Trudeau trying to change Defined Benefit pension plans

[Jaydee]

"Currently, defined-benefit (DB) pensions provide stability and security to employees because employers are legally obliged to fund employees’ earned benefits. Already earned benefits are legally protected. Bill C-27 removes employers’ legal requirements to fund plan benefits, which means that benefits could be reduced going forward or even retroactively. Even people already retired could find their existing benefits affected, after paying in their entire working lives."

 

http://canadianlabour.ca/news/news-archive/canada’s-unions-call-anti-pension-bill-c-27-betrayal

 

A wake up call / reality check for leftists.

[DEFCON]

This is a sign that the collapse of the currency, the economy and everything related is fairly imminent. Trudeau is moving to create new rules intended solely to shore up his real friends, the masters of the corporatocracy. This article should serve as fair warning to Mitch, Deicer, most Lefties and the otherwise unprepared that a painful lesson in respect of leadership and Party propaganda is about to be delivered.

Those who have always known better took steps long ago to protect themselves from the inevitable and amongst other strategies, many have backed themselves up by holding a percentage of their savings in the form of hard gold and silver. You can be sure the wise ones aren't storing their metal stashes in safety deposit boxes either where the agents of a desperate government can confiscate it at will as they have in the not so distant past.

 

 

 

 

   

[J.O.]

Out of one side of your mouth you accuse the government of digging an infernal hole from which we can never climb. Then, when evidence suggests they're trying to bring in legislation that will allow them to address it, you slam them for that too. 

This forum has pretty much stopped being about aviation. I think it's time to pull the plug.

[DEFCON]

If JO had of been paying attention he'd know that other than for the Government itself, the aviation industry is one of, if not the largest employer in the federally regulated sector, which makes the proposed legislation of considerable importance to most here.

  

[boestar]

except most of us are on DC plans or no plan at all.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, J.O. said:

Out of one side of your mouth you accuse the government of digging an infernal hole from which we can never climb. Then, when evidence suggests they're trying to bring in legislation that will allow them to address it, you slam them for that too. 

This forum has pretty much stopped being about aviation. I think it's time to pull the plug.

J.O. We were offered the opportunity to have aviation topics split out from a Non Aviation topic forum, that was voted down. 

[DEFCON]

Boestar

Are there any past, or present employees that are, or were members of a unionized labour group within AC's world that are not beneficiaries of a DB plan?

 

[boestar]

define AC's world

besides AC is only a part of the aviation community on this board

[moeman]

53 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Boestar

Are there any past, or present employees that are, or were members of a unionized labour group within AC's world that are not beneficiaries of a DB plan?

 

New hires with CUPE have a DC plan, I believe. Not sure about rouge.

[dagger]

The labour movement hates anything but DB plans, but C-27 is not about abolishing DB plans, or forcing a union to exit a DB plan, but creates a new class of pension called target benefit (TB) plans. I'm going to guess that labour's hysteria on this act is more about the possibility workers will be more amenable to adopting TB plans if they exist in law. It seems highly unlikely anyone already in a DB plan would be interested in switching to a TB plan unless it was the only way to keep their employer from going insolvent.

 

http://www.normandin-beaudry.ca/publications/communiques/archives/2016/vol19-n17.en.html

If your employer is going broke and your DB plan is a major hindrance to a restructuring, you're just as likely to agree to switch to a straight DC plan as a TB plan. Or you resist any change and take your chances.

 

https://kmlaw.ca/bill-c-27-federal-framework-target-benefit-plans/

 

Note the last paragraph:

Quote

Because the trade-off between a DB and a TB is generally unfavorable for plan members, it is doubtful that members and former members would provide their consent to conversion under normal course circumstances with full disclosure. Accordingly, the consent mechanism is only likely to be used under extreme circumstances, including insolvencies. In the past, DB plan members have compromised pension funding requirements, but have not compromised their accrued benefits. The possibility of converting a DB plan into a TB plan generally weakens the position of DB plan members in insolvency or pre-insolvency situation by exposing them to the additional risk that accrued benefits would be reduced. While this is to the advantage of other creditors, it is difficult to see how such a pension-only compromise is in the interests of members and pensioners; yet, without the protections afforded by the law as it currently stands, the conversion option will no doubt expose pension plan members to significant additional risk in the event of insolvency.

