Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

deisemum

Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

Case over pension taken against State to European body in Luxembourg



The European Court of Justice has found in favour of Waterford Crystal workers in a case taken over their pensions.

The workers took the case against the State to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for its failure to establish a pension protection system and were seeking compensation.

Waterford Crystal was placed in receivership in January 2009 and the company’s pension schemes were wound up two months later with a deficit of more than €100 million.

Given the funding levels in the pension schemes, each plaintiff was offered payments representing between 18 per cent and 30 per cent of their entitlements but say, following a 2007 European court decision, they are entitled to at least 49 per cent.

In its judgement today the court said the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to its 2007 ruling “have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would recveive in execess of 49 per cent of the value of their acfcrued old age pension” . This was a “serious breach” of Ireland’s obligations, the courts said.

It said the economics situation of Ireland “does not constitute and exceptional situation capable of justifying the lower level of porotection” of employees for pensions, the ruling said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/court-rules-in-favour-of-waterford-crystal-workers-1.1372378

KevIRL

Fair play to them, gonna have some pretty big knock on percussions on other employers trying to do similar.

mike65

KevIRL wrote: »

Fair play to them, gonna have some pretty big knock on percussions on other employers trying to do similar.

Good news for the workers.

Curly Judge

While I have every sympathy with Waterford Crystal workers and the plight they find themselves in, I fail to see why I, as a taxpayer, should be responsible for the failed aspirations of a group of people who pay into an unrealistic defined benefit scheme and came up disappointed.
When this goes back to the High Court here I hope that the judge will rule that the pension should be calculated on a defined contribution basis!

deise blue

What a brilliant day !

Massive kudos to the workers & the Unite Trade Union who refused to be browbeaten by the State -let's hope the High Court are equitable when it comes to deciding on the percentage payable.

Max Powers

agree with that, im delighted for the people who were screwed on their pension but why should tax payer pay for it. Pensions are a mess in this country, all pension funds should be untouchable and put into safe, secure low interest accounts. I recognise that blue chips stocks like bank shares were once safe bets so something better than that obviously.
I think the minimum they will be entitled to now is 49% of what they were due, a similar case in the UK had that outcome

O Riain

Is this pensions just for the workers mentioned or for all workers who were affected?

Sesshoumaru

Oh great, more taxes for the rest of us so. I love having to pay for other people's private pensions.

O Riain

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Oh great, more taxes for the rest of us so. I love having to pay for other people's private pensions.

In fairness tax wise for the whole country this wont make much of a dent on each individual person but could be a nice cash injection for the city.

deise blue

O Riain wrote: »

Is this pensions just for the workers mentioned or for all workers who were affected?

The test case was taken by 10 workers but the ruling will apply to all workers & incidentally not only in the Glass but all other workers similarly effected.

deise blue

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Oh great, more taxes for the rest of us so. I love having to pay for other people's private pensions.

In fairness the blame lies firmly at the door of the State - in particular FF who failed to provide a pension protection scheme even though they knew that same was required under EU regulation - again a case of that discredited party kicking the can down the road !

jonnyfingers

Curly Judge wrote: »

While I have every sympathy with Waterford Crystal workers and the plight they find themselves in, I fail to see why I, as a taxpayer, should be responsible for the failed aspirations of a group of people who pay into an unrealistic defined benefit scheme and came up disappointed.
When this goes back to the High Court here I hope that the judge will rule that the pension should be calculated on a defined contribution basis!

Now, now. Don't be angry at the Crystal workers. It is the government's fault for not putting in the necessary legislation to protect pensions after a case was brought against the UK government for the same issue.

It's because of the government's ineptness that they will now need to pay up. And rightly so.

Sesshoumaru

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Now, now. Don't be angry at the Crystal workers. It is the government's fault for not putting in the necessary legislation to protect pensions after a case was brought against the UK government for the same issue.

It's because of the government's ineptness that they will now need to pay up. And rightly so.

The government pay up by dipping their hand into every tax payers pocket. Where else does the money come from? Do you think the TD's pass around a bucket in the Dail and chip in out of their own pocket in order to pay these people a pension? This means more services cut and more taxes for the rest of us. What a sick joke!

