A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies.

The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds.

Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy.
SMH.

Doesn't surprise me.

Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ?

Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year.

Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:40am:

Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds.

have you the link... you dont see anythign wrong with Unions saying its compulsory for their members to belong to their superfund...once you join a union you join more than that apparently....I find that UNAustralian to be honest.

freedom of speech and freedom of choice has always been my mantra.....

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:40am: Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds. have you the link... you dont see anythign wrong with Unions saying its compulsory for their members to belong to their superfund...once you join a union you join more than that apparently....I find that UNAustralian to be honest. freedom of speech and freedom of choice has always been my mantra.....

I choose to earn on average 1.5% more than your super  :)

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:40am:

Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year.

Subsidised by taxpayers no doubt ... think green energy schemes and other government boondoggles.   :D

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:03am:

A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies. The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds. Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy. SMH.

A link would be nice Bogie so we could decide for ourselves.

think green energy schemes and other government boondoggles.

Think better investment managers and no massive fees.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:32am:

Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ?

The margin that accrues to industry funds by not paying out profits or commissions would not be affected by allowing fund members to have a vote on who sits on the board.
Your comment is just a deflection.
The truth is unions are based on a collective philosophy and freedom of choice is frowned upon.
But this is 2016 and people want these human rights about who sits on their super boards.
By what possible argument do the unions claim the right to oppose this freedom of choice?

How is that link coming along Bogie?

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:32am: Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ? The margin that accrues to industry funds by not paying out profits or commissions would not be affected by allowing fund members to have a vote on who sits on the board. Your comment is just a deflection. The truth is unions are based on a collective philosophy and freedom of choice is frowned upon. But this is 2016 and people want these human rights about who sits on their super boards. By what possible argument do the unions claim the right to oppose this freedom of choice?

I bet you cant name a board member of your superfund without now going to your AGM notes.

I find it quite amusing how your fear the unions collective thinking but seem to love the big4's operating like a cartel.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 11:20am:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:32am: Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ? The margin that accrues to industry funds by not paying out profits or commissions would not be affected by allowing fund members to have a vote on who sits on the board. Your comment is just a deflection. The truth is unions are based on a collective philosophy and freedom of choice is frowned upon. But this is 2016 and people want these human rights about who sits on their super boards. By what possible argument do the unions claim the right to oppose this freedom of choice? I bet you cant name a board member of your superfund without now going to your AGM notes. I find it quite amusing how your fear the unions collective thinking but seem to love the big4's operating like a cartel.

You're right, I can't. But then I'm not in a super fund.
There's nothing amusing about my attitude to today's unions, it's quite serious.
Now, how about you address the fundamental issue here of democratic choice for members.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 11:24am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 11:20am: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:32am: Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ? The margin that accrues to industry funds by not paying out profits or commissions would not be affected by allowing fund members to have a vote on who sits on the board. Your comment is just a deflection. The truth is unions are based on a collective philosophy and freedom of choice is frowned upon. But this is 2016 and people want these human rights about who sits on their super boards. By what possible argument do the unions claim the right to oppose this freedom of choice? I bet you cant name a board member of your superfund without now going to your AGM notes. I find it quite amusing how your fear the unions collective thinking but seem to love the big4's operating like a cartel. You're right, I can't. But then I'm not in a super fund. There's nothing amusing about my attitude to today's unions, it's quite serious. Now, how about you address the fundamental issue here of democratic choice for members.

If members don't care who is on the board, why should they care about how they got there?

All members care about is how much money they've made, and as you keep being told EVERY TIME you try & bash unions through Super, Unions outperform your commercial interests.

It's like the 24/7 economy argument on penalty rates, I went to my bank yesterday, it was closed, I phoned my local member at 11.30am & it went to message bank, I phoned my business banker at 1.30am this morning to discuss an idea- he seemed pissed & disinterested ;)

macman wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

think green energy schemes and other government boondoggles. Think better investment managers and no massive fees.

What union apparatchiks have degrees in anything related to investments?

