Biden plans to give 36B to pension plans
President Biden announced today a plan to give $36 Billion to pension plans, mostly the Teamsters, because the stock market has fallen so badly and those funds suffered as a result. The taxpayer will now bail out poorly run pension plans, keeping pensions high, rather than putting it into our own retirement plans.
My question is this: if the stock market has fallen, as did my own retirement funds, why isn't he bailing me out as well? I fail to understand the difference...except of course, that I am not a large, well funded, source of Democrat votes.I’m not going to make a judgement on whether Biden should or shouldn’t bailout the private pension plans; but in my view a responsible government should take some action to protect private pensions under such circumstances.
We had a similar problem in the UK in September, caused by the Previous Prime Minster (Liz Truss) crashing the UK economy just days after she came to power. Liz Truss (the 3rd Prime Minister in three years) was Prime Minster for just 6 weeks (from 6th September 2022 to 25th October 2022) before her own political party deposed her and put Rishi Sunak (a Hindu) in power as our latest and 4th Prime Minster in three years.
One of the effects of Liz Truss crashing the UK economy was the collapse of UK Government Bonds, including Guilt Edged Bonds which are normally considered a safe and secure investment with a good return. Government Bonds normally being an effective way for Governments to borrow money (Government Debt).
When the UK economy collapsed in September, a large number of UK private pension plans were in jeopardy of collapse. So to stave off a destructive UK downward financial spiral, and to bolster support for beleaguered UK Pension Funds; rather than the Government stepping in with a bailout the Bank of England intervened, offering to buy up Government Bonds in the short term, giving a window from 28th September to 14th October, to give time for Private Pension Funds to sell their Government Bonds to the Bank of England so that they could reinvest the pension funds money in something safer.
In the end the Bank of England spent £65 billion ($78 billion) on their emergency bailout, to save the Private Pension Plans. But the key point is (in respect to this forum) is that the bailout wasn’t Government (taxpayers) money, it was the Bank of England’s money; and once the economy stabilised the Bank of England could then start reselling their surplus Government Bonds to financial investors around the world (as confidence in the British economy returned) and thus recoup the money they spent on the bailout.
As I side issue, I don’t have a private pension, so none of this affected me; the two pensions I have (both indexed to protect against inflation) are my works pension (civil service) and State Pension (paid for by the taxpayer) – So thus with inflation in the UK this year being 10.1% then come April 2023 both my pensions will be increased by 10.1%.In Canada the Government is slowly stealing our pension. Someday the crooks on the stock exchange may get it all. Then the knifes and Pic forks will come out after taking away citizens guns, which Turdeau is doing right now.
The State Pensions in the UK, which everyone in the UK gets in full, when they reach State Pension Age, and who’s worked for at least 35 years, is still ‘triple locked’ e.g. the State Pension rises each April in line with whichever is the ‘Highest’ for the previous financial year:-
• Rate of Inflation,
• Average wage rises, if higher than inflation, or
• 2.5% if higher than the above two.The State Pensions in the UK, which everyone in the UK gets in full, when they reach State Pension Age, and who’s worked for at least 35 years, is still ‘triple locked’ e.g. the State Pension rises each April in line with whichever is the ‘Highest’:-
• Rate of Inflation,
• Average wage rises, if higher than inflation, or
• 2.5% if higher than the above two.
While the question of whether it should be done at all is a pressing one, I am more concerned about why unionized workers get their pension subsidized by the taxpayer while others, with the identical problem (falling stock market) do not.
Why just unionized people? Are they different, more important somehow, than the run of the mill, man in the street, struggling to make a living and save for the future?
Or is it political - union members generally vote Democrat, so shovel my money to them and ignore my identical problem.This is clearly a ploy to support a union that is very loyal to the Democratic party. Oh well, Joe is keeping them in the pocket of the Dems. He could care very little about the many that have lost their funds due to participating in employer-sponsored retirement savings plans.
It has become very clear Biden is all about votes for his party.From what you describe for the USA it’s slightly different in the UK.
In the UK virtually all large and most medium sized Companies have unions, so there isn’t a division between unionised and non-unionised workers in the UK; in the UK if a union negotiates improved pay and working conditions then those improved conditions apply to non-union members just as equally as union members within the Company.
Another difference (which you may be aware of) is that in the UK the Labour Party is the political wing of the Trade Unions e.g. the Labour party in the UK was founded by the Trade Unions in 1900, and to this day the Trade Unions have a 33% vote in formulation the Labour Party’s political policy at their Annual Conference; fully paid up party members have a 33% vote, and the MPs (elected Labour politicians) have a 33% vote.
As regards pension - from what you say; again there seems to be a lot of fundamental differences between the UK & USA.
In the UK there are two types of private pensions:-
• Defined Contribution, and
• Defined Benefit.
Defined Contribution is where the money you pay into your pension is invested in the stock market and government bonds etc., and how much or how little pension you get depends on how well or badly the stock market, government bonds do.
Defined Benefit is where your pension is determined by how many years you work and what your final salary is e.g. my defined benefit (works) pension required 40 years to get a full pension of 66% of final salary (the earliest I could take out the pension being 55).
I joined the civil service when I was 16, so at 55 I retired with a near full pension of almost 66% of my final salary. I’d just finished paying-off our mortgage when I retired, I didn’t have the expense of travel costs to get to and from work, I no longer had the expense of paying contributions into my works pension, and as I had worked for more than 35 years and being retired, I was no longer required to pay contributions towards my State Pension; so in real terms, with the savings described above, my disposable income in retirement wasn’t that much less than it was when I was working. Of course, getting my State Pension and free bus pass at 66, my income now is far more than it was when I was working full time.
Returning to the main points in this forum:
If you take out your own private pension with an investor, who will invest in the stock market on your behalf, then your pension is at risk if those investments in the stock market collapse.
However, with your work place pension, under British law there is a lot of protection; as detailed below:
If you work for a small company then they’ll most likely put you in a ‘defined contribution’ pension scheme e.g. what pension you get depends on how well or badly the stock market and government bonds do.
If your employer puts you in a ‘defined contribution’ pension scheme e.g. a small employer; then under British Law they have to do it through a ‘Pension Provider’ who is approved by the FSCS (Financial Service Compensation Scheme). A Pension Provider’ being a private company that invest pensions in the stock market and government bonds etc.
Therefore, if your employer goes bust (bankrupt) your pension is safe because it’s in the hands of ‘Pension Provider’. If the ‘Pension Provider’ goes bust, then as it was approved by the FSCS then the FSCS will pay you 100% compensation; allowing you to re-invest the money elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial … ion_Scheme
The FSCS is an Independent Government Body, answerable to the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), also an Independent Government Body e.g. not answerable to the Government. Both the FSCS & FCA get their money from a levy they impose on Private Commercial Organisations in the Financial Sector.
If you work with a large organisation, and possibly a medium sized company, then they will invariably put you in a ‘Defined Benefit’ Pension Scheme e.g. your pension is based on final salary.
With a ‘Defined Benefit’ pension your employer has to put your pension contributions into a separate pot that is covered by the PFF (Pension Protection Fund) so that if the company goes bust your pension is protected. The PFF which will pay 100% of your pension if you are retired, or 90% of your pension if you haven’t yet retied. The PFF is an Independent Government Body that is not answerable to the Government and gets its funding from levies it imposes on the private financial selector, plus from its own investments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Protection_Fund
Finally, I don’t know what the law is in the USA, but since 2012, under British Law introduced by the UK Conservative Government, workplace pensions have become mandatory e.g. every employer has to by law set up workplace pensions for all of their employees.
Also, from 2012 workplace pensions became transferable e.g. if you change employer you can take your pension with you and add it to your new pension with your new employer; so that when you retire, rather than the hassle of claiming lots of different small pensions you can now just claim one big pension.I was the last in line for my federal defined benefit pension plan that was phased out by the Reagan Administration in the mid 1980s. I thank my lucky stars that I entered the program and remained grandfathered in before he and his "supply side" henchmen could spoil it.
Happy New Year, Arthur...You were fortunate in being in a good pension scheme, which you were able to retain, before Reagan (Republican) scuttled it for new recruits.
I notice others in this forum keep blaming the unions and the Democrats for all the woes; making it sound as if they are making political statements (giving a bias view) rather than a more balanced view?
In Britain, just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean that you will necessarily vote Labour (the political wing of the Trade Unions) no more than being retired and on State Pension (the Grey Vote) you’ll vote Conservative, even though the Conservative party rely heavily on the support of the ‘grey vote’ to win elections e.g. two thirds of people over the age of 65 vote conservative – just as Labour gets most of its support from the young, and the working class.
As regards party membership in the UK - based on UK Government data published in Aug 2022, currently:-
• Labour (socialist party) = 432,000 members.
• Conservatives (capitalist party) = 172,000 members.
• SNP (Scottish National Party) (socialist party) = 104,000 members.
• Liberal Democrats (centralist/moderate party) = 74,000 members.
• Green Party (socialist party) = 54,000 members.
• Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party) (socialist party) = 10,000 members.
What level of paid up membership does the Democrats and Republicans have in the USA, do you know?
And likewise – Wishing you and all on these forums a prosperous and Happy New Year.
ArthurDemocrats have been traditionally more concerned about labor, while the republicans are the equivalent to your "House of Lords", representing the most high heeled maintaining the power of Capital over that of labor. Yet, the unions have become a power into themselves and considerable corruption in its history can be found there. But that does not change the principles involved as to why labor requires some protection.
In the 1980s we had what were called Reagan democrats, those among the working class that placed greater import on social issues than economic ones. It was the beginning of where Democrats accused these groups of voting against their own economic interests. Much akin to the Archie Bunker stereotype from the American sitcom "All in the Family".
Older Anglo folks here tend to vote Republican in larger percentages and numbers. They are the only group that do, with men doing so to a larger degree than women. Much of it reflects a reminiscence of things and conditions of a past that can no longer be realized. Both our societies may share that in common. That ideal can and does supersede economic concerns.
As for the levels of paid up memberships between Republicans and Democrats, I don't know. I will check and see if such information is available.According to this exit poll, 57% orfpeople with a household member in a union voted for Biden, 51% for Trump.
Not much difference, seems to me.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/118 … ership-us/
Interestingly, in finding this I also found where the Teamsters pension plan has been in trouble for some time. A great opportunity for Biden to give away tax receipts to buy votes.Thanks for the feedback, responding to your comments in reverse order, 3rd, 2nd then 1st paragraph last:-
Yep, as you say in your third paragraph, both our societies do share that in common e.g. “Older Anglo folks here (in the UK) also tend to vote ‘Conservative’ in larger percentages and numbers. They are the only group that do, with men doing so to a larger degree than women. Much of it reflects a reminiscence of things and conditions of a past that can no longer be realized”
Re your 2nd paragraph: “All in the Family” was never aired in the UK, so it’s something I’ve never seen; but it was based on the British TV Comedy Series “Till Death Us Do Part” which aired in the UK from 1965 to 1975 which apart from being British humour instead of American humour has a lot of similarities:
A short video clip from one of the early episodes (as a taster): https://youtu.be/8ZvIiZwzj3M
Finally, reference your 1st paragraph:-
For clarity:
• The Democrats in the USA are more akin to the Liberal Democrats in the UK; which in UK/European politics is a centralist party.
• The Republicans in the USA are more akin to the Conservatives in the UK – right-wing.
• The Labour party in the UK is the political wing of the Trade Unions; and hence left-wing socialists. We don’t have corruption in the unions over here in the UK, that you speak of in the USA; largely I think because the Labour Party (which was founded by the Trade Unions) is a political outlet (safety valve), and Labour Laws is an integrate part of British life, such as ‘Free Industrial Tribunal’ (a Government Body) to settle disputes between employer and employee e.g. unfair dismissal.
The House of Lords are not interested in “maintaining the power of Capital over that of Labour”; that is what the British Conservative Party stands for.