O Riain

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The government pay up by dipping their hand into every tax payers pocket. Where else does the money come from? Do you think the TD's pass around a bucket in the Dail and chip in out of their own pocket in order to pay these people a pension? This means more services cut and more taxes for the rest of us. What a sick joke!

Still not the workers faults

jonnyfingers

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The government pay up by dipping their hand into every tax payers pocket. Where else does the money come from? Do you think the TD's pass around a bucket in the Dail and chip in out of their own pocket in order to pay these people a pension? This means more services cut and more taxes for the rest of us. What a sick joke!

I do know where the government get their revenue from thank you.

My point is that the government that were elected by the people ****ed this up on the tax payer's behalf. That makes everyone responsible. If people don't like it then it's up to them to try and vote for more competent individuals in the future.

As it stands they made a mistake and everyone needs to pay up. Any anger should be directed at the government who made the mistake and not at "these people" as you put it.

Sesshoumaru

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I do know where the government get their revenue from thank you.

My point is that the government that were elected by the people ****ed this up on the tax payer's behalf. That makes everyone responsible. If people don't like it then it's up to them to try and vote for more competent individuals in the future.

As it stands they made a mistake and everyone needs to pay up. Any anger should be directed at the government who made the mistake and not at "these people" as you put it.

So ignoring the legalities of the situation, in an ideal world say... you would agree the tax payer shouldn't be responsible for losses on private pensions?

Just because there isn't a law to stop this carry on, doesn't alter the fact that the union have exploited the system to swindle a lot of money out of the tax payer in order to cover their private pension losses. It also doesn't alter the fact that with such large sums of money involved (at least from what I've read), services and taxes will be hit. But hey, who cares if everyone else is a few euro poorer every month and some health services are withdrawn? :rolleyes:

deise blue

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So ignoring the legalities of the situation, in an ideal world say... you would agree the tax payer shouldn't be responsible for losses on private pensions?

Just because there isn't a law to stop this carry on, doesn't alter the fact that the union have exploited the system to swindle a lot of money out of the tax payer in order to cover their private pension losses. It also doesn't alter the fact that with such large sums of money involved (at least from what I've read), services and taxes will be hit. But hey, who cares if everyone else is a few euro poorer every month and some health services are withdrawn? :rolleyes:

Your entire argument falls when you post " So ignoring the legalities of the situation "

Unfortunately you are not alone in this , the State ignored their legal obligations to legislate for a workable pension protection fund & as such have now been hoist by their own petard.

Now that the stable door has slammed firmly closed on their arse it should be interesting as to how the State now intends to remedy matters.

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

While I have every sympathy with Waterford Crystal workers and the plight they find themselves in, I fail to see why I, as a taxpayer, should be responsible for the failed aspirations of a group of people who pay into an unrealistic defined benefit scheme and came up disappointed.
When this goes back to the High Court here I hope that the judge will rule that the pension should be calculated on a defined contribution basis!

Rubbish. Do you not see the greater picture? This judgement has far reaching implications for the protection of ALL funds. And it's all the more sweet given that AIB were allowed top up their pension fund by €1.2 BILLION by the government.

Well done to everyone. And good luck to you.

7upfree

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The government pay up by dipping their hand into every tax payers pocket. Where else does the money come from? Do you think the TD's pass around a bucket in the Dail and chip in out of their own pocket in order to pay these people a pension? This means more services cut and more taxes for the rest of us. What a sick joke!

Let's not forget the MILLIONS that these workers paid into the Government tax take in the 1980s when the country was on its uppers. Although some people posting here seem to forget it.

7upfree

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Just because there isn't a law to stop this carry on, doesn't alter the fact that the union have exploited the system to swindle a lot of money out of the tax payer in order to cover their private pension losses.

Sweet Jesus.:rolleyes:

Sesshoumaru

7upfree wrote: »

Let's not forget the MILLIONS that these workers paid into the Government tax take in the 1980s when the country was on its uppers. Although some people posting here seem to forget it.

We pay taxes so that we can have hospitals, roads, gardai, army, civil service etc. Those taxes were spent to provide all the services a state normally provides to people. Those people received those services or are you claiming they didn't live in Ireland?

Sesshoumaru

deise blue wrote: »

Your entire argument falls when you post " So ignoring the legalities of the situation "

Unfortunately you are not alone in this , the State ignored their legal obligations to legislate for a workable pension protection fund & as such have now been hoist by their own petard.

