Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

7upfree · 26-04-2013 10:53AM

Dicky Pride wrote: »

In addition to paying up to 58% in tax, Waterford Crystal workers contributed MASSIVELY, without argument to, local charities and worthwhile causes.

And a lot of this is forgotten. A punt taken from 3,200 wage packets and charities were taken care of overnight, along with the gate collections on pay day.

7upfree · 26-04-2013 10:55AM

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.

It IS a victory. No two ways about it. It will make both Government AND companies think twice in future before walking from their responsibilities. And maybe now the pensions ombudsman will keep a more critical eye on things.

7upfree · 26-04-2013 10:56AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

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

Are you ex-Waterford Crystal management by any chance?

7upfree · 26-04-2013 10:58AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Reasonable enough!
It's just that I feel the role of government is to put a floor under people so that they don't fall too deeply into the mire.

Not to bale them out when their private little Ponzi scheme collapses!

Won't one of these workers look sweet when they next attend a wedding or a christening with their 880 euro per week pension provided by the taxpayer and find themselves sitting across from someone on the dole on 188 euro per week.
Worse still if they are at the same table as self employed person whose business has collapsed and who is expected to live on nothing.

Won't they look sweet?

Jesus. Are you really that much of a bitter begrudger?! That person might also be sitting across from, say, a Garda or a Teacher who has retired in the in mid-50s with an early pension and a gratuity. How would you feel about them?

7upfree · 26-04-2013 10:59AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

This is part of the problem in at least one semi state company that I'm aware of.

Are you employed in the public or private sector? What is your job? Come on now. Don't be coy.:)

chainsawman · 26-04-2013 11:12AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

No bother at all!
Will you be buying?....boy.

Nice one, Boy...:D I will be buying of course !!! PM me for the whereabout and the date, i will be there like a shot.;)

Max Powers · 26-04-2013 11:12AM

7upfree wrote: »

Jesus. Are you really that much of a bitter begrudger?! That person might also be sitting across from, say, a Garda or a Teacher who has retired in the in mid-50s with an early pension and a gratuity. How would you feel about them?

I think you are a bit harsh there, i dont see curly judge as bitter at all. I would have to agree with a lot said by curly judge and others. BTW someone retiring in their mid 50s on full tax payer pension is a scandal which should be left for another day.

One point of note is that there is a perception out there (justified or not)where the unions were in a large part contributed to company going belly up. I dont think we should go into whether this is justified, economic reasons, exports etc. I would think nationally a lot of people will be very very critical of this ruling and resentful.

hardybuck · 26-04-2013 11:32AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

This is part of the problem in at least one semi state company that I'm aware of.
Middle management guys getting themselves bumped up the ladder to higher posts shortly before retirement - with higher entitlements - and so draining the pool at the expense of younger subscribers.
The only way to be fair about this is to have a pension based on an individuals contributions with a realistic multiplier and not some delicate plant force fed by unrealistic trade union aspirations.

Yeah I think the public sector know themselves at this stage that they are in trouble as well. New entrants get a career average pension rather than it being calculated on their final salary, and cuts to retired people's annual pension benefit were proposed in the Croke Park talks.

sparkling sea · 26-04-2013 11:46AM

Do some people not understand what happened; I can't for the life or me understand why the government would not be held to account on this one. If it was left and ignored, it would just keep happening - the Irish government were told they had to introduce legislation to stop this happening and they just didn't - they couldn't be bothered. All parties have responsibility here because they were all in government or in oppossition but didn't push for this legislation to be introduced.

And please SF people, the Pensions Act was first introduced in the UK in 1995, workers who have had their pension funds raided in the UK have received justice at a much faster pace because of this.

In 1991 - yes that far back - the then Mirror newspaper owner jumped/fell of his yacht and died at sea, with the discovery that £450m of investments were missing from the pension funds of his companies.

The European Court issued directives to all memebers states in the early 1990s to ensure the pension funds of workers could not be raided by employers. The Irish government ignored the directives and so some companies have raided the pension funds, the government were completely at fault here, their laissez faire attitude has caused huge problems and this is one of them.

Of course the tax payer will have to cough up the money but the government should have budget for this - it was always going to happen and the government knew it; they just wasted more tax payers money fighting an unwinnable case.

Hundreds of millions could be saved in legal fees if the government stopped fighting cases like this one. I think the average tax payer would be happy to see things being done properly from the start, it would save a fortune.

deise blue · 26-04-2013 11:50AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

It was a scandal that these workers were left without any pension.
I have said that all along and not only on this thread.
It's a far cry from saying that to welcoming the government's new found obligation to bankroll unrealistic gold plated pensions.
This is why I contend the taxpayer should only fund the more modest defined contribution pension.

