Ont. high hydro cost

[Moonbox]

So which is it? Are you a wall street whiz or will you be living off cat food? Story changes suddenly on circumstance, you fit in well here. ....and yes Finance 101 is what you need. You do insider trading do you?

Wait...what? Living off cat food? Could you tell me where, anywhere, that was even remotely implied? As for Finance 101, suffice it to say that my education was finance/econ and so is my career. Forgive me if I laugh at your attempt to educate me on beginner investing.

And I told you what really kills them, companies that don't live up to obligations during good times, thinking there will be time later to make it up.

and that's pure fantasy based on ignorance and broken logic. Whether or not the plans were under-funded, the cost of the employer contributing its portion to the pension plan moving forward was so costly that Toyota/Honda's labour cost advantage would have made it impossible to compete. Pretend, for example, that the government bailed out those pension plans. The pensions for current and future employees would continue to put their companies at such a competitive disadvantage in labour costs that they'd be driven out of business soon anyways.

That's why current adversarial negotiations only exacerbate the problem as it increases distrust.

How do you propose they be "fairly" bargained for, if that does not occur now?

I propose that the concept of fair collective bargaining in the public sector is an oxymoron most of the time. Their employer literally can't go out of business, has infinitely deep pockets and no competition. There's virtually no incentive for them to bargain fairly.

[Big Guy]

... After 40 years of service that would end up being ONE full year of income for me. That's normal. A pension you can retire on is simply not an option or reality for most people in the private sector.

...

... Their pension plans are lousy, generally have extremely low contribution limits, and will NEVER, EVER get them to retirement.

I believe that those public pension plans are a result of negotiation over the years where the negotiators were prepared to concede on wages and other issues to agree to these pension plans. There are many people who are in business for themselves and create their own plans of investment to supplement government pensions.

What is wrong with the individual taking the responsibility of preparing for their own future and preparing for their retirement. Many farmers invest and use the sale of their farms for funds when they retire.

When did having a pension plan become a right? You want to be comfortable in retirement then save and invest for it.

[Moonbox]

I believe that those public pension plans are a result of negotiation over the years where the negotiators were prepared to concede on wages and other issues to agree to these pension plans. There are many people who are in business for themselves and create their own plans of investment to supplement government pensions.

They receive comparable wages and the pensions on top of that. They didn't concede on anything, because they didn't have to. It doesn't matter whether it's wages or benefits. You can calculate the value of both. The public sector employees in Canada end up with wages and benefit combinations significantly better and more valuable than the average private sector employee of similar skill and qualification.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[Big Guy]

They receive comparable wages and the pensions on top of that. They didn't concede on anything, because they didn't have to. It doesn't matter whether it's wages or benefits. You can calculate the value of both. The public sector employees in Canada end up with wages and benefit combinations significantly better and more valuable than the average private sector employee of similar skill and qualification.

I do not disagree. That is what they have negotiated over the years. Anyone entering the work force has a choice of entering the public service or the private service. There are benefits and liabilities for both and have been discussed ad nauseam. It is their choice.

My point is that a comfortable income after retirement is not an entitlement. It is a financial plan available to all. Some positions have a government supported plan, some have a private corporation supported plan, some expect the individual to create their own plan based on the salary negotiated. You are in control of your own future.

If you feel that that some jobs get a plan better to other jobs then too bad. Get a job which gives you the better plan. Life is not always fair to everybody.

[Bob Macadoo]

Sorry not so. Most defined pensions are integrated with CPP so if you retired at age 60 there was a gap in pension income as there was no CPP until 65.

What do you mean by integrated? You are aware that the CPP benefit is just stretched out now.....so its not really double-dipping more like 120% dipping.

[Bob Macadoo]

its portion to the pension plan moving forward was so costly that Toyota/Honda's labour cost advantage would have made it impossible to compete.

You believe there is no employer contributed pension plan in Toyota/Honda?