Now that the stable door has slammed firmly closed on their arse it should be interesting as to how the State now intends to remedy matters.

I never claimed they had done anything illegal, the only argument that falls down is the one inside your head that you think I made. They exploited a system and are now set to pocket other peoples money. I never once said they had done anything legally wrong. Clearly they haven't since the ECJ has ruled in their favour.

What can sort of tick me off is when people talk about "the government paying"... as though the government had some sort of magic leprechaun pot of gold that it paid for things out of. <- That comment not directed at you, just saying generally.

Curly Judge

7upfree wrote: »

Rubbish. Do you not see the greater picture? This judgement has far reaching implications for the protection of ALL funds. And it's all the more sweet given that AIB were allowed top up their pension fund by €1.2 BILLION by the government.

Well done to everyone. And good luck to you.

To be fair to all sides:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82019170

deise blue

You prefaced your post no 16 above by stating " So ignoring the legalities of the situation " - everything that followed was therefore tainted.

The point remains that they should never have been forced to take their case to the European Court as the State should have legislated for a pension protection scheme-there is no question of exploiting or swindling the system because unfortunately the State never had a system in place.

As the ECJ ruled in favour of the Glass workers on all counts it is therefore undeniable that the State failed to support their case , therefore the State is totally to blame.

Yes , the State will have to find the money somewhere but as the ruling confirms that is purely their fault & not the workers.

jonnyfingers

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So ignoring the legalities of the situation, in an ideal world say... you would agree the tax payer shouldn't be responsible for losses on private pensions?

Just because there isn't a law to stop this carry on, doesn't alter the fact that the union have exploited the system to swindle a lot of money out of the tax payer in order to cover their private pension losses. It also doesn't alter the fact that with such large sums of money involved (at least from what I've read), services and taxes will be hit. But hey, who cares if everyone else is a few euro poorer every month and some health services are withdrawn? :rolleyes:

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I never claimed they had done anything illegal, the only argument that falls down is the one inside your head that you think I made. They exploited a system and are now set to pocket other peoples money. I never once said they had done anything legally wrong. Clearly they haven't since the ECJ has ruled in their favour.

What can sort of tick me off is when people talk about "the government paying"... as though the government had some sort of magic leprechaun pot of gold that it paid for things out of. <- That comment not directed at you, just saying generally.

Yes in an ideal world one taxpayer should have nothing to do with another taxpayer's private pension. Also in an ideal world if a company goes bust the private pension fund should still be there for all those that contributed to it. And even in our non-ideal world that pension fund should have been protected by government legislation which they didn't enact. So the government is responsible for an illegal active, which the court has ruled, so needs to pay what it owes. The government represents the people so unfortunately they have to pay for the sins of that government. That is a downside of democracy. But democracy does also mean you can vote for who you want to represent you, so people should exercise that right as carefully as possible.

The unions here have not exploited anything. They have fought the Irish state for something they are entitled to. They have also set the precedent so everyone else with a pension in Ireland should be better protected in future.

And you say they are pocketing other peoples money. They have paid their taxes for years to the state as well and are entitled to get some of that back due to the government's ineptness.

As for everyone else being poorer every month as a result of this, the amount that the Crystal workers will get will be a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money the government has handed over to the banks, or to unsecured bondholders, or even the cost of tribunals set up to investigate corrupt TDs.

The people of Ireland pay taxes to help fund the country. The people of Ireland elect a government to manage that fund. If you don't accept how the government spends that money, then it's up to each individual to work together to change that. Until that happens you have no right to complain about where your tax euro's go.

Nobody likes paying for the mistakes of others but if you're looking to blame anyone in this situation it is the government, and in some part, by proxy, those who elected them. The unions, the workers and also those who exercised their legal right in this situation are not to blame.

jonnyfingers

Another quick point about who pays for what. Don't forget that the government decided to fight this case in court even though there was already a precedent from the UK that showed they were very likely to lose.

