General Motors Pensioners

[JohnLarue]

It is absolutely shameful for the CAW to expect me the taxpayer, to fulfill their bloated pension obligations.
Had they been partners with the company rather than adversaries they would not have negotiated a deal(s) that jeopardized their employers (and their own) future.
Rather than ensuring that this specific group gets its full pension, I would much rather have the govt spend (any available) money retraining the hundreds of thousands of supplier employees who will be out of work because of the auto industry stupidity (Company and Union).

Any available money would also be much better spent supporting growing businesses that might actually hire people in the future and contribute to the public good rather than sponge from it
This will be a tremendous waste of taxpayer $ on a specific group that foolishly absolved itself of any responsibility for its future. After bleeding its initial partner into bankruptcy (its employer) with ridiculous demands (always backed by the treat of a strike) it is now looking for the public tit to suckle until it is dry

NOT A DIME OF GOVT $ TO THIS GROUP.
It is a very slippery slope that will have every industry with its hand out

 

[JohnLarue]

Union negotiators are there to get the best deal out of the company. The company's negotiators are there to get the best deal out of the workers. Didn't hafta be that way, but companies fought tooth, nail club and machine gun against workers having any right to bargain collectively at all. .

This statement points out the root of all the problems in this mess.

Rather than Union negotiators being at the table to get the best deal out of the company, perhaps a more enlightened and prudent approach would be Union negotiators have a responsibility to
1. ensure members have a safe working environment
2. ensure the company and union have a sustainable future and negotiate a deal that reflects that reality
3. within the context of part 2, work to improve the compensation and security of their members & future members, but only if it was sustainable
4. Work to align all stakeholders within the organization to ensure sustainability and form long term partnerships

I can not speak to #1 but in terms #2 & #3 & #4, they(union negotiator's) have failed and failed miserably.
The very same group is unwilling to accept any responsibility and has a hair trigger tendency to blame any and all others (Woodpeker)


Why in the world, would any of the other stakeholders, management, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and now the paying customer and tax-payer want anything to do with a group that's sole goal is to maximize its stake without any concern for the future of the other stakeholders or the organization as a whole?

The union is not working for any of them, its not even working with them, its working against them strictly for its own benefit. This is an approach destine for failure. (the results speak for themselves)

Management in this industry has been weak & probably should have been replaced a decade ago.
However unless the replacements would have been able to change the adversarial relationship with the unions the result would have been the same

Henry Ford fought tooth & nail to keep the unions out.
If he is looking down right now, he is probably shaking his head saying "I knew this would happen, it just took 50 years longer than I thought"

 

[The Bandit]

So I, a taxpayer without a pension will have to pay to cover someone else's pension from a company that went bankrupt??? F##k them!

 

[JEFF247]

It's just wrong

Wow,

I'm not even a member of the NDP! Why am I one of the few people who thinks that sticking it to a bunch of senior citizens who paid into a pension plan, while bankers get bailouts and bonuses, is just wrong?

EU

What's that old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[JohnLarue]

Wow,

I'm not even a member of the NDP! Why am I one of the few people who thinks that sticking it to a bunch of senior citizens who paid into a pension plan, while bankers get bailouts and bonuses, is just wrong?

EU

The Canadian Banks did not receive a bailout.
The government bought some mortgage assets from the banks to free up capital for lending.
The Canadian Govt will probably make a profit on the deal.
So no handout

The GM pensioners have not intention of repaying this money so it would be pure and simple handout. (good $ after bad)
While I am not total unsympathetic with a retiree that had expectations for pension money that was promised to him / her, its not my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund special interest groups.
Bottom line is that the average tax-payer makes nowhere near what a CAW member did / does and many taxpayers do not have a pension & certainly do not have the exorbitant benefits this group does.

The banking fiasco occurred in the USA, but the subject here is the Canadian CAW asking the Canadian taxpayer to make good on a private pension fund obligation

Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, however there was not a Canadian Banking wrong move in the first place.

Had the CAW not extracted such expensive benefits from their employers, they might have a fighting chance for solvency
Now that the employers are toast, they want someone (me, the tax-payer)else to pay
Sorry, the cupboards bare

 

[plyrs99]

i have to agree with the prevaling sentiment, not only just on this board, but across the province, fuck 'em!

i have to ask, where is the all that union bravado now? where is the union anyways? didn't want to play ball when this all started, now being forced to take it, and take it hard! c'mon brothers, one for all, and all for one. all those years fattening up at the trough, sucks when the shoe is on the other foot. when the union steps up, gives up all of it's own cash and liquidates all it's assets, to take care of their members pension, maybe then people wont feel so strongly against the province making up the shortfall. until this happens, and it won't, too bad. the line has to drawn somewhere.

for the record, i belong to a union.

