Its not a fund - its occupational pension scheme. I actually had this with a major multinational in the not to distant past - multinational is still here, still operating these terms and conditions for all employees. This is a major company with 1,000s of employees in Ireland.
As I said earlier, the employers contribution exceeds the employees - in this particular case the employers was approx. twice the employees plus the employer also put a % of profits in the pension fund. This is a publically listed company and the terms and conditions were the industry norm - this company was not regarded as having generous terms and conditions.
Occupational pensions that people automatically get through their employment are NOT the same a pensions you purchase from an investment company off your own bat. Most occupational pension have some guarantees in them. And, as we've seen from time to time, if there is a deficit in the occupational pension scheme, the shareholders pay through reduced dividends when the company has to top up the scheme.
Again just because you have had decent experiences doesn't mean the represents the private sector as a whole. As I pointed out around 50% of the private sector do not have pensions. Also to say that most occupational pensions have guarantees in them is simply untrue. Most private sector pensions are defined contribution schemes so are dependent on investment returns to ensure a decent pension. Most defined benefit schemes out there are closed to new members and are running up huge deficits. There is no legal obligation on a company having having to fund any deficit either so that is another risk that private sector employees have to take on.
I agree with you on some points. But you cannot use the argument that some employers neglect to put in place proper occupational pension arrangements for their employees as a reason to cut out pensions for other employees. Yes, this is a problem, but is better addressed by encouraging all employers to put provisions in place.
Was this in Ireland? I think there are revenue limits on how much pension can be provided - and I think the maximum allowable is two-thirds of final salary. What sort of company was it that provided the 75% pension?In my experience, typical private sector employee pays 5-10% of salary and receives 50-75% of final salary EXCLUDING SW pension.
Was this in Ireland? I think there are revenue limits on how much pension can be provided - and I think the maximum allowable is two-thirds of final salary. What sort of company was it that provided the 75% pension?
Most occupational pension have some guarantees in them. And, as we've seen from time to time, if there is a deficit in the occupational pension scheme, the shareholders pay through reduced dividends when the company has to top up the scheme.
Glad to help , in the case of AIB it's AIB investment Managers and in the case of Bank of Ireland it's BIAM.Can we have the name of the guy who manages that pension fund... pretty please?
Glad to help , in the case of AIB it's AIB investment Managers and in the case of Bank of Ireland it's BIAM.
3/4 of final salary on retirement plus OAP at age 65 .
You are right , got a bit carried away - it's two thirds of final salary.AIB DB scheme has been closed to new entrants since 1996?
Based on revenue pension limits, I'm still very sceptical of 3/4 of final salary plus OAP but I guess we'll have to take your word for it if nobody else has the facts
I would imagine that public sector workers will react in the same way and I've heard some grumbles already from some friends and relatives in the public sector along the lines of ".....I'm taking a pay cut to keep some unproductive waster in X in a job etc.....".
My last post crossed with yours.Neither AIB or BOI offer defined benefit schemes anymore. Both are hybrid schemes and yes both are still very generous to employees. Its not 3/4 of final salary. It's 2/3's (max as set down by revenue I think) and this is based on retiring on 65 after 45 years service (in the case of BOI anyway). Also these pension payouts have to be linked to inflation unlike public sector ones. BOI's scheme is running a deficit of over €1 billion and both banks reserve the right to change the terms of the pension if they want. As I say they are bloody good schemes but they do not represent whats available in the private sector as a whole and there are still major risks for employees. Look at how many people wanted the banks to be allowed fail during the current crisis. It would have been Waterford Crystal on a much larger scale.
My last post crossed with yours.
The Banks can only change terms and condtions with the agreement of the IBOA , obviously that would include changes to the pension schemes.
I appreciate that such pensions do not represent whats available in the Private Sector however there are a large number of firms with comparable schemes.
The maximum employee contribution to the BOI hybrid scheme is 5.5% with the mandatory contribution being a mere 2.5% - what are public sector workers currently contributing , am I right in thinking it's approx 14% ?
Glad to help , in the case of AIB it's AIB investment Managers and in the case of Bank of Ireland it's BIAM.
3/4 of final salary on retirement plus OAP at age 65 .
Isn't this part of the problem with comparing the Public and Private sector - That within the private sector itself there are (1) companies such as banks/large multi-nationals/ semi-state companie that enjoy similar benefits to the public sector and (2) a large number of smaller companies that do not provide benefits such as pension schemes, most probably because they could never afford it.
People working for companies that have been represented at the social partnership talks have got the pay increases but those employed in the SME sector have not got these increases as this sector has not been represented. Am I right in saying SMEs were not represented at the partnership talks?
Isn't this part of the problem with comparing the Public and Private sector - That within the private sector itself there are (1) companies such as banks/large multi-nationals/ semi-state companie that enjoy similar benefits to the public sector and (2) a large number of smaller companies that do not provide benefits such as pension schemes, most probably because they could never afford it.
People working for companies that have been represented at the social partnership talks have got the pay increases but those employed in the SME sector have not got these increases as this sector has not been represented. Am I right in saying SMEs were not represented at the partnership talks?
Yes on all counts (it should be noted that the semi-states are not private sector but with the banks make up the bulk of the active IBEC members. IBEC is affiliated to the ICTU)
Yes on all counts (it should be noted that the semi-states are not private sector but with the banks make up the bulk of the active IBEC members. IBEC is affiliated to the ICTU)
They are a union, that's why.I'd be interested to know the reason why IBEC is affiliated to ICTU.
They join as a PR exercise when they get their grants but really have bugger all input after that.Getting off topic but were the american multi-nationals such as Intel or Wyeth part of the partnership arrangement, does anyone know?
Getting off topic but were the american multi-nationals such as Intel or Wyeth part of the partnership arrangement, does anyone know?
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?