CIG could reap $$ on new law

| 01/06/2012

NYPT-NYC%20police%20officer%20writing%20ticket (262x300).jpg(CNS): The superintendent of pensions, Amy Wolliston, revealed that hundreds of fixed penalty tickets could be issued in the immediate wake of the new pension law being passed because of the significant number of ongoing delinquent cases. The minister with responsibility for labour, who is steering the passage of the new bill, said he did not know how much the treasury was set to reap as a result of the legislation but hoped it would be zero because he wanted employers to comply. However, Wolliston acknowledged that with some 600 employers defaulting, a lot of tickets were likely to be handed out. With fines ranging from between $2,500 and $5,000 this could result in a major windfall for the public purse.

Speaking at a press briefing earlier this week to launch the draft legislation for the new pensions bill, Labour Minister Rolston Anglin would not be drawn on the possible amount government could collect in fines. He said that once the new bill became law he hoped that the development of a culture of compliance would mean government did not collect anything but instead employers paid what they owed into pension funds.

With the new fixed penalty regime, however, if the new Department of Labour and Pensions is satisfied that an employer is not compliant, it will be able to issue an order for that rogue employer to not only pay in the missing pension cash to the fund but also issue a fine. While the new bill provides for an increase in the penalties associated with pension offences, it also designates certain offences as ticketable offences, making the enforcement process more efficient, officials said.

Orren Merren, the National Pensions Board chair, said that under the current regime the difficulty in prosecuting non-compliant employers is due to the level of detail and evidence required for a court case, including the exact calculations of outstanding sums, making it particularly burdensome and protracted. Under the new regime, where the office has clear evidence of employers defaulting on payments, they can simply issue a ticket.

The burden will be then be on the person who has received the ticket to either take the case to court and fight it or simply accept liability. If the latter option is chosen, a smaller fine is available, along with payment of the arrears. If neither option is taken, the person must attend court and face the possibility of much higher penalties. The new regime, officials said, creates an incentive to accept liability that will ensure that the primary objective – the payment of any arrears – is achieved.

With pension plan trustees obligated to submit delinquency reports on a monthly basis, along with new provisions that require them to notify employees and advertise a list of delinquent employers, the issue of non-compliance will be raised and addressed more quickly, government believes.

The Department of Labour and Pensions will also have a range of new enforcement options, including the authority to share information with other government agencies, which could lead to the withholding of Trade and Business licences or work permit renewals.

With some 600 cases of ongoing non-compliance that the existing National Pensions Office has already investigated, this means that unless the arrears are addressed before the law is passed in the Legislative Assembly and comes into force, hundreds of local employers could be facing extensive fines under the new regime.

Government has opened a consultation period for the new bill and is asking people to offer comments through an on line survey here.

See both the draft legislation and explanatory notes below.

Category: Local News

Comments (128)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Its about time that the Government come down on some of these unethical employers. they should be prosecuted and even jailed for stealing and placing employees at such a disadvantage.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Someone said it earlier. This pension thing is just like a ponzi scheme, why isnt someone being arrested?

  3. Anonymous says:

    I'm not sure I follow this argument, it's a mandated pension fund that you are contributing to, the funds are for your retirement and shouldn't be touched until then. You have an ability to transfer the funds to another qualifying policy immediately in another country but the rules of that policy will likely not allow any withdrawals until your retirement age.

    As to being legal to make an expat 'wait' 2 years before getting access to funds that were earmarked for a pension you will probably find that not many countries allow access to the funds until retirement age.  The default would be that that everyone would have to wait until 60 before seeing any of it.  By allowing access early the pension funds don't have to keep track of you for the next 20, 30 or 40 years with all the associated costs and hassles for everyone in doing so.

    So instead of complaining about having to wait 2 years you should maybe thanking them that they don't make you wait until you are 60 (or 65).

  4. Thunder Storm says:

    so dem big-time salaries were being paid for doing WHAT??????????

  5. Anonymous says:

    Another REFERENDUM is very much needed. We let government know they are not in charge of our retirement, not them.

  6. Anonymous says:

    If only we had spent the last 3 years debating these real issues that affect the people rather than same old PPM and Ezzard rhetoric of accusing everyone of corruptions and investigations and distractions as they destabilize the country.

    • Anonymous says:

      Right all this talk of corruption is getting in the way of corruption.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, I mean what 's wrong with some corruption. Why does it need to be investigated after all, it doesn't affect us.  

  7. Anonymous says:

    Employers should not have to pay pension for expats. The law says they can only be here for a maximum of seven years. Unless they are seven years from retirement why does this make sense. We need to be finding incentives and tax breaks to stimulate small business and the weakened economy. 

    Give the small businesses a break Rollie and stop drinking that 'fruit punch!"  It is not doing you or anybody else any good.

    • Anonymous also says:

      Sure that would give employers even one more reason to hire an expat over a local.