I propose that the concept of fair collective bargaining in the public sector is an oxymoron most of the time. Their employer literally can't go out of business, has infinitely deep pockets and no competition. There's virtually no incentive for them to bargain fairly.

So you are saying be grateful for whatever the taxpayer deems you worthy of and separate your asscheeks for the "third rail"ing? Maybe you are saying all public services need to be privatized to introduce competition? Sorry I didn't see a suggestion, just whinging, was there one?

[scribblet]

They receive comparable wages and the pensions on top of that. They didn't concede on anything, because they didn't have to. It doesn't matter whether it's wages or benefits. You can calculate the value of both. The public sector employees in Canada end up with wages and benefit combinations significantly better and more valuable than the average private sector employee of similar skill and qualification.

They did bargain for pensions over the years, and yes they did concede wages or something else in the process. Are you saying that no one should have a pension plan, even if its for less ?

[scribblet]

What do you mean by integrated? You are aware that the CPP benefit is just stretched out now.....so its not really double-dipping more like 120% dipping.

I know there have been changes to the CPP since around 2012 so I'm not up on that, I know only that you can get a larger amount after 65 if you don't take it early. It will decrease by a larger percentage if taken before 65. The additional bridge benefit is only available between ages 60 - 65 and I haven't seen anything that changes that. If you did not collect CPP until age 65, you would never see the bridge benefit.

When the total pension amount is calculated it includes CPP, if it does not include CPP then it's a stacked pension plan, premiums are based on that. Not too many places have that one/

Integration means that the plan is designed to take into account CPP contributions and benefits.

http://www.omers.com/pension/The_Building_Blocks_of_Your_OMERS_Pension.aspx

OMERS Bridge Benefit

I found this saying early retirees cost federal pension plan $2 billion a year and makes a case for eliminating the bridge benefit. That is a huge savings which would surely help with the unfunded liabilities.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1185521/early-retirees-cost-federal-pension-plan-2-billion-a-year

All members are entitled to receive an OMERS lifetime pension that includes inflation protection and excellent survivor benefits.

If your lifetime pension starts before age 65, you are entitled to the OMERS bridge benefit. This temporary benefit helps “bridge” your OMERS pension until age 65, when your Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is expected to begin. Your bridge benefit:

is paid until you reach age 65, even if you receive your CPP pension from age 60;

will not be the same amount as your CPP pension.

http://www.optrust.com/Employers/Employer-Manual/Retirement/Canada-Pension-Plan-integration-at-age-65.asp

Veterans are the same...

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/news/did-you-know/military-pensions

Edited June 30, 2014 by scribblet

[Moonbox]

You believe there is no employer contributed pension plan in Toyota/Honda?

I'm saying Toyota/Honda's pension plan wasn't negotiated by a union, and is therefore barely a fraction of what GM/Chrysler employees were getting. Toyota/Honda workers didn't get paid nearly as much as GM/Ford/Chrysler did leading up to the auto bailout, yet thousands of potential employees STILL lined up when a handful of positions open up at Toyota's Cambridge plant.

So you are saying be grateful for whatever the taxpayer deems you worthy of and separate your asscheeks for the "third rail"ing?

I'm saying that the exact opposite is happening, and it shouldn't be allowed to.

Maybe you are saying all public services need to be privatized to introduce competition?

I'm saying that public sector unions are an abomination in the free market, since they operate outside the free market system and exploit collective bargaining.

Sorry I didn't see a suggestion, just whinging, was there one?

I think my suggestion was obvious. Apparently you struggle with that, along with the proper spelling for whining. That's not even a typo, which I find really funny.

They did bargain for pensions over the years, and yes they did concede wages or something else in the process. Are you saying that no one should have a pension plan, even if its for less ?

