Originally Posted by DannyV

The last time we had a strike, the buses stopped coming on campus in a show of solidarity.

Sigh. People should side with the good of the students......

Originally Posted by PTGregD

I can't believe the Union is actually striking for future employees; I wonder how many of them actually realize that they aren't striking for any of their OWN benefits.

(sigh) As we keep saying over and over and over again...

The employees are striking for themselves too. A two tier pension system is not stable and the pensions of the current employees WILL be seriously affected.

Originally Posted by .:callen:.

(sigh) As we keep saying over and over and over again...

The employees are striking for themselves too. A two tier pension system is not stable and the pensions of the current employees WILL be seriously affected.

Sarcastic responses aren't required. But thanks.

Originally Posted by .:callen:.

(sigh) As we keep saying over and over and over again...

The employees are striking for themselves too. A two tier pension system is not stable and the pensions of the current employees WILL be seriously affected.

I do have a question, if Mac is contractually obligated to give the set pensions to the old employees(not new hires), wouldn't they have to give it to them, no matter what happens on the market?
Just because their investment goes south, they would still need to come up with money to honour that commitment, they can't just say "sorry, no money for you"

Originally Posted by adrian

I do have a question, if Mac is contractually obligated to give the set pensions to the old employees(not new hires), wouldn't they have to give it to them, no matter what happens on the market?
Just because their investment goes south, they would still need to come up with money to honour that commitment, they can't just say "sorry, no money for you"

That is how a Defined Benefits Plan should work, but Callen says that apparently it would get changed or something. I'm not really sure.

Originally Posted by adrian

I do have a question, if Mac is contractually obligated to give the set pensions to the old employees(not new hires), wouldn't they have to give it to them, no matter what happens on the market?
Just because their investment goes south, they would still need to come up with money to honour that commitment, they can't just say "sorry, no money for you"

What I don't get is, what if the university no longer hired people? if they (hypothetically) no longer needed more people for a period of several years, would the old plan crumble then? The way Ben explained it was that it is dependent on new hires paying into the plan, but I don't get why that is. If I'm paying into a plan, then the money I pay is there when I retire, regardless of anyone that comes after me.

I just read Callen's explanation on how the plan would "Crumble" and I'm pretty sure he is wrong. I don't see any reason why a two-tiered (as he put it) would be unsustainable anymore than a single defined benefits plan.

Edit: I did some reading on the CAW Fact sheet, and I'm basically right. When Callen says it is unsustainable, he is basically agreeing with the "propaganda" that the CAW Union is telling their members in that eventually McMaster will have little incentive to continue with the original plan once more (AKA a majority stake) employees are on the new Defined Contribution Plan. That's not to say it's financially unsustainable; What would have been more appropriate is that it's "politically" unsustainable, but I doubt McMaster will be so ruthless towards their old employees who have stuck with them for so many years. Remember, McMaster isn't some huge evil corporation trying to turn a billion dollar profit, who will axe their old employees if it means padding the top CEO's pocket. It just wouldn't do that, so I don't think the Union's concern really holds any water.


I'd love to hear Callen's rebuttal though.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

....wow. I had absolutely no idea that the full ramifications of this strike were so significant. Thanks for your comment!

I suppose what I based my statement on was what the university said about the issue (which would then explain my understatement, for the opponent of the union would, one would think, "play down" the full effect of a strike on student well-being so as to diminish support for those on strike)


Question: you mentioned custodial staff as a service which would be crippled....would this include residence maintenance? If so, then that is definitely a MAJOR issue for students, considering communal washrooms and the like.

Yeah, it's a pretty major issue. First year students will get hit the worst due to their reliance on the support. Thank god for RLS and IRC who will provide good leadership and support during troubling times.

Originally Posted by DannyV

The last time we had a strike, the buses stopped coming on campus in a show of solidarity.

=p Just get off the bus earlier, and walk?

I always laugh whenever people are at the King & Sterling bus stop and get pissed when the bus passes by them. It's a 5 minute walk, you've wasted more time waiting.

