Coca Cola. The same year if memory serves me correct, they also quadrupled their profits after tripling them the previous year. Within a few months, they were letting people go in Waterford, to ensure that the shareholders kept their level of profits.
I worked with people who had siblings in the glass and one of the things was that the workers put a large portion of their wages into the pension, some as high as £200 per week, yes that's £s not €s. They were saving for their retirement and had options to retire early, take a lumpsum and reduced pension, which some did or wait till retirement and take a bigger pension.
Personally, if I was putting in €200 per week plus into a pension fund for years and I got done out of it, I would be extremely pissed and if the government were doing their job then it should not have been allowed happen.
peoples outrage at €840 per week is misguided, if you were paying in enough to warrant €840 per week, then that's what you are entitled to.

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

I just hope the government stick to the 50% and say, "Right lads ...take it or leave it".
The ECJ ruling does not require them to go above 50%.
What are the WC workers going to do?
Leave us short of fancy decanters?

What an absolutely disrespectful statement. Te workers making those "fancy decanters" placed Waterford on the map worldwide. It was a national institution. The amount of money which they paid in tax was horrific.

And yet those failed business entities (banks) were deemed more important. Bailed out, with €1.2 billion of that bailout money going into one of the banks pension fund.

And you have the audacity to criticise workers fighting for their just entitlements?

The implications of this decision are wide and far-reaching for ALL workers. Good luck to them. I hope they get every cent.

Curly Judge

deise blue wrote: »

Ah but you see there is a precedent where 90 % of the expected pension was awarded - I really cannot believe that the current Government would relish a further challenge/appeal to the European Court.

The current offer by the Government is an interesting opening position - half the expected pension including a substantial lump sum of arrears plus the OAP in due course to those who have yet to achieve the appropriate age - I would imagine however that the view shared by such pensioners & their Union is that such offer does not meet their expectations.

I am delighted to note that you have at last realised that what you feel is an appropriate payment to the Crystal workers is not achievable & you have therefore rowed in behind the Government's offer.

What is this famous precedent you are going on about?
If you're talking about the award the British government decided to pay the Wedgwood workers I don't see how that sets a precedent for this [supposedly independent] country.
Incidentally I have not rowed in behind the governments 50% offer.
The ECJ ruling was wrong but in the absence of this spineless government saying even boo, in case it would upset the European hierarchy, anything which can reduce the taxpayers exposure to this nonsense ranks as a least worst option.

Curly Judge

7upfree wrote: »

What an absolutely disrespectful statement. Te workers making those "fancy decanters" placed Waterford on the map worldwide. It was a national institution. The amount of money which they paid in tax was horrific.

And yet those failed business entities (banks) were deemed more important. Bailed out, with €1.2 billion of that bailout money going into one of the banks pension fund.

And you have the audacity to criticise workers fighting for their just entitlements?

The implications of this decision are wide and far-reaching for ALL workers. Good luck to them. I hope they get every cent.

And I hope you are prepared to pay for it?

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

What is this famous precedent you are going on about?
If you're talking about the award the British government decided to pay the Wedgwood workers I don't see how that sets a precedent for this [supposedly independent] country.
Incidentally I have not rowed in behind the governments 50% offer.
The ECJ ruling was wrong but in the absence of this spineless government saying even boo, in case it would upset the European hierarchy, anything which can reduce the taxpayers exposure to this nonsense ranks as a least worst option.

The legislation in question which FF to their eternal shame failed to enact is EC wide , the fact that Britain as a fellow EC member awarded 90% to workers in the same position as the Glass workers has undoubtedly set a precedent .

As members of the EC our state was found to be negligent in not enacting the required legislation - your contention that in this regard we are an independent State is a red herring , we are members of the EC & are bound by mutually agreed legislation & indeed findings by the European Courts.

Equally your contention that the ECJ ruling is wrong is complete balderdash - for God's sake our Government couldn't even mount a cogent defence to the employees/unions case - in any event the point is moot , the decision has been made.

Of course you have rowed in with the Government's offer - why else would you describe it as " the least worst option " ? - good to see you at last grasping the reality of the situation !

Curly Judge

deise blue wrote: »

The legislation in question which FF to their eternal shame failed to enact is EC wide , the fact that Britain as a fellow EC member awarded 90% to workers in the same position as the Glass workers has undoubtedly set a precedent .

As members of the EC our state was found to be negligent in not enacting the required legislation - your contention that in this regard we are an independent State is a red herring , we are members of the EC & are bound by mutually agreed legislation & indeed findings by the European Courts.

Equally your contention that the ECJ ruling is wrong is complete balderdash - for God's sake our Government couldn't even mount a cogent defence to the employees/unions case - in any event the point is moot , the decision has been made.

Of course you have rowed in with the Government's offer - why else would you describe it as " the least worst option " ? - good to see you at last grasping the reality of the situation !

Good to see the Deises out in force and hunting in packs.
Reminds me of the old GBS saying: "People who propose robbing Peter to pay Paul can generally depend on the support of Paul"

Back to the point at hand.
Is it your contention that the UK paying 90% sets a precedent for us?
How so?
As far as I know the ECJ didn't rule on the percentage of the award.
The UK award may have set a level, but a level is not a precedent.