I'm saying that the public sector gets paid far more in wages and benefits than similar positions/skill sets receive in the private sector, and it's because they exploit their closed market system in the collective bargaining process at the taxpayer's expense. It's no different than how our banks and telecoms screw us in fees. They're able to screw consumers over because they're operating in protected industry, just like the public sector unions do. All that's changing is that on one hand it's the unions and on the other hand it's the shareholders/execs who are doing it. Either way it costs everyone on the outside a LOT of money.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Moonbox

[overthere]

While y'all are arguing about high wages, big pensions and expensive hydro costs the automotive and other industries in Ontario are slowly but surely leaving town permanently.

I wonder if there is any connection?

Probably just coincidence.

[Bob Macadoo]

I'm saying Toyota/Honda's pension plan wasn't negotiated by a union, and is therefore barely a fraction of what GM/Chrysler employees were getting.

Just how did the Honda/Toyota employees get the benefits they have up to now.......corporate generosity.....or market force?

I think my suggestion was obvious. Apparently you struggle with that, along with the proper spelling for whining. That's not even a typo, which I find really funny.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/whinge

"Ed-u-macation", its a hell of a thing. Maybe shouldn't have skipped 1st year English in that Econ diploma.

Either way it costs everyone on the outside a LOT of money.

Again a paragraph of documenting the negatives of the current system, but no suggestion to balance. Got it.

[Moonbox]

Just how did the Honda/Toyota employees get the benefits they have up to now.......corporate generosity.....or market force?

Market forces did that. Honda/Toyota want a skilled work force, and they pay the salaries and benefits that ensure they maintain both a profitable operation and a satisfied, non-unionized work force. GM and Chrysler were paying salaries and benefits FAR beyond what market forces dictated Toyota employees would make, and they went bankrupt as a result. Honestly, it's not that complicated. I wonder why you're having so much trouble with the concept.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/whinge

"Ed-u-macation", its a hell of a thing. Maybe shouldn't have skipped 1st year English in that Econ diploma.

My apologies for not knowing British English. I think it's pretty safe to say that 'whinge' is not a common term here. I've never read it in British literature, nor have I heard it on British television, but regardless, sorry for that.

Again a paragraph of documenting the negatives of the current system, but no suggestion to balance. Got it.

Well let's summarize what I've said so far Bob:

I'm saying that the public sector gets paid far more in wages and benefits than similar positions/skill sets receive in the private sector, and it's because they exploit their closed market system

I'm saying that public sector unions are an abomination in the free market, since they operate outside the free market system and exploit collective bargaining.

they exploit their closed market system in the collective bargaining process at the taxpayer's expense.

I'm not exactly being coy here. My language isn't unclear. It's concerning that you can't make the giant leap in logic (sarcasm) that my conclusion requires.

I don't think that the public sector should have the right to collective bargaining, or at the very least the legislatures in Canada should curb their rights to strike. They abuse the system and rip off the taxpayers.

[GostHacked]

It's not a ponzi scheme its called shared collective risk.......the group rides the highs/lows together.......flattening the both out.......you know that pesky commun-ity aspect to society.

Unfortunately we have seen it where even the government will raid pension plans. Detroit seems to fit that.

Another thing to consider is the bailouts some banks and companies got. Not ponzi, but i'd call it theft. Taxpayers pay for it all in the end.

Edited July 1, 2014 by GostHacked

[Bob Macadoo]

Market forces did that. Honda/Toyota want a skilled work force, and they pay the salaries and benefits that ensure they maintain both a profitable operation and a satisfied, non-unionized work force.

Right and how would they arrive at the current level of compensation without the Big 3 (I see you keep omitting unionized Ford, must be an oversight) setting the bar? Are you an Econ expert like Rue is a lawyer?

My apologies for not knowing British English. I think it's pretty safe to say that 'whinge' is not a common term here. I've never read it in British literature, nor have I heard it on British television, but regardless, sorry for that.

Accepted....you might want to ensure your sure footing before your next attack....oh wait.......

