Velba,charms,miosotis,

Retreat: the patient in spite of himself!

The policies are again at the bedside "patient's"! The prescription is always the same, extending the contribution period, the decline in retirement age. In short, the potion may be bitter again stomachs of those who have long seen their plan to toast the other!

Unwillingness: why do we persist and maintain plans that are funded by debt?
When we talk in private pension funds or are those of the public? A rare exception, they exist only by a line of credit on the state budget!
Why nobody talks about? We invite you to do for yourself this search, you'll be surprised! Why
state he chooses to raid our pension and ARRCO AGIRC to bail out one of the few public coffers? (IRCANTECC box that allows among others to pay the pensions of our national politicians - 15 years of retirement money for life =).
http://www.sauvegarde-retraites.org
Why CFE-CGC, which presides over this body does not react it? Why even
CFE-CGC presiding CNAV it remains silent?

Again the only parameters that are referred to "this latest reform" will not solve the problem in depth.

Success would require a commitment to end the special regimes, differences in calculation of pensions (ouch for elections - "I hold you you hold me by the beard") and can be accepted to pay a little more expensive but this is our contributions that will choke the MEDEF employers' organization because it rejects this solution in favor of lengthening the contribution period!

Morrison Media Reviews

union representation, and the choice of the Directorate

bargaining concerning the role, the means and the careers of staff appointed and elected (RMC) takes a confrontational turn!
The decline of this project based on the Act of August 20, 2008 compared to the previous agreement described as "too generous", raises the passions!

This project is reductive, why?

He applies the law literally and puts the Department of enterprise from the risk that other union structures demand the same means to express themselves.
It removes an advantage inherited previous conflicts, the additional hours of delegations awarded based on election results professional.

But talk is true: we can not deny the importance of the quota of hours including management, by management, proved disastrous.
Responsibility actors unions came on the job that has been done! Examples
served by the Branch are likely to force us to think.

Social life is made by actors who have little or no time for community service.
Our conception of unionism is in compliance with our family lives, professional and union, each having a real place. This shows the difficulty of the issues.
For our purposes, CFTC, we strive to prevent the emergence of such behaviors!

Generator Für Tattoos

Union democracy more and more danger

The "new faces" on the record of the agreement the right to organize their product launch: based on an architecture rethought by the Act of August 20, 2008 (union representation), in line with laws of the Republic this "ship" will no longer take water from all sides because of "horrific" hours of delegations made by the representatives of trade unions.
It will be the bulwark of the "vox populi" enhancing the status of elected officials!

We talk of course of hours obtained by the 1999 agreement that allowed the allotting additional to that provided by the labor code based on the results obtained in the elections business (hours establishments, hours society).

We traveled the first page of the frame proposed bargaining by management, but we can say one thing: There was unanimity in denouncing the decline of this project in relation to "fire" the Agreement of 1999!

The foundation of this project is unequivocal !
Management unwilling to take the risk of new unions claim the same resources (local panels, material ...) as those known to date, it will decide on new rules of representativeness:
- 10% in elections; we will have the means,
- 9.9% outside exit, it closes the water and electricity!

For the CFTC it smells like sulfur! Such a reduction means on the basis of a law that says it wants to modernize the social dialogue is unacceptable!

A significant portion of employees may no longer be represented through trade unions by the negative consequences of this law and their instigators.