Postal strike and Air Canada stike

punked · June 17, 2011

That is certainly not the case....competition remains, if only at a different level. Capital is a very important ingredient to a modern economy. Fortunately, their are wealth management strategies that easily run circles around your ideas.

And there are inheritance taxes which is the idea I am arguing for so you point is moot.

CPCFTW · June 17, 2011

Earned in our society. I am not saying take it all away, and I am not saying it to punish them. I am saying that I am for hard work and those who work hard getting ahead, not those who don't do anything. So yes enough to live quite comfortably maybe a 50% inheritance tax however not enough to have them not have to compete with the rest of us.

And who paid more to support "our society"? Wealthy people aren't indebted to society when they die. They paid taxes into supporting/enhancing it their whole lives.

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2011

And there are inheritance taxes which is the idea I am arguing for so you point is moot.

I don't think you understand...modern wealth management and preservation strategies can avoid such taxes. Rich people didn't get that way by being stupid.

cybercoma · June 17, 2011

How is CPP sucking at the government's teat? Do you have any idea how CPP works? It's an insurance scheme. You only get paid based on how much you worked during your life in specific types of employments. Women, who are socially pressured into being caregivers of not only children but also the elderly now, are busting their ass off working in the home, but that doesn't get them any CPP. They're also more likely to work part-time, low-wage jobs, which do not pay as much into CPP. This is not a program that's about sucking at the teat. It's forced savings. However, not everyone is getting equal pay for equal work.

cybercoma · June 17, 2011

Now OAS, on the other hand, is security given to the elderly that would be living on the street otherwise because they're barely able to make enough to survive. You can call it sucking at the government's teat, but axing the program is not going to make the elderly poor go away. Instead, they would be dying in the streets in their twilight years. Is that the Canada you want to live in?

Personal responsibility is one thing, but I sometimes wonder whether some of you actually think about the things you write.

Edited June 17, 2011 by cybercoma

CPCFTW · June 17, 2011

I said DB plans guaranteed by the government are sucking at the government's teat. Time for a re-read. :lol:

RNG · June 17, 2011

you google searched rich kids to assure me of what?

To show you that most kids that inherited their wealth blew it and ended up poor.

Bonam · June 17, 2011

What? First, I'll get the government pension no matter what, and second, I didn't say that I didn't plan to save any money. I plan to work for a very long time. That said, I'm not going to sacrifice my life for some kind of retirement dream.

Absolutely agreed. Gotta enjoy life. Delaying any kind of rewards (vacations/travel/etc) until you are old and tired and can't enjoy em as much any more... seems like a bad plan to me. That being said, I plan to live forever, so I have a different perspective...

RNG · June 17, 2011

I am neither a defeatist or jealous. I don't want to punish people for working hard I want to reward them, which is why I believe in a strong tax on inheritance if their kids want to be rich they need to compete in a free fair market economy not have it given to them. Yes yes enough to live and live comfortably but those kids should have to work as hard if not harder then you or I to get to the level their parents, grandparents, great grandparents did. I believe in Hard work and having those who work hard get a head, not the great great great great grand children of those who worked hard at one time.

So someone worked hard to make a bunch of money and you think you should be allowed to take it?

cybercoma · June 17, 2011

I said DB plans guaranteed by the government are sucking at the government's teat. Time for a re-read.

Then I stand corrected, but you're still misguided.

I know someone that worked at Allied/General Chemical for 40 years, into his 60s. The year before he retired, they went bankrupt and he lost his entire pension. When a company promises you, as part of your compensation a pension, those funds should be secured for employees. It's the exact same thing as not paying your employees for work that they do. Pensions are part of employee compensation and ought to be protected as such. Right now, those pensions are not secured against creditors, so there are many instances where employees have lost everything, thanks to the irresponsibility of management and sometimes the intentional gutting of businesses by predatory investors. I don't see at all how guaranteeing companies pay their employees what they were promised as compensation for their labour is "sucking at the government teat" either.

CPCFTW · June 17, 2011

Then I stand corrected, but you're still misguided.

I know someone that worked at Allied/General Chemical for 40 years, into his 60s. The year before he retired, they went bankrupt and he lost his entire pension. When a company promises you, as part of your compensation a pension, those funds should be secured for employees. It's the exact same thing as not paying your employees for work that they do. Pensions are part of employee compensation and ought to be protected as such. Right now, those pensions are not secured against creditors, so there are many instances where employees have lost everything, thanks to the irresponsibility of management and sometimes the intentional gutting of businesses by predatory investors. I don't see at all how guaranteeing companies pay their employees what they were promised as compensation for their labour is "sucking at the government teat" either.