The House of Lords are not elected, they are either appointed for life, or inherited their title from their father; so the politicians in the House of Lords do not need to worry about appeasing the voters for re-election as they are in power for life.
Consequently, it’s not politics that motivates Peers in the House of Lords; it tends to be economic, environmental and social issues etc. therefore, Peers in the House of Lords tend to be more of a pain to Conservative Governments than Labour Governments e.g. back in 2012 although it was in the 2010 General Election Manifesto that the Conservatives would slash welfare benefits by £12 billion ($15 billion), when the Conservatives passed the Bill in the House of Commons and passed it onto the House of Lords for approval, the House of Lords consistently blocked the Bill on the grounds that they considered it social unjust.
The political makeup of the House of Lords:-
• Conservatives = 265, of which 46 are hereditary peers.
• Independents = 225, of which 38 are hereditary peers.
• Labour = 113, of which 4 are hereditary peers.
• Liberal Democrats = 84, of which 3 are hereditary peers.
• Bishops = 25
• Irish right-wing parties = 8
• Green Party = 2
• Plaid Cymru (Welsh Party) = 1
So you can see the Independents (not tied to any particular political party) hold the balance of power in the House of Lords, which makes the House of Lords very Liberal e.g. social minded.Arthur, I have to start with the clip you sent. I thought Norman Lear was an original with All in the FAmily" but the English tv show "Till death do us part" is so similar that Lear must have plagiarized it. Your series was aired in black and white during the mid 1960s. "All in the Family" debuted in 1971 and was quite controversial at the time.
Here are a few chuckles from across the pond...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HbEyeo9xFC0&noapp=1
You wouldn't like it here much, Arthur. The history of the United States has a chapter that includes the war between labor and capital.
Can I presume that the late Margaret Thatcher was of this British Conservative Party?
Don't you English get nervous about an unelected and unaccountable body within your Parliment, the House of Lords, even if they can be seen as among the good guys?
I dread to think about how far fascism would advance in America with unaccountable and unelected representatives. For our political Right, it would be a dream come true, for the rest of America it would make the Third Reich look like a Sunday picnic.
Thanks for sharing and educating....Thanks for the clip, wow, the resemblance between the USA & UK version is striking, and yes they were controversial (pushing the boundaries) for the time. In viewing your, clip, apart from the difference in humour (British vs American humour), there’s the language difference too e.g. the word “fag” is not an offensive homophobic word in Britain, in Britain the word ‘fag’ means ‘cigarette’ e.g. in Britain one would say “I’m just going for a fag”, meaning ‘they are just nipping outside for a smoke (cigarette).
Norman Lear didn’t plagiarise ‘Till Death Do Us Part” when he produced “All in the Family”; he ‘bought the rights to the show’ from the BBC – A common practice, and one in which TV Channels, including the BBC, make a lot of money e.g. buy buying the rights to show allowed Norman to legally remake it in Americas image, and using American humour instead of British humour.
Another recent example is the TV comedies series ‘Ghosts’; first aired by the BBC in 2019, and then adapted for America by CBS in 2022. I did watch an episode of the American version, but to me I didn’t find it funny because it’s American humour, not British humour.
Clips from the BBC Ghosts Series: https://youtu.be/i2WsyztziaQ
Other examples include:-
• The Inbetweeners, produced by British TV Channel 4 in 2008; and with the American version being released in the USA in 2010:- The Inbetweeners UK vs The Inbetweeners USA: https://youtu.be/XY3-D4R8Oxc
• The Office, by the BBC in 2001; and as part of British Comedy Export, the BBC have made a lot of money from its ‘international Office franchise’ e.g. NBC adapted it for the American audience in 2005: The Office UK vs The Office USA: https://youtu.be/UnKJr_z-JcI
International franchise of TV programmes is two way of course e.g. after the success of ‘The Apprentice aired on NBC in America in 2004, the BBC bought the rights to show in Britain and adapted for the British audience, making Alan Sugar (a famous British Billionaire) the host rather than Trump in the American version.
Likewise we have a chapter of war between labour and capital, a bloody chapter, where from the start of the Industrial Revolution 1760s to the early 19th century anyone belonging to a trade union could face the death penalty (hanged); it was a bitter bloody struggle that is reflected in the Labour Party’s Anthem – During that period Trade unions were secret underground organisations:
Anthem of the British Labour Party https://youtu.be/sHoyoKgRq5U
Fortunately though, British people are stubborn when it comes to fighting for our rights; so eventually, in 1824 Trade Unions were legalised in the UK.
Yep, you are right, the late Margaret Thatcher was the Conservative Prime Minister during the 1980s; she hated Trade Unions, Nationalised Industry, and the NHS – in fact anything that smacked of socialism.
Looking at the opinion polls there is a lot of apathy towards the House of Lords, especially from the majority of the public who knows little about how Parliament works (ignorance), and that does play into the hands of Labour e.g. a fundamental political ethos of socialism is a strong belief in ‘democracy at grass roots’; so for decades the Labour Party has had its sights on abolishing the House of Lords because of political ideology, and replacing it with an elected upper chamber that’s more regionalised (closer to the people)? But that’s politics for you!
Yeah, I can imagine how corrupt an unelected upper chamber would be in the USA; it’s quite remarkable that the House of Lords has worked for the benefit of people, especially considering the high number of politicians in the House of Lords who have inherited the honour of being there from their forefathers for generations.
My most adorable peer, who was a Liberal Peer in the House of Lords for a while, was Lord Alexander Thynn, the 7th Marquess of Bath (Lord Bath), the Peerage was created in 1789 for Thomas Thynne, 3rd Viscount of Weymouth, and subsequently passed down through the generations.
Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath: https://youtu.be/jA0mz6yrvLg
Bath is just 11 miles from where we live, so we’ve visited Lord Bath’s estate, to see the Safari Park (Longleat) in the ground of the Estate on numerous occasions over the years.
Lord Bath’s Dogs: https://youtu.be/MukUuxnN3qcre: House of Lords: perhaps it is because they are not elected that it works. Elected officials must face election periodically, meaning they have to do things that electors may want but are not in the best interests of the nation.
There is also the fact that they are not salaried, and must support themselves outside of that job. That, too, might (or might not) lessen the corruption.Yep, absolutely, spot on for both points me believe
Where you say “The history of the United States has a chapter that includes the war between labor and capital.” – In my previous reply I forgot to mention the war between the Miners Union and Margaret Thatcher in 1984/85.
At the time the Miners Union was the biggest and most powerful union in Britain, and could hold the Government to ransom, as they did many times during the 1970s. So it was inevitable that Margaret Thatcher (who hated unions) would take on the miners in a showdown, at any cost; and she had no regard for any collateral economic damage she would cause by taking on the miners.
Thus the miners went on strike for a whole year from 6th March 1984 to 3rd March 1985; a whole year without wages, so the miners were totally dependent on the generosity of the public for food and clothing etc., to survive.
In the end the miners had to capitulate, but they done so with pride e.g. they held their heads high in defeat because they put up a just and honourable fight – Typical Britishness.
After the miner strike was over, Margaret Thatcher closed the coal mines (leaving 200 years of coal untouched in the ground) as a final death nail to the miners union - and in the process, with at that time coal mining being a major industry in Britain, of which millions of workers in the supply chains were dependent; Margaret Thatcher’s actions of closing the coal mines put millions of worker out of work and pushed Britain into deep recession for over a decade. The only positive side effect is that 200 years’ worth of coal reserves remain untapped – which is good for the environment and climate change.
It’s an era we lived in, and remember well, so when last year we watched the ‘Pride’ film (made in 2014), a comedy drama based on true events and people of the miners’ strike, it bought back lots of memories – a very nostalgic film.
The Pride film is a true story of where ‘Pride’ (whom themselves were persecuted by government and the news media at the time) raised money from public in support of the miners’ strike through generous donations from the public. It was a little controversial at the time because the ‘striking miners’ (at first) didn’t want to be seen associating with the gay community; but Pride support was appreciated, and in the summer of 1985, when Pride had their annual Rally and March through London, the defeated miners union joined in and headed the Pride March with honour.
This short video clip gives some insight (and history) into that event in 1985:- https://youtu.be/VrrBKTvGQKw
To add a bit of flesh to the history to these events:-
• One of the wives of a welsh miners (portrayed in the Pride Film) who was made redundant by Margaret Thatcher subsequently went to a Welsh University to get a degree in the Welsh Language, and in 2005 was elected to Parliament as a Labour MP.
• A year after the miners’ strike ended a motion was tabled at the Labour Party Conference to enshrine Gay and Lesbian Rights into the Labour Party’s Manifesto; previous attempts to do so, in previous years had failed, but this time the motion was passed – this was due in part to a block vote of the total approval from one key union – The Miners Union.Funny you should bring that up about the Miners Union in Britain. Ms Thatcher's American contemporary and counterpart, Ronald W. Reagan, took on PATCO, the Air Traffic Controllers union who had begun to strike to obtain better working conditions, much of this going on between 1982-85.
Reagan fired them, as he said that federal employees did not have the authority to strike. The federal employees have a union, but its power was and is quite limited. I was an officer in such a union during my federal employment. But to be honest with you, Arthur, there was not a lot of sympathy for their plight. While the nature of their jobs was quite stressful, the average employee was earning $40,000 per year. This was a tremendous amount of money in 1983. Even though, I was in federal employment over 2 years at the time, I took the controller aptitude exam and passed, accepting my designation as a "scab". I figured that for that kind of money, I would work out any and all details as they came along. I had to move fast to decide whether to go to Oklahoma City for the training as my 3oth birthday was approaching and they did not hire anyone over 30. But, I was still struggling with Graves' disease at the time and realized that I probably would not do well in a high pressure environment, so I walked away. I had my regrets, as a couple of friends of mine retired with six figure incomes for life.
Oh, Pathe blocked the video link saying that there were some sort of copyright issue for not making it available in America. Your narrative about the event are appreciated.Yeah, in exchanging emails with my American friend in New York it’s not uncommon for YouTube video links I send him to be blocked on your side of the pond; which can be frustrating at times (and sometimes it’s the other way round e.g. links he sends me are blocked on this side of the pond because it violates EU laws) - so much for ‘freedom of speech’!
Anyway, here’s another link which gives some of the real-life history of the film; hopefully that’s not blocked on your side of the pond: https://youtu.be/BicQQQuMc2Y
Yeah, I remember well seeing in the news of Reagan (or should I say ‘ray-gun’) vicious attacks on the Air Traffic Controllers Union, at the same time of Thatcher’s attack on the ‘miners’ union’; it makes you wonder whether the two were in league?
Of course, Thatcher didn’t have the option of sacking striking miners because under British Law it is illegal for anyone to be sacked for taking ‘Industrial Action’. Following the miner strike, to try to weaken trade unions Margaret Thatcher did pass a law making picket lines of more than 6 people unlawful; but that has made no difference anyway because in Britain it’s deep rooted code that all unions respect picket lines e.g. when I was on picket duty in the early 1980s a handful of us would picket two government buildings (five minutes apart) in the late afternoon to stop the post office from picking up and delivery the post. One amusing event was that the post van would drive up to the building where I worked, and in seeing our picket line would wave to us (thumbs up) and drive away; I would then make a mad dash to the other government building (a couple of streets away) to arrive there (with my picket line placard) just in time to stop the same post office van, the driver would always give me a friendly wave and smile, and drive away. Those were fun days.
And another interesting twist with British law (as it stands) is that non-union members can go on strike, and be protected from dismissal and have the same rights as union member, as long as the industrial action is lawful e.g. even non-union members can (and occasionally do) respect picket lines!
The only reason I (and my close friends in the civil service) all became union activists, with us being elected on the branch committee, I as branch secretary and then elected as section secretary for our union, was because of Thatcher’s attack on unions; the more she attacked the unions the more militant ordinary workers like myself became e.g. if you push someone hard enough, they will push back – at least in Europe.
And I actually enjoyed being a union activist - doing my bit in fighting for our rights; which is a bit out of character for me because I’m normally quite laid back about most things.
