** Breaking News** No Buses On Monday.

[coppercrutch]

This has come up a few times now that all this dispute is about is future employees.

 

I get my info from the union Unite whilst others seem to get it from the News of the Screws (it must be true then) or a bloke they spoke to at the game on Saturday.

 

From the Unite website;

 

Seven adverts have been placed in newspapers covering the whole of Scotland on behalf of the1,200 Grangemouth workers. They express regret for any potential inconvenience caused to the general public but explain that the workers have been left with no choice but to strike to defend their pensions.

 

In the advert the Unite members from the Grangemouth plant say that their pensions are an important part of their wages and that the changes Ineos are trying to force through, despite the fact their scheme is well-funded and affordable, will have a serious impact on their and their families futures. Ineos, the plant’s owner, is a multi million pound profit making company.

 

Unite National Officer, Phil McNulty said: “A lot of untruths have been peddled about the reasons for this strike. Our members have been accused of being greedy and irresponsible but this strike is not about getting more money from their employer or an attack on the ordinary people of Scotland.

 

The Grangemouth workers are having to strike to defend their existing pension scheme which, despite the fact it is well-funded and in profit, their hugely rich employer, Ineos, wants to close it.

 

“We wanted to explain directly to the people of Scotland that our members actions are not taken lightly and are intended to get Ineos to stop its’ attack on their pensions and is not in any way directed at them.”

 

Again, to avoid people having to read the entire post I have put the pertinent point in bold.

 

sides two story every to................

 

Please re-arrange the above words BK&M...

[Slick 21]

If the existing members of this scheme, are in the future, going to contribute at approx. 6% of ther salary per annum, then they are effectiveley accepting a wage-cut of 6%. Would you accept a 6% wage cut at your next pay review?

 

I understand that due to the expense of final salary schemes, it is now very common place to either close them to new entrants or future accrual. However this is normally when the scheme is in deficit, and the Employer cannot afford to keep it running. Is it not the case that this scheme is in surplus, and the Employer is more than able to afford the contributions due to the profits the company makes?

 

A Hobo who knows something.

[coppercrutch]

If the existing members of this scheme, are in the future, going to contribute at approx. 6% of ther salary per annum, then they are effectiveley accepting a wage-cut of 6%. Would you accept a 6% wage cut at your next pay review?

 

I understand that due to the expense of final salary schemes, it is now very common place to either close them to new entrants or future accrual. However this is normally when the scheme is in deficit, and the Employer cannot afford to keep it running. Is it not the case that this scheme is in surplus, and the Employer is more than able to afford the contributions due to the profits the company makes?

 

A Hobo who knows something.

 

The problem with pension schemes is they are actually volatile. They can be in surplus one month and deep in the doo doo the next. Clearly the more expensive they are to run makes them more risky. That is why they are trying to make them less expensive. My guess anyway.

[Slick 21]

The problem with pension schemes is they are actually volatile. They can be in surplus one month and deep in the doo doo the next. Clearly the more expensive they are to run makes them more risky. That is why they are trying to make them less expensive. My guess anyway.

 

 

In the hey-day of the late 80`s - Early 90`s, Employers benifited from the excellent investment return at that time, by taking contribution holidays.

So surely this is a scenario there-in, it`s pay-back time. And a company making such large profits, can well afford to take this on the chin.

[portobellojambo1]

If the existing members of this scheme, are in the future, going to contribute at approx. 6% of ther salary per annum, then they are effectiveley accepting a wage-cut of 6%. Would you accept a 6% wage cut at your next pay review?

 

I understand that due to the expense of final salary schemes, it is now very common place to either close them to new entrants or future accrual. However this is normally when the scheme is in deficit, and the Employer cannot afford to keep it running. Is it not the case that this scheme is in surplus, and the Employer is more than able to afford the contributions due to the profits the company makes?

 

A Hobo who knows something.

 

For someone earning ?5,000 per month, being asked to contribute ?300 per month to your pension scheme is like a drop of p i s s in the ocean.

[Slick 21]

For someone earning ?5,000 per month, being asked to contribute ?300 per month to your pension scheme is like a drop of p i s s in the ocean.

 

The numbers don`t matter. It`s still a future wage-cut.

 

Anything getting cheaper round your way, these days?

[Baird, King and Michael]

Again, to avoid people having to read the entire post I have put the pertinent point in bold.

 

sides two story every to................

 

Please re-arrange the above words BK&M...

 

 

 

Ha ha?.very good CC.

 

Of course there are 2 sides to every story.

 

That?s my point actually but the subtlety is missed on you.

 

You and others on this thread have stated a number of times now that this dispute is not about the current pension members but is in fact only about new employees.

 

This is clearly not the case and I used the Unite statement as proof.

 

Of course, maybe the union is lying and they?re really on strike to get a long weekend after the Old Firm game?..mmmm now I?m beginning to doubt them myself!