'At the moment, industry funds have gerrymandered boards where control is shared 50-50 between unions and employer groups.

But there is no one representing businesses or employees who are not members of said union or employer group, and many funds still have no independent directors at all.

Returns to members from industry funds have indeed been better than the for-profit retail funds largely controlled by the banks, but this has mainly come from the no- or low-fee model in the not-for-profit sector.'

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/29/mayne-keane-is-wrong-independent-directors-are-needed-on-industry-fund-boards/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

From Crikey, so I guess it must be correct.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 11:24am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 11:20am: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:32am: Why would you want to change the way the best performing superannuation funds are structured to copy those who perform much worse every single year ? The margin that accrues to industry funds by not paying out profits or commissions would not be affected by allowing fund members to have a vote on who sits on the board. Your comment is just a deflection. The truth is unions are based on a collective philosophy and freedom of choice is frowned upon. But this is 2016 and people want these human rights about who sits on their super boards. By what possible argument do the unions claim the right to oppose this freedom of choice? I bet you cant name a board member of your superfund without now going to your AGM notes. I find it quite amusing how your fear the unions collective thinking but seem to love the big4's operating like a cartel. You're right, I can't. But then I'm not in a super fund. There's nothing amusing about my attitude to today's unions, it's quite serious. Now, how about you address the fundamental issue here of democratic choice for members. If members don't care who is on the board, why should they care about how they got there? All members care about is how much money they've made, and as you keep being told EVERY TIME you try & bash unions through Super, Unions outperform your commercial interests. It's like the 24/7 economy argument on penalty rates, I went to my bank yesterday, it was closed, I phoned my local member at 11.30am & it went to message bank, I phoned my business banker at 1.30am this morning to discuss an idea- he seemed pissed & disinterested ;)

Nice one  :)

Well Lee, it seems to me the union cheer squad doesn't understand any of that. They are convinced the performance of industry funds is somehow down to superior financial skills of union bosses.

They, like their heroes, are afraid of members getting a vote in case the union appointees get the bullet and that would impact on kickbacks and deals indirectly channeling money to the ALP.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:40am:

Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds.

this is correct.  to be honest i have all my super in an industry fund and it is much cheaper on fees. ;)

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:40am: Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds. have you the link... you dont see anythign wrong with Unions saying its compulsory for their members to belong to their superfund...once you join a union you join more than that apparently....I find that UNAustralian to be honest. freedom of speech and freedom of choice has always been my mantra.....

There are very few agreements where employees are locked into an employer super fund and I don't agree with it being allowed the way you put it is definitely not allowed being a union member does not lock anyone into a super fund. Mostly if an employer super fund exists employees are put into it by default.

I don't remember anyone called Leftwinger making nearly 6000 posts.

Who could it be? My money is on Spartacus. Must be ashamed of his previous incarnation.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:

cods wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 7:10am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:40am: Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds. have you the link... you dont see anythign wrong with Unions saying its compulsory for their members to belong to their superfund...once you join a union you join more than that apparently....I find that UNAustralian to be honest. freedom of speech and freedom of choice has always been my mantra..... There are very few agreements where employees are locked into an employer super fund and I don't agree with it being allowed the way you put it is definitely not allowed being a union member does not lock anyone into a super fund. Mostly if an employer super fund exists employees are put into it by default.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/unions-to-be-blocked-from-denying-individuals-choice-of-super-fund-20151209-gljjqu.html


for you dna.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 2:39pm:

I don't remember anyone called Leftwinger making nearly 6000 posts. Who could it be? My money is on Spartacus. Must be ashamed of his previous incarnation.

seriously???? ::)

It's got to be someone who made a lot of posts.
Do you have any idea?

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 2:39pm: I don't remember anyone called Leftwinger making nearly 6000 posts. Who could it be? My money is on Spartacus. Must be ashamed of his previous incarnation. seriously???? ::)

Its me Long weekend , ive seen the light , the Libs are a crew of retards and total economic incompetents , im voting Labor

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

It's got to be someone who made a lot of posts. Do you have any idea?

to be honest... I am not that interested .. I never miss any of them.. and when you see a newy its automatically an oldie.. because they just pick up where they left off..

but like you say what are they ashamed of????

that goes for anyone who hides behind a "sock"..

can you have a decent debate or chat with any of them???? hardly...it always gets personal...