I don’t know about the laws in the USA, but under British law if you are an elected union official then your employer must pay you for the time you spend doing union work.
The UK Government website is very informative on the ‘Trade Union’ Laws, and what your rights are etc., below are just a couple of relevant links:
• https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/tra … ent-rights
• https://www.gov.uk/rights-of-trade-union-reps
Generally speaking British strikers do tend to get a lot of sympathy from the public; and not too surprising in that most work places have unions, so there is a certain amount of comradeship.Thanks, Arthur a most informative link as to coal miners strike in Britain and how the "Iron Lady" as she came to be called stifled it all. Her dislike of Unions and lean toward American style capitalism put her in good favor with Ronald "raygun" Reagan. I associate that term "raygun" with his Star Wars fiasco back during the 1980s.
Reagan was just as much anathema here for Progressive minded people as your counterpart was for you folks.
As a federal employee, I was paid as part of my salary for my hours working on Union related cases.
Conservatives are about giving capital and corporatists all of the rights and none to anyone else. Britain has a level of restraint that is harder to employ here in the States.
More states are what they call "right to work", not welcoming to union influence.
Thanks for the links....You're right - most states (28) are right to work states, where a union cannot force someone to join (and pay dues) in order to work. Seems most reasonable to me - were employees at a company a state unto themselves it might be different. But they are not; they are individuals, with the right to make up their own mind rather than be forced to pay for union VIP's lifestyles.
Your point is well taken regarding work and coercion. But there was a reason that unions were created in the first place, has that reason been totally eliminated?
No. 95% perhaps, but not totally.
I recognize and agree that unions have done a great deal of good in this country. I also recognize that they have done a great deal of harm. Unions are great...when good, but when bad they are a bane to common sense and good business practices.
One small thing to consider; unions are only effective when other businesses nearby are paying far less. Only then will anyone pay to be represented, which means that unions are one of the driving forces of inflation - as other wages come up, the union either goes up ahead of them or loses their attraction.
Geez . . . a damn liberal lovefest.
(that's all I had, and I kept the cap on the bottle ;-) )
Ga
Right to Work States: Where a union cannot force someone to join (and pay dues) in order to work.
An interesting point, but one that perhaps reflects a difference in attitude between America and Europe e.g. although closed shops did exist in the UK prior to 1990 I don’t think there were that many closed shops in Britain; in the main union membership in the vast majority of Organisations was voluntary anyway. So when, in 1990 Thatcher made closed shops in the UK illegal it was no great deal.
Closed shops became illegal in the EU in 2006; juridical law on the ‘human rights’ grounds that a person has the right not to be forced to join an association.
Picking up on a point made by wilderness below, that “unions are only effective when other businesses nearby are paying far less. Only then will anyone pay to be represented, which means that unions are one of the driving forces of inflation - as other wages come up, the union either goes up ahead of them or loses their attraction.”
It doesn’t work quite like that in the UK. Yes there is an element of ‘comparative pay’ in pay negotiations e.g. one would expect to be paid a similar wage for doing comparable work; and certainly, under equality laws a company can’t pay different people in the same organisation with the same level of experience and service different wages, that is illegal in the UK.
And certainly, wage claims are made to keep up with inflation e.g. so as to maintain the same standard of living.
However, when I was a union rep (Branch Secretary) pay disputes took up less than 1% of my time; the bulk of my time was taken up by giving union members general help and advice on minor matters, and occasionally representing them during any disciplinary action e.g. being there as an independent witness to ensure that management followed the rules ‘to the letter’, which invariably they did.
Apart from strike action, the most exciting part of my job as union rep was during the winter months when the heating malfunctioned and the office temperature fell below 18.5c (65.3f). In the UK, under British law if the office temperature falls below 65.3f (18.5c) management need to either fix the heating quickly, provide alternative heating e.g. electric fires, or consider sending people home; so on those occasions we would give management an hour to resolve the issue or advise people to go home (on full pay) for the rest of the day. If, as happened on a couple of occasions in those days, the office temperature fell below 16.5c (61.7f) then everyone (members and non-members) have a legal right to go home immediately (on full pay), and there is nothing management could do to stop people from walking out.
Another great benefit from being a union member in the UK is that Trade Unions are very good at negotiating ‘generous discounts’ for its members in shops. That’s’ why when we decided to get engaged my fiancée and I took a day trip from Bristol to London to buy our engagement rings in Hatton Garden e.g. the savings we made from the discount being offered by one of the jewellers in Hatton Garden on my trade union card more than paid for the train fair and a day out in London.
Hatton Garden London's jewellery quarter: https://youtu.be/LaKpGqmPKnc
And even now, although my wife is retired from the NHS (Admin worker) she still pays her union membership fee, specifically because with the NHS Trade Union Membership Card she can get typically 5% discount in many high street shops and with other organisations e.g. discounts on holidays and day trips etc. – so the savings she makes on shopping more than pays for her union dues.re: union vs non-union pay. Are you saying that in general union members earn the same as workers in non-union shops doing the same type of work?
That would never pass muster in the US; union members either earn considerably more or there isn't a union. Those dues have to come from somewhere and in the long run it is the business, not the employee that pays them. Indeed, there is a federal mandate that requires union pay scales for anyone doing work for the federal government, and it almost always results in a raise for a non-union member that works on the job. As an electrician I got into that a couple of times, and it was always nice; the highest paid electrician on the job as I got the wage but paid no dues to the union man that worked alongside me. Of course the taxpayer ends paying considerably more than they should, but that seems OK - the taxpayers are but "deplorables" anyway and are nothing more than an open pocketbook.
I forgot to mention that unlike the elected politicians in the House of Commons, the unelected politicians in the House of Lords don't get paid e.g. they do it for 'love' rather than 'money'.
"You were fortunate in being in a good pension scheme"
Defined benefit pensions are no longer used in the US for a very good reason - far too many companies (and the government) contribute to them less that is required given that there WILL be bad times. Doing that is a coin toss whether there will be sufficient funding down the road, while defined contributions are a sure thing as long as no fraud or looting of the fund is done.
It is then up to the person to decide if that contribution is sufficient for their projected needs or if they should be adding to it. It does put the coin toss on the individual, where it should be. It is their life, after all, and they are responsible for that life, not a company they don't work for any more and certainly not a government. (My father-in-law lost his pension due to mishandling by the company, and had nothing to fall back on.)Yep, you make some very valid points, as usual.
The only friends I know (just a couple of people I know) who’ve lost their private pension pots are those who took out a private investment (private defined contribution pensions with an investor) where subsequently the pension funds have been wiped out by bad investments on the stock market by their financial advisors. Something I never considered doing because I considered my work’s pension to be more than adequate for early retirement, pending me reaching State Pension age, where I would end up with two good pensions, both indexed linked to protect against inflation.
Yeah, what you say about ‘Defined Benefit’ Pensions is perfectly correct, except in the UK:-
1. In large and many medium sized Companies, unions in the UK are quite good at negotiating with the employer reasonably good pensions for the employees, and
2. In the event of a Defined Benefit pension fund getting into financial difficulty there’s the PFF (Pension Protection Fund) to fall back on as a ‘safety net’; an independent government body that is financed not by the taxpayer, but by levy imposed on the private financial sector.Yep, you make some very valid points, as usual.
The only friends I know (just a couple of people I know) who’ve lost their private pension pots are those who took out a private investment (private defined contribution pensions with an investor) where subsequently the pension funds have been wiped out by bad investments on the stock market by their financial advisors. Something I never considered doing because I considered my work’s pension to be more than adequate for early retirement, pending me reaching State Pension age, where I would end up with two good pensions, both indexed linked to protect against inflation.
Yeah, what you say about ‘Defined Benefit’ Pensions is perfectly correct, except in the UK:-
1. In large, and many medium sized, Companies unions in the UK are quite good at negotiating with the employer reasonably good pensions for the employees, and
2. In the event of a Defined Benefit pension fund getting into financial difficulty there’s the PFF (Pension Protection Fund) to fall back on as a ‘safety net’; an independent government body that is financed not by the taxpayer, but by levy imposed on the private financial sector.re: 2) How do companies decide what is sufficient to set aside in a protected fund for a defined benefit plan? Does the CEO do it? The board? An owner if there is one? Does government tell them how much?
The problem is that there is almost never enough money set aside, even if it escapes the fraudulent activities of owners. In good times the fund is raided (either directly or by cutting contributions)...whereupon there is insufficient funding for lean years. This means that the "insurance" of the PFF is an enormous, wasted cost...unless some form of assurance of sufficient contributions is constructed. What is used in the UK to assure sufficient funds?
I would point out that this is exactly what the biggest defined benefit scheme in the world has done; the US Social Security Income is a defined benefit scheme without sufficient contributions to sustain it and is (and has been) in the same trouble companies that follow the practice are.In answer to your question: “How do companies decide what is sufficient to set aside in a protected fund for a defined benefit plan? Does the CEO do it? The board? An owner if there is one? Does government tell them how much?”:-
Yep, effectively, it’s the government that tells them. In the UK works Pensions are regulated and monitored by the TPR (The Pensions Regulator), an independent Government Body set-up by the Labour Government in 2005.
Currently under British Law Companies who provide a ‘Defined Benefits’ pension scheme have a legal requirement to make a minimum monthly contribution to the pension pot of:-
• Employer minimum contribution of 3% of the employees monthly wage, and
• Employee’s minimum contribution of 5% of their monthly wage.
If the Company doesn’t comply with the above it will be prosecuted by the TPR (The Pension Regulator).
In practice, that 8% contribution is sufficient to cover the pay-outs for ‘Defined Benefits’, and if because of economic changes it proves likely that it will not to be enough in the future, The Pensions Regulator will adjust the legal minimum contributions accordingly.
Where you say “In good times the fund is raided (either directly or by cutting contributions)...whereupon there is insufficient funding for lean years”; that may be the case in the USA, but in the UK:-
• Defined Benefit Pensions are ‘ring-fenced’ by law e.g. it is a criminal offence for a Company to raid the pension pot; and if the Company does goes bankrupt, and goes into Administration, because the pension pot is legally ring-fenced creditors cannot touch the pension pot to pay off the company’s debt.
• As mentioned above, the legal minimum contributions paid are specified by The Pension Regulator, so Company cannot cut the pension contributions.
Where you ask “What is used in the UK to assure sufficient funds?”: As stated above, The Pension Regulator (an independent government body) stipulates the minimum contributions made, to assure sufficient funds; therefore the PPF is purely just a ‘safety net’.
UK DB funding code of practice by The Pension Regulator: https://youtu.be/e3EfpLNFAXM
Yep, where you describe; “…. the US Social Security Income is a defined benefit scheme without sufficient contributions to sustain it and is….” – Yeah, a similar picture in the UK:-
The UK Social Security Income benefits contributions (NI) e.g. a 12% tax paid on wages of the lower and middle wage earners, with just a 2% NI tax on high income earners) last year’s NI tax Revenue to the UK Government was £158 billion (18.2% of all government revenue).
NI Tax on wages is intended to cover Health and Social Care (NHS, State Pensions and Social Security Benefits); Whereas, UK Government expenditure on Health and Social Care last year was (as a percentage of total government expenditure) was:-
• NHS = 18.5%
• State Pensions = 14.5%
• Social Security = 11.3%
I think that in this modern day and age its normal for government expenditure on Social Care to be high in all industrialised nations.
But we all have a high standard of living, so we can’t complain; there are a lot of poor countries who are a lot worse off than us.12% NI (tax) on earnings of lower paid and middle paid earners for Health and Social Care (NHS, State Pension and Social Security Benefits) might sound excessive, but it’s not as much as it sounds e.g. in the UK you don’t pay any taxes on the first $15,000 you earn, so for the average wage earner in the UK the actually amount they pay in NI (tax) on their total earnings is just a little over 7% - and well worth every penny considering that the NHS is free at the point of use, and provided you work for at least 35 years you’re guaranteed a respectable State Pension; let alone security from the State if you fall on hard times e.g. unemployment benefit.