As such, the employer won't be able to force an exit from a DB plan to a TB plan any more than it can force an exit from a DB plan to a DC plan, which already happens under the current law. Such a conversion can be collectively bargained, but most unions won't engage in such a conversion to a DC plan or a TB plan with a solvent, let-alone-profitable company. There is a case to be made for amending C-27 to better protect accrued benefits in extreme scenarios, but to suggest that this bill gives a company leverage to unilaterally convert an adequately funded DB plan under normal circumstances into a TB plan doesn't appear to have any merit. (I'm not suggesting that labour is arguing that such unilateral conversion of solvent plans is possible, only that some posters in this thread have stretched the intent of labour's opposition to include unilateral conversion)

 

[DEFCON]

Thanks for the explanation and interesting read Dagger.

'Unilateral conversion' isn't really much of a stretch; once the doors have been opened to the notion, it's only going to be a matter of time until economic fear drives labour into a corner and TB's become the norm.

Even though I am one of those that have a very limited appreciation for all things financial, I've been an advocate of DC plans for three plus decades now. As has been the case, until recently, the last seven, or eight years, labour wasn't prepared to consider any iteration of DC plan, but fear is a powerful motivator.

Every time DB vs DC plans have been discussed on this board the prevailing wisdom holds that the average employee doesn't have any investment savvy and therefore needs to be protected by the 'promise' of a predictable pension benefit; it's tough to argue with that kind of group logic.

It's easy to see the benefit that pension cost predictability will bring to the corporate side of the equation, but there doesn't appear to be anything in the proposed concept that does anything to increase the certainty of the individual's investment.

 

 

[dagger]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Thanks for the explanation and interesting read Dagger.

'Unilateral conversion' isn't really much of a stretch; once the doors have been opened to the notion, it's only going to be a matter of time until economic fear drives labour into a corner and TB's become the norm.

Even though I am one of those that have a very limited appreciation for all things financial, I've been an advocate of DC plans for three plus decades now. As has been the case, until recently, the last seven, or eight years, labour wasn't prepared to consider any iteration of DC plan, but fear is a powerful motivator.

 

 

It won't have any more of an impact that the potential conversion of DB to DC plans has today. The same fears exist and can be exploited under the status quo.

[anonymous]

Dagger....the social media pages of certain unions representing unskilled workers are filled with this tripe and are scaring the hoi polloi

[DEFCON]

Malcolm entered into a dispute with Canada Eh and turned the other thread into a kaleidoscope of 'aviation themed' news stories. Being confused by the battle, I duplicated my response here.

 

Isn't this Forum intended to serve a platform for 'respectful' discussion & debate?

Is it not fair to say the Board theme is aviation based, but discussion is not restricted to only that topic?

Is a user not free to determine the thread(s) he may wish to review and or participate in?

 

Did JO not choose to participate, sometimes aggressively in most off theme discussions?

It would seem then that JO became frustrated because he was unable to develop and advance sound arguments in support of some of his pet political feelings & beliefs, the anti Trump stuff for instance, and so, he quit and left the sandbox.

I think it's sad to see the Left flailing about in the aftermath of the election. It would seem liberals everywhere remain unable, or is it unwilling, to accept the new reality; they don't want to acknowledge that the quest to install their ideology across society, the UK & American versions anyway, has failed to achieve the objective.

It would appear that western society is going to be free to engage in open discussion once again and maybe even encouraged to do so, which will be a darn good thing for everyone regardless of their political tilt.

 

[Don Hudson]

5 hours ago, DEFCON said:

I think it's sad to see the Left flailing about in the aftermath of the election. It would seem liberals everywhere remain unable, or is it unwilling, to accept the new reality; they don't want to acknowledge that the quest to install their ideology across society, the UK & American versions anyway, has failed to achieve the objective.

Alright - let me get something off my chest so we can proceed on a civil basis.

Some of us who are being narrowly put into the gather-'em-all-up-in-a-box-and-point category actually engage, or try to engage in dialogue with quotations, and links, expressing what I think are healthy, normal concerns and sometimes fears, not about having lost the election, (I mean, give us some credit for emotional maturity...please!) but about real concerns about how the United States is going to be run in the next four years.

Some of us have family, good friends and even jobs in the U.S. and there are big question marks over everything concerning how life, business, the economy and the U.S. position in the world is going to unfold. So far, there are only frightening examples of instability and ignorance, and the president-elect is an arrogant, narcisstic, unpredictable and difficult person.

And all that comes back in response is a broken record of "Sore Loser", "Twisting Lefties" "pet political feelings/beliefs" and all manner of dismissive statements that shut down exchanges of views. What do you expect back after being told "lefties are sore losers"? - quiet, reserved and thoughtful contributions?

I am well aware that it isn't fair to judge someone like Trump based entirely on personal qualities and characteristics - we can all think of someone who was all those things listed above and an ass to boot, but still was right about everything and things turned out okay even if they were never likeable.