The company probably went bankrupt due to poor assumptions on the pension's costs. A DC plan requires no government guarantee because the funds are the employee's. If employees want to hardball employers and demand they take on the risk of the return on the plan's assets, then the risk of bankruptcy should be on the employee and not the Canadian taxpayer. The simple solution is to stop demanding unreasonable defined benefit plans.

bloodyminded · June 17, 2011

I've worked as a courier for a newspaper making something like 15-20 cents per paper delivering from 3-6am every morning. Do you think I wouldn't have preferred to make $24/hr with a pension?

No, because it would offend your adherence to some magical entity called "market forces." So you'd reject such extravagances as philosophically unsound.

Jack Weber · June 18, 2011

Then I stand corrected, but you're still misguided.

I know someone that worked at Allied/General Chemical for 40 years, into his 60s. The year before he retired, they went bankrupt and he lost his entire pension. When a company promises you, as part of your compensation a pension, those funds should be secured for employees. It's the exact same thing as not paying your employees for work that they do. Pensions are part of employee compensation and ought to be protected as such. Right now, those pensions are not secured against creditors, so there are many instances where employees have lost everything, thanks to the irresponsibility of management and sometimes the intentional gutting of businesses by predatory investors. I don't see at all how guaranteeing companies pay their employees what they were promised as compensation for their labour is "sucking at the government teat" either.

It's not!

Pensions are deferred wages that could have been paid but are held back for retirement...

In my opinion,it's an utterly criminal act of theft that these entities get away with this...

Edited June 18, 2011 by Jack Weber

Wilber · June 18, 2011

The company probably went bankrupt due to poor assumptions on the pension's costs. A DC plan requires no government guarantee because the funds are the employee's. If employees want to hardball employers and demand they take on the risk of the return on the plan's assets, then the risk of bankruptcy should be on the employee and not the Canadian taxpayer. The simple solution is to stop demanding unreasonable defined benefit plans.

A DC plan can also be a two edged sword for a company. The company must make it's required contributions to the employee's plan every pay day. With a DB plan, as long as it is fully funded by employee contributions, the company makes no contributions at all. This was the case for many years and didn't really come to a head until after 2008. DB plans were quite favourable to companies all those years when they had no contributions to make at all.

TimG · June 18, 2011

A DC plan can also be a two edged sword for a company. The company must make it's required contributions to the employee's plan every pay day.

I fail to see why this is any different from meeting payroll every pay day. DC are a fixed cost for the company which makes them infinitely preferable to a DB plans. If employees want DB plans they should fund them entirely from their own pay and take responsibility for all surpluses and deficits.

cybercoma · June 18, 2011

It's not!

Pensions are deferred wages that could have been paid but are held back for retirement...

In my opinion,it's an utterly criminal act of theft that these entities get away with this...

I absolutely agree. Sometimes the elderly just want to work to have something to do. That's one thing, but when I used to work in retail, I would have people of retirement age looking for work because of situations like this regularly in Windsor. A factory or supplier would close and people that should otherwise be retiring in a few years need to start all over again with one of the legs of their "pension table" knocked out from under it. Employer's contributions to pensions ought to be considered deferred wages earned when it comes to creditors.

Wilber · June 19, 2011

I fail to see why this is any different from meeting payroll every pay day. DC are a fixed cost for the company which makes them infinitely preferable to a DB plans. If employees want DB plans they should fund them entirely from their own pay and take responsibility for all surpluses and deficits.

On the other hand, if companies had been making contributions to their DB plans as though they were DC plans, the present shortfalls would be much smaller, if they existed at all. It was the companies who took advantage of the funding requirements through all those years of surplus, not the employees.

TimG · June 19, 2011

On the other hand, if companies had been making contributions to their DB plans as though they were DC plans, the present shortfalls would be much smaller, if they existed at all.

It does not change the fact that DB plans are an onerous burden on the company because they are liable for shortfalls. That liability has to end. If a union wants a DB plan they should take responsibility for it and negotiate employer contributions as required.

cybercoma · June 19, 2011

It does not change the fact that DB plans are an onerous burden on the company because they are liable for shortfalls. That liability has to end. If a union wants a DB plan they should take responsibility for it and negotiate employer contributions as required.

Why would the union take responsibility for paying employees? They're nothing more than collective negotiators.

