......our answer to all your banking needs
|
......our answer to all your banking needs |
Latest Readers Views on Settlement
|
Vishwajit Kumar says :
I have heard that the contribution towards pension options will also be recovered from existing Pension optees. If this is true, then this will be gross injustice with these employees. Already Juniors (I to III) are getting peanuts out of arrears and net increase in their salary as such this recovery will invite lot of resentment among these employees. I do agree that pension option should be given to these employees but at what cost? We have already foregone substantial amount of salary due to particiapation on strikes many a times therefore recovery from arrears is very unfortunate and I believe this will also attract legal issues. I feel our disgruntled leaders have put an axe not on our legs but neck. Expressing joy and their valour for reaching such a rubish settlement is nonsense and reflects their thought process and I must say that this is a lesson for younger generation to do something urgently and topple their kingdom which is running at the cost of our hard earned money and lot of sacrifice from our family members. Please share my views with all and your reply / comments will boost the confidence amongst all Banking employees".
G Murugan says : It is heard that Unions have reached an agreement with management in respect of pension sharing cost, and accordingly, every employee has to contribute1.6 times of their Nov 2007 gross (under new salary) It is really shocking to hear such an agreement. It is observed that both parties, i.e. management and unions have left the employees high and dry. For a middle level officer, it works out to Rs.60000.00 which has to be deducted from the arrears. The arrears if calculated as per the charts works out to Rs.1.20 lacs only, after tax. Is it not a cheating on the part of management as well as associations. There are many questions which remain unanswered in the settlement. 1. Why the existing pension optees should contribute towards the pension fund. What justificaton management has got to recover from the arrears of existing pension optees for the pension fund? 2. Whether the present settlement is for the existing employees or for the benefit of retired people?. At the cost of existing employees, retired people are given one more option. Whether this is because most of the leaders are already retired and working for retirees only. 3. What right the management has got to recover from arrears of persons who are not willing to opt for pension even after the revised settlement. 4. The principle of natural justice has not been applied at all. When the pension was not opted by the other people, it is quite natural that they have to bear the difficulties for their wrong decision. Why the persons who have decided rightly at that time should be penalised. If the bank is not having sufficient funds towards pension fund, let them work out a solution to collect the same from the persons who are willing to opt now. Instead, why the existing pension optees, and PF optees who are not willing to opt for pension should contribute. 5.Neither the management nor the association can be proud of achieving something from the present settlement. In respect of management, they are going to pay for the same as the existing dedicated employees have lost their motivations, and already the industry is not attracting fresh talents because of wage structure. It is going to be reflected in the productivity side. In respect of associations, people have lost total faith on the associations, and there is going to be mass resignations from the various associations immediately on settlement. The associations are not going to get their levies also this time. 6, Let the existing pension optees come together, and file a writ petition to stop this gross unjustice towards us. Let us not take this peanut increase. Let the justice prevail."
Mr R Kumar says : "I have come to know through Banking solutions that exising employees to contribute 1.6 times of revised basic pay of Nov 07 towards pension fund. According to me it is totaly unfair. It is just to compensate those employees who did not opt for Pension earlier and now for that reason the earlier pension optees have to share unnecessary burden that too at par with those who have not opted earlier for pension. It iks totally unjustifiable fo to levy ]this contribution to the existing pension optees. If at all they are to be levied thre should be difference between those who have not opted for pension earlier, i.e they should conribute more than the existing pension optees.
Reghusun says :
Kindly refer to the latest settlement on pension dt 13.04.2010. It is
agreed by the UFBU to shell out 1.6times of pay for the month of
November 2007.
|
