My brothers business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme. They have come up with a bill of €70,000 going back over 4 years. This will bankrupt my brother. Whilst not denying the liability is there any way that the CIF will back down on their demands? For the last 1.5 years before the inspection he has been correctly operating the scheme. Whilst admitting that he done wrong it appears that the CIF hammer people who voluntarily go to them whilst not pursuing does that do not comply or register at all.
Do you have an alternative suggestion as to how the pensions of the employees in question should be funded?
Do you have an alternative suggestion as to how the pensions of the employees in question should be funded?
I agree, everyone went into this with their eyes open and the oh so very predictable left-wing/ trade union response that it's the bid bad employers exploiting the poor huddled masses just doesn't wash any more.I think under the counter payments are not the big issue from the employer perspective. Most housebuilders\developers could gain no advantage from such payments. Many smaller builders (and construction workers on 'nixers') doing repairs and extensions certainly use cash and under-the-counter payments, but they are not the ones being targeted by CIF pension scheme. But certainly yes, the chickens are indeed coming home to roost and it is difficult to have sympathy for either the small number of construction industry employers who are now being stuck for pension payments or the large number of construction sector employees who were short sighted enough to ignore this issue in favour of larger weekly nett pay.
So just to be clear, you reckon the specific employees who have been left short of their pension contributions by the OP's brother went into that phase of employement with the eyes open, in the full knowledge that their employer would not pay their pension contributions?I agree, everyone went into this with their eyes open
So just to be clear, you reckon the specific employees who have been left short of their pension contributions by the OP's brother went into that phase of employement with the eyes open, in the full knowledge that their employer would not pay their pension contributions?
I was commenting on MOB's post which was a comment about the building industry in general. Have you no idea of how to read a post in context of are doing a Pat Rabbitte and being deliberately disingenuous?
If you were a first time poster I'd dismiss your comment as trolling.
don't be in the least bit surprised that you'll get challenged for clarification here on AAM.
MOB made a general point about the building industry. I was commenting on his post, which (in case you missed it) was a general comment about the building industry. Therefore is could not be specific (as his post was a general comment). Do you get what I'm saying yet?
This is of course the standard IBEC/PD tactic of attempting to divert attention from the core issue by creating a war of name-calling and labelling. If expecting employees to get the pension payments to which they are legally entitled is considered to be 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views', then mea culpa - I'm guilty, and proud to be.The fact that the world is not neatly divided into "Workers" and "Bosses" messes up your simplistic 1920's style socialist views is no reason to infer that I an Ok with tax evasion or stealing from your employees pension fund. So if you want to know if you struck a nerve, yes; I resent the hell out of that.
Right, I’ll explain it again for the hard of understanding.I think I'm getting it. When you said 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', you didn't really mean everyone - is that it? You meant 'everyone except the employees of ssap16's brother's company' or something like that - have I got it now
This is of course the standard IBEC/PD tactic of attempting to divert attention from the core issue by creating a war of name-calling and labelling. If expecting employees to get the pension payments to which they are legally entitled is considered to be 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views', then mea culpa - I'm guilty, and proud to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?