8% contribution seems rather low, given that our SS contributions is 15.3% and is insufficient. Of course, that is based on "investing" at the lowest possible rate of return - if yours is invested at something reasonable it would be a different story.
I don’t have a definitive answer, but I can make a guesstimation as to why the difference!
The 8% contribution is the ‘minimum’ permitted under the current Regulations e.g. the Company and Trade Unions may negotiate agree contributions that are higher.
Is the SS you refer to the same as the Defined Benefits pension; if so, then I doubt that the difference between the 8% minimum contribution to a Defined Benefits pension scheme in the UK, and the 15.3% you quote for SS contributions in the USA is anything much to with how investments of those funds are made; albeit the UK Government these days does encourage some ‘higher risk/higher return’ investment for pension funds.
I suspect that the difference predominantly may be that perhaps the management of the SS contributions in the USA is profit motivated e.g. the body responsible for managing the SS and making the investments are private companies’ intent on making a profit from managing the SS? Just as healthcare in the USA is profit motivated e.g. private medical insurance companies making huge profits for providing health insurance; pushing the cost of medical care up by a third, whereas in the UK healthcare is State owned and State financed (cutting out the middle man), and thus saving money.
In the UK, Defined Benefit Pension schemes have to be run by ‘pension scheme trustees’, many of whom are lay people without professional expertise, often a member nominated trustee; albeit The Pension Regulator provides free training and advice to ‘pension scheme trustees’. And as you may know, trustees do not carry out their duties for ‘profit’ (they do not get paid), although they may get compensation for completing their trustee’s duties. Therefore the cost of running the Defined Benefit Pension pots in the UK is minimal because it’s managed and administered by ‘non-profit’ trustees.Social Security (SS) payments are not "managed". They are put into a pot that politicians borrow from for their pork projects at the lowest interest possible; that of lending to the government. It doesn't even begin to keep up with inflation, which is the biggest reason it is going broke. That 15%, invested in the market with low/mid risk would make millionaires out of each of us after working 40 years.
SS is essentially a loan then.
You pay in, whether you want to or not, and if you live long enough, you get that money's value back in your "retirement" years.
Of course, you have to get to that age to benefit from it.
The issue is not that the government gets it and does what it wants with it, the issue is the government overspends by the trillions now, more than it brings in each year... so eventually the whole economic system, and the social supports dependent upon its viability (IE Welfare, Social Security) are going to fail. And that time appears to be nearing.Partially; you will get back (if you live) more than you put in. And a small portion of what your contributions would have earned under honest management.
It is a failure simply because it is NOT managed; instead it quickly became the biggest ponzi scheme in the world, one (as they all are) destined to fail. In that regard SS has already failed - all we can do is await the death throes to see how badly we get kicked.
So in other word, the Social Security (SS) payments that you refer to are not the same thing as Defined Benefit Pensions, which are managed by ‘pension scheme trustees’ on behalf of the Company for the benefit of the employees in their retirement. As previously stated the Defined Pension pots are ‘ring fenced’ e.g. protected from sticky fingers.
Comparing Social Security payments to Defined Benefits pensions is like comparing apples and oranges; two completely different things. The SS (Social Security) payments you describe are more akin to the NI tax on earned income; which I did describe in some detail in a recent comment above.
In the UK the NI tax is 12%, over 3% lower than the 15.3% you mention the SS payments are, and in actual fact accounts for 18.2% of all the UK Government Revenue. Although in theory it is meant to cover all Health and Social Care in the UK in practice it doesn’t e.g. State Pension in the UK accounts for 14.5% of the total Government expenditure, and Social Security Benefits accounts for another 11.3%.
So, Wilderness, are you so anxious to return to an early 20th and late 19th century model. Why do you think the Social Security program was created in the first place? Folks, sometime before you were born, thought that such a program was necessary. I could be mistaken, who knows, you may well have been around when they were shoeing horses?
A Social Security type defined benefit is what is savings millions from poverty. So you can put your Ancient Horatio Alger primer to one side. So, I am always going to support the concept of defined benefit, and I am open to how that may be best accomplished.
My point is that there is room for improvement, but I am willing to collectivize to avoid families and bread winners having their life savings in the clutches of Wall Street gamblers. That, to them, is no more significant that a toothpick to clean their teeth. The markets are far too volatile to expect the same returns over time that we did in the past, by letting it be. The vast majority of seniors have Social Security as their primary income source. You almost have to have an MBA and be watching with a professional eye to even hope to successfully navigate the risk over a substantial period of time."A Social Security type defined benefit is what is savings millions from poverty."
Sure is! And going broke as it does so, with steadily declining payments (after inflation) and increasing taxes. Those things don't matter? They do to me!
But had people had that 15% to invest themselves, and did so with half a brain (in those same "clutches of Wall Street", they would be millionaires at retirement. But we can't do that, because it has become no more than another giveaway, paid for by the current taxpayers. Again, that matters to me.
The difference is that you are happy to put the onus of supporting people on government, while I believe it is up to the individual to provide for themselves.
(You are wrong about the long term effects of the market, too. I studied that some time back, with the result that I could not find a 40 year period that did not return at least a 10% return. Now, go into it for 5 or even 10 years and you will almost always lose, but that isn't what retirement accounts are for or are supposed to do.)"But had people had that 15% to invest themselves, and did so with half a brain (in those same "clutches of Wall Street", they would be millionaires at retirement. But we can't do that, because it has become no more than another giveaway, paid for by the current taxpayers. Again, that matters to me."
--------------
If the solution were that simple, then we would have had no need for FDR nor Social Security as every citizen prior to 1935 should have been able to invest in the market with that 15 percent to live on when they became to old to work.
In the 40 year period, does riding that roller coaster give you comfort? In the mess in 2008, many of my co-workers lost money from these investments funds and had to almost start over, with the risk and uncertainty that they would not be able to regain what was loss in a timely way. The pull up your boots strap world that you speak of all of the time did not exist successfully prior to 1935 nor does it today. Now, it requires defined benefit system. You must think all seniors are lazy and irresponsible as most of them include Social Security as a primary source of income. I guess they lacked the discipline to cull 15 percent of their wages over 40 years toward a visit to the Wall Street casino?
I know that we are going to disagree on this point, all the same.If your co-workers had to "almost start over" in 2008 then they had not been saving for long. I personally lost over 20%, but that did not leave my 30+ years of saving "starting over".
" I guess they lacked the discipline to cull 15 percent of their wages over 40 years toward a visit to the Wall Street casino?"
If they are drawing SS then they DID "cull 15 percent of their wages". They just didn't get to invest those funds in anything of value.
Credence, I have several times taken the figures from the SS and plugged them into a spread sheet, showing the results of various rates of return. The figures that SS uses as my "contributions" over the years.
And every time I did I get the result that I should be a multi-millionaire after working 40 years and contributing that 15% to SS. Instead I am a pauper, unable to feed, clothe and house myself with those funds. Trouble is that Congress feels no fiduciary duty towards that money that I contributed towards my retirement in spite of being 100% responsible for it. Instead, it is treated and used as a "free" money pot for pork.
No, most people would not set aside that 15%, ending up poor and hungry, whereupon liberals would demand we "fix" the problem by replacing the money they squandered. The obvious solution is to require employers to set it aside FOR employees, in government approved funds of the employees choice. Funds that do not consist solely of government bonds.Wilderness, Here is a hypothetical...
These people I speak of were on the verge of retirement such as I was at the time. This, under the provisions of the Thrift Saving Plan as part of the new Federal Employee Retirement Program. So, now, because Wall Street laid an egg they hav to postpone retirement plans for years as many lost 30-35 percent of pre meltdown savings. For the amount of time it would to take to recoup, I question if they would live so long. It did come back, but could anyone really say how long that was going to take, and how many years that one would postpone retirement as a result?
I thank God every day that my old federal plan gave me my benefits without market risk.
I do agree with you that it has been and is a crime that previous administrations and Congresses have used Social Security as a slush fund to avoid raising taxes which was unpopular but necessary. It may have been more successful in staving off insolvency, if the funds were administered responsibly.
But saving the sums necessary is not an easy task over so long a period, otherwise we would not have so many seniors, the vast majority of which require it.
Following your suggestion, I would think that a percentage be taken out of from wages, standard, and let the employee opt out for such a Savings plan. Obviously, there is a discipline involved in saving consistently for long periods of time that most people lack.
Not to pick on your comment, but it is a standard gut reaction many have to any privatization of Social security monies.
There is an old example that appears to show there are other possibilities:
Here are the details of the idea:
Three counties in Texas beat SS performance.
There is a big caveat to the success claims of The Galveston plan: the superior numbers touted are for upper-middle and high-income earners. It appears middle to lower incomes do, or would get less than SS offers. Poliifact
The Galveston Plan has safely weathered 40+ years of stock market cycles, (such as your 2008 note), so at the least, it shows a privatization plan can be long-term safe. The first link's description of the plan seems similar to the "ring-fence" security of UK's government plan mentioned by Nathanville.
My perception is that because SS is simply a legal Ponzi scheme at root, the government took away the 'private account' choice two years later because they needed the forced participation for their program to survive.
. . . and look where that thought leads: the well-off get the good stuff and the peons get the dregs. Or, once again a villainization of the successful and forced subsidization of the less successful.
GA
.Thank you. That was an interesting link, and something along the lines of what I think should be done for people.
If the country wishes to support those elderly that do not earn sufficient during their working careers to provide for themselves, then do so. From the general tax base, not on the shoulders of those that DO provide for themselves.It sprains my brain to think of the consequences to our economic workings if your 'general tax base' proposal was used. Imagine the funding tentacles attached to the current system's SS fund. Imagine the private sector suckers attached to those tentacles. Imagine the two-tier retirement class—government pensioners vs. 'rich' retirees that would result.
And then imagine your prosal working. It could fix a lot of problems without creating worse new ones.
GA
GA, I like it. The idea of a guaranteed minimum return, puts me at ease. With that guarantee, I could confidently move into the financial markets knowing that I would have a reasonable return when the nest egg is opened.
If the Texas experiment can be applied nationally, it would satisfy this liberal, for sure, if and when lower income people can enjoy similar benefits,
I am ecstatic over the concept of both long term and safe... you have shown me something better than Social Security. So when can we get started? But again there is the problem of how middle and lower class employees can brought along to reap the advantage ? That is where most Americans fall so there is a big gap and I have to wait and see as to how this difference amounting to an economic chasm may be closed.
I don't trust the 401K, as I have seen in documentaries, fees, surcharges, etc changed by firms and brokers can whittle away ones expectations for their nest egg at the end of a specified time. Most simply don't have the financial wherewithal to negotiate the markets on their own
"A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.."
Is this a claim being made in the program? Twenty sixK is low income already, the claim here is that such a person would almost make as much in retirement as they were making on the jobI would take a shot at that numbers explanation but I already sprained my brain responding to a comment about using the general tax base.
We have had discussions about the Galveston plan in years past. There are a lot of 'How do we do this' questions that go along with the idea. You will see a couple mentioned in the thread.
GA
In essence yes, because we don’t have ‘closed shops’ in the UK; they were made illegal in 1990. So for any medium or large company you work for some of their staff will be union members and some non-union members. So any benefits the union negotiates with management will apply to all staff, regardless to whether they are union members or not. Effectively, getting all the benefits but paying none of the dues (union membership fees) – that’s life.
And of course, if you’re looking for a job, how much pay an employer is offering is a major consideration, especially at times like this where we have a chronic labour shortage in Britain; so in practice Companies are going to compete with each other to attract potential employees to work for them – Hence similar jobs with different employers will offer similar pay, and that has nothing to do with the unions.
When I worked in the civil service (government) we didn’t have ‘union pay scales’ we had ‘civil service’ pay scales; and if we did have to employ a private contractor e.g. electrician, they would always be paid far more than a civil servant doing the same job would be paid.