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 3:12pm: It's got to be someone who made a lot of posts. Do you have any idea? to be honest... I am not that interested .. I never miss any of them.. and when you see a newy its automatically an oldie.. because they just pick up where they left off.. but like you say what are they ashamed of???? that goes for anyone who hides behind a "sock".. can you have a decent debate or chat with any of them???? hardly...it always gets personal...

It was time to finally bury Abort , Aussie i mean SupositoryofWisdom had to go

'They are convinced the performance of industry funds is somehow down to superior financial skills of union bosses'.

Who else besides Bogie thinks investment decisions are made by board members? I thought that investment managers handled that. 

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Well Lee, it seems to me the union cheer squad doesn't understand any of that. They are convinced the performance of industry funds is somehow down to superior financial skills of union bosses. They, like their heroes, are afraid of members getting a vote in case the union appointees get the bullet and that would impact on kickbacks and deals indirectly channeling money to the ALP.

Why do you keep pointing to the union representatives on the fund and ignore the 50% business / employer membership ?

cods wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:22pm: cods wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 7:10am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:40am: Industry super funds have outperformed private funds by 1.5% on average this year and the story is similar every year. Looking at the article it seems that there is no comment that does not come from someone with a vested interest in getting their hands on more superannuation funds. have you the link... you dont see anythign wrong with Unions saying its compulsory for their members to belong to their superfund...once you join a union you join more than that apparently....I find that UNAustralian to be honest. freedom of speech and freedom of choice has always been my mantra..... There are very few agreements where employees are locked into an employer super fund and I don't agree with it being allowed the way you put it is definitely not allowed being a union member does not lock anyone into a super fund. Mostly if an employer super fund exists employees are put into it by default. http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/unions-to-be-blocked-from-denying-individuals-choice-of-super-fund-20151209-gljjqu.html for you dna.

This is being locked into an EBA - nothing to do with being a union member, it also applies to non union members and locks employees into the employers and or unions choice of fund that may be an industry fund.

My previous EBA locked me into an employer choice of super fund that had nothing to do with a Union.

It is debatable how much of a wrong is being done by locking people into the funds which are performing by far the best ?

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Well Lee, it seems to me the union cheer squad doesn't understand any of that. They are convinced the performance of industry funds is somehow down to superior financial skills of union bosses. They, like their heroes, are afraid of members getting a vote in case the union appointees get the bullet and that would impact on kickbacks and deals indirectly channeling money to the ALP.

They are convinced the performance of industry funds is somehow down to superior financial skills of union bosses.


Don't think anyone said that ?

Pointing out the questionable wisdom of changing they system that performs the best for their customers does not seem to require any analysis as to why this is the case.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:03am:

A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies. The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds. Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy. SMH.

What should be debated is the means test of the age pension, because of it, the average retiree will never achieve a decent stand of living in retirement.

In 2007 the then Prime Minister John Howard introduced the tax-free super for the over sixties, if the super income comes from a so-called taxed fund.
As a result :

This is how the retirees are treated in Australia.
Retiree: 1)
Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund.
Retiree 2)
Has accumulated assets of $1.5million,mostly with huge tax concessions, and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax.
Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks, and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits.
Should the assets of these retirees fall below a certain level, they will be entitled to the age pension as anyone else, therefore why does the government provides the rich retirees with such huge tax concessions, while punishing the retirees at the lower income scale with the punitive means-test of the age pension?
Retiree 3)
Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals $10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free for the SMSF.
Retiree’s 2) are well represented by the media and the super industry, as well as the Unions, and retiree’s 3) are represented by the government, and ironically by the leadership of various retiree Associations, like ACPSRO and its affiliated Associations,Acoss,COTA, but who represents retiree’s 1) the part- pensioners who are being robbed of a decent standard of living in retirement by the means-test of the age pension.
What is the fairest solution; scrap the mean test of the age pension and scrap all tax concessions for super.
Will the government change anything, as long as the above mentioned Associations support the government; never.