With the ruling today it can be seen that the decision to fight the case wasted a lot of taxpayer's money too. I would love to see the exact figures but I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

Curly Judge

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Yes in an ideal world one taxpayer should have nothing to do with another taxpayer's private pension. Also in an ideal world if a company goes bust the private pension fund should still be there for all those that contributed to it. And even in our non-ideal world that pension fund should have been protected by government legislation which they didn't enact. So the government is responsible for an illegal active, which the court has ruled, so needs to pay what it owes. The government represents the people so unfortunately they have to pay for the sins of that government. That is a downside of democracy. But democracy does also mean you can vote for who you want to represent you, so people should exercise that right as carefully as possible.

The unions here have not exploited anything. They have fought the Irish state for something they are entitled to. They have also set the precedent so everyone else with a pension in Ireland should be better protected in future.

And you say they are pocketing other peoples money. They have paid their taxes for years to the state as well and are entitled to get some of that back due to the government's ineptness.

As for everyone else being poorer every month as a result of this, the amount that the Crystal workers will get will be a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money the government has handed over to the banks, or to unsecured bondholders, or even the cost of tribunals set up to investigate corrupt TDs.

The people of Ireland pay taxes to help fund the country. The people of Ireland elect a government to manage that fund. If you don't accept how the government spends that money, then it's up to each individual to work together to change that. Until that happens you have no right to complain about where your tax euro's go.

Nobody likes paying for the mistakes of others but if you're looking to blame anyone in this situation it is the government, and in some part, by proxy, those who elected them. The unions, the workers and also those who exercised their legal right in this situation are not to blame.

Do you feel that the taxpayer should be supporting a defined benefit or a defined contribution pension in the Waterford case?

jonnyfingers

Curly Judge wrote: »

Do you feel that the taxpayer should be supporting a defined benefit or a defined contribution pension in the Waterford case?

I feel whatever scheme the workers had needs to be honoured. The fact of the matter is if the legislation was in place we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's not the workers fault they had a generous pension scheme.

Also I need to research the situation again fully, as it has been a few years since I looked into it, but I'm pretty sure if the legislation was in place the company would have been required to honour the pensions when they went bust, and as a result anyone who bought the company would have had to honour the pensions. Instead the new owners were able to buy the brand for practically nothing and also were able to refuse to take on the debt of the pensions that were owed due to the lack of legislation.

If that's the case, had the government done their job there would be no question of taxpayer's supporting anything.

jad2007

Interesting to note the universal almost universal political support from our local politicians on Facebook for the workers.

Noted by his abscence is FF Gary Wyse.

Curly Judge

What degree of leverage will the workers expect based on their contributions?
I feel that a pound for pound contribution by the taxpayer - viz a vie what was deducted from the workers down the years - together with a modest rate of interest should be more than enough and that any grandiose expectations of enhanced "entitlements" should be knocked on the head straight off.

7upfree

Curly Judge wrote: »

Do you feel that the taxpayer should be supporting a defined benefit or a defined contribution pension in the Waterford case?

Most certainly defined benefit. The Government were - allegedly - overseeing these schemes to ensure compliance. They didn't. They're liable.

We have watched those banksters and developers get one thing after another - to which they were never entitled - since 2008.

This is a victory for normal, decent, hardworking people. At last.

deise blue

Curly Judge wrote: »

What degree of leverage will the workers expect based on their contributions?
I feel that a pound for pound contribution by the taxpayer - viz a vie what was deducted from the workers down the years - together with a modest rate of interest should be more than enough and that any grandiose expectations of enhanced "entitlements" should be knocked on the head straight off.

The High court will decide on the % payable to the workers effected - it will be at least 49% but hopefully closer to the 90% precedentially set in the UK 2007 case taken along the same lines as the Glass case - such percentages will be the parameters under which the High Court will reach their decision , it should also be borne in mind that if the union/workers are unhappy with the High Court ruling then they can appeal to the ECJ presumably by appealing matters initially through our Supreme Court , there is also the question of the massive amount that will become due in terms of backdating pensions.

The proposal as set out by you is not a runner as such a suggestion falls outside the bailiwick of the High Court in this case.

Bards

I wonder will it have any bearing on the private pension levy. I.E value of my pension is being eroded by an illegal act of the govt. taxing the capital by way of levy, therefore i am not gaining the full value of my pension to which i paid.

Interesting times indeed.