In fact that’s where one of my close friends benefited: He was made redundant from the civil service in the late 1980’s when Margaret Thatcher was trying to cull the civil service, received a handsome redundancy package and then a few months later was taken back on, but as a private contractor rather than a civil servant, doing the same job that he did previously in the civil service, but as a private contractor, getting paid significantly more.
I think you will agree that taxpayers are not ‘deplorables’; before I retired I was a taxpayer. But in the UK Brits get less het up about paying taxes, or tax increases, if the extra tax is just and reasonable: I think largely because we do live in a Nanny State, so as long as the State provides, having high levels of wealth is less materially important to Brits than Americans."as the State provides, having high levels of wealth is less materially important to Brits than Americans."
I have to wonder about that. Do you not have any truly wealthy people; those at a billion$ or more in their piggy bank? Was the queen not offensively wealthy?
Does it matter to them that the wealth is confiscated to give away? The collection of vast wealth is a game to some (IMO, for there is no other reasonable explanation), and when that game is denied in order to play "according to their needs" I cannot see them happy about it.Yes we do have 177 billionaires in the UK of which the two most famous are:-
• Sir Richard Branson, and
• Lord Alan Sugar
SIR RICHARD BRANSON:
• British billionaire who controls more than 400 companies in various fields.
• Net worth $3.7 billion
• His view on flexible working: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
LORD ALAN SUGAR
• Lord Alan Sugar (Peer in the House of Lords), host to the British version of ‘The Apprentice’ on BBC, is the 138th richest person in the UK.
• Net worth $1.47 billion.
• He was a member of the Labour Party until 2015 and one of its largest donors.
• Lord Alan Sugar's House of Lords speech (as a Labour Peer) re: Women in business - https://youtu.be/1L67dXSt71g
If you view the Sir Richard Branson video on his views of flexible working, and consider the fact that Lord Alan Sugar was a strong Labour supporter; I think that answers your question on the attitudes of British wealthy people – It’s a different culture with different cultural values to the American culture.
And Lord Bath (7th Marquess of Bath), although not a billionaire, he was a multi-millionaire, worth $190 million; he was a Liberal Peer in the House of Lords (hereditary peer), and a very lovable person; as this video shows:- https://youtu.be/MukUuxnN3qcWilderness, where you said above, to quote:
“Do you not have any truly wealthy people; those at a billion$ or more in their piggy bank? Was the queen not offensively wealthy?” … “Does it matter to them that the wealth is confiscated to give away?” … “I cannot see them happy about it.”
I previously replied in respect to other British billionaires, but at the time (without doing lots of research) I had nothing useful to contribute in this debate in respect to the Royal Family; but events of this week has given me some useful data that maybe of some relevance.
To give some background: The British royal family gets its income to pay for the costs of working royals, travel for engagements and maintenance of the royal properties from the ‘Crown Estate’.
The ‘Crown Estate’ is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate, but includes land such as majority of the seabed in British waters.
So for example if a private company wants to build an off shore windfarm then they have to lease the seabed from the ‘Crown Estate’, which is effectively the same as a private company leasing land from a landowner in order to build a factory on that land.
But the royal family don’t get all the income they earn from leasing their land (Crown Estate), the Government impose a hefty tax on it; historically the royal family used to be taxed 85% on their profits from the 'Crown Estate", but temporarily (until 2027) that has been reduced to a 75% tax on profit in order to give the royal family the extra cash they need to repair and renovate Buckingham Palace.
Currently, the royal family earns around £312 million ($386 million) a year from its ‘Crown Estate’ profits, which after tax is £86.3 million ($107 million) a year.
The news event this week is that 6 new offshore windfarms are being built, which will go live in 2024 and provide enough electricity for over 10% of the population; and in the first two years of operation will generate a net profit after tax of £1 billion ($1.2 billion) for the royal family – profits earned from the lease of the seabed to the private offshore windfarm companies.
What made the news is that King Charles, citing the suffering of the British people from the current ‘cost of living crisis’ (his precise words being to acknowledge the “great anxiety and hardship” for people who struggle to “pay their bills and keep their families fed and warm” – So this week King Charles decreed that he doesn’t want any of the $1.2 billion profit that he will earn in the first two years from the lease of the seabed for the six new windfarms, and that instead the money should be put to good use to benefit the people.
As regards other financial aspects of the Royal Family; unlike everyone else the royal family are exempt from paying the inheritance tax; and (notwithstanding the tax levied on the ‘Crown Estate’ profits), as part of a law passed by the Conservative Government in 1993 the Monarch (King) is also exempt from paying income tax, although he does pay it voluntarily anyway.
What, then, is the incentive to join a union and pay dues? There is no more money in it for the employee; is it just that they can misbehave at work and the union will help them keep their job?
When an employee is treated unfairly at work, who stands to advocate for them? That is certainly not beyond management's purview.
Personally, I leave for greener pastures. Done it more than once in my life, and never needed an "advocate" to keep me in a job where I wasn't wanted and (therefore) didn't want to be.
The biggest thing, though is just as Nathan says; he lives in a nanny state where people like having a "father figure" standing over them, prepared to take on any of your needs rather than you doing it yourself. I do not (though it is getting closer all the time).The problem is that all the pastures can well be based on the same model. If they, management, all have the same imperious attitude, where can you go? Such is one valid reason for Unions. As a federal union rep, I had to go to bat for employees at the federal level who had been mistreated. If you are in the midst of a career with the federal service, leaving for a specious "greener pasture" may not be possible.
What was I to do in the face of job discrimination based on race or ethnicity, find another pasture?In my 72 years of life I have never seen the time where all businesses in the country had the same model of operation. Neither have you.
I have seen good companies, I have seen bad and I have seen those in the middle. Just as you have.How many times are we to jump around looking for another pasture? Imperious managers and supervision are not such a rarity. I like the idea of Unions and the idea that no one can act with impunity or not be held accountable, from skid row right up through Elon Musk. But again, that is why I find conservatism, American style, unpalatable.
"I like the idea of Unions and the idea that no one can act with impunity or not be held accountable"
Me, too. That's why we have courts. Unions that try to run a company based solely on worker's wages, that shut down companies and whole towns in a futile effort to gain higher salaries, do no one any good. And yes, I have watched that very thing happen; towns that very nearly died on the vine because a union forced the only real employer to go out of business when they could not pay more than their profits.
Unions were once very valuable, but when their power outgrew their common sense they did more damage than good.Well, the disputes between labor and management are why there exists negotiations and binding arbitration. It is not always about wages; it could be about safety or working conditions. Management, in its greed to squeeze what profit that they can, may well run over the rights of workers. This has always been their MO.
While, I don't want either side, Union or Management, to run off with the store, the balance needs to be maintained. I won't trust the sole desires of corporate control without input from labor, as represented by unions."Management, in its greed to squeeze what profit that they can, may well run over the rights of workers."
You're right - it can happen. Just as it can happen that a greedy union can run over the rights of an owner, even to the point of closing a business because of that greed.
What I don't understand is that while you won't trust the desires of a company for profits, you will trust the desires of a union for "profits" (ever higher wages). Why? What is intrinsically better about a group of workers than a group of owners? Especially a group of workers organized into a union that is experienced in breaking companies down in their never ending reach for more?Well, I don't trust either side, but unions were not created to protect the robber barons and wealthy industrialist maintain sweatshop wages and working conditions.
I am all for fair play but I admit I don't trust the wealthy over working class people. I am naturally more suspicious of the objectives of capitalists and corporatists over that of labor. Yet, I strive to keep that natural bias from not allowing me to see the need for a balance the two sides, regardless.
But the balance require equal input and responsiveness from both sides of the table, neither side running roughshod over the other." unions were not created to protect the robber barons and wealthy industrialist maintain sweatshop wages and working conditions."
You're right. They weren't. Neither were they created to protect jobs, good shops or businesses that pay decent wages. They were created to garner as much for workers as they could, and at any cost.
That didn't work out too well, and unions in general toned down ridiculous demands, beginning to take a hard look at business conditions when making demands. Just as businesses did when formulating a wage schedule. Ideally, the two will work hand in hand, but that is rare.
But a question for you: "I am naturally more suspicious of the objectives of capitalists and corporatists over that of labor.", but what are employees if not capitalists selling their product to the highest bidder? No one works for less than than they have to; is that not the very definition of capitalism?Employees are people who have to work to survive, at least during the earliest formation of labor unions, while plutocrats/capitalists are concened with exploiting them to the greatest extent in pursuit of profit. It has certainly not been labor within the conflict history of labor verses management who has been the underdog. What "they have to work for" and accompanying working conditions may already be "less" and is unpalatable on its face. They are the ones behind the 8 ball, not the owners. Was it pure capitalism for workers to have the privilege of working in sweat shops? It was less, and yes, they had to.....
I can relate with your point only when I remember the Unions in the auto industry complaining about more benefits, when we were seeing a new paradyme, introduction of competitively priced and well made models from Japan, during the early 1980s. The old days of simply raising the price of American cars to accomodate union's desire for more worker benefits was no longer possible. This was a point where labor had to compromise in the face of an entirely different market. And, if I recall, they did not do that very well, such was the reason the "rust belt" came into being."Employees are people who have to work to survive, at least during the earliest formation of labor unions, while plutocrats/capitalists are concened with exploiting them to the greatest extent in pursuit of profit."
Exactly so, but what you forgot to include is that employees exploit those other capitalists to the extent possible in the pursuit of wealth.
But I'm not sure why you thing businesses were not behind the 8 ball when unions demanded wages beyond profits. Business owners also depend on the business to eat and survive, even stock holders in corporations.
True - management held the upper hand for a long time, and that's why I said unions were useful. Then the unions had the upper hand and companies died on the vine.
Businesses have faced competition for a long time now, and it wasn't only the car manufacturers that were up against foreign competition. That's why so many manufacturing facilities have left the country (can't afford to pay American wages and still compete) and, as you point out, why we have a "rust belt". My wife worked for Micron, but their chip production very nearly died (several hundreds laid off) because of that foreign competition and that was not so long ago.
There has to be a middle ground (some have found it and found it well), but it isn't just paying union wages no matter what is demanded. I'm not sorry we lost some businesses (including one my wife worked for many years ago), but we've crossed the line and are, and will continue, to pay a very high price for foreign products. Not so much in financial cost but in lost jobs.
Personally I believe unions still have a place in setting wages and working conditions, but the time where every year or two things had to get better for employees and worse for companies is long gone. The idea that the same work, the same production, is suddenly worth more simply because time has passed just doesn't make sense."There has to be a middle ground (some have found it and found it well), but it isn't just paying union wages no matter what is demanded. I'm not sorry we lost some businesses (including one my wife worked for many years ago), but we've crossed the line and are, and will continue, to pay a very high price for foreign products. Not so much in financial cost but in lost jobs."
I have no issue with this, as "balance" is the point.
These industrialists are going to leave anyway, paying people 3 dollars and hour to do work that cost so much more here is a non brainer.
The very fact that Britain has been gripped in general strikes across all industrial sectors for the past six months is a clear indication on the popularity of union membership in the UK.
Strikes: Britain brought to a standstill: https://youtu.be/m64L_APkX68
Most private companies have now made paid settlements with their unions, and the Government even gave the judges a 15% pay rise after the judges had been on strike for a month! But in the rest of the public sector the Government is still holding its nerve, hoping that public opinion will change – which is a big gamble when the next General Election is looming (less than 2 years away)!
But getting back to your main question “What, then, is the incentive to join a union and pay dues?”-
Other than pay negotiations, there are plenty of incentives, including but not exclusive to:-
• Negotiations better working conditions.
• Working with management on Health and Safety.
• Help & Advice to union members, and representing them when they are treated unfairly at work, and
• Generous discounts in shops and for services for those who have a trade union card.
Taking each of the above examples in turn:-
#1: Negotiations better working conditions.
