|
Author
|
Topic: LabourStart Self-censorship?
|
|
|
|
|
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238
|
posted 11 February 2007 07:53 AM
So whatever happened with CUPE's bargaining? Have they settled yet?I don't know much about pensions or CUPE but there needs to be a distinction made between real concessions where the employer takes something away, and not getting what you ask for. Not making an improvement on an issue in any given round of bargaining is not a concession. How does CUPE's staff pension plan(s) compare to other plans which CUPE members are part of? Better than average? Worse than average? The same? In how many of these plans does the employer pay 12% while the employees pay 6%? Is that the norm for CUPE member pensions?
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 11 February 2007 08:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic2:
In how many of these plans does the employer pay 12% while the employees pay 6%? Is that the norm for CUPE member pensions?
Seriously? I'll take that! Most unionized employees have "defined benefit" pension plans - which is much better (IMO) than the defined contribution variety, where basically the employer just kicks in an amount to match or almost match an employee contribution into an RRSP or similar instrument, and the employee bears the risk of the investment. But under "defined benefit" plans, the law (PBSA or its provincial equivalents) generally requires that when an employee retires, her/his pension must be financed no more than 50% by his/her own contributions - also, that on an ongoing basis, the employer must put enough money into the plan to avoid a solvency or going-concern deficit and to pay in advance (amortized) for new benefits. So a 2 to 1 employer contribution ratio sounds pretty generous. Where do you see this information?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238
|
posted 11 February 2007 08:20 AM
Bargaining 2006 - Pension Fact Sheet #2I think I mistated the numbers. Union proposal:
Employer: 11.5% (currently 9%)
Employee: 7.5% (currently 6%) quote:
The employer will make the contributions required by the plan. With the benefit improvements we are seeking the employer would have to contribute 11.5% (about a 2.5% increase). We will renew the letter of understanding that protects the employer in the event of a solvency deficit. Current employee contributions will increase by 1.5% to fund the benefit improvements we have tabled...
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 11 February 2007 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Michelle quote:
It's not "censorship" when a site doesn't let you post stuff they don't like. We consider it "editorial control".
Michelle:The above articles dated November 2006, were on the LabourStart website, until recently. [ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]
From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
gbuddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10055
|
posted 11 February 2007 07:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
How are they censoring you if you have so many other places on the internet to post it?It's not "censorship" when a site doesn't let you post stuff they don't like. We consider it "editorial control". You're free to open your own site at any time and post whatever you want on it. You're not free to post whatever you want on other people's sites. If other people were forced to carry your views on their sites, then that would signal a lack of editorial freedom to post what they like on their own web site.
Orwellian
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