Plyrs99

 

[james t kirk]

According to the NY Times, GM will file for bankruptcy by June 1'st.

They will completely reorganized and that means that they will screw their creditors, share holders, AND pensioners. (Never mind the unions, they're going to be fucked too, but who cares.)

So, get ready for the crying because here it comes.

 

[The Bandit]

Look at the Union greedyness that happened at the Constellation Hotel on Dixon by the airport. The new (I think it was Chinese) owners didn't like the union demands and closed it down...it's been empty for something like 10 years, and now it's in the process of being torn down. What did the union gain?

Unions now-a-days only protect the shit disturbers, and drive companies out of business with the excessive demands, and threats of strike. "F" them all.. CUPE, CAW, OSSTF, ATU.

 

[lateforthegate]

Does anybody know if these auto workers were allowed to contribute 18% of their salary to RRSPs seeing they didn't make the contributions out of their pay as every other real union does??

Most unions have the membership decide how much of their total wage package they want to put into a pension, up to the 18% cap that our retarded government caps the normal working Canadian at!!! (Even though MP and MPP pensions work out to over 300%).

If it wasn't coming out of their wage package I can't see how they would have been stopped from making RRSP contributions. While those who make contributions from their wage package have it go against their 18% cap and can't make RRSP contributions!!

And remember, somehow the auto workers are the only ones that can get topped up while on EI....while everyone else who gets any extra money while on EI, has to deduct it from their government cheque....weird shit!!

Everyone who is making pension contributions out of their wage package has lost over 20% the last 6 months.......I guess the government should have to pay that too.....

 

[JohnLarue]

While I am not a union fan lets not lose sight of the fact that most of these guys just go with the flow.
It is often a very few militant one who push for the ridiculous demands and who are the very vocal in defending what they perceive as their rights

I would wager most are hard working and probably shake their heads at both the few union extremists & the company in disgust. They have for a long time realized deep down, the wage and benefits were too expensive, but human nature being what it is, they took it

I absolutely do not want the Can government to subsidize this group any further, but I also understand the re-org is going to leave some in a difficult position, particularly the pensioners, who can not start again.
While I say no to a govt bailout, I do not say "fuck them"

 

[lateforthegate]

There are unions...............and then there is the CAW!!

 

[james t kirk]

Look at the Union greedyness that happened at the Constellation Hotel on Dixon by the airport. The new (I think it was Chinese) owners didn't like the union demands and closed it down...it's been empty for something like 10 years, and now it's in the process of being torn down. What did the union gain?

Unions now-a-days only protect the shit disturbers, and drive companies out of business with the excessive demands, and threats of strike. "F" them all.. CUPE, CAW, OSSTF, ATU.

Sigh......

While I am certainly a loooonggggg way from a unionista, the fact of the matter is that the CAW / UAW is only partially responsible for sinking GM.

The fact is that they build shitty cars that no-one wants to buy.

The Union doesn't have anything to do with the design of the cars, or the direction that the company has moved in.

NA cars are already far cheaper than their Japanese counterparts and still people don't want to buy them cause they know they are shit boxes that will break down every week costing them a fortune and that they are dogs when it comes to peformance or design.

Nope, if I had to assign blame, I'd say two thirds of it should be laid at the feet of the fat cats who ran the joint and one third to the unions.

 

[xdog]

Wow,

I'm not even a member of the NDP! Why am I one of the few people who thinks that sticking it to a bunch of senior citizens who paid into a pension plan, while bankers get bailouts and bonuses, is just wrong?

EU

IIRC, the union members did not contribute to the pension plan. If they were required to contribute accordingly and if GM hadn't been allowed to stop contributing to the pension protection fund(not required as gov't felt they were too big to fail)we wouldn't be having this conversation.

x

 

[fuji]

I'm not even a member of the NDP! Why am I one of the few people who thinks that sticking it to a bunch of senior citizens who paid into a pension plan, while bankers get bailouts and bonuses, is just wrong?

It is wrong, the bonuses are wrong too, but why does any of that make it the responsibility of the taxpayer?

It's also wrong when some fraudster deprives an elderly couple of their life's savings. The taxpayer does not step up in those cases and cover the lost saving, why should the taxpayer step up in this case?

I had some stuff stolen a few years back, where do I sign up to have the taxpayer replace it???

 

[oldjones]

…edit…
I had some stuff stolen a few years back, where do I sign up to have the taxpayer replace it???

