Originally Posted by adrian

You guys don't practice reading threads do you. Here's a quick rundown:
- until now, these people had a fixed pension and good job
- now university wants to GAMBLE PENSION ON SHITTY STOCK MARKET
- whatever the result is what workers get in the end
- WORKERS PISSED

There, should summarize the conflict for you.

Originally Posted by viv_ntiri

This will sound stupid, but does anyone know the major issues the union is trying to cover with the school (i.e. pension, days off, vacation pay, etc.)??? Strikes seem to be popping up all over the place lol...

(I think .. this could be wrong)

The university is saying that new staff coming in won't put money towards pension and therefore won't receive a pension. The problem is that people are still going to retire, and that pension fund is going to dwindle down. Someone retiring in 3 years won't be affected, but someone retiring in 10 or 15 years will be.

I think there are more things, but that is the main one.

Originally Posted by adrian

Another plan: SELL THE BLEEDIN STADIUM, THERES ONE IN HAMILTON ANYWAY!!!

Sorry to any athletes, I just think that stadium was a waste of money, no matter how "proud" it makes you feel.

this won't work, DUCY?

also, stadiums are built for more reasons than just the athlete's pride.

What about the Health Sciences bookstore? I buy my books there and Mohawk student's also have to buy their books there. So will this book store close as well? It caters to Mohawk students, so hopefully it'll stay open so I can get my Nursing books from there, haha. My book lists aern't even up.

Originally Posted by Greco

What about the Health Sciences bookstore? I buy my books there and Mohawk student's also have to buy their books there. So will this book store close as well? It caters to Mohawk students, so hopefully it'll stay open so I can get my Nursing books from there, haha. My book lists aern't even up.

CaW includes staff all over McMaster - including the hospital. I'm sure doctors and nurses won't be striking, but there probably are some staff in the hospital that are part of this potential strike.
I assume the Health Sci bookstore is as well, and The Tank.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Most people don't get a private pension. They should feel lucky that they get anything at all. It's not the employers fault if these people don't prepare for their retirement.

Err, it is the employer's fault.

The employer has said to the employees that they will manage the university's money and the pension fund itself in a way that keeps it salient. But it hasn't done this.

BUT, you might say, can the university be held responsible for the market downturn? Of course not, but they can be held responsible for sh*tty financial planning.

From 2000-2003, the university made NO contributions to the fund because the investments were performing so well they just took the money from the investments and used it instead.

From 2003-2006 the university made much reduced contributions, again because the pension fund was performing well.

This is fine. It's what they're supposed to do. But what they failed to do was take the money they were saving and make a rainy day fund. Any competent financial planner will tell you that the market will have downturns and that you need to plan for that. How come none of those savings were being put away for when the market would crap out? This is horrible planning by the university, and the union is pissed that the university is using its own poor planning as a way to get out of their pension plan.

Taunton, you say that the employees should take responsibility for planning for their retirement? That's exactly what they're doing with these negotiations.

So I assume there's going to be LONG annoying line-ups to pick up OSAP now? Because of the threat of a strike.

I usually wait until I move-in to pick up my loan documents at the IAHS student services window, but I guess i'll make the trip out tomorrow and do it. Just awesome!

Originally Posted by Bobble

Err, it is the employer's fault.

The employer has said to the employees that they will manage the university's money and the pension fund itself in a way that keeps it salient. But it hasn't done this.

BUT, you might say, can the university be held responsible for the market downturn? Of course not, but they can be held responsible for sh*tty financial planning.

From 2000-2003, the university made NO contributions to the fund because the investments were performing so well they just took the money from the investments and used it instead.

From 2003-2006 the university made much reduced contributions, again because the pension fund was performing well.

This is fine. It's what they're supposed to do. But what they failed to do was take the money they were saving and make a rainy day fund. Any competent financial planner will tell you that the market will have downturns and that you need to plan for that. How come none of those savings were being put away for when the market would crap out? This is horrible planning by the university, and the union is pissed that the university is using its own poor planning as a way to get out of their pension plan.

Taunton, you say that the employees should take responsibility for planning for their retirement? That's exactly what they're doing with these negotiations.

Sure, a private pension is a great perk and if you get one, fantastic. The problem is that you can't have all your eggs in one basket.