The ECJ ruling applies only to cases of double insolvency - where the company is insolvent & the defined benefit Scheme is also insolvent.

Defined contribution schemes are not covered by the ruling.

Therefore the High Court will only be adjudicating on the % of the Glass defined benefit scheme that should pass to workers .

Let's at least not try to muddy the waters by coming up with suggestions that have no basis in law.

Curly Judge · 26-04-2013 01:14PM

chainsawman wrote: »

Nice one, Boy...:D I will be buying of course !!! PM me for the whereabout and the date, i will be there like a shot.;)

I'll meet you on the edge of the Cliffs of Moher next bank holiday Monday
at high noon.
You'll have no bother recognising me. I weigh about 16 stone and am 6 ft, 6 inches tall.
I also have a duelling scar on my face that runs from the corner of my left eye to the point of my chin.:)
See you there!

7upfree · 26-04-2013 01:20PM

Max Powers wrote: »

I think you are a bit harsh there, i dont see curly judge as bitter at all. I would have to agree with a lot said by curly judge and others. BTW someone retiring in their mid 50s on full tax payer pension is a scandal which should be left for another day.

One point of note is that there is a perception out there (justified or not)where the unions were in a large part contributed to company going belly up. I dont think we should go into whether this is justified, economic reasons, exports etc. I would think nationally a lot of people will be very very critical of this ruling and resentful.

I don't think so Max. It's been one victory after another for banksters and developers - this is one for the workers. Thank God.

Max Powers · 26-04-2013 02:06PM

7upfree wrote: »

I don't think so Max. It's been one victory after another for banksters and developers - this is one for the workers. Thank God.

dont think what?

ziedth · 26-04-2013 02:53PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

I'll meet you on the edge of the Cliffs of Moher next bank holiday Monday
at high noon.
You'll have no bother recognising me. I weigh about 16 stone and am 6 ft, 6 inches tall.
I also have a duelling scar on my face that runs from the corner of my left eye to the point of my chin.:)
See you there!

Enough, as we all know "attack the post"

Be civil, put each other on ignore or take it to PM. Don't derail this thread any more.

as always you can PM me if you have any questions

Thanks.

chainsawman · 26-04-2013 03:09PM

ziedth wrote: »

Enough, as we all know "attack the post"

Be civil, put each other on ignore or take it to PM. Don't derail this thread any more.

as always you can PM me if you have any questions

Thanks.

Understood. Thanks.

Sesshoumaru · 26-04-2013 03:30PM

7upfree wrote: »

I don't think so Max. It's been one victory after another for banksters and developers - this is one for the workers. Thank God.

Well they have one thing in common with "banksters and developers", the tax payer picks up the tab.

Professey Chin · 26-04-2013 04:04PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Well they have one thing in common with "banksters and developers", the tax payer picks up the tab.

So the government should never be charged on anything no matter on their negligence and stupidity because their money comes from the taxpayer?

Sesshoumaru · 26-04-2013 04:11PM

Chinpool wrote: »

So the government should never be charged on anything no matter on their negligence and stupidity because their money comes from the taxpayer?

If a person says "banksters and developers" caused the countries debt and deficit issues we have now (as 7upfree appeared to be implying), then they would have to agree the tax payer is picking up the tab for those losses.

I pointed out that the ordinary workers who pay their taxes will also be picking up the tab for these union workers private pension.

That is what I said.

hardybuck · 26-04-2013 04:15PM

Chinpool wrote: »

So the government should never be charged on anything no matter on their negligence and stupidity because their money comes from the taxpayer?

This is going in circles. And whoever brought up bankers and developers yada yada - thanks a million, we've never heard that aspect of the debate before. Normally I completely turn my attention away from discussions when this line is trotted out.

People attached to Waterford Crystal feel that they aren't to blame and that someone else, i.e. the taxpayer should pick up the tab.

People who aren't attached to Waterford Crystal feel that they certainly aren't to blame for this, and don't feel that they should have to pick up the tab.

At the end of the day the taxpayer has to pay for a huge amount of things that frustrate them and they have nothing to do with. This is just another thing many of us will need to add to that list.

Bards · 26-04-2013 05:15PM

Isint it about time that ministers/governments took out liability insuarance in the same way that doctors, solicitors, engineers etc do in case of malpractice and someone decides to sue for not doing their job properly

7upfree · 26-04-2013 05:18PM

Max Powers wrote: »

dont think what?