A year after I joined the civil service my union negotiated a great deal on ‘flexible working’, as follows:-
• Provided that we did an average of 37 hours per week, over a 4 week period, we only needed to be in the office from 10:00am to 12:00 noon, and from 2:00pm to 3:30pm (Core Time).
• At the end of the 4 week period we were allowed to be up to 1 ½ days in debit time or 3 days in credit time.
• During any 4 week period we were allowed to take up to 3 flexi days off with pay, on top of our annual leave.
Therefore, I would work long days to build up my flexi, and then have up to 3 days off each month without even touching any of my paid annual leave; consequently, with my six weeks paid annual leave and paid flexi leave I would end up having about 3 months a year paid vacation time (annual leave + flexi leave).
In contrast my boss was more interested in getting home early every day, so he would come into work at 7:30am and go home at 3:30pm, leaving me in charge of the office for the rest of the afternoon.
• In 2003 the Labour Government introduced Legislation giving parents and carers the legal right to request flexible working.
• In 2014 the Conservative Government extended the legal right to all employees in the UK provided they’ve worked for the Company for at least 6 months.
• On the 5th December 2022, the Conservative Government removed the 6th requirement, so that now anyone can request flexible working from day 1 of their employment with a new Company.
In the video below, this is how two British Companies (a car manufacture and a High Street retail shop) are complying with the new ‘flexible working’ laws introduced by the Conservative Government in 2014: https://youtu.be/2Qs0EL6JWD0
#2: Working with Management on Health and Safety.
When I was a union rep I was also a Health & Safety Officer (as part of my union duties); and in that roll worked closely with management to ensure any office changes didn’t contravene European Health & Safety Laws e.g. the ergonomics of new office desks and chairs when desk top computers were rolled out in offices during the mid-1990s.
#3: Help & Advice to union members, and representing them when they are treated unfairly at work.
Where you say “never needed an "advocate" to keep me in a job where I wasn't wanted and (therefore) didn't want to be.” – That’s a fair point; but what you describe can also be construed as ‘Constructive Dismissal’. Constructive Dismissal being where you’re forced to resign because your employee makes your work life unbearable e.g. your boss keeps picking on, constantly ridicules you, personality clash etc.
Where there is ‘Constructive Dismissal’ your union can represent you in an industrial tribunal and get compensation for you, similar to the compensation you would get if you were unfairly dismissed.
#4: Generous discounts in shops and for services for those who have a trade union card.
In the UK many High Street shops, and other organisations, give generous discounts to union members; I guess from your comments that that doesn’t happen in the USA?
Back in 2010, my son was at university and naturally joined the ‘students union’ and we used his union card to buy the Microsoft Office suit, and the Adobo Suit (which includes Adobe Photoshop) with a 90% discount e.g. making two good software packages that most ordinary people couldn’t afford to buy, affordable for students, provided they were members of the student union.
When we got engaged we bought our engagements rings in Hatton Garden, London with about a 33% discount, using my civil service union card.
Currently, my wife is booking our first holiday (vacation) of the year, and using my wife’s NHS union card, we’re being offered a 7% discount on our holiday.
NUS (National Union of Students) Discount Card in the UK: https://youtu.be/wOHkNpncWggHere's a tangent I couldn't resist bringing to this 'Unions' discussion. Almost just for you. ;-)
A first response to a story that caught my eye . . .
"Demi Lovato poster banned by advertising regulator for being offensive to Christians"
Here's the deal. A singer's, (Demi Lovato), promotional ad poster was banned in Britain because the government received 4 complaints from Christian's of being offended by it.
CNN described the poster as an image of the female singer ". . . under the headline "HOLY FVCK" which is also the name of the album. The image showed Lovato sprawled across a large cushioned crucifix in a leather bondage-style outfit."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/entertai … _term=link
There may be a lot more to this story, but geez Louise bud. That's some silly stuff. That has to be the ultimate 'ask'; Legal government protection from being offended. I know better than to give weight to a 'first thought' but this one is hard to suppress: Just like us, you folks are getting the government you deserve.
GAFair point, except in this case it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government.
The Advertising Regulator that you refer to is the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority).
The ASA is a ‘Self-Regulatory Organisation’ set up and financed by the ‘advertising industry’ itself in 1961, to ensure that adverts in the UK are Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful; as per this video below:-
• Advertising Standards Authority: https://youtu.be/0xjTJoLklvs
Therefore, with the Industry itself, regulating itself responsibly and sensibly, there has been no need for the Government to interfere.Oops, I pointed at the wrong government. So the ASA is an industry "government"? That still seems to make the point. The British people are still willing to accept that level of societal regulation.
GA
Yes, the British people are willing to accept that level of societal regulation because it means that adverts in Britain can be trusted as being “Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful”.
Therefore, when you see an advert in Britain you have faith that you are not going to be ripped off by the advertiser and thus more likely to respond to the advert in ‘good faith’; which is good for business.
Yep, the ASA is private industry ‘regulating itself’; which might seem quite novel – but that’s the British for you!
And the Government has faith in the advertising industry in regulating itself to the extent that the Government is willing to work with the ASA, as demonstrated in this short video below:-
In the following video:-
• BCAP & CAP are sister organisations of the ASA. BCAP are responsible for making the ‘codes of conduct’ for TV & Radio commercials and CAP make the ‘codes of conduct’ for ‘non broadcast advertising’, including printed ads and advertising on the Internet.
• The ASA works closely with Ofcom. Ofcom being an ‘Independent’ Government Department; meaning that Ofcom is NOT answerable to Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
Interestingly, to ensure better compliance to the ASA codes, the six major TV companies have voluntarily created their own regulator called ‘Clearcast’, which they finance and run themselves, independently of ASA and Ofcom.
And also interestingly, over 90% off all other TV and Radio stations in the UK subscribe to Clearcast; mainly because over 99.9% of adverts that Clearcast approves are accepted by the ASA.
Clearcast, Ofcom and the ASA. UK TV Advertising regulations explained: https://youtu.be/J5yK5-E5ynoGA
Three other Adverts I found that the ASA banned:-
#1: Morrisons burger ad banned by ASA: https://youtu.be/Az2P9G7tdEs
The ASA banned this Advert for failing to promote healthy eating e.g. in the advert the child takes the salad out of the burger rather than eating the salad with the burger; Morrisons is a major supermarket (Retail food shop) in the UK.
#2: Aldi Swap & Save ad banned by ASA: https://youtu.be/fM2vjvTtXLA
The ASA banned this Advert by Aldi (a major supermarket) following a complaint by ASDA (a competitor supermarket). To quote from the link from this video:-
Asda claimed that Aldi unfairly selected products for comparison to gain an “unrepresentative advantage”, and that the basis of the comparison and savings claims was “unclear”. It said that elements of the products, such as price promotions and product size, were unverifiable and that the data period referenced in the advert was out of date. Therefore it said the “£45 a week” could not be substantiated or proven against future savings.
The Advertising Standards Authority upheld Asda’s complaint as it found Aldi had excluded a number of items from the total savings and that this was not made clear in the advert. It also said Aldi had not made it clear to participants exactly what they should buy as part of the challenge and had not asked them to buy the same products at each store.
#3: Skype Ad banned by ASA: https://youtu.be/XZhmLR5Nuc4
This Advert was banned for misleading consumers over the picture and audio quality of making a video call using Skype. The ASA upheld five complaints that the advert exaggerated the picture and sound quality that the Skype service actually provided.Oh lordy, lordy, and I thought the first one made the point, your links have added a starburst of emphasis.
.
GAI'm with you GA; I simply do not need Mama watching over my shoulder to make sure I only see ads encouraging me to eat healthy (or healthy according to a committee of social gadflies telling me how to eat.
Where wilderness says “I'm with you GA; I simply do not need Mama watching over my shoulder to make sure I only see ads encouraging me to eat healthy, or healthy according to a committee of social gadflies telling me how to eat.”
Yeah, I guess that emphasise different cultural attitudes between UK & US?
But for clarity, the ban and restrictions on adverts that encourage unhealthy eating is not designed to encourage adults to eat healthily (although there are Government and NHS adverts that do that as well); the adverts are banned specifically to protect children under the age of 16 – part of an ongoing campaign that stems back years:-
#1: In 2006 Ofcom introduced new restriction on TV Advertising of food and drink to protect children; the Regulatory objectives being to reduce significantly the exposure of children under 16 to the advertising of food and drink products that are high in fat, salt and sugar.
#2: In 2016 the rules imposed on TV adverts by Ofcom in 2006 were extended by the ASA in 2016 to include all non-broadcast media, including print, cinema, online and social media. At that time both the advertising and food and drink industries have rallied behind new rules banning the advertising of high fat, salt or sugar food or drink products in children’s media.
#3: In 2018 because statistics show that childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems in the UK, with one in every 3 children in England leaving primary school overweight or living with obesity the UK Government made it Government policy to tackle the issue, and set ambitious Government targets to halve childhood obesity by 2030.
#4: In 2019 the Local Government in London, who owns and runs all public transport in London, banned Junk food advertising across the entire Transport for London as a new ground-breaking measure to help tackle child obesity in London. Therefore, in London, Food and drink brands, restaurants, takeaways and delivery services can now only place adverts on public transport which promote their healthier products, rather than simply publicising their brands.
#5: In 2019 the ASA introduced new rules on the scheduling and placement of adverts to ensure that under 18’s exposure to advertisements for certain product categories, such as alcohol and gambling, are appropriately limited.
#6: In 2022 the ASA published its underlying principle for broadcast advertising (under the BCAP Code) e.g. TV adverts, that children must be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm. In the UK a child is deemed to be someone under 16.
#7: In 2023 the UK government are introducing new rules banning the advertising of so-called junk food online and on TV before the 9pm watershed from 2023 as part of its policy to tackle childhood obesity by 2030.
New measures announced by the UK Government will ban products such as cakes, chocolate, ice cream, breakfast cereals, and pizza from being advertised during daylight hours when they are most likely to be seen by children.
But some foods high in fat or sugar will be spared from the ban, including olive oil, honey, avocados, and Unilever’s Marmite spread.
The move by the UK Government has been criticised by UK food industry body ‘The Food and Drink Federation’ (FDF) which said it is “disappointed” by the move. However, health campaign groups such as ‘Action on Sugar’ and ‘Action on Salt’ welcomed the move.
Sugar Tax
As a related topic, following a campaign and lobbying of Parliament by campaign groups to introduce a sugar tax; the UK Government responded to the campaign by introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks in April 2018; which adversely affected the sales of products such as Coca-Cola in the UK. The sugar tax resulted in over 50% of manufacturers reducing the sugar content of their drinks (so as to pay less tax), and since the introduction of the sugar tax, sales of soft drinks has fallen by 10% in the UK.Yes, censorship usually starts out that way. "Hey, I know, lets start banning what we do not like and telling everyone we are doing it for the right reasons."
It is only later on that the thought police come along (both UK cases) and arrest you for praying in public and for telling someone that they are fat on the internet.
Cencorship never starts out that way, but later on heaven forbid you should say something that the nanny state doe not agree with.Reference to ads targeting adults for encouraging healthy eating and life style; here’s one NHS advert that’s been on British TV: https://youtu.be/Uoxl0D9syvU
"However, health campaign groups such as ‘Action on Sugar’ and ‘Action on Salt’ welcomed the move."
Yes, there are always people that think they know better than others how those others should live their lives. From food to religion to energy to education to almost every facet of life, there are some that feel they are better than anyone else so their opinions are the only ones that count.I think your "some" is 'many' — as soon as someone gives them the power of choice. From hall monitors to HOA boards to legislators, just give them the power of choice and you might find that 'some' will be 'most.'
GAAgreed. There is something in the human psyche that tells us we are better suited at making choices and therefore should make them for everyone. We WANT to control others and convince ourselves that we should.
But if I understand your earlier comment, all those things that unions do for will be available to those that are not a part of the union. So, again, why pay for it when you will get it anyway (I except the shop without any union at all)?