It's obvious that the pension plan isn't something that is guaranteed. It's up to each individual to prepare. If I had/get a private pension one day, I'm still going to invest and prepare for my own retirement regardless. It's my responsibility to do that. Someone who had a seperate portfolio or savings stored elsewhere will/would be much better off than someone who was just relying on the private pension that has now gone down the drain.

And as for your last line "That's exactly what they're doing with these negotiations", there's no way in hell that I would ever want any union involved in my retirement portfolio thank you very much. I'll take care of that myself. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who relies solely on a private pension which is not somehow guaranteed is irresponsible, and the reduced chance for a secure retirement is their own fault.

In one line: Stick up for yourself. Don't rely on other people to take care of things that are so important to your life and future.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Sure, a private pension is a great perk and if you get one, fantastic. The problem is that you can't have all your eggs in one basket.

It's obvious that the pension plan isn't something that is guaranteed. It's up to each individual to prepare. If I had/get a private pension one day, I'm still going to invest and prepare for my own retirement regardless. It's my responsibility to do that. Someone who had a seperate portfolio or savings stored elsewhere will/would be much better off than someone who was just relying on the private pension that has now gone down the drain.

And no one in the union is saying that people shouldn't hold private plans as well. What they're pissed with is the university trying to use it's own poor planning as a way to justify a change that was brought about by its own stupidity. Seems like a legitimate beef to me.

Also, the employees are paying into the pension fund as well. These contributions a) count towards one's RRSP contributions for the year and b) mean less income to invest privately.

It's also worth noting that the union doesn't object to having the contributions of employees raised as well. They recognize that the pension plan requires sacrifices on their part.

If you guys need an explanation of the major issue that is causing the negotiation problems, PLEASE read my posts.

No more misinformation and half-baked explanations please.

Originally Posted by Taunton

In one line: Stick up for yourself. Don't rely on other people to take care of things that are so important to your life and future.

Isn't that what they're doing by taking the line they are in negotiations and threatening to strike?

Seems like they're sticking up for themselves and making sure what they care about is taken care of.

Edit: And Callen, where's the misinformation?

Originally Posted by Bobble

And no one in the union is saying that people shouldn't hold private plans as well. What they're pissed with is the university trying to use it's own poor planning as a way to justify a change that was brought about by its own stupidity. Seems like a legitimate beef to me.

Also, the employees are paying into the pension fund as well. These contributions a) count towards one's RRSP contributions for the year and b) mean less income to invest privately.

It's also worth noting that the union doesn't object to having the contributions of employees raised as well. They recognize that the pension plan requires sacrifices on their part.

Well, it's my understanding that the university wants to switch over from a plan paid for by the university and contributions of the workers, to a plan paid for via investments... essentially switching from a guaranteed pension to a non-guaranteed pension (non-guaranteed because the final result is based on the performance of investments).

That's something that the University has a right to do in my opinion... it's not cheap to offer a guaranteed pension to all retired employees. They have a legitimate reason to grandfather the old system (since the older employees were hired with the older pension... it's only fair). The university has a right to decide that they don't want to offer the same benefit any longer however, and that's simply how business works.

This is just my opinion however... we'll have to wait and see what happens as a result of these negotiations.

Originally Posted by Bobble

Isn't that what they're doing by taking the line they are in negotiations and threatening to strike?

Seems like they're sticking up for themselves and making sure what they care about is taken care of.

Edit: And Callen, where's the misinformation?

No, that's not what they're doing. They're relying on their employer to provide a retirement package for them. That's not the employer's responsibility in my opinion, and the fact that the employer is providing such a benefit is a perk in and of itself. They should be appreciative of this perk. They (each individual worker) should protect themselves and set up their own retirement portfolios.

Originally Posted by Bobble

Edit: And Callen, where's the misinformation?

Oh I was just talking about the people above who were asking about the strike and attempting to explain the pension issue.

I'm swamped with IRC training right now but I'm getting back into this argument tonight lol.

All hail callen and adrian for distilling the strike issue for us!

All other opinions are simply misinformation...

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,"1984" hasn't arrived yet. You got an opinion on why the CAW is striking or why Mac isn't settling..let 'em fly!