Dicky Pride

Usually, Enda Kenny has a smug, almost oblivious simper across his face...in this video he looks a tad pissed off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8eyFZ7s5Y

In addition to paying up to 58% in tax, Waterford Crystal workers contributed MASSIVELY, without argument to, local charities and worthwhile causes. I could list a dozen that I know of personally right now. Institutions that wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for the contributions of those 1500 people. And they contributed to their own pensions. This is their money. Money that should be waiting for them upon retirement, and they are being forced to fight for it.

Generally without fail, the Irish government will implement all
directives that come from the EU...unless it involves them putting their hands in their pockets. Eamon Gilmore, before he was elected into government, told the Waterford Crystal workers that he would "fight tooth and nail" for their pensions. Once elected, he did nothing. No surprises there.

When Carol Robbins won her case against the British government in 2007 the EU changed how governments should handle their people's pensions. The Irish Government chose to ignore those directions and thanks to Thomas Hogan, John Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh and Jimmy Kelly and others at UNITE, they are now being forced to account for their actions.

Anyone who begrudges these workers their money, should be ashamed of themselves.

fuzzy dunlop

Curly Judge wrote: »

What degree of leverage will the workers expect based on their contributions?
I feel that a pound for pound contribution by the taxpayer - viz a vie what was deducted from the workers down the years - together with a modest rate of interest should be more than enough and that any grandiose expectations of enhanced "entitlements" should be knocked on the head straight off.

What you feel doesn't really matter. That is why we have judges to arbitrate within the EU law that " the state"signed up to. Is it fair that the taxpayer ultimately pays? Yes it is. The state has responsibilities so does the taxpayer through the state and vice versa.

Curly Judge

7upfree wrote: »

Most certainly defined benefit. The Government were - allegedly - overseeing these schemes to ensure compliance. They didn't. They're liable.

We have watched those banksters and developers get one thing after another - to which they were never entitled - since 2008.

This is a victory for normal, decent, hardworking people. At last.

It would be a victory if bankers and the people who spent their pension money on other adventures were the ones who now had to cough up.
It would be a victory civil servants and politicians who fell down on the job had to forego their own pensions.
To call this a victory is a strange use of language.
I don't feel particularly victorious this evening knowing that I'm probably facing another levy to pay for it all.

fuzzy dunlop

Curly Judge wrote: »

It would be a victory if bankers and the people who spent their pension money on other adventures were the ones who now had to cough up.
It would be a victory civil servants and politicians who fell down on the job had to forego their own pensions.
To call this a victory is a strange use of language.
I don't feel particularly victorious this evening knowing that I'm probably facing another levy to pay for it all.

You are just coming across as resentful. If justice depended on justice happening somewhere else first then there would be none at all. This is one of the few cases where the ordinary workers are getting some sort of break that is entirely within the law.. And you are against it.Odd to say the least.

chainsawman

I am disappointed with negative comments, I worked there for over 30 years and paid the pension contributions of over €50 a week. And tells me we are not entitled to it. Anyway, Thanks to all who congratulates us Crystal workers. Victory to the former crystal workers. And to the Unite Unions for their marvellous job.

ex_infantry

the government were given plenty of opportunity to save waterford crystal at the time but chose to do nothing just like they did with bell lines and let yet another industry to leave waterford without jobs

Curly Judge

chainsawman wrote: »

I am disappointed with negative comments, I worked there for over 30 years and paid the pension contributions of over €50 a week. And tells me we are not entitled to it. Anyway, Thanks to all who congratulates us Crystal workers. Victory to the former crystal workers. And to the Unite Unions for their marvellous job.

Being very generous, I'll allow that you paid in 78,000 over the thirty years you were privileged to work there.
At today's rates that pot would probable qualify you for a pension of about 100 euro per week. Will you be happy with that or do you expect me and other taxpayers to top it up to your "entitlement"?
The Unite union did a wonderful job in boosting your wages to 2,200 for a 39 hour week and negotiating severance payments of 121,000 for someone with 25 years service.
In the end the factory closed.
I wonder why?

deise blue

You really are going to swallow what is obviously a very bitter pill for you given that your own private pension has been decimated through no fault of your own.

The ECJ ruled that the State were obviously in breach of the 2008 insolvency directive - if the State had legislated as they should have then this thread would be moot.