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s right, let’s make it cheaper to employ expats then Caymanians. Moronic

  8. Rick Berns says:

    How would it be a windfall for government? Does that mean that the fines would not be paid into the Pension Fund to off-set the amounts not being paid in the first place? And yes, this should apply to government too!

  9. Truth says:

    So can I stand in line to sue the Government for Makeing me put my money into something that pretty much guarantees I will get less back.?  How in the world will that help me or anyone else besides the ones spending my money to retire?

    • Anonymous says:

      You and many more will be standing in line to sue the ones responsible for this atrosity. it is an inhuman act.

  10. The lone haranguer rides again! says:

    I am seeing unemployment go to 15 percent as a lot of small businesses begin to fail. Good job idiots. I guess we will all just have to go and work for the Goverment and collect that big pension and health care benifits.

    • Angel of truth says:

      Why do you not go to the us and tell them you cant pay penalties because you may go out of business.

      Stay out of business if you cant do what the law says, there will be more and more regulation because of crooks like you, dont you think your employees need there money too, you dont pay yours and then you steal theres and say you cant stay in business if you are fined, go to another country and tell them you cant pay taxes, we are fools if we belive everything expats and some Caymanian says because of greed.

  11. Anonymous says:

    How about fire some of the overinflated staff? Not too still!

  12. Anon says:

    Okay, so we put these businesses out of business. Then who pays? All of us.

    Why not try and help small businesses to thrive? Seems completely counterintuitive to me.

    Only logical conclusions is Govt. expects to reap large short term gains to fund their lavish spending, and again short change the people in the process.

    • Anonymous says:

      There must be another first-class world jaunt travel plan coming up soon or is in the making – perhaps they want to get some quick cash into the coffers, so they can afford the trip, or help balance their budget deficit.   No matter if they put people out of business, especially the small ones struggling right now, as long as they line their coffers.   All in a day's work, to them, our esteemed leaders.  Until Government realizes that small businesses are the backbone of any successful economy, and accounted for most of Cayman's local thriving economy just a few short years ago, then this Government will continue to hand out waivers and breaks to their big rich friends while at the same time demanding their pound of flesh from the small poor businesses struggling to keep afloat.   And if you think it is just the business owners that feel this way, think again.   I am an employee, and I would gladly stop contributing to the "pension" plan that my employer has in place for his employees, because all it has done over the years, is to squander my hard earned dollars in risky investment funds and given me negative growth.   SO HERE IS A SUGGESTION, GOVERNMENT, WHY DON'T YOU FINE THOSE PENSION MANAGERS WHO TAKE SUCH STUPID RISKS WITH MY RETIREMENT MONEY !!!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Complete and utter fraud, no other word for it, except maybe government theft on a wholesale scale. How much does it cost the government to police and enforce this lunacy, let alone the costs involved when applications are submitted by those leaving Cayman for good. This is yet another example of the tin pot bureaucracy that this country seems to master so well.

    Lets hope there's someone out there with the knowledge and money to seek a judicial review and stop this compulsory protection racket as the unconstitutional breach that it is. Come on law firms, you don't want this anymore than the small business owner or lowly paid employee wants it, or needs it.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Another thought…why cannot the Government mandate that the employer deduct 5% of the employee's salary and put it into a fixed deposit account – in the employee's name, at a bank of their choice, with restrictions to ensure that no funds can be withdraw for say, 15 or 20 yrs, but contributions to continue as long as the individual is employed?

     

    • Angel of truth says:

      You are takeing it now and you will take it then and only you would benefit, but then all employers is honest acording to how you talk  only the Caymanian ones is dishonest and greedy.

    • R.U. Kidden says:

      Do you know the interest rate the banks are paying now?  I don't want my money tied up in a bank paying little or no interest.

    • Anonymous says:

      19;56

       

      Too late, they already sold their souls to the money managers. They run things! not Rollie!

      Rolston, you can't sell out your people like that! squash this ponzi scheme! now please, before it drags down the party!

  15. Anonymous says:

    The laws being amended now should include a provision that pension fund managers can only pay themselves commission on positive returns and receive none if their investments cause losses.  They should not be allowed to charge large management fees plus commission, whether returns are good or bad. And they should be forced to insure our funds so that big losses can be compensated by insurance.  What is there in place to hedge losses? The pension fund managers here seem to be just like the health insurance companies who refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions strictly, but charge huge premiums just the same so that where the need for coverage lies, there is no coverage.  Huge payola for insurance providers! Where is the protection in our islands for the hard-working people who bank on their pensions for retirement but end up with way less than they even paid into a pension account?  Most people, unless they inherited family wealth, will be unable to retire with any comfort, even if they work until age 100!   One half of all funds should be mandated to go into a fixed CD account so that at least that half will be preserved even if the returns are low.  Better low returns but principal preserved than riskier investment and huge losses of principal!

     

  16. Chris says:

    Talk about pot calling the kettle black!

