Tory senators to dash hopes of disabled Nortel pensioners

Disgusting. Once again, government shows its ideological preference for trampling the little guys and letting big business and wealthy investors suck every last drop of blood from the working class.

Shame.

Which big business and wealthy investors?

The other Nortel creditors and investors who will get first crack at scavenging the Nortel carcas before Pensioners and former employees get one cent of the entitlements they EARNED.

This is why I want a senate reform to bad some provinces will never let that happen.

The following is a bit of Devil's Advocate, to be honest, because I'm not too confident about my opinions on the topic at hand. Asking questions is always worth it anyways, since even if no one has the answer it's out in the air to think about, so I'm going to ask a bunch as well. Worth keeping in mind here that although I have the small C next to my name, I'm not actually a supporter of the Conservative party, it's a bug issue, since I talk about stuff which that could impact.

I am more or less wondering about the total lack of comment outside of a small select group here; especially given recent articles only select two people, one of the disabled Nortel workers and two members of the Liberal party.

While 400 people are represented, only 40 are actually carrying out this fight, according to other articles. On top of that, the 12,600 other pensioners they are grouped with alongside thousands of other Nortel employees, are satisfied with the legal decision and settlement. This includes some Ontario provincial support which has been pledged already through present social programs. Hence, BeaverFever, I think your comment above is a little too general and overlooks the fact that these 40 people are not actually representing Nortel employees as a whole, but a smaller portion of what could be an already small portion of previous Nortel employees.

It’s also worth pointing out that you cannot completely foist this entirely onto the Conservative party. Not only has there been surprising amounts of silence on this from politicians outside of one or two in the opposition to have reached our ears (including from the leadership, but please do prove me wrong here because I hope I AM wrong), but this movement by the opposition is overturning what were, essentially, a court decision and a court appeal decision (in addition to other legal proceedings at the Provincial level). Hence, not only was this turned down in the Senate, but it was also turned down in the courts initially, more than once. This has also sat in the Senate for an extraordinary amount of time without much coverage or discussion in the House, Senate or media. I also have to wonder why, given this is largely an Ontario problem which has included the Ontario courts, the Ontario government, which is Liberal, has not gotten involved in this discussion a lot more than it has?

I have to wonder what possible negative effects could be borne out of this if indeed there are legal ramifications in the long run of this. While it’s nice we are looking at these 400 people, could forcing the retroactive portion of this bill through negatively impact over 12,000 other employees? Can these people live on 13,000 a year? Do they qualify for other programs, and are there actually alternatives on the table? Are we just supposed to take the “feelings” of one woman about what she think is going to happen when it comes to alternatives?

I’m not impressed with Nortel, don’t get me wrong. They have a horrid history, and are currently involved in legal debacles in the UK and the US (representing a slew of other countries with problems as well), mostly involving the pension set up there as well. While my first reaction to this article was indeed sympathetic, there are so many questions I have about this situation which I cannot find answers to that I am hesitant to give my opinion. The utter lack of information or details in general I think forces us to make an opinion without a slew of potential expert opinions or facts besides such people as Urquhart who, serving these disabled employees, is going to clearly come across with a more biased point of view.

I won’t lie, while the calls of partisan acts do ring a bit, they also ring a bit hollow. Is it bad for the government to support the courts on a decision which the opposition parties didn’t exactly raise as an issue long ago, a decision which I’ve yet to hear anything publicly from the Provincial government about? This is very much like the Native Affairs and Veteran Affairs issues which have come up lately – long running problems I’ve personally been following which only now are worthy of the media’s attention as a hot topic because suddenly the House cares, and it seems so focused on the particulars of one instance that it’s not giving us enough of the bigger picture. There is a little too much smugness and ardent rhetoric for me to thing the partisanship is not being spread around a little judiciously here. The back and forth going on in the house once again reminds me of a bunch of kindergarteners in a mud pit, or monkeys throwing their verbal feces at each other, rather than actual, genuine interest in these persons, or the other problems which could arise from this. It makes me very uncomfortable to take this article at face value.