There is no point in directing your ire at the workers or the Union.

chainsawman

Curly Judge wrote: »

Being very generous, I'll allow that you paid in 78,000 over the thirty years you were privileged to work there.
At today's rates that pot would probable qualify you for a pension of about 100 euro per week. Will you be happy with that or do you expect me and other taxpayers to top it up to your "entitlement"?
The Unite union did a wonderful job in boosting your wages to 2,200 for a 39 hour week and negotiating severance payments of 121,000 for someone with 25 years service.
In the end the factory closed.
I wonder why?

Can you read my earlier post properly ? I said over €50 a week... That means anything up to €100.. I dont want you to know my business... Dont be blaming the Unite.

Curly Judge

chainsawman wrote: »

Can you read my earlier post properly ? I said over €50 a week... That means anything up to €100.. I dont want you to know my business... Dont be blaming the Unite.

An interesting mathematical concept!
Are you sure you weren't the accountant in charge of the pension fund?

chainsawman

Curly Judge wrote: »

An interesting mathematical concept!
Are you sure you weren't the accountant in charge of the pension fund?

Are you taking me for a fun ??? Are you laughing at me losing my job over 30 years in Waterford Glass ?? Do you find that funny Calling me an Accountant while i was a factory worker or a craftsman ? You have really making me upset this time..

deise blue

chainsawman wrote: »

Are you taking me for a fun ??? Are you laughing at me losing my job over 30 years in Waterford Glass ?? Do you find that funny Calling me an Accountant while i was a factory worker or a craftsman ? You have really making me upset this time..

Ignore him , he's flogging a beaten docket .

He is refusing to accept the tenor of today's ruling , his attitude is made worse because his own private pension has been decimated but effectively he is furious because he is well aware his views do not matter .

If it's any consolation I , my family & wider acquaintances are delighted for ye all.

chainsawman

deise blue wrote: »

Ignore him , he's flogging a beaten docket .

He is refusing to accept the tenor of today's ruling , his attitude is made worse because his own private pension has been decimated but effectively he is furious because he is well aware his views do not matter .

If it's any consolation I , my family & wider acquaintances are delighted for ye all.

Thanks boy... Much obliged for your kind words.

Curly Judge

chainsawman wrote: »

Are you taking me for a fun ??? Are you laughing at me losing my job over 30 years in Waterford Glass ?? Do you find that funny Calling me an Accountant while i was a factory worker or a craftsman ? You have really making me upset this time..

Well, which was it, a factory worker or a craftsman?
You'r not making sense!

Hoffmans

same thing happened the bell lines workers years ago and they got nothing at all......fair play for taking the fight to europe...

Curly Judge

deise blue wrote: »

Ignore him , he's flogging a beaten docket .

He is refusing to accept the tenor of today's ruling , his attitude is made worse because his own private pension has been decimated but effectively he is furious because he is well aware his views do not matter .

If it's any consolation I , my family & wider acquaintances are delighted for ye all.

The tenor of today's ruling is that I and other taxpayers will have to finance the gold plated pensions magicked into existence by the workers in Waterford Crystal. How did your new found buddy chainsawman imagine that a contribution of 78,000 over his working life would evolve into a weekly pension of 880 euro?
The tooth fairy would have a hard job selling that one, yet his wonderful union, Unite, seems to have bought it hook, line and sinker.
The only place lunacy like that pertains now-a days is in some parts of the public service and even there the penny is [slowly] beginning to drop.
I think I'm being very generous offering him and his 1,500 co-workers their contributions back and that is going to cost us all 117 million at the very least.
Let's give them their money back and they can go and buy a pension in the real world.

deise blue

Your " generosity " is not required nor do your embittered views count for anything.

Talking about the " real world " the ECJ ruled that the State were guilty of being in serious breach of the 2008 insolvency directive & the High Court will now decide on the % payable to the Glass workers - those are the facts , the alternatives preferred by yourself are illusory .

Now I know that your private pension has been decimated & I have every sympathy for you but the reality is that the High Court will now adjudicate & your views & indeed mine will not matter a damn - particularly yours !

chainsawman

Curly Judge wrote: »

Well, which was it, a factory worker or a craftsman?
You'r not making sense!

Seems like you are only a keyboard warrior ? I can have a chat over a cup of coffee/tea with you anywhere anytime to discuss this matter ? What ya think boy ?