That I am being harsh.

7upfree · 26-04-2013 05:20PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Well they have one thing in common with "banksters and developers", the tax payer picks up the tab.

And?

7upfree · 26-04-2013 05:22PM

hardybuck wrote: »

This is going in circles. And whoever brought up bankers and developers yada yada - thanks a million, we've never heard that aspect of the debate before. Normally I completely turn my attention away from discussions when this line is trotted out.

People attached to Waterford Crystal feel that they aren't to blame and that someone else, i.e. the taxpayer should pick up the tab.

People who aren't attached to Waterford Crystal feel that they certainly aren't to blame for this, and don't feel that they should have to pick up the tab.

At the end of the day the taxpayer has to pay for a huge amount of things that frustrate them and they have nothing to do with. This is just another thing many of us will need to add to that list.

Turn away all you like. They are what has this country in the position it's in. You cannot divorce this from the preferential treatment afforded to banksters, developers, and certain politicians. AIB topped up their pension fund to the tune of €1.2Bn (after costing BILLIONS to bail out) - so I have no problem with the Crystal workers being allocated a tiny amount in comparison. At all.

Sesshoumaru · 26-04-2013 05:35PM

7upfree wrote: »

And?

My point all along has been very clear. If you can't comprehend it, tough. I don't have time to babysit you.

Curly Judge · 26-04-2013 07:18PM

Bards wrote: »

Isint it about time that ministers/governments took out liability insuarance in the same way that doctors, solicitors, engineers etc do in case of malpractice and someone decides to sue for not doing their job properly

I like the idea, but what insurance company in their right mind would touch anything the likes of Kevin Cardiff had his hand in.

deise blue · 26-04-2013 08:30PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

If a person says "banksters and developers" caused the countries debt and deficit issues we have now (as 7upfree appeared to be implying), then they would have to agree the tax payer is picking up the tab for those losses.

I pointed out that the ordinary workers who pay their taxes will also be picking up the tab for these union workers private pension.

That is what I said.

The point is that the State should have legislated for a workable pension protection scheme under the 2008 insolvency directive .

They failed to do so & as such were hoist by their own petard.

The fact that taxpayers will certainly pay for any shortfall is purely down to the fact that the State failed to legislate & has nothing to do with workers or Unions.

After all the ECJ ruled that the State were in " serious breach " of the aforementioned 2008 legislation - therefore the blame for this debacle rests solely with the State.

Bards · 26-04-2013 09:30PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

I like the idea, but what insurance company in their right mind would touch anything the likes of Kevin Cardiff had his hand in.

It would force ministers to have the right qualifications for a start apart from being a primary school teacher

Sully · 26-04-2013 09:46PM

Bards wrote: »

It would force ministers to have the right qualifications for a start apart from being a primary school teacher

Which doesn't please everybody. James Reilly is qualified, and is hounded as being biased.

You can't win. Your told one minute you need qualifications and then told the qualification makes you biased.

Besides, its not the individual Ministers running the country. Its the people behind him, civil servants that have been there for years. There is a battle to get qualified experienced individuals because they expect to be well paid, and the Irish don't want them to be well paid.

Bards · 26-04-2013 10:54PM

Sully wrote: »

Which doesn't please everybody. James Reilly is qualified, and is hounded as being biased.

You can't win. Your told one minute you need qualifications and then told the qualification makes you biased.

Besides, its not the individual Ministers running the country. Its the people behind him, civil servants that have been there for years. There is a battle to get qualified experienced individuals because they expect to be well paid, and the Irish don't want them to be well paid.

Reilly is a GP, no experience of running a large organisation, no people skills etc etc

We need experienced proven business people, would you allow an accountant to run a large practice like Ernst & Young just because he was qualified as an accountant?

Sully · 26-04-2013 11:06PM

Bards wrote: »

Reilly is a GP, no experience of running a large organisation, no people skills etc etc

We need experienced proven business people, would you allow an accountant to run a large practice like Ernst & Young just because he was qualified as an accountant?

A GP would know how the system works. He was also president of the Irish Medical Organisation, giving him a bit more knowledge on the subject. I would suspect a doctor and president of the IMO would have people skills. James is also a bit of a business man himself, which is why more people feel he shouldn't be a Minister.

You wont get business people into politics much, they don't particularly like it (who would) and they expect better pay.

Anyway, this is all besides the point

Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers

Comments