Uh, that's why we have a provincial fund for vioctims of crime. Not because we taxpayers owe the payment, but because it's better for us all if honest, trusting people suffer as little as possible at the hands of shysters and crooks.

And having set up such funds, with all their high promises and ideals, it's up to us to see that they actually work, and aren't just another shabby betrayal by politicians, all too concious that victims have few votes.

 

[landscaper]

Wow,

I'm not even a member of the NDP! Why am I one of the few people who thinks that sticking it to a bunch of senior citizens who paid into a pension plan, while bankers get bailouts and bonuses, is just wrong?

EU

The workers did not contribute anyhting to the pension fund , it was entirely a company contribution. There were no bailouts of Canadian banks as has been stated earlier, the provincial govt under Bob Rae changed the rules for pension plan contributions . The decide that some companies were " to big to fail" and allowed them to reduce their contributoions to the pensions on the understanding that when times picked up the contributions would be increased to bring the plans back up to what was required. The plan was brought out to help Stelco and Algoma who were in trouble during the last recession. The govt fund ( funded by employer contributions and guarenteed by the govt I beleive but could be wrong) was designed to stabalise the companies if required. It is seriously under funded at present and any shortfall would be made up by the govt ie taxpayers.

At the time everybody including the unions were against the plan because of what would happen if one of them did go down. The unions could have short circuited this by making full contributions a contract issue but never did they plan on the taxpayer paying the tab .

 

[BoringBob]

In the end, the current state of GM (and Chrysler) is that they are no longer a go forward business. GM certainly doesn't appear to be financially viable.

A large part of that lack of viablitity is a result of union greed. When you come to understand that GM is paying net anywhere from $75 to $100 an hour for labor, you can't help but understand why they are dying. The structure of the pension plan is terrible, leaving GM on the hook to fill in the gaps over time.

Pension plans should be just contribution by the employer, deductions, etc, and that is it. The moment you retire, your payment is assured only by the pension plan and nothing else. If there is a shortage, the plan has to work it out, or ask it's CURRENT active employed members for bigger payroll deductions. The company shouldn't be on the hook for past workers.

The Big 3 all let themselves get trapped into a never ending cycle, and it has to stop.

Rumor has it that by Friday this week, GM will declare bankruptcy and get split into two companies, "good GM" and "bad GM". You don't need much of a brain to realize that pension obligations are going into bad GM, and they will only get what is left after disposing of assets and payments made as needed. Good GM will come out the other side with significantly lower labor costs, potentially new labor rules, and without many of the money losing factories that have been kept open because they lose less open then they do closed (that is so screwed up).

CAW: nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey, good bye!

 

[K2K2]

So I, a taxpayer without a pension will have to pay to cover someone else's pension from a company that went bankrupt??? F##k them!

Everyone is talking about the automaker. What about are government employees that we pay for and there pensions?? With government spending when will they be bankrupt??

 

[fuji]

Uh, that's why we have a provincial fund for vioctims of crime. Not because we taxpayers owe the payment, but because it's better for us all if honest, trusting people suffer as little as possible at the hands of shysters and crooks.

And having set up such funds, with all their high promises and ideals, it's up to us to see that they actually work, and aren't just another shabby betrayal by politicians, all too concious that victims have few votes.

So where do I apply to get my money back for the goods that were stolen from me?

If taxpayers are committing to step up and fund every unfairness in life then I certainly want to be in the queue!

I also think it's unfair to me that my RRSP has declined, which I gather is the same issue that these pensions face--they are underfunded partly because of the market losses they suffered. I too suffered market losses, and I want to be made whole by the taxpayer too.

 

[landscaper]

So where do I apply to get my money back for the goods that were stolen from me?

If taxpayers are committing to step up and fund every unfairness in life then I certainly want to be in the queue!

I also think it's unfair to me that my RRSP has declined, which I gather is the same issue that these pensions face--they are underfunded partly because of the market losses they suffered. I too suffered market losses, and I want to be made whole by the taxpayer too.

The criminal injuries compensation board only compensats people for their physical injuries and that is a major headach to get, it morphed from the original intent to what it is now something about beurocrats....... hmmmm.

The underfunding of the pensions is entirly on the backs of the employer and the union. The employer for not properly funding it and the union for not protecting the interests of its members. The CAw could have made the underfunding a contract issue at any one of the contract negotiaions over the last 20 years. They decided to get MORE form te employer because hey they don't have to fund it fully there must be more money there.

If they want the pension funding that badly let them fund it out of union procedes once that runs out we can talk, won't do anything but we can talk