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

Good to see the Deises out in force and hunting in packs.
Reminds me of the old GBS saying: "People who propose robbing Peter to pay Paul can generally depend on the support of Paul"

Back to the point at hand.
Is it your contention that the UK paying 90% sets a precedent for us?
How so?
As far as I know the ECJ didn't rule on the percentage of the award.
The UK award may have set a level, but a level is not a precedent.

" Hunting in packs " - you are one paranoid puppy !

" GBS " ? , George Bernard Shaw or more General Bull S**t .

A precedent is defined as an earlier event that acts as a guide - the 90% is where the level of expectancy now rests - is this achievable ? I certainly hope so.

Still it is encouraging to note that the Glass workers will also be entitled to the OAP on top of any agreed pension amount & substantial arrears.

BadCharlie

The workers should get their money; it’s the right thing to do.
If I gave 20 or more years and paid into a pension and then got noting? If I was rich or not I still would be rightly pissed off.

People plan for retirement. Life does not end when you get to retirement.
I don't fancy working all my life, pay my taxes & pension then get to my retirement & told sorry the life you planed for yourself and family won’t happen because your pension pot is now closed.

These people worked all their life’s & did not sponge of their state for their entire existences.

Curly Judge

BadCharlie wrote: »

The workers should get their money; it’s the right thing to do.
If I gave 20 or more years and paid into a pension and then got noting? If I was rich or not I still would be rightly pissed off.

People plan for retirement. Life does not end when you get to retirement.
I don't fancy working all my life, pay my taxes & pension then get to my retirement & told sorry the life you planed for yourself and family won’t happen because your pension pot is now closed.

These people worked all their life’s & did not sponge of their state for their entire existences.

And are you going to do the same for all the workers at:
Aer Lingus, Bord na Mona, DAA and god knows how many more outfits around the country whose workforce are big on expectation but short when it comes to contributions.
I would love to know how often the famous Unite opposed higher member contributions to the pension fund when the company was up and running?

BadCharlie

You should get what you put in Curly Judge it’s as Simple as that. If you don't, who in their right mind would ever sign up to a pension in the future? Also a pension should not be a gravy train & exploited... but that is not what we are on about here.

They should get what they put into it Simple.

Curly Judge

BadCharlie wrote: »

You should get what you put in Curly Judge it’s as Simple as that. If you don't, who in their right mind would ever sign up to a pension in the future? Also a pension should not be a gravy train & exploited... but that is not what we are on about here.

They should get what they put into it Simple.

They should get what they put in.
I've absolutely no problem with that.
But that's not what they're looking for ....is it?

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

They should get what they put in.
I've absolutely no problem with that.
But that's not what they're looking for ....is it?

Of course it's not , the employees & their Union are seeking to achieve as much as possible of their contracted pension - thankfully the ECJ have agreed although that percentage has yet to be agreed by the High Court.

It is encouraging to note that the State has agreed to provide €100,000 million to fund 50% of the pension expectancy , the employees will also be in receipt of the OAP at the appropriate time (indeed some are already in receipt of the OAP )+ a lump sum for any arrears of pension.

Will that State offer be accepted ? - I think not but it's a good starting point.

There really is not much point in continuing this debate as unfortunately you continue to ignore the legalities & reality of the situation - nothing could be simpler , the employees won their case , the state obviously lost & all that has to be decided is the percentage payable.

You are certainly entitled to a contrary view but you must surely realise that you are pissing into the wind & that your alternative solutions are simply wishful thinking.

Curly Judge

deise blue wrote: »

Of course it's not , the employees & their Union are seeking to achieve as much as possible of their contracted pension - thankfully the ECJ have agreed although that percentage has yet to be agreed by the High Court.

It is encouraging to note that the State has agreed to provide €100,000 million to fund 50% of the pension expectancy , the employees will also be in receipt of the OAP at the appropriate time (indeed some are already in receipt of the OAP )+ a lump sum for any arrears of pension.

Will that State offer be accepted ? - I think not but it's a good starting point.

There really is not much point in continuing this debate as unfortunately you continue to ignore the legalities & reality of the situation - nothing could be simpler , the employees won their case , the state obviously lost & all that has to be decided is the percentage payable.

You are certainly entitled to a contrary view but you must surely realise that you are pissing into the wind & that your alternative solutions are simply wishful thinking.

Making the assumption [and it's a big one] that anybody in power plays a blind bit of notice to anything that is said on Boards, my objective is to strengthen the resolve of the politicians and civil servants to get them to stick to the least worst option of 50%.
Given the tsunami of claims about to descend on us from other pensions in trouble, that would not be a bad days work.

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

Making the assumption [and it's a big one] that anybody in power plays a blind bit of notice to anything that is said on Boards, my objective is to strengthen the resolve of the politicians and civil servants to get them to stick to the least worst option of 50%.
Given the tsunami of claims about to descend on us from other pensions in trouble, that would not be a bad days work.

That would be 50% plus the OAP + arrears

To think that the State pays any attention to this debate is a conceit on your part , if they did then perhaps the fact that so many posters disagree with your stance may have damaged your case.

As for the tsunami of claims - perhaps you could provide a few examples ?

fiachr_a

What happens to the workers who've died? Do their families still get this pay out?