We have a sector in dire trouble left right and centre with rorts and systemic abuse and then we see a move to fix the only part that is actually working very well ?

Where do we find these id10ts

Would voting for people be better?  How much more marketing material needed to that voters are informed (and indeed are they fully equipped?) to pick the right person for the job.

It already seems hard enough to vote for the right government - we had Tony Abbott!!  Now you want to put your superannuation in control to the better campaigner who may or may not be better at managing the super...

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

We have a sector in dire trouble left right and centre with rorts and systemic abuse and then we see a move to fix the only part that is actually working very well ? Where do we find these id10ts

I just finished working with a company that forced me to put my super into the Union Super Fund..

I told them that I have my own Super fund.. Australian Super... as I've collected all of my supers from different companies over the years and put them in one place..

they were like... errr, we have this Agreement and the super has to go into the Unions Fund...  :o

the workers in this company get lowballed with wages..

I wonder why...

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:03am:

A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies. The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds. Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy. SMH.

Are you advocating that superannuation fund members belonging to corporate or retail funds be given an equal vote to shareholders to vote for the board?  

Are libs suppressing democracy if their electorate majority legalise same sex marriage but votes in government as nay?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 7:16pm: We have a sector in dire trouble left right and centre with rorts and systemic abuse and then we see a move to fix the only part that is actually working very well ? Where do we find these id10ts I just finished working with a company that forced me to put my super into the Union Super Fund.. I told them that I have my own Super fund.. Australian Super... as I've collected all of my supers from different companies over the years and put them in one place.. they were like... errr, we have this Agreement and the super has to go into the Unions Fund...  :o the workers in this company get lowballed with wages.. I wonder why...

I told them that I have my own Super fund.. Australian Super.

You know that Australian Super is about the biggest union super fund - industry fund 50% union reps appointed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions & 50% (employer reps) appointed by the Australian Industry Group .?

I just finished working with a company that forced me to put my super into the Union Super Fund..


There are no union super funds as far as I know. They are industry funds made up of 50% union reps and 50% industry management reps

John Smith wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:03am: A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies. The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds. Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy. SMH. Are you advocating that superannuation fund members belonging to corporate or retail funds be given an equal vote to shareholders to vote for the board?

I hadn't thought about that to be honest.
But I see a distinction straight away. The funds with which the unions are involved, the so-called industry funds, are comparable to those health insurance funds that are "mutual" eg HCF. The members own the fund and get a vote.
The corporate or retail funds - these are nebulous terms - I think you refer to are those that are run for profit, most often arms of insurance companies or banks. They are not "mutuals". The shareholders in their parent companies, if such exist, would get votes.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:31pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:03am: A plan has come forward recommending that members of nonprofit super funds be given the power to vote for their board members, much like shareholders in companies. The idea has been rejected by the unions, greedy to retain their sinecures and influence over members' funds. Another example of the union tradition of suppressing democracy. SMH. Are you advocating that superannuation fund members belonging to corporate or retail funds be given an equal vote to shareholders to vote for the board?   I hadn't thought about that to be honest. But I see a distinction straight away. The funds with which the unions are involved, the so-called industry funds, are comparable to those health insurance funds that are "mutual" eg HCF. The members own the fund and get a vote. The corporate or retail funds - these are nebulous terms - I think you refer to are those that are run for profit, most often arms of insurance companies or banks. They are not "mutuals". The shareholders in their parent companies, if such exist, would get votes.

Don't the insurance companies and banks offer a membership vote on who will be the organisations directors . who then appoint the fund management, the membership have zero input into who will be managing their superannuation product.

Isn't this the same as union members having voting rights to select the unions directors who then appoint 50% of the fund managers ?