Well let's summarize what I've said so far .... I'm not exactly being coy here ... I don't think that the public sector should have the right to collective bargaining.

Alright then, you are an advocate for arbitration....or just subjugation? What would be your new terms of reference for ompensation & benefits? Its easy to say no to anything much more difficult to say yes to something. Edited July 1, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Moonbox]

Right and how would they arrive at the current level of compensation without the Big 3 (I see you keep omitting unionized Ford, must be an oversight) setting the bar? Are you an Econ expert like Rue is a lawyer?

Two good questions. First, I didn't mention Ford because they didn't go bankrupt. They made changes well before the financial crisis hit an made sure they were solvent, and after watching GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and the union workers there being forced into large and necessary concessions, Ford employees saw the writing on the wall and had to negotiate similar concessions or be next. This was a very good example of market forces at work.

As for my credentials, we both know that Rue, myself or you could say whatever they want. I've already explained my degree was business/econ and I've been working in finance ever since. I'm not an economist, but my knowledge of economics goes far beyond econ 101.

Accepted....you might want to ensure your sure footing before your next attack

It's what I get for criticizing grammar. I know better.

Alright then, you are an advocate for arbitration....or just subjugation? What would be your new terms of reference for ompensation & benefits? Its easy to say no to anything much more difficult to say yes to something.

I'm not against the public sector getting fair wages. I'm against them completely screwing us over in collective bargaining. Arbitration would be better, particularly if the arbitrators were using private sector comparisons instead of public ones as we currently see. Right now, even arbitration ends up being a joke sometimes, because the arbitrators often take ridiculous CB agreements from one public sector service and use it to support a similarly ridiculous arrangement with the other. Having similar wages and benefits as the private sector would be more than fair, particularly since public sector employees enjoy far better job security and less rigorous performance standards.

[Bob Macadoo]

Now we're moving...

First, I didn't mention Ford because they didn't go bankrupt. They made changes well before the financial crisis hit an made sure they were solvent,

Right, which shows unions aren't always the greedy lot (even public sector) they're portrayed as by the think tanks.

Arbitration would be better, particularly if the arbitrators were using private sector comparisons instead of public ones as we currently see.

I would agree. What private sector equivalent would you use to compare emergency services? Security guards for police? What about the subject workers? Would you compare a electrical technician dealing with high kV lines with the guy you're paying under the table to wire your track lighting? I'd agree if we can negotiate everyone's (yours too) contract with unequal comparisons.

The part I would agree with is an arbitrator bumping up the increase over the comparison contract just because its 6 months old. If conditions haven't changed then no additional.

[Moonbox]

Right, which shows unions aren't always the greedy lot (even public sector) they're portrayed as by the think tanks.

I never said they all were. There's definitely some forward-thinking unions interested in long-term partnerships with their companies, but there are also a lot of antagonistic and self-destructive ones too. As for the public sector, there MAY be some reasonable ones out there, but I don't know of any. When being antagonistic and greedy invariably leads to long term and positive results, that's the behavior that we're going to see from them.

I would agree. What private sector equivalent would you use to compare emergency services? Security guards for police? What about the subject workers? Would you compare a electrical technician dealing with high kV lines with the guy you're paying under the table to wire your track lighting? I'd agree if we can negotiate everyone's (yours too) contract with unequal comparisons.

Generally there's a reasonable comparison that can be made, whether it's an identical or similar position in the private sector (ie. bureaucrats, electricians etc), or we look to privatized versions of the same job south of the border. We can also look at that person's education and training (cost and time thereof) and compare it to someone with a similar background. Finally, we can also look at the available work force in that particular industry. Teachers would be an excellent example. When you have a glut of trained and aspiring teachers who would be willing to do the same job, in the same place, for much less money, that has to be taken into consideration when negotiating contracts as well. That's not to say you axe your current teachers making 90k+ a year with golden benefits, but it's definitely something you can bring up when they start crying at the bargaining table.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Moonbox