Yeah, non-union members within the organisation also benefit from any negotiated benefits gained by the union on pay and working conditions; but British people do recognise the concept of ‘Strength in Numbers’, ‘United we Stand, Divided we Fall’ etc. e.g. British people recognise that if people don’t join the unions in sufficient numbers then the union would be weak and they (the employees) would be at the mercy of their employer: Thus, it seems basic common sense to me and many Brits to join a union.
Besides: If you are not a union member and you get treated unfairly at work, the union is NOT going to help you.
And, if you are not a union member then you can’t take advantage of all the discounts that shops (food, cloths, electronics etc.) and travel companies and holiday companies etc. offer to union members. As I said previously, my wife is using her union card to get 7% off our next holiday (vacation).
As I said before, I assume from your comments that in the USA Trade Unions do not negotiate with businesses to get generous discounts on shopping for union members? Whereas in the UK, shopping discounts (saving money on shopping) for union members is a big thing – it saves my wife a lot of money on shopping each year.
Trade Union Benefits (discounts on shopping) for members of the CWU (Communication Workers Union): https://youtu.be/a3-D1tnxGCE?t=135"Besides: If you are not a union member and you get treated unfairly at work, the union is NOT going to help you."
You sound like credence. After some 50 years of working I have never seen anyone treated "unfairly" to any significant degree. I know it happens, but just as I told Credence, that's when you pack your bags and find different work.
No, I've never heard of a union giving cheap shopping. We have various shopping services, and some cheap stores, but unions are not providing them. That might be an incentive, depending on the savings and the cost of being in the union.
Yes, being treated unfairly does happen; and if you have to resign because of it e.g. “pack your bags and find different work” then that’s called “Constructive Dismissal”. And under British law if you can prove ‘constructive dismissal’ in an industrial tribunal then you get the same compensation from your employer that you would get if they had dismissed you. And in the UK the Industrial Tribunal is a FREE Service run by the State (Government).
Mock Employment Tribunal UK - What happens in an employment tribunal? https://youtu.be/71wxEjFys6g
Union membership fees in the civil service are currently around $15 per month; which is a small price to pay for the benefits.
Yeah, I got the impression that union members don’t get cheap shopping in the USA.
For clarity, it’s not the unions that give cheap shopping; the unions approach a wide range of businesses and negotiate discounts for union members with those businesses.
For example, as per above link for the CWU (Communication Workers Union) e.g. postal workers https://youtu.be/a3-D1tnxGCE?t=135
Anyone who works for the ‘Post Office’ in the UK and belong to the Post Office union (CWU) can get shopping discounts from 34 major retail shop chains including:-
Major Food Shops:-
• ASDA = give 3% discount to CWU members
• Sainsbury’s = give 4% discount to CWU members
• Tesco = gives 3% discount to CWU members
Tesco Food Supermarket has 27.3% of the retail food market.
Sainsbury’s Food Supermarket has 15.1% of the retail food market.
ASDA Food Supermarket has 14% of the retail food market.
So between them ASDA, Sainsbury’s and Tesco account for 56.4% of all retail food sales in the UK, and they offer 3% to 4% discount on food shopping to Postal Workers, if those postal workers are members of the Postal Union (CWU).
My wife, with her NHS union membership also gets discounts on our food shopping with major food supermarkets, including Tesco and Asda who are currently giving 10% discount on food to NHS union members.
Tesco, also now sell petrol (gas), so she also gets a small discount on petrol (gas) by using the Tesco petal station (which is adjacent the Tesco Supermarket, where she also gets 10% discount on the food shopping) – The savings quickly add up.
And that’s just food. In Electronics, Currys PC World, the largest electron retail store in the UK offer Postal Workers belonging to the Postal Union (CWU) 6% on sales; so just imagine buying a new TV or New computer from PC World and getting 6% discount, and then think how much a postal worker would save with that 6% discount on a new TV or computer, or washing machine or fridge/freezer etc.
Whenever I want to buy any DIY materials e.g. timber, paint, screws etc., then my wife pays for it to get her NHS union discount in the DIY store, and I pay her back later.
Then, there’s clothing and restaurants, and jewellery shops, and Travel Agents who all offer discounts to post office workers who belong to the postal union (CWU) e.g. Thomas Cook, the biggest travel agency in the UK offer postal workers in the postal union 4% discount on travel and holidays.
Each union negotiates separately with businesses for discounts for their members, but in general the discounts are similar e.g. whenever I take my wife out for a meal in a restaurant either for a special occasion or when on holiday, my wife always pays to get the union discount, which is usually around 15% to 20% discount, and I pay her back later – so it makes for a cheap meal out.
From a business perspective, in a competitive world where your competitors are offering trade union members discount; it makes good business sense for you to also offer discounts to trade union members, to attract more custom (turnover). For example the Post Office employs about 150,000 employees, the NHS employees about 1.4 million employees and the civil service employ about half a million employees; any major retail shop willing to offer discounts to such union members can attract more sales (turnover) - and if they didn’t offer any discounts, they would lose customers to other retail shops who are willing to offer union members discounts.
I guess in summary, it’s a different culture, with different cultural values in the UK than in the USA e.g. in the UK the lines between Trade Unions and Businesses are more blurred; less of the ‘Them and Us’ mentality in the UK?
So in answer to your last point “the savings and cost” of being in the union. I my wife’s case, although she is now retired, she continued her NHS union membership because just on the savings on the discount on food alone pays for the cost of her union membership fees – And the other savings she makes on other shopping is just bonus.That "free" tribunal isn't actually free, of course; if even one person in the country gets a salary from it, someone is paying that salary and it isn't "free".
The cheap products, though - in my experience (across the pond) I can match or beat the prices offered by any club or organization like that (and there are many). So there isn't anything to be gained except convenience, although the cost of $15 per month is really cheap. It's been many many years since I was in a union (where we went on strike every year to make enough more during the rest of the year to make up for what we lost for being on strike), but seems like I paid well over that 50 years ago.
Yeah, the cost of industrial tribunals is paid for by the taxpayer, just like the NHS; it’s part of the Nanny State – Just as Scottish Universities are free (at the point of use) for ‘all’ UK & EU citizens except the English (who have to pay to go to universities in Scotland).
But the ‘free at the point of use’ of industrial tribunals isn’t free just for employees and their trade union representatives; the service is also free (at the point of use) to the employer too – so it’s a fair and equitable system.
I didn’t understand your second point e.g. where you say “The cheap products, though - in my experience (across the pond) I can match or beat the prices offered by any club or organization like that (and there are many)”; I’d appreciate a bit of clarity?
But if I hazard at a guess of what you are trying to say; you are saying that you can get ‘special offers’ and ‘cheap deals’ on selected products, such as ‘end of line products’, reductions for ‘stock clearance’ or promotional offers etc.?
And also in the UK all the major supermarkets (food stores) offer ‘loyalty cards’. A loyalty card scheme being where you collect points on the card every time you shop; and then you exchange the points you have collected, either for vouchers to spend in the supermarket, or simply to provide money off at the till.
Like many people who shop around, my wife has ‘loyalty cards’ with every major supermarket, which helps to make further savings on her food shopping; but the points earned on loyalty cards is over and above the discounts she gets on her food shopping by using her NHS trade union membership card; so it’s a double saving on her shopping.
Another gimmick supermarkets use to try to entice customers to shop with them, rather than one of their competitors is to offer generous once off short term discounts e.g. my wife periodically gets emails from one or other of the supermarkets that she regularly shop with offering her for example £15 off if she spends more than £50 with them by the end of the week.
And the main difference between using her NHS trade union membership card to get discount on food shopping (or any other shopping e.g. electrical goods etc.), is that the discount is not restricted to ‘special offers’, ‘cheap deals’ or ‘promotional offers; it’s a discount on ‘all’ items bought. So for example if Tesco supermarket sell ‘baked beans’ at half price (as a loss leader) for a week, my wife will buy six months’ supply of baked beans at half price and get a further 10% discount using her NHS trade union membership card; and if the half price baked beans offer coincides with an email that she got from the supermarket offering something like £15 off if she spends more than £50 with them by the end of the week, then the savings on her food bill is even greater – It all adds up.
As you may know, a loss leader is where a supermarket (food store) will sell a product at a loss to entice customers into the store, and also spend money on buying other products while there.
But if like my wife you shop around, then you can get all the best bargains by using the 'price comparison' websites (a free service); and in the UK you can even use the supermarket price comparison websites to place your order on-line with which ever supermarket offers the cheapest shop, and get that supermarket to deliver to your door, often for a free delivery if you spend more than say £50.
Make The Most Of Supermarket Loyalty Cards: https://youtu.be/0lsIUBYP4DY
As regards your last point; perhaps part of the answer to trade union membership fees being cheaper in Britain is perhaps because more people belong to trade unions in the UK e.g. the economies of scale?" you are saying that you can get ‘special offers’ and ‘cheap deals’ on selected products, such as ‘end of line products’, reductions for ‘stock clearance’ or promotional offers etc.?"
No. I don't know what to call them except "buying clubs", where the club makes deals with companies to lower the cost to club members. The company benefits with higher sales, the member with lower prices. But I can about always beat the club price (and I have belonged to a few) by watching sales, stock clearance, etc.
Thanks, for the clarity wilderness; yep, what you call ‘buying clubs’ is exactly how the “unions makes deals with companies to lower the cost to union members”.
Granted, if you shop around you can sometimes find better deals; but if you’re doing your weekly food shopping supermarkets are far cheaper than corner shops (economies of scale), so you’re invariably going to do your weekly shop in a supermarket – and as most of the major supermarkets in the UK give discounts to union members it’s difficult to do better than that.
And if it comes to something like buying a cooker, fridge freezer, washing machine or TV etc., then yes we shop around before buying, looking at the prices from all the major retailers, and any local small retailers, and on Amazon; but invariably (about 90% of the time) we find that currys offers the best price, and using her NHS trade union card my wife gets ‘trade union’ discount at currys for anything that she buys from them.
Currys PC World - Pricing TV Ad: https://youtu.be/YqVjmVwHci0
For clarity ‘supermarkets’ is the UK equivalent to Walmart in the USA; the only difference is that in the UK no one supermarket is dominant, we have dozens of supermarket chains competing with each other for customers – a very competitive market. As of November 2022, the market share of the top handful of supermarket stores in the UK is:-
• Tesco = 27.2%
• Sainsbury’s = 15.2%
• Asda = 14%
• Aldi = 9.3%
• Morrisons = 9%
• Lidl = 7.4%
• The Co-op = 6%
• Waitrose = 4.5%
ASDA does very competitive advertising on TV; pushing their ‘Price Guarantee’ that if after shopping with them you subsequently discover that your shopping was less than 10% cheaper than comparable products in another supermarket then ASDA will pay you back the difference in price: As per this TV Advert (ASDA Price Guarantee Advert): https://youtu.be/pZzWsHbjLWM
Also, this Advert by ASDA makes bold claims on how much cheaper they are than their leading competitors; and it’s an authentic claim e.g. if the claim was false then the ASA would have banned the advert: https://youtu.be/fVPYylZ31pY
My wife gets trade union discount in all three of the leading UK Supermarkets, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and ASDA, and she gets the trade union discount with Morrisons as well.
It’s not a question of Health Campaign Groups (or any other similar groups) thinking they ‘know better than others’; it’s all part of ‘free democracy’ in the UK e.g. Action Groups Lobbying Parliament, which is part of the democratic process in Britain.
As an individual, if I have strong views on a particular matter then I have the democratic right to lobby my own MP (politician) in an effort to get my MP to support my cause; then my MP can raise the matter in Parliament on my behalf.
Groups like the ‘Health Campaign Groups’ will encourage their members to lobby their MPs individually, and at the same time the ‘Health Campaign Group’ will also lobby Parliament – It’s all part of democracy.
