Waterford Crystal Pensions

Deiseblue

Registered User
Messages
829
Brilliant news !

Unite Trade Union/Waterford Crystal workers have won their case versus the State in the European Court on all counts - the matter is now to go to the High Court to decide the percentage pension to be paid to the Crystal pensioners.
 
Great news for the WG workers. Fair play to them for persevering with the case.
In a way, pensioners in insolvent companies may now be better off than those
in underfunded schemes which are closed. They have no legal protection whatever.
In the De Beers/Element Six case, losses were up to 60%
 
The government aka the taxpayer. Up to €280M cost.
No doubt they'll just levy a charge on owners and prospective owners of DB pensions. That'd be fair.

Why would they make someone on minimum wage with no pension contribute, or make an OAP on the state pension contribute? I've no doubt the unions would shut the country down if such unfairness was contemplated.
 
In a way, pensioners in insolvent companies may now be better off than those in underfunded schemes which are closed. They have no legal protection whatever.
In the De Beers/Element Six case, losses were up to 60%
The case has been sent back to the High Court here to decide what % should be point; I suspect your comparison will be one of the things taken into account: it is not reasonable to expect 100% cover for an insolvent company when other 'solvent but badly funded' schemes are taking % reductions. There was a similar case taken by a UK woman (referenced in the article) - she won a case that 49% cover was not sufficient so I guess our High Court has to decide what % between 49% and 100% is appropriate.
 
No doubt they'll just levy a charge on owners and prospective owners of DB pensions. That'd be fair.

Why would they make someone on minimum wage with no pension contribute, or make an OAP on the state pension contribute? I've no doubt the unions would shut the country down if such unfairness was contemplated.
Really? You think unions care about anyone but their members? (And in fairness, they are only there to represent their members and should make no apology for this - that's all they are paid for; but there seems to be a naive assumption that unions somehow represent the good of society). There may well be a levy rather than a general taxation impact but it sure won't be because of unions lobbying for the interests of OAPs.
 
Brilliant news !

Unite Trade Union/Waterford Crystal workers have won their case versus the State in the European Court on all counts - the matter is now to go to the High Court to decide the percentage pension to be paid to the Crystal pensioners.

I think it's great news for the Waterford Crystal employees and other employees in a similar situation. I can only imagine the frustration of working for 35 years only to see your pension up in smoke.

I also think the state has an obligation to protect pensions adversely impacted through poor regulation. This is the same as taking responsibility for guaranteeing bank deposits.

But there is a sad reality behind all of this at a national level. The only ones left standing to 'bail out' the waterford crystal pensioners are their fellow beleaguered citizens of Ireland.

Even sadder is the fact that the most likely outcome of this is that it will largely end up as a transfer of wealth to people who will be above the average level of income. I have some basic local knowledge and know that a job in Waterford Crystal was much envied and, even without most of their pensions, former employees would be better off than most around them.

Still this sad reality does not take away from the fact that these employees earned their right to a full pension and losing it would be a serious anomaly relative to the measure the state has taken elsewhere to protect depositors, etc.
 
Does this decision now take away all responsibility from pension fund managers to act in the best interest of their clients, knowing that if they screw up their clients will be bailed out by the taxpayer?
 
Does this decision now take away all responsibility from pension fund managers to act in the best interest of their clients, knowing that if they screw up their clients will be bailed out by the taxpayer?
Isn't it the trustees who are accountable?
 
Does this decision now take away all responsibility from pension fund managers to act in the best interest of their clients, knowing that if they screw up their clients will be bailed out by the taxpayer?


From what I heard it only applies to Defined Benefit pensions as opposed to DB Contribution Pensions

And apparently DB Pensions are not being 'sold' anymore because they give a guarantee.

How many existing ones are still around one wonders.
 
Pending a vote by the Glass workers a deal has been hammered out at the Labour Court & agreed by cabinet which will apparently see a tax free sum of € 1,200 per year of service paid to each of the 1,700 workers involved plus 90% of their pension up to €12,000 & a sliding scale thereafter ( the part concerning the pension is informed comment but has yet to be confirmed ) , the overall cost being €178,000,000

These workers in addition are entitled to the State OAP .

Huge congrats to the courage & perseverance of the workers & their Trade Union Unite & in particular the inimitable Jimmy Kelly & Walter Cullen - heroes all !

The sun has come out in Waterford today & there is a spring in all our steps , large bottles & blaas all round.
 
One would think that this money has come from nowhere.

What about the taxpayer who has to pay for this?

These workers were very well paid. And now they are getting pensions based on this very high pay.

Less money will be spent on other more deserving areas as a result.

I have sympathy for the workers who lost out and our pension rules are crazy, but I really don't see why the taxpayer should pay for them. As for that matter, I don't see why I should have had to bail out the depositors in Anglo and Irish Nationwide.
 
To be fair to Deiseblue he is looking at this from the viewpoint of the Waterford workers who lost out on pensions through no fault of their own. On that side of the arguement they are entitled to celebrate the outcome.
On the other hand BrendanB has a point. There is no legal or logical rationale as to why the taxpayer has to pick up this bill. If Europe make the legislation, then surely should bear the cost.
 
Unfortunately this all stems from FF failing to legislate for a pension protection scheme as required by a EU directive , a case of booting the can firmly down the road.

The EU court found against the State on all counts & as such there was no alternative but to fund the negotiated shortfall out of State Funds either by way of taxation funds received or in this case via the pension levy ( or Government's central funds as Ms. Burton says ! )- as the EU Court has ruled I cannot see any other funding alternative , can you ?
 
The pension details are as follows , 90% of any pension up to €12,000 , pensions of up to €24,000 - 90% up to 12k & 67% of the balance up 24k & for pensions in excess of €24,000 - 50% of the balance over 24k .

Unite are to recommend a vote in favour of the offer .
 
I cannot see any other funding alternative , can you ?
You could create a levy that only applies to DB funds? Perhaps an extra tax for people with DB pensions. Make having a DB fund a new BIK? It's not hard to think up any number of fair ways of doing this.


She said the deal would be funded by a two-year levy paid by members of defined benefit schemes, introduced in the 2013 budget.
If those were her words in the indo piece then she seemed to be misleading people. The levy applied to all members DB or DC and only DC members were definitively worse off as a result.

Pension funds were around 80B a couple years ago, a 0.15% levy over two years would be around 250m, this bailout seemingly cost 180m. At this point they're only half way into the two year period so don't even have the full amount collected.

Anyone can see now that the 0.15% levy was a one off Waterford Glass levy. It does not solve any wider problem.

If another double insolvency comes along (and this case clearly encourages double insolvencies), then they'll need another levy for the next badly run company and pension scheme. You just need one every two years and there'll be non stop levies.
 
I cannot see any other funding alternative , can you ?

The existing pensioners of Waterford Glass could have had their pensions reduced to share the underfunding in the pension scheme. That would seem to me to be the fairest solution.

Brendan
 
Once anyone starts tinkering on what is construed as (safe) funds in a Pension fund ,it would mean very few people would make any real contribution to any pension other than State Pension.
I think the Waterford Pensioners have simply got a fair deal , I do accept that AGAIN taxpayers may take a hit .
Maybe our so called Regulators in Central Bank/Government/Dial etc should have their actions queried or should it be past we query their inaction over the years?
It is telling that AIB put 1Billion of OUR money into their DB fund , there was no query here?
 
Back
Top