Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Okay, lets touch on a few points, I think we're arguing similar things just in different extremes.
First of all I consider the likelihood of Privatization of Canada Post somewhere on par with Canada planning a Moon landing. It could happen, but the odds are infinitesimal.
Further, even assuming that its in the conversation, Privatization of a National entity isnt like putting Postal Workers in a raft and cutting them loose, spinning off subsidiaries legally require all liabilities to be paid up and ergo the pension fund would have to be topped up. If they screwed it up from there then yes, that would be their problem.
Secondly, you're talking about the possibility of the current workers accepting the two-tiered system and then being outnumbered by newer workers on the new plan and having their old, grandfathered pension amended.
Again, this is highly unlikely, while its conceivable usually when these provisions are grandfathered in employees who arent part of it arent eligible to make changes to it. And further to that its also likely that Canada Post will be hiring fewer and fewer new employees so by the time the tipping point of power is reached it will likely affect almost no one.
Thirdly, Crown Corporation agreements are backed by the Government. I dont see where you get the idea that the taxpayers are not going to cover the shortfall of the pension. But for the moment, lets assume that your dream comes true and taxpayers are not on the hook for the unfunded portion:
Then Postal Workers, regardless of whether they accept the two-tiered system or not, are screwed. If that money isnt coming from the Government then it isnt coming from anywhere so CP wouldnt be able to cover it, it would likely lead to CP's insolvency then bankruptcy.
All while, what? The Government presumably idly watches on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs as they watch the ship slide quietly under the waves?
Then CUPW will have to change their acronym to the Canadian Union of Unemployed Postal Workers.
And finally, on my opinion on Defined Benefit Pension Plans and any supposed hypocrisy?
No hypocrisy on my part here. I dont care if you're a Postal Worker or the Prime Minister I believe that the Defined Benefit Pension model is inherently flawed and a huge drain on systemic resources and our economy and I dont believe anyone should get them.
Out of all of these pension funds in Canada both Federally and Provincially I think all but two of them have huge unfunded liabilities that consume vast budgetary resources.
As I indicated earlier, more and more people are starting to realize this fact and finally starting to do something about it.
|
My post was not meant to be taken as Canada post will privatize, I was just pointing out the fact that it could happen. I do feel as though they have taken steps in a direction that would certainly make it much more likely, however that aswell as your opinion that they won't, are just our opinions, and I'm pretty confident we both realize our opinions do not provide any kind of factual argument for or against the likely hood of this happening. So it's probably best we leave it at that.
To your point on having to pay off all liabilities before the sale of a business, the thing with this pension plan is that it is not currently in any sort of real debt, it is currently able to pay off its annual liabilities. It is likely to be in a bad spot down the road, however it would be like purchasing a company which has failed to turn a profit in the last 5 years, if they are losing $5M annually when you purchase said company they are not liable for future losses from years of them poorly running it. If Daryl Katz sold the oilers to some other poor unfortunate soul, the new owner would not be able to demand payment for lost playoff game revenue if their operating budget was based on breaking even by making the playoffs. The onus would be on the new owner to fix the issue, which in the case of the oilers I'm sure we can agree on that we both hope this never happens. This was just rough example of how when you purchase a company, the selling company is not liable for future losses, and with an investment based pension plan those losses are not guaranteed, no matter how likely they may be.
As far as the claim that the two tiered system does not risk giving the new workers the ability to modify the existing plan once the balance in voting power shifts, I can tell you that that is not accurate. In collective bargaining anything that is not protected by employment standards is subject to change in any round of negotiations. They could even put a clause in this agreement that they will never reduce the old plan, and that clause could be voted out in the next contract talks. This is a fact.
Finally to touch on the hypocrisy thing, I was not suggesting you were being a hypocrite at all, if you read my post I was simply stating that if the government was running Canada post as many seem to believe. It would be hypocritical of them to be trying to argue that the defined benefit pension plan must go, as almost all federal government officials have one. But as I said before I don't see it that way, as there is a difference between a crown corporation and a publicly funded service corporation like say Alberta Health Services. Writing this actually just made me ponder what type of pension the upper management at Canada Post receives. Also if the federal government was running the operations at Canada post it's highly unlikely they would ever let them strike.
You've made your views on DB pensions quite clear so even though I don't agree with your view on this labour dispute, I don't think anything you're saying is hypocritical at all. You are an accountant and are obviously very knowlegable on the numbers side of defined benefit pensions and the challenges they present. I appreciate and respect the experience and information you have been bringing to this thread. It's far more interesting and educating than for us to post back and fourth with you calling me a union shill and me calling you a...an...accounting shill? Is that what people call you guys when you give them facts about why they owe on their taxes and they don't agree?