    Its so easy to understand why these 600 businesses take the position, "When the Cayman Islands Government funds their pension liability, we will fund ours".

    C'mon government, time to step up and pay your own bills. We dont want to hear any more hot air about surpluses or how you balanced the budget until all the bills are paid!

    • Anonymous says:

      One thing to remember is that the government is not compelled by the constitution to have a separate pension fund, if no pension fund is established, or the fund is inadequate the constitution mandates that public service pensions are to be paid from the general revenue.

      • Anonymous says:

        So anon 18;43..what you are saying is, we the small businesses also have to pay the public pension…by way of, our taxes towards the revenue? damn it! we are totally screwed!

        We had better get together and find us a good lawyer, if not , we all going to jail! 

    • Jonas Dwyer says:

      The question that nobody talks to on this windfall on the penalties is will the people charged be able to pay. Seems like they could be increasing the prisons fot 600 offenders.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Can someone raise a legal challenge to the existing regulation that says expats have to wait 2 years for their refund after they leave?  Who came up with that rule and is it even legal in the eyes of international human rights laws?   And God bless what the expats do get back after 2 years, after these clowns a.k.a. incompetent pension managers invest the money in risky funds that cause us to lose our money instead of growing it for our old age?   This is flouting our human rights to have to wait this long for our own money.   Who benefits from this long waiting period?  Certainly not the expats, so it must be the Caymanians who benefit from my money staying in the fund that long.   As usual, laws here seem to be written for self-serving reasons while disregarding the basic human rights of expats to access their own money in a timely manner upon departure from this blessed place.     IT IS MY MONEY, AND I WANT IT NOW !!!

    • Anonymous says:

      The break ties in with the rollover policy to seek to ensure that expats who come back and may eventually retire here and become Caymanian have a pensionif you think about it it makes perfect sense and is not as inappropriate as you suggest. .

      • Anonymous says:

        Yea right! 22,000 of you going to come back and retire here….retire on what? on our social services? you all got that department broke already…..give us a break!

      • Anonymous says:

        Hogwash. This 2-year rule was in place since I first came in back in the year 2000, probably even before.  Rollover and the break that one is forced to take before coming back, came into legislation around the time of Ivan in 2004.  And many expats don't bother to return.  So don't try to be smart and try to tie the 2 things together as if that makes it sensible or even legal.   Go back to my original question – is it even legal in the eyes of international human laws, to force an expat to wait 2 years for a refund of their pension money if they in fact are forced to leave here after they are kicked out.  I would like someone with a legal background to look into this.  Come on law firms, we are all in this boat together, let us see on what basis local government feels it has the right to force expats to wait for 2 years.

        • Anonymous says:

          Poppycock. The 2 year rule is the result of being need to be sure that persons who do not have pension arrangements will be very unlikely to seek to retire here, and rollover, which initially required a break for a 2 year period, came into force on 1 January, 2004 ( 9 months before Ivan), and had been conceived years previously. The two are tied together – and should be.

          • Anonymous says:

            The same way you kick people out within 2 weeks to a month after they are rolled over, the same way you should give them their pension refund – quickly.   Caymanians can access their money for real estate purposes, but expats can't.  No, it wouldn't do – not for this self-serving set of laws here.   This is the self-serving reasoning that Government used to allow Employers to avoid paying their employees severance for 7 years of hard work, simply because it was Government who terminated their permits and so employers were not required to pay severance because it was a Government policy.  Hogwash !    Try terminating a local's contract and not pay severance, see how quickly that employer gets hauled up to the labor board.  Only for the expat the rules are different.   When this place has a level field of laws thatapply equally with regards to one's employment, benefits and rights, and people have a REASONABLE chance of gaining residency and status, then come talk to me.  Until then, you make no logical sense.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not even two years – the pension funds have made up even more illegal fetters on getting the money like saying the two years does not start until six months after someone has left Cayman. In practice it is more like three years at best before you can expect the money. These investments are not tax efficient for non-residents, especially compared to say investment in a personal property. Caymanians can access the funds to buy a house, but expats living abroad can’t use it to buy a house where they live – that is illegal discrimination.

    • Angel of truth says:

      Its my money and i cant get it now, i have to wait untill i retire only then can i get it from the us where i worked.

      Who made you so special that you can get it after two years anyway? which fool did that? the law should change to only when retired, we know what happens in other countries stop takeing us for fools, i left the us twenty years ago and have to wait untill retirement age. Cayman do not trust what people say find out for yourself.

      Remember if the economy drop suddenly and a real large amount of expats have to leave, in two years the pension will be in trouble,do you really care?.

      • Anonymous says:

        Big difference is in the US one can become a citizen after a reasonable number of years, unlike here where expats are kicked out with a snowball's chance in hell of qualifying to be a PR or citizen with status.  You can't compare apples to oranges.  The US has basic human rights laws in place, the last time I checked, there are no Bill of Rights in effect here.  So basically this Government feels it can dictate what I do with my money, where I invest it, no options to opt out or put it in a investment fund of my own choice, and  how long I have to wait for it after I am kicked out thanks to your loving Rollover laws.  Do you have dual citizenship for here and the U.S. by chance?  I see you failed to mention that. 