Or maybe I’m just reading into it too much. Personally, I am all for the bill itself, and do hope that eventually some form of it does go through to protect Canadians in similar situations – it’s more or less the retroactive part which is causing issues right now, as I understand it, since this does go against court decisions in that regard. I would also wonder what the current status of Canadian social programs which work to rectify these issues is; because that seems to be a topic all these articles have largely sidestepped. I really feel more information for the Canadian public on that front would be important as well.

Well, in all honesty, the Liberal have run Canada for most of its history so blaming the Conservatives for impeding a law that Liberals never bothered to pass during their decades of power isn't entirely fair.

Another element is that McGuinty has already taken some steps to shore up Nortel Pensioners (probably not in the least part due to the fact that he represents an Ottawa riding) but I work with employer Pensions and he already has some much-needed pension reforms about to take effect, so its not entirely opportunism on his part, there is some actual policy there.

The question about whether they are entitled to other programs is beside the point, IMO on the basis that a Pension is not some 'perk' that you may or may not receive like a bonus. A pension is an entitlement that you EARN as part of your regular compensation. A sad fact is that pension law effectively allows employers to 'welch' on this contractual arrangement by permitting them to avoid contributing the necessary money into the pension fund under certain easily obtained circumstances. Technically, the employer has not violated its contractual obligation to you until you retire and try to draw a benefit from that fund. Now what happened at Nortel, and has happened in many other companies, is that the company goes bankrupt, there is no money to put into the fund, and nobody can figure out who to sue because either the company doesn't exist anymore or is under bankruptcy protection and now you're just one of many many creditors waiting to collect on unpaid debts.

A big part of the reason that 12,600 pensioners are satisfied is because their pension entitlement is being bailed out with taxpayer money up to $1000 a month each. Its the typical situation where businesses socialize losses and privatize wealth. And what of the fact that they are satisfied? Does that justify the hardship that will be put upon the other 400+ who are disabled? The fact that other people are satisfied must be cold comfort to somebody with MS or Cancer that is now going to be living at the Salvation Army.

Thank you very much for the information on McGuinty's decision (as well as the other information you have provided), I appreciate it! All I had been able to find was a discussion on the provincial government providing a thousand dollar coverage in support of these employees, it is good to hear that the provincial government has taken steps in this case since it did feel they were far too quiet in this instance, or at least, that's how it sounded from the news.

I don't think that the other programs are things we can't look at though. I was wondering why there were not other social nets and, if there was, if they were being adequately supported. As you mentioned, this is something which Canadians have not had for over a century of Canada's life, I'd hope that some government at some point stepped in. I do agree it's beside the point, but I'd be interesting in knowing it's status none-the-less to see if potentially Canada can improve the framework of those programs too.

When it comes to the other pensioners, I don't know. Do we know that they are not on the edge of living in poverty and keeping this pension keeps them out of that bracket? Do we know that they are not closing on retirement and need these funds so they don't have to spend the autumn of their years working? How do we know that these people don't need the funds to purchase drugs (even in Canada, some of us do have to pay for them -- I have to pay for my prescription drugs, for example, and I am not disabled) or goods for adequate care of their own problems?

I'd really like to know why the courts said no, because I feel it is important to know why they said no or if it really was just litigation concerns. I'm sorry if it feels like I am challenging you here, I most certainly agree that this is not right, but I still do have all these nagging doubts. For example, has there been a move for the government to intervene in another way? Why not? I agree that the government should intervene and assist these people but I don't think trying to drag companies into another lengthy legal battle is a good idea for Canadians in general, Nortel pensioners in particular, or perhaps even the disabled Nortel workers. That bill is important and does need to pass, but for the retroactive clause, I feel the best way for it to be handled is for it to come directly through the government.

Personally, I'd be willing to let my taxes foot the bill for these 400 now, and let the government chase after Nortel later, rather than try to go the legal route first, since I don't think that will be as effective in actual getting them what they need.