Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The bolded part has zero liklihood, to the point of being funny.
I could see the union bosses now, "Hey workers, remember those CB's we've been in the last several decades guaranteeing us fixed pension payments based on our past contributions? Yeah, well, the investments they have made haven't panned out, and there's a shortfall, so now we're all going to volunteer to pay more, just to help the government along. We don't want any taxpayers paying for the agreement the government stupidly had with us all these decades."
That's rich.
|
Yes that is exactly what their union will say if it is the only option. Will it go over well? Probably not, but I'm sure it would go over better than the possibility of not having anything left in the funds when some of those members retire. The tax payers won't necessarily cover the costs, Canada post could privatize and claim bankruptcy and then those people would be SOL. I don't know why you think it is laughable, this is something that comes up a lot when negotiating pensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
^Same with the "we'll just keep going until the plan starts losing money" proposal. (a) it's already losing money, even if one year showed a small surplus, and (b) the union will simply say "not our problem".
|
I didn't say simply going with status quo, I spoke of putting in safeguards or agreed upon contingency plans. A) the plan was losing money, currently it's making money, no one can predict with certainty which way it will go. B) it will be there problem when some of this employees retire and there is nothing in the pension fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Because it doesn't account for the aging work force issue that Canada is having. The losses will probably accelerate, when you show a one year profit on a pension plan, its not the sign of pension health, it might be a sign of less workers retiring, maybe because of the Conservative short increase in pension age.
What you're talking about is a hope and a prayer strategy, well we showed a profit this year, so double meats for everyone.
At the end of the day a pension with a 6 billion dollar deficit is more likely to collapse under its own weight then rebound.
|
The strategy I mentioned was taking into account the risks associated with the current plan and putting in safe guards to protect it if the growth doesn't continue. Hope and prayer? No it's hope and plan, it could look like this, year 1 and 2, no increase in contributions, if the results were continued growth, continue with status quo, if it created a greater deficit, increase contributions at a set amount, after 2 years review the results, if the problem is getting fixed continue with this model, if things haven't improved, then maybe implement the new plan. It's a way both sides can get what they want without the all or nothing approach. Meeting in the middle, in other words come to a compromise, that's what collective bargaining usually requires after all.
At the end of the day eliminating contributions to a plan with an existing deficit is not going to help at all. If you think that the new plan members are going to accept contributing their dollars to a plan that will never benefit them I think that is wishful thinking. Ok so those employees don't have a say currently since they aren't employed yet, but when this contract expires you can bet money that those workers will fight tooth and nail to make sure they aren't paying for someone else's retirement at the expense of theirs.