        • Anonymous says:

          You do have a chance of gaining PR if you are a key employee.

          Actually the U.S. itself has a rollover policy in place. You don't just become a U.S. citizen just because you have been there a "reasonable number of years". As for the U.S. having better human rights protections I happen to know of a case where a female U.S. citizen has been married to a former greencard holder for 20 years who had his green card cancelled because he was not living in the U.S.. The U.S now refuses to give him even a visitor's visa even though his wife is resident in the U.S. That would never be allowed under the ECHR.

           Cayman has far more human rights protections under the ECHR than the U.S. and its Bill of Rights will come into effect in November.

          As for govt.s being able to dictate what you do with your money you should shut your mouth. There is no govt. that has more say about your money than the U.S. govt. Heck they even want to tax you if you don't even live in the country.  Obviously they have compulsory social security payments.

          Dual citizenship. Cayman has no bar on being a dual citizen but you don't even need to become a full citizen to have rights here. Status will do that for you.    

          • Anonymous says:

            "You do have a chance of gaining PR if you are a key employee."   Oh sure, a snowball's chance in hell of gaining key employee, then another snowball's chance in hell getting PR.  The majority of work permit holders are rolled right on out of this country.  How the hell did taxes get into this debate of yours?   Are you that dim?  We are not talking about taxes, we are talking about pension plans.   People have to pay taxes here in Cayman too, indirect ones, such as permits, duties, etc.   No one is talking about taxes or income taxes.   The topic is FORCED PENSIONS.    In most countries, employees do have options with regards to their pension plans, here, they have NONE.   We are being forced to put our money in plans that do not even protect the principal that was put in by the employer and employee, much less grow that principal for our old age.     You shut your mouth, you know nothing of what you speak. 

  18. Anonymous says:

    This shouldn't be done as a windfall for the Government, it should be done because it is theft by an Employer on and Employee. The Pension Law should be enforced for the benefit of the people.

    • Anonymous says:

      I hear of cases where employers deduct the 5% from employees and then don't pay it into the pension fund.

      • Anonymous says:

        To 17;45

        That might be true, in a few cases. but the majority of employers cant afford to pay it, so they never bothered to deduct any money.

        Deal with these that took and never lodged it, on a different merit.

      • Anonymous says:

        There are many. It is ought right theft and money laundering and yet the Police and AG refuse to do anything.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Well, if we could fine every drunk driver $5K we could produce the same effect for the government coffers and at the same time give our useless RCIPS officers something to do which could actually  save lives.

     

    I figure they could raise a similar amount in about a month just by deploying the RCIPS every week end for a month in certain known spots. 

     

    Think about it Rollie!

  20. McCarron McLaughlin says:

    The crafters of this bill should be ashamed of themselves, there are adequate laws already in place to convict employers criminally, but as usual no will in Cayman, we speak about having laws but they are never enforced.

    More power should be given to the pensioner and the Insurance companies/Administrator should be forced provide a greater selection for pensions, I say this because most of the selections we have are paper investment that are not worth the paper there are listed on, what pensioners need is the option to invest in hard assets such as Silver, Gold, Oil, etc.

    A few months back I made request to invest a part of my pension in a Silver IRA, but not surprised I knew this would be refused, but I did it to make a point and what the crafters of this crappy bill should do is research and see where these insurance companies/Administrator invest their own funds and they would be shock to see why the fat cats continue to eat all of our suppers, the pensioner is at a great disadvantage and we need more options when it come to selecting our pension investment, I wish the crafter would address this matter,  god forbid the world goes into deep recession again we are all salt.

  21. Anonymous says:

    This amazing that the government can do as it pleases and not pay their employees pensions but the private sector will get fined if it doesn't ? Doesn't seem fair to me? Government needs to get their house in order and lead by example. This is atrocious! Doesn't the government understand that in these austere times when it is difficult for even them to keep up paying these payments that it is likely the same or maybe even worse for the private sector?

    Makes one wonder if the laws apply evenly. So if I, a private citizen, is caught driving under the influence will I have to pay the same penalty as a government employee or will it be waived in the  government employee's case. Do you see the stupidity?

    Enough with this rubbish. Try to find something to jump start this dead economy. Finding more ways to wrench large sums of cash from small businesses who can barely stay afloat as it is, certainly isn't the way particularly if it is not even a standard set and kept by the government.

    I don't know what is happening with these guys we have elected but we may well have Bugs Bunny and crew from  "Looney Tunes"  running the show. Come on guys, be men, stand up and do something for your country that is positive and welcomed by most. Jump start the economy, reduce taxes that is what we need.

    I can tell you this much, I was pro UDP but now I shake my head in disbelief. These guys just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. Who is advising them on policies? Slocum?

