The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The traditional argument is that generally state employees have a lower income over the extent of their lifetime, so that an earlier retirement is one of the few perks that gets people to sign up for the jobs in the first place, and so helps keep the cost to the state at relatively low levels.
Do you think That system is fair to state employees? And why can't you be a state employee with normal salary and late retirement, if you like?
And again, unless the extra money the state pays for those pensions match up to the lower income, that means the state employees don't get what they should have. Is that fair?
Well you may prefer to negotiate yourself, but why should your employer negotiate with you?
Because if I negotiate with them, they have no choice than to negotiate with me.
Unless your job is absolutely individual this will create nothing but problems for them.
That's funny, usually it is claimed that it is the unions who are demanding collective negotiations, while private companies want individual ones. And most jobs today are absolutely inividual. Of course, if you would rather your union negotiate for you, then that's fine. That's what the union is there for. But hey, one of the main argument in the original post was one of choice. Couldn't we let state employees have a choice in this issue?
Firstly, if each member of staff negotiates their own deal, then the company has to run each contract past their lawyers
Only if they demand contractual changes. Which is very unusual.
and how much money would that add up to that could be going on staff wages.
They have to do that anyway.
The vast left wing conspiracy to keep staff wages low is a bit of a reach too.
That's not a conspiracy. A conspiracy demands a secret agenda. This is not a secret agenda, it's just an effect. It's just something that happens when friends sit at both ends of a negotiating table. It's nothing stranger than that the state and big private companies are very chummy here in France, when the people in the top of the state and in the top of the companies went to school together. It's not a conspiracy, it just something that naturally happens in that situation.
And you agree that state salaries are lower. Yet you haven't asked yourself why, or if that's a good thing. You just claim that because state salaries are lower that have to have better pension schemes. Personally I think a more natural reaction would be to demand higher salaries.
So you want to take advantage of all of the work of previous generations of union activists who have campaigned and struck and gone without wages to bargain to actually get the pension in the first place, and now its accepted you wish to run out and to get the best deal and fuck everyone else?
Exactly how do I take "advantage" of this? And exactly how would I "fuck" everybody else in this scenario?
you can argue that it dosn't only effect you, without a large group of employees banding together whats to stop the employer gradually getting rid of its pension payments, as the government will take up the slack with the state pension?
That's why big centralist totalitarian states usually are bad for people. The decision makers are removed from the people they decide over.
The "getting screwed" parts are when companies are running the type of pension schemes that the states typically run here in Europe, ie, systems where the current workers pay for the current pensions. When companies do that, and they go bankrupt, people get screwed. It's a bad idea.
When states does this, and states run into bad finances, whaddayouknow, people tend to get screwed too. It's still a bad idea. Most of the people working today will have to pay both for those who are pensioneers now, and they will have to save up for their own pensions, becuase todays pension systems isn't working. And we're getting the squeeze. Postponing it is just gonna make it worse.
How do you prevent private companies from picking and choosing their clients? Who will take care of the tough cases?
Well, if you want to do that, you can do it by saying that companies aren't allowed to pick and choose. Done! It can however be argued that they should be able to. As noted above, it's probably a good idea to retire engine drivers and pilots early. Now, are you really suggesting that everybody else should pay for their early retirement? That kinda goes against the arguments in this thread so far...
Again, if you regulate obligations on the insurance companies, why not do the job directly and more simply, without having to worry about enforcement which, as we know, is heavily subject to lobbying and lapses...
Because doing the job directly is even more heavily subject to lobbying and lapses, as this whole discussion shows. What is the unions standpoint on this issue of not lobbying and lapses?
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19
by Oui - Feb 18 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31
by Oui - Feb 8 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 3 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 4 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 27 5 comments
by Oui - Feb 20
by Oui - Feb 201 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19
by Oui - Feb 1816 comments
by Oui - Feb 1711 comments
by Oui - Feb 162 comments
by Oui - Feb 161 comment
by Oui - Feb 1334 comments
by Oui - Feb 124 comments
by Oui - Feb 113 comments
by Oui - Feb 1119 comments
by Oui - Feb 104 comments
by Oui - Feb 83 comments
by Oui - Feb 715 comments
by Oui - Feb 6
by Oui - Feb 65 comments
by Oui - Feb 514 comments
by Oui - Feb 326 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 33 comments
by Oui - Feb 23 comments