But this president-elect shows absolutely no sign whatsoever that he is prescient, insightful, politically-adept or capable of really running the ship. That view, widely held even among the right, keeps getting normalized without explanation or defence of the views, even when asked, "Why?" They are held "just because", and frankly it's insulting to be expected to accept such a response, without argument. I have indicated a number of times that the questions I have asked and points I have made about this election have gone unanswered except someone is happy to watch lefties twist. That's a discussion?!

I don't blame J.O. for some impatience, because if the views of those with whom many here disagree are to be just "flailing", then really guys, there is no basis for further discussion.

Sincerely

Don

[UpperDeck]

Guys......and gals.....can't we all just get along? This is a thread about pension plans. How did it devolve into a "discussion" about political beliefs?

Okay....some habitues identify themselves as "liberal" (aka lefties) and others identify themselves as "righties" (aka weirdos). Lol

In fact...I think that members of each group read posts from the "opposition" and say to themselves; "I agree".

Can we all acknowledge that there are "extremists".....a few...ignore them as needs be....and move on?

It has occurred to me that I have posted a comment and NOT received a response and realised (or suspected)....that sob blocked me!!

See the humour in our disagreements. After all...I doubt ANY of us have the ability to alter the flow.

All the best.

 

[Don Hudson]

Hi Upperdeck - re thread-drift, I quoted the passage being referenced, as I was aware of the possibility for drift.

A fair reading, with bumps along the way is all I expect.

I try to take the position that understanding is not a point of view, and an expression of concern over issues is not a "leftie" response - not entirely, anyway.

On the topic of the thread, I thought dagger explained the matter quite well.

[UpperDeck]

Forgive me, Don but my post was intended only as light-hearted banter. It certainly was not addressed to you. Your "response" was a little pedantic, you might agree given my intent. CRM and surgical procedures aside....of which I have some basic understanding....I really don't care whether one is characterized as a "leftie" or "rightee". Sometimes a post is interesting and/or informative and sometimes it is not and may even be offensive. Separating the wheat from the chaff keeps me occupied.

 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Malcolm entered into a dispute with Canada Eh and turned the other thread into a kaleidoscope of 'aviation themed' news stories. Being confused by the battle, I duplicated my response here.

Defcon: The thread you talk about was created by me and I created it as a "a kaleidoscope of 'aviation themed' news stories" no thread drift on my part. http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/416847-back-to-the-theme-of-this-forum/  wish I could say the same for you and Canada Eh as that is where the thread drift on my topic occurred. 

 

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck - yes agree, sorry, my post was pedantic, (now modified); what's more, I'm taking all this too seriously and passionately for a discussion forum. I do that sometimes and it never works out, so I appreciate the splash of cold water.

[DEFCON]

Don

 

I appreciate civil discourse too.

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but your post above seems to indicate you believe I’ve been referring to you as a ‘Leftie’.

 

This has not been the case.

 

For instance; while reviewing my response prior to posting on a fairly recent & related thread initiated by Deicer I noticed that I had referenced ‘Lefties’, which didn’t seem to include the full cast of characters I was attempting to encapsulate in my argument. Being that you were a participant in the debate, it was my intention to include you in my rebuttal too, but knowing you leaned to the Right when it came to certain subject matter, I didn’t think it would be fair, or accurate to describe you as a Leftie and so, without mentioning you by name, I added in ‘Centrists’, a classification I’d fall into as well, albeit just a little closer to the starboard boundary than yourself.

 

When it comes to questions posed by you that were specifically directed to me, I ‘always’ answered in a respectful and hopefully thoughtful manner.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[conehead]

Lefties, Centrists, Righties... sheesh, I'm a ambidextrous Beer-ist.

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON, thank you for your comments.

I didn't know where on a spectrum of left <> right you had my views placed. In fact no one here has directed such comments my way.

Employing labels to categorize people according to their expressed ideas is about power, not about enquiry. That's what I object to. And very likely, these ideas come from our best intentions of caring and being responsible.

I probably don't succeed because, like most on these subjects, I'm passionate about these things, but I'm trying to get away from identity politics and the ongoing tribal assessments of ideas and world views.

[DEFCON]

I generally agree, but so long as 'Party' politics control the Democracy we live in, we're going to remain tribalists.

Beyond politics, pretty much everyone finds reason to identify with some sort of tribe; i.e., I belong to blank union, the association of this, or that, I'm a hyphenated Canadian and so on, which means we instinctively favour the group approach and are inclined towards membership / inclusion more so than individualism.