    • Anonymous says:

      I am not 100 per cent sure, but I think Gov mostly pays all due contributions from employees and govs own contribution to the public service pension fund, it is just that the fund is managed atrociously.

      • Anonymous says:

        Anon 18;46

        And im not 100% sure, but is'nt Mr. Swarbick, at this moment trying to find out why the three sections of the public pension funds are unfunded.

        meaning they are short of over 150 million dollars.

      • jsftbhaedrg says:

        And the fat cats that are our MLA's are double dipping each and every month

  22. Anonymous says:

    Can someone please start a People-Initiated Referendum to force this Government to put in an opt-out provision for any employee who prefers not to contribute their hard-earned money to a useless local pension plan that loses their contributions through bad investments?   My employer and I to-date have contributed X amount to my plan over the past decade, and you know what my last few statements have told me?  That I now have even less than what my employer and I contributed over the years !!!  So not only has my plan fund not grown, it has lost my hard-earned dollars that I toiled and sweated for !!!  How will I be able to retire on that or use it to supplement my income in my old age, if my contributions have negative growth ???  What is the bloody point of it ???   Whydon't you fine these useless pension fund managers when they lose our money like that !!!   You tell me that we are to be forced to hand over our money with absolutely no say in how we want to use it, or spend or where we want to invest our money, and we should hand it over to these useless pension fund managers to pay themselves hefty salaries and benefits and then lose the value of our total contributions?  I consider that to be theft !!!!   My money would have been safer under my damn mattress, for peace sakes !!!    If this Government believes that it is only the delinquent employers that are fed up, it is also the employees who are fed up !!!!

  23. Anonymous says:

    Right.  And in turn, can we, John Public, ticket the GOVERNMENT for failing to fund their civil service pension fund?   You know what is wrong with this country?  GOVERNMENT BELIEVES IT CAN FLOUT ITS OWN LAWS AND HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS WHILE DEMANDING THE PRIVATE SECTOR STICK TO IT.  

  24. Anonymous says:

    Someone call up the PPM…please help me Ezzard, my old friend!

     

    yeah right..these are issues they should be lambasting the government on instead they only concentrate on their own political gain…

    New blood please…Lets bury the PPM, Ezzard and the UDP next election.Clean slate, please!

    • Anonymous says:

      There is so much one can be blasting the govt. on it is hard to know where to start. Important as it is there are bigger issues than this.  

  25. SKEPTICAL says:

    The Pensions system in Cayman has been flawed since day one. If the global economy continues the way it is at present, and the markets follow it downward, the balance on a large number of individuals pension accounts will possibly not even equal the amount of their contributions, let alone provide an investment fund capable of supporting them in retirement. At the end of the day, the only people who will have benefited are the Pension Fund Managers, from the fees they charge.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Do not worry, election is around the corner,

    just more promises to the mases for their vote.

    Nothing will be inforced

  27. my my says:

    These posts would be so much more intersting if more people used "handles". When everyone is called "Anonymous" there is less dimension to the discussion. CNS makes it very easy and I think it would add interest and clarity. 

    • Anonymous says:

      But that's the whole point of 'anonymous' – it lets everyone speak freely because as we all know speaking freely in cayman isn't exactly free now is it?  Just ask the commentators on the Rooster.

       

       

    • Anonymous says:

      Anonymous, this is Anonymous, I believe 100 percent in what you say

  28. Anonymous says:

    Depending on how "connected" these companiesare, they will get a ticket or not.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Please explain why people on work permits should pay pension at all. They’re not going to be here to draw pension.
    It seems like they get a bonus every month that is payable on leaving.
    I would rather pay the locals a little extra.

    • Anonymous says:

      I must have dreamed about the ten thousand or so work permit holders who became permanent residents or Caymanians in the last decade.

  30. Anonymous says:

    This mandatory Pension scheme does not help anyone in these times. Employer has more to pay and employee has less to live on….not good in a recession. Government now wants to make it even harder on businesses.

    Suspend it now for the next two years and make it totally voluntary on employee side during that period until cash comes back into the system. So if employee want to contribute they can but the employer is not mandated to match.

  31. noname says:

    Just another Tax for the benefit of the Government paid for by the people for which they will get nothing back.  Truley Caymankind.

  32. Knot S Smart says:

    While we are at it – can we set the minimum fine for crashing while drunk to $5000 too.

    And if you have a female passenger that is not your wife then we need to add another $5000…

  33. Anonymous says:

    The government is perhaps the most deliquent payer for goods and services provide.  Will we be able to ticket them for deliquency?

    Again, I think this is big arm government twisting the arms of small businesses to put money in the hands of a few (pension providers) with no gaurantee that our money will be there when we need it.  That is where legislation is required.

    • Anonymous says:

      Also anon 10;44 to add to that, the  Government are getting nothing back form these pension schemes .