Originally Posted by PTGregD

I just read Callen's explanation on how the plan would "Crumble" and I'm pretty sure he is wrong. I don't see any reason why a two-tiered (as he put it) would be unsustainable anymore than a single defined benefits plan.

Edit: I did some reading on the CAW Fact sheet, and I'm basically right. When Callen says it is unsustainable, he is basically agreeing with the "propaganda" that the CAW Union is telling their members in that eventually McMaster will have little incentive to continue with the original plan once more (AKA a majority stake) employees are on the new Defined Contribution Plan. That's not to say it's financially unsustainable; What would have been more appropriate is that it's "politically" unsustainable, but I doubt McMaster will be so ruthless towards their old employees who have stuck with them for so many years. Remember, McMaster isn't some huge evil corporation trying to turn a billion dollar profit, who will axe their old employees if it means padding the top CEO's pocket. It just wouldn't do that, so I don't think the Union's concern really holds any water.


I'd love to hear Callen's rebuttal though.

Um, PTGregD.....I'm pretty sure Callen is a she, not a he.

Originally Posted by PTGregD

I just read Callen's explanation on how the plan would "Crumble" and I'm pretty sure he is wrong. I don't see any reason why a two-tiered (as he put it) would be unsustainable anymore than a single defined benefits plan.

It becomes unsustainable because every year a cohort of employees retires and begins collecting their pension payments. But these retired employees stop paying into the plan. Additionaly, no new members will be paying into the plan.

So as each year passes, more people start collecting and stop paying into it. So the pool of funds is used, with less funds coming in to replace.

Now, this works fine if the investments being made do well. However, if there's another market downturn the pool of funds is less able to withstand market fluctuations. Large funds are more robust than small ones(when properly managed).

So when the next market downturn comes, the university will come to the union, again and say "We cannot sustain your pensions, we have no money, we need take you off your defined benefit pension or else the pension fund will collapse and you'll get nothing."

So by doing this, they can invoke crisis and use this crisis as leverage with the union.

As for the university admin not being some evil empire . . . well, I wouldn't say they're evil, but I'm not convinced their goals are necessarily lined up with what the goals of us "basic income units" (which is what students are called in adminspeak) are.

Bobble explained exactly what I was going to say.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I've explained that point at least three times and I am getting tired of it. Most would agree it was a reasonable response.

No one wants a strike to happen so there's no point in demonizing those who are arguing in support of the workers. The vote will probably pass this upcoming week so lets hope things get resolved and the strike ends quickly.

Also, yes I am female.

Originally Posted by .:callen:.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I've explained that point at least three times and I am getting tired of it. Most would agree it was a reasonable response.

If you're getting tired of it, you didn't need to bother responding then. /shrug


Furthermore, their pensions won't be at risk. The university bares the liability, and they HAVE to pay out their pensions unless they are faced with bankruptcy, which let's be honest, is a very unlikely prospect. The fund can't just "collapse".

In addition, the EMPLOYER (McMaster), makes payments into the pension plan; The fact that less employees end up being covered by it is a non-issue. I don't think there would ever be a financial problem regarding financing the Defined Benefits plan anyways, as McMaster will end up saving money in the long run by now switching new employees over to a Defined Contributions plan thereby no longer sustaining a giant liability.

Originally Posted by Bobble

It becomes unsustainable because every year a cohort of employees retires and begins collecting their pension payments. But these retired employees stop paying into the plan. Additionaly, no new members will be paying into the plan.

So as each year passes, more people start collecting and stop paying into it. So the pool of funds is used, with less funds coming in to replace.

I still don't get how this affects the people already on the plan. When it all comes down to the last person on the current plan, that person still gets back the money they put in, regardless of what other people may or may not pay into it.

Originally Posted by reeves

I still don't get how this affects the people already on the plan. When it all comes down to the last person on the current plan, that person still gets back the money they put in, regardless of what other people may or may not pay into it.

No, you don't get the money you put into it. That's a defined contribution plan and is what the university wants to move to.

A defined benefit plan guarantees a certain yearly stipend after retirment. This is usually a percentage of the average salary from the employee's three highest paid years.