Often the Government will ignore such ‘pressure groups’, but sometimes the Government will take note, and then, for major issues, usually issue a ‘white paper’ (consultation period) to gauge views from all ‘interested parties’, which will include industry and the public, and based on the feedback the Government may then instigate changes in the law to meet, or partially meet, the demands of the ‘pressure group’ (lobbyists).
The link below explains the whole democratic process (in a free democracy) of how (over 7 years) campaign groups persuaded the UK Government from saying an emphatic ‘no’ to a sugar tax on soft drinks in 2011, to introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks in 2018 (a political U-turn): https://foodactive.org.uk/the-sugar-tax … -get-here/
Don’t you have a similar democratic system in the USA?On re-reading your by you and GA were you referring to the matter that I replied to above, or were you suggesting that it is wrong for the NHS (National Health Service) to give 'free' medical advice on diet and lifestyle?
As I said on other occasions --- the country is spinning out of control... And "we the people" are doing nothing... nothing. We get what we bought, It's a bit late to right this ship. We have disregarded our constitution, and we as a people have become very dependent on Government. And most eat anything that is dished up.
I was somewhat shocked to see this OP posted. This is another example of a big problem that slipped through the cracks. I almost posted it myself back in the first week of Dec, when he did it. So much has slipped through the cracks. Makes me wonder when Americans will realize the media is not really reporting all the problems Joe is causing the country. This pension thing was lightly reported on, but it was apparent not many citizens picked up on it. Lots more to come.
His big spending bills have lots of crazy in them. Won't hit ya, till it hits ya...This sounds like the same political bribery as the student loan forgiveness plan.
GAOr maybe he actually cares about unions??? I don't know, how good are your mind reading skills?
I'm sure he does. After all, they produce billions in campaign donations and millions of Democrat votes. They must remain healthy.
Individuals outside of the union, on the other hand, have the exact same problem (stock market collapse caused by Biden), but produce neither the donations nor the votes. They thus don't matter - they are just "deplorables" to quote Democrat leadership.How do you support the logic of the idea? At its root, it is simply taking from the many to give to the few because you have the power to do so.
As for caring about the union folks, why are they more deserving than the non-union folks whose pensions took the same stock market hit?
It's not mind-reading, it's politics.
GA
Free money for & freedom of speech, for those that support you.
Endless Investigations into and de-platforming of those who don't.
Just more evidence of it.
I see your point, it appears from several article sources that the money to the Union groups were both unprecedented and of a political nature. It may have been a consolation for being found on the wrong side of the issue of striking railroad workers.
I dislike and distrust Republicans who I know would not blink an eye giving handouts to their fat cat constituencies whenever the opportunity presents itself.
But Biden's move here is not an easy one to support on its face lacking equity and parity.Not easy?!?!? It is the typical Democrat method of paying back what they own for the votes and donations!
I don't think it possible to have a more unequitable action, a more unfair move. Democrats are not known for ethics when it comes to giving money away, but this takes the cake.So do I. I put it on liberals here as a response to the hit on conservatives, but it is government, not only half of it.
Although I will say that it is mostly liberals that enjoy the idea of taking from one person to give to another, buying their loyalty and votes in that manner.Conservatives do "it" as well it is just that they have their own loathsome constituency that they fawn up to. So here is the rest of the story..... the narrative below sounds so much like you and standard GOP boilerplate.
2) The GOP hands out "free stuff" for the same reason as Democrats.
Many Republicans believe that Democrats win elections by giving away government benefits to their core voters such as unions, the working class, and racial minorities (e.g., Jeb Bush’s recent comments about black voters and free stuff). However, the Republican Party is not immune from the electoral pressure to use government power to provide federal money to their most loyal supporters. The main difference between the two political parties is not whether to deliver government benefits to supporters but rather who those supporters are.
The Democrats and Republicans have opposing socioeconomic core constituencies.
The Republican Party’s core socioeconomic voting groups are wealthier households and businesses, both of which benefit when social welfare is provided through the tax code rather than through explicit spending.
The main reason is that given the progressive tax structure of the federal income tax, tax breaks deliver more value to richer households. For example, if a high-income worker in the 39 percent bracket excludes $10,000 from her taxable income, she receives a government subsidy of $3,900. If a lower paid worker in the 10 percent bracket excludes the same $10,000, her tax break is worth only $1,000.
Secondarily, the privatized welfare state offers direct benefits to the private companies whose services it purchases. Funding retirement security via a tax break for savings accounts, for example, generates profits for financial services companies that manage the accounts. It is not a coincidence that banks, real estate companies, and other industries that benefit the most from the federally funded private welfare state also donate more heavily to the Republican Party than to Democrats.
Social welfare tax subsides have the additional electoral benefits of being able to be sold to voters as tax relief, erode public support for popular public programs like Medicare by offering a private alternative, preempt new Democratic proposals for government-run programs (e.g., paid family leave tax credit), lower the effective tax rates for the wealthy, and reduce the amount of future revenue that Democratic administrations will have to spend.Oh? Can you point to a conservative give-away plan designed and intended to reward conservative voters at the expense of liberals?
I will point to many...
What is corporate welfare?
Reich is my hero, but conservatives could consider him bias because of his taking the high road as progressive thinker. But what about the content?
https://prospect.org/economy/corporate-welfare-hurts/
https://prospect.org/economy/corporate-welfare-hurts/"What is corporate welfare?"
As nears as I can tell it is whenever government pays a company to carry out an action government wants. In a few cases (ones I disagree with for the most part) it is to keep a company afloat, but for the vast majority of cases it is to buy something government wants.
Because it goes to a company rather than an individual doing what government wants done (as some 9 million federal employees do) it is called "welfare" in the hopes of demonizing the companies.
"The main reason is that given the progressive tax structure of the federal income tax, tax breaks deliver more value to richer households."
And you as a liberal, feel that the wealthy should not get tax breaks because they are responsible for supporting the rest of the country. I agree only that this is a major difference between the conservative and liberal; conservatives tend to, and at least try to, support themselves while liberals depend on others to give them what they want and demand that those that have earned more give what they earn to the liberal.
", the privatized welfare state offers direct benefits to the private companies whose services it purchases."
Tell me you aren't whining that people risk their retirement by investing it through third parties instead of just drawing SS paid for by other taxpayers. Tell me you aren't complaining that the legitimate business they generate isn't evil in your mind.
Your "social welfare" appears to be anything that government spends in private business to get what it wants or needs. Yes, those companies benefit from providing what government wants, whether it be a nut for an airplane wheel or a location in the inner city. And what can possibly be wrong with that?
Even your list of the evils of conservative daring to preempt liberal proposals is nothing but a list of "share the wealth" plans, whereby one person gets what another has earned. Marxism and socialism at it's best, and may conservatives forever fight such evils, for they are in direct competition with improvement and betterment of all.Don't find the purpose or way the Government constantly are destructive on both sides to work.
Do think the US constitution is the greatest laws of ethics of ever studied. Outside of the book of toaism based on nature.
Up to 1776 in America the constitution helped created an independence, We the people. Before then, the whole world's history, worked by dictators or kings. Politicians or wealthy are not my boss or own me or my personal kingdom or force my will. Force compliance theory would not work , any more than one world order for the rest of us. As each president keeps advertising world order. Even though salvery is greater today than any other time in human history.There will alway be the few, who are truly free and healthy. Conspiracy theories have a human right to question the many authorities abuses. It's the collective consciousness of the people who make for positive change throughout human history. Where rarely the politicians or religion do.
"The main reason is that given the progressive tax structure of the federal income tax, tax breaks deliver more value to richer households."
Even for the most cryptic of conservative minds, the reality of a national progressive tax system is a given, not just here but in all developed nations. The WORKER is the foundation of the economic engine of the country, the wealthy are just the ones that get all of the spoils. When it arranged that the wealthy pay less and less of their share within a progressive system, that money that is not collected come from the federal budget. Since you saber rattler types don't want to touch the military sacred cow, who gets hit?
I must fight the creeping feudalistic attitudes and arrogance of today's right winger with equal fervency.
I vote democrat because I don't like plutocrats and fascistic tendencies, it is just a another biased stereotypes that the best educated among us, the progressives, are looking for "free stuff".
We will have to agree to disagree on this point, don't we always? Go see "Trading Places" sometime, while it is a comedy, it is a great satire and commentary on society as to how the system really works....."The WORKER is the foundation of the economic engine of the country"
That's a nice sentiment...until the realization hits that without the capital investment, the control, the work towards efficiency - all the things provided by the rich - the worker will produce nothing but a spear, bow and arrow, and a fire in his cave. At that point most of us (at least in the conservative genre) recognize that it takes a partnership and neither rich nor worker is the root.
"When it arranged that the wealthy pay less and less of their share within a progressive system"
Again, a nice sentiment...until one realizes that the "share" of the rich is far more than for anyone else, and for the same return. Somehow the "share" of the rich means anything we can grab before they finally say "Enough!".
"I vote democrat because I don't like plutocrats and fascistic tendencies"
And I vote Republican because I believe in the person, not the committee. I believe that it all comes down to each of us, that each of us is responsible for themselves, and that we do not need a government committee somewhere to shovel money to us. We can earn it ourselves. I do NOT believe in the socialism of Democrats; I believe that in the long run (meaning a few decades or perhaps 100 years) it will collapse into ruin.
So yes, we have to agree to disagree. You will continue to fight the good fight in a forlorn effort to make all people "equal" somehow, in the face of acknowledged fact that we are NOT equal. In the face of the acknowledged fact that we do not all have the same goals or wants. In the face of the acknowledged fact that there is a price for everything we want or do; a price that must be paid whether by the person themselves or by someone else.
So we will continue to debate on these forums, entertaining the readers.I have mix currency, of skills, gold, cryptocurrency, housing, health food, team and medicine. Studying the BRICS and anarchist has helped me a great deal with the G7 conflicting direction. Most people are not prepared for what to come by plan of A, or B or C. Our hololic team are ready for anything the greedy bastards can throw at us.
Related Discussions
- 57
The Folly of Trickle-Down Economics
by Arthur Russ 2 years ago
Trickle-Down Economics is an economic theory whereby if the Government gives the wealthy a cash injection that they will invest that money in the economy which in turn will stimulate economic growth.However, in practice, rather than investing the extra money in the economy there is a great tendency...
- 20
The idea that capitalism is theft
by promisem 7 years ago
Capitalism is the art of legally stealing money from people who don't have the intelligence, education or experience to realize they are being ripped off until it is too late.In other countries, payoffs to politicians is bribery. In the U.S., it is campaign contributions.The new GOP health care...
- 38
Has America achieved World Domination before our very eyes?
by Tim Mitchell 16 months ago
There are 531,706 Global Fast Food Restaurants businesses as of 2023. Let that sink in. Businesses, not outlets. Maybe not all American, but what about breadth as in outlets?Hints . . .Subway - 42,998 Locations McDonald's - 37,200 Locations Starbucks - 30,000 Locations KFC - 20,404 Locations Burger...
- 36
Social Security. The senior voting bloc. 2024 general elections.
by Tim Mitchell 18 months ago
Serendipity?Watching the news while having some knowledge of the foreseen Government shutdown it hit me like a brick falling out of the sky. On No! If that happens no Social Security check for me on the 3rd of Oct. Serendipity? Quickly doing a search it turns out they will go out. There is a FAQ on...
- 127
Do you think Oblama's economic plans are going to save us?
by donrock 16 years ago
Yesterday Oblama signed the stimulus package and by the time the stock market closed the Dow was down almost 300 points.. Today he spoke about the mortgage bailout. When he started the Dow was positive and now is down 30 points the last time I checked. I guess it's not convincing a lot of investors...
- 37
Deal reached to allow pension plans to cut benefits
by Stacie L 10 years ago
Deal reached to allow pension plans to cut benefitsA bipartisan group of congressional leaders reached a deal Tuesday evening that would for the first time allow the benefits of current retirees to be severely cut, part of an effort to save some of the nation’s most distressed pension plans.The...