      How ludicrous, they sat up the office and paying for the administration and staff  to watch over who don't pay and who pays into these schemes. while the money  goes into the pockets of these money managers. 

      You are right. they are not liable for our money. it's like putting your money into a bank,  then one day, they admit that they lost half your money. That bank would have to be liable for all your money. Ponzie scheme at its highest!

  34. Anonymous says:

    Enforcing the pensions law is good, forking over more hard earned cash to the government to leave lying around until some civil servant steals it (via gas cards, free paving, CINICO, junkets etc) is not good.  I for one am not giving this government ANOTHER CENT t until they get proper accounts and proper systems in place to stop the looting.

  35. Libertarian says:

    CNS:  "but hoped it would be zero because he wanted employers to comply."  Why hope?  As if employers need [your] sympathy for breaking the law!  I applaud them for doing so. No one should tell you how you should spend your money!  And if a man comes to you with a gun and says if you don't give-up your money for this cause or that cause… friend, you call that ROBBERY!  There is no other name for it!  Like I said before the fact that people are not given their God-given freedom to opt-out of the program, is really taking another person's money and telling them what they MUST do with it. That is wrong and I appeal to government to draft an "opt-out provision" to the bill or abolish it altogether – I prefer the latter 

    • Anonymous says:

      Lib, I think an opt-out provision to the law is a good idea, but only after 5 years or so of contribution into the government plan. You need some MANDATORY provision to make the government pension valid.

      • NeoSurvivor says:

        Yes, we have a pension law which makes it MANDATORY for all employees to contributed to a broken system that in no way guarantees the funds of which said system is entrusted.   In fact, my own has lost money, and I would've made more by simply keeping it under my mattress.  

        When this pension law was introduced in 1998, we were assured that less than 10% of the investments made with the money would be "speculative".   Riiiiight.   This was compared to the U.S. Social Security, however the primary difference is that Social Security is guaranteed by the U.S. government.   NOTHING guarantees our pension funds.   If I could work off the books, I surely would. 

        I don't object to having to pay my own retirement, however I should have the option to invest those funds into an account that doesn't systematically steal it back from me.    CIG shouldn't have access to those funds,  particularly in light of their penchant for frittering OUR money away on intangibles.   What do we have to show for the millions of dollars spent on travel?   Zip.  Good work if you can get it.    Just once I'd like to see our leaders dip into their own pockets for their friviolities, rather than picking the scraps from mine……….  and then having the brass to call it Nation Building.  

        Yes, I'm angry.   Yes, I'll continue to be a good little cash cow, because I am a responsible adult who has a family to feed and take care of.    Don't come offering me shiny trinkets prior to election;   I don't want them.  Those trinkets are an insult, because our dollars have paid for them, yet they are posed as a "gift".   Right.    I want my country back, led by men and women whose sole goal is the best interests of the Cayman Islands and its people.   Maybe someday we will figure out how to administrate a pension system that is run by responsible CAYMANIANS, guaranteed by the government.  

    • Anonymous says:

      You don't get to "opt-out" of a law. 

      I agree, there could be an "opt-out" provision…but there are better ways to make effective changes.  Why wasn't there this outrage when the Pension Law was originated, it's been around for 13 years. Maybe your energy could be focused on participating in a positive way to make good changes instead of applauding others for violating the law!

      • Libertarian says:

        First, there wasn't any CNS 13 years ago, so you wouldn't have seen me protesting against it on any local news online site. 

        Secondly, violating the law is a necessity whenever the law imposes harm to you and your individual rights. The law is not infallible!  As far as I know, any law or regualtion that "forces" you or threatens you to give your hard earn dollars to a program that is set to failure and the "dipping" of political corruption, is economically imposing harm to the hard working individual, and I sincerely believe that is not morally right. And the imposing of fines on businesses may have serious repercussions and cause some (if not many) businesses to leave elsewhere. 

        Thirdly, I am for positive change. And what is that change?  Either abolish the law altogether and allowing people to take care of their own savings and retirement plan like they should; or, if not, at least provide an "opt-out provision" to give workers more options. That to me is democratic.

      • Anonymous says:

        Those laws are erroenous, breach of natural justice to the small businesses of the Cayman Islands.

        And if you dont believe me try taking one none compliance to court and not the other 1,499 none compliance. No court in the western world likes the sound of PREJUDICE against a person.

        You might as well just go ahead, and suggest, to shut down these businesses, that's been aroundlong before these schemes were in the embryo stages.

        Seems like you dont understand english. We cannot afford to put bread on our tables…much less contribute to employees savings!

      • RealHardTimes says:

        When the Pension Law was originated the economy was much better and we didn't have politicians who were compounding the situation by making the country suffer due to  those same poiticians not being allowed to proceed with certain horrible proposals(i.e.CHEC) for much needed projects of national importance(i.e. berthing facilities).

        Instead of putting their pride and self interests aside and proceeding with better procurement procedures and thus better proposals, they are content to do nothing and make us all suffer.