TimG · June 19, 2011

Why would the union take responsibility for paying employees? They're nothing more than collective negotiators.

Somebody has to manage the plan. If the union does not want to do it they could pay some financial firm. The key point is the responsibility for decifits rests entirely on the employees - not the employer. DB plans structured where the employer is responsible is a leftover relic from an age when people died shortly after 65.

Wilber · June 19, 2011

It does not change the fact that DB plans are an onerous burden on the company because they are liable for shortfalls. That liability has to end. If a union wants a DB plan they should take responsibility for it and negotiate employer contributions as required.

Perhaps it is time to ask the obvious question. If DB pensions were so bad, why did companies negotiate them in the first place? Because at the time, they were a good deal for the company. They put in a pension plan for nothing more than a promise to make up any shortfall. It wasn't until their employees started to retire in large numbers and the markets got in trouble that those shortfalls started happening in a big way. In fact, it was the company that had not been puting away for the future, the employees had been contributing the whole time.

cybercoma · June 19, 2011

I'm not sure how the employees are responsible here.

That's like saying you went bankrupt because you put too much stuff on credit, then blaming the credit card companies for it. Or perhaps it's like not being able to afford your cellphone plan, then blaming the cellphone company because you signed the contract.

Labour is sold to the company for a fee. The company chooses whether or not it agrees to that fee. There's nobody else responsible but the executives that choose to pay for labour at that price.

CPCFTW · June 19, 2011

I'm not sure how the employees are responsible here.

That's like saying you went bankrupt because you put too much stuff on credit, then blaming the credit card companies for it. Or perhaps it's like not being able to afford your cellphone plan, then blaming the cellphone company because you signed the contract.

Labour is sold to the company for a fee. The company chooses whether or not it agrees to that fee. There's nobody else responsible but the executives that choose to pay for labour at that price.

You really love to think of yourself are a champion of the little man don't you? :lol:

Employees are responsible because they organized into a group that made compensation demands that almost crippled the companies. Not meeting the union demands would have resulted in equally or more crippling lockouts, strikes, severance, new hiring/training, loss of market share, public relations costs.

The employees are part of the company. If they don't mind crippling the company and losing their jobs when the company goes bankrupt then that's up to them. But to say they are blameless because the company signed a contract is laughable.

By your logic, management is without fault too... the board of directors gave them a contract. It's the board of directors fault for signing the contract. Also the board of directors is without fault, shareholders appointed them. The only people we can blame are shareholders. So I guess they get what they deserve when a company goes bankrupt! :lol:

Edited June 19, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · June 19, 2011

You really love to think of yourself are a champion of the little man don't you?

Employees are responsible because they organized into a group that made compensation demands that almost crippled the companies. Not meeting the union demands would have resulted in equally or more crippling lockouts, strikes, severance, new hiring/training, loss of market share, public relations costs.

The employees are part of the company. If they don't mind crippling the company and losing their jobs when the company goes bankrupt then that's up to them. But to say they are blameless because the company signed a contract is laughable.

Are the companies not organized when they come to the table? Do they not make decisions about labour as one group? Why then is it not fair for labour to come to the table organized as well? You may not like it, but the fact of the matter is companies need to purchase labour. It's not there for the taking. They're not doing employees a favour by hiring them. Companies require a service and people sell them that service for an asking price. If the companies agree to that asking price then can't afford that asking price, that's not the fault of labour. You don't buy a car then stop making payments because you can't afford it. The bank repossesses your vehicle and in the case of labour, they go on strike.

Wilber · June 19, 2011

By your logic, management is without fault too... the board of directors gave them a contract. It's the board of directors fault for signing the contract. Also the board of directors is without fault, shareholders appointed them. The only people we can blame are shareholders. So I guess they get what they deserve when a company goes bankrupt!

But management crippling a company by selling off its assets and distributing the proceeds to shareholders of a holding company, thereby screwing the other airline shareholders who are not owners of that holding company is fine by you.

The DB plans are a problem but they are certainly not the only reason the company is finding it tough. Instead of owning Jazz, Air Canada is bound to a contract that guarantees Jazz a profit while making AC responsible for Jazz's fuel costs no matter how high fuel prices get. There's a brilliant management trick designed solely to make third parties rich at the expense of the core airline. Also government tax regimes that in some cases make taxes close to the major part of the ticket price. How many business's that operate on a close margin can survive in an environment that taxes its product to near 100% in some cases?

Bellingham airport is booming and expanding to handle all the Canadian traffic heading south because YVR is so expensive.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Wilber