TWU defends mandatory TWU Super contributionsBY JAMES FERNYHOUGH | THURSDAY, 3 JUL 2014 1:15PMThe Transport Workers Union (TWU) has defended the TWU's practice of forcing employers to contribute employee superannuation only to TWU Super in collective bargaining agreements. Related News |
Editor's Choice
The top investment funds over the past year
The top-performing investment funds for the year ending March 31 have been announced, with all being ETFs focused on international equities.
AFCA finds more Dixon Advisory victims
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority added 544 more Dixon Advisory-specific victims to total 2492 complaints at the end of April, which will further exacerbate the levy financial advisers must pay.
Senior Cbus investment manager exits
Cbus' head of total portfolio management has left the fund, while a former JANA executive has joined its infrastructure team.
Quality of retirement does not depend on super balance: Bragg
The Senate Economics Committee has released its interim report into using super for housing.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean writes.
Hypocrisy is alive and well in the world of unions isn't it?
Mandating employer contributions to TWU Super = "is an appropriate exercising of choice"...can I ask...who's choice is that?
As for the whole question of whether industry funds are run only to benefit members, there are lots of members still waiting for their invitation to the corporate boxes at the SCG and MCG.
As for "TWU Super had paid the TWU $1 million in the financial year ending 30 June 2013, the majority of which went in payments to 'superannuation liaison officers' (SLOs)."...did these superannuation liaison officers disclose this to their clients?
Nothing secret about the relationship between the Union and the Fund? Undisclosed Commissions? Who is guilty of non-disclosure?
Funny the 2013 Annual TWU Super Fund Report on the TWU Fund web site does not appear to provide details of directors' pay!
The money paid to the 7 union reps/directors is not disclosed. While presumably it is arranged through a union, no details are provided as to the quantum or to whom it is paid. No details are provided of fees paid directly to the 6 Employer Representative Directors.
There are other Union (industry) funds also not providing detailed disclosures.
The statement: "all profits are returned to members" is potentially misleading and makes no reference to the direct payments made to unions. That is, there is no mention of the $1million paid to the Union for SLOs.
No details are provided as to how much of Members Funds is paid to the ISA for advertising and the administration of the ISA including salaries/benefits for its executives.
Shame! We need clarity and disclosure.
There is a cosy relationship between industry funds and union leadership because they started the funds to provide a decent retirement for their members and being non-profit organisations they have succeeded when compared to retail funds.
It is without doubt that a very high standard of honesty and proberty is required by union officials and industry representatives that sit on the trustees. The vested interests are always hovering to get some of that money into the "free choice" part of the industry that makes hideously large profits at ordinary workers expense and will pounce on any negative.