        The only way to effectively deal with this long term is to focus that energy on casting a yes vote on July 18th for the Single Member Constituency/One Man One Vote referendum. Only then can we hope to get representatives who have what is best for the country at heart. This will ultimately result in a better run country and a better economy which will allow businesses the revenue needed to meet all obligations.

    • Anonymous says:

      If the company or the emloyee choose to "opt-out" of the pension requirement, then they should never be able to obtain government assistance either when they retire

      • Anonymous says:

        What government assistance? Unless you're Caymanian and it's your birthright to receive handouts no one else qualifies. 

        • Anonymous says:

          Talk what you know. There are 'new Caymanians' and permanent residents receiving govt. assistance (even though they received those grants on the basis they could support themselves and their dependents).

  36. Anonymous says:

    In the good old days i could afford those fines, but now, well I'll close my business and get rid of my 15 part time caymanian staff and 5 full time. They dont want to pay 5% and i dont @ this time. so bring on the fines and see what happens.

  37. Anonymous says:

    A long time coming.  Now what about all the expat workers from places such as Trinidad, Honduras, Dominica and Jamaica who have left without proper amounts being contributed to their mandatory pension?  How do they collect? What happened in the past and a dirty little secret was often after an equiry on their part if they could decipher their once a year statement it resulted in the work permit being cancelled. It is only justthey be tracked down and given some of this "windfall".  Because ,as stated, the government now stands to make substantial amounts from finally enforcing it's own law.  Do I hear a comment from those responsible for this failure?

    • Anonymous says:

      Commitment from government to comply with a law?

      Now that will really be news.

  38. Truth Hurts says:

    Make the struggling businesses of the island pay even more to the bloated government. Nice.

    • Anonymous says:

      If they cant find money to put into the pension, where will they find it to pay the fine? Forcing businesses to close means less T&B fees next year

  39. Anonymous says:

    I am not sure a further penalty will be any sort of a deterrent because they are already not paying their portion &/or their employee's contributions so an additional fine of $2,500-$5,000 won't make a diffference in my opinion.

    They need to be named, shamed and shut down until rectified, as long as it is business and usual nothing will change.

    • Libertarian says:

      And loss of jobs from shaming and causing businesses to shut down = more crime and major economic decline to come!

      • Anonymous says:

        people who don't play by the rules hurt those who do…

        • anonymous says:

          what about rules that hurt us?

        • Anonymous says:

          11:31, Have you always played by the rules?  I surely have not, so I am not going to pretend that I have done nothing wrong in my life.  Time, yes every one will have their time to be exposed.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes, the GOVERNMENT seems to be No. 1 at that!!!!!!

        • sue says:

          but the employers are not to be blamed for how the employees plan their individual future. i don't understand how you can say that they are hurting them by not paying the pension administrator. it is like blaming your spouse for not cooking your food. get off your arse and cook it yourself!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      To 08;59

      That's your idea..name shame and shut them down..you got to be on the receiving end of some of this theft money!

      Do you realise the repercussion of shutting down over 1500 small businesses on this little Island…dum dum!

      No one stopping you or any one else from paying your own pension, it's your prerogative!

  40. Anonymous says:

    Over 600 employers are having trouble making payments. The answer, charge them more in fines so that they will pay it.  Does anyone really think that over 600 businesses got this way because they wanted to. Think about it, when did this number start to rise? wasn't it when the economy starting going down the drain? What has the government done to stimulate the economy to help small business…Nothing!!!

    This is nothing more than the UDP government trying to create a surplus before they "leave" office and doing it on the backs of the small struggling business that are the backbone of this country. 

    These fools just gave us a pension holiday now they turn around and fine us . Folks the pension law isn't working. It's killing small business and turning them into criminals in the eyes of the law. Instead of coming up with laws to fine business, the ministry should have been doing a study with those people to understand why it is that they have fallen foul of the law. I bet though in a few months they will be knocking on our doors to support them in the election…Good luck with that one! 

    Come on Rolston!! I expected better!

     

    • Socialista says:

      It is about Justice. What is fair. The Pension Law is to ensure and guarantee that we look out for people who helped us as a society to get ahead. To go against it like the other misfits, is to side with the wealthy elite that think only about themselves and business profit. This has nothing to do with Rolston. It is being fair and loyal to those who helped you climb the ladder. It is also showing respect to the elderly.

      • Anonymous says:

        Anon 10; 15 when you speak of the wealthy elite.. i dont know who you mean.

        There are over 1500 small businesses out there that are not wealthy elite businesses. where are the consideration Rolli gave these?.

        What is lacking here is some kind of partial consideration towards  the small businesses, not to umbrella us under the same laws of the White color firms. 

        You speak of people who helped us get ahead, show me how many of us fit that statement.

