Lootman wrote:AleisterCrowley wrote:We'll you'd have to pay them more, as some pensions are a significant part of the total package
I'd be happy to pay a retiree the annual value of the company's pension contributions, and then let the worker take on the risk of their retirement. It is the open-ended obligation that is the problem
That's precisely what has happened in recent years with the sad demise of final salary schemes. The burden and risk has been shifted from the employer to the employee, so you have your wish granted. But in my view this is ethically wrong: my belief is that risks in society should be carried by those with the biggest shoulders: this is certainly not poorly paid (or even well paid) individuals, but companies and governments. It is in the long term interests of the latter two parties to reward people fairly in their working lives and in retirement.
It's extraordinary that employers and owners have this dreadful feeling of entitlement (for example to be "compensated" for turning up at the office) yet resent any push back towards fair play by employees: and I speak as an employer of many years practice.
I'd prefer a collegaite approach to problems for mutual benefit, not the self serving naked greed of many employers we see in our top companies where the remuneration ratio from top to bottom is completely our of hand, totally unjustified and hell bent on social disaster.
And you won't be surprised I agree with everything Alerister Crowley wrote below.
The passing of decent employers offering decent pensions is another facet of the race to the bottom which we discussed a few days ago, concerning the debasement of society. In the earlier case it was our desire always to buy the cheapest products without appreciating that this leads to erosion of the quality of all our lives. It is indeed a wretched epoch we are in when employers who offer decent retirement for loyal service (such as Marks, BT, Boots and the other earlier pioneers) can no longer function competitively. It is one more unacceptable face of capitalism, in my view.
There's no point in continuing with this conversation which is in any case now severely OT since we will never agree: we are, sadly, too far apart.
Arb.