         

         

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, now were getting to it. Essentially what it comes down to in your liberal world is the emotional opinion that it’s just not fair that someone may have more then someone else. There is no such thing as equality among people. We are not clones, we have different opinions, different levels of intelligence, different levels of work ethic, different morals, etc. The very best we can try to achieve is to have a system of equal opportunity for everyone. But your missing the point of most of the comments. Most business (especially small businesses) are not wealthy, greedy people. Just like the people they employ they are struggling to stay above water. The objection is the premise of the pension law itself, that the government will force, under penalty of law, businesses and individuals to contribute their money into government anointed funds which continually lose their hard earned money. Like most things the governments do, they do it poorly. These fund administrators make money regardless of how poorly they perform…..just like the government.

    • Anonymous says:

      Obviously there is a huge misunderstanding…what if the non-compliant employers have the financial ability to comply and are getting away with it, while a very small business struggling to make ends meet is actually complying?  And what if those who not complying are then committing other unlawful acts to avoid compliance?  And what if the government knew that there were employers with substantial financial ability were not complying, but rather than enforce the law they were actually covering it up for their own political benefit…while allowing enforcement proceedings against a business that is really struggling?

      There ARE businesses that not in compliance, that have the substantial financial ability to comply, the other small businesses should know who they are. They are costing the government a lot of time and money to avoid compliance, and the people of the island should know who is wasting their time and money.

      It's not about the government making money by issuing tickets…there is an expense to enforce compliance.  It's also not about picking on the little guy struggling to make ends meets.  It is about those who are taking advantage of the system for their own financial benefit and those covering it up so they can get re-elected and get a piece of the pie.

      • My 2-cent says:

        Correction:  It is about government taking money!  The Pension Law is a ponzi scheme.  Please don't dog them for other things and allow them to act like ponzi.

      • Libertarian says:

        Even if there are non-complaint employers who have the financial ability to comply, just whose monies are we talking about?…  government's monies or the employer's monies?… And why should anyone be force to give up what they have work for to an entity or person?  Think!  You can not support a scheme that will eventually rob funds from retirees, because it is being run by a financially unstable government!

    • Anonymous says:

      Regardless, a salary is paid to the employee, why the hell should i take my hard earned money and put money away for the employee, this isn't my responsibility, especially when the monies invested are being lost….why all of a sudden now everyday there are numerous articles on the pension?????? Things are hard in the cayman islands and not only are the employers guilty, employees request all the time not to deduct pension…this is communism in a way making an indiviudal pay something they really can t afford.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes and why shouldn't I be able to spend the 5% taken out of my workers wages too!

        They are only likely to spend it food or some other non-essencial, where I have that nice shiny new big car I have to pay the loan on.

        PS I think you need to read up on what communism actually is

      • Anonymous says:

        I have to agree, anon 11;48

        These employee are paid handsomly especially in the construction industry. then we are forced by some draconic law to contribute 5% of their salary towards a saving.

        This law states that both employerand employee MUST contribute, so why is the employer the only one draged in the courts to be crucified. 

        Why is  the employee set free, when knowing he took his full pay, without the deductions, and spent it.

        Some of these employees will take  their full pay,and after 7 years roll over hit them, they run to the pension to complain that they now want their pension.

        They do this because they know that the law will let them get away without paying a cent of thier money, and then the employer has to pay it all.

        What a law! tailor made, to shut down every small business in Cayman. You finally won! law makers

        • Anonymous says:

          Why is  the employee set free, when knowing he took his full pay, without the deductions

          Because usually the employee only gets 95% of his pay, the employer steals the employees 5% and keeps it himself. Then the employee is told if he complains he will be kicked off the island with no pay.

          Yes it`s always the expats fault!

    • Anonymous says:

      Anon 08:45

      You make so much sense.

      The error though, is the 600 none compliance, you had better double that. It is so simple, for the last 4 years most of the small businesses have had it very hard to put bread on their table, much less contribute to a savings for their employees.

      Why didn't Rolstone invite the small businesses and find out what their problems are…. why they cant comply? no, he rather make criminals out of his beloved small business people

      You guys that are thumbing down these  comments are either working for a large white color company or you are on the receiving end of these savings management…but that's ok we understand,  you are well taking care of.

      The white color companies can afford to set aside funds for their employees….. the banks, insurance companies, law firms, CUC, Lime, accountant firms,mega developers, mega investers, these all can afford to, they set their own profits….. unlike the construction companies and other small businesses.

      You notice i did'nt mentioned the three pension scheme for the public servants, the parlimentarians  and the legal department…they are in a worst boat than we are. Mr. Swarshbick, at this moment is auditing them for short payment of over 150 million CI dollars.

      Dont tell us we must get out of business, because we can not meetthese fees. Most of us been in business long before the Government got corn cobbed by these money manager.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, there are some employers who are having economic troubles. But where is the outrage at the employers who are taking the 5% from their employees pay and using it for their own piggy bank? It happens every day and some offenders are having no trouble making ends meet. These are the same employers who neglect to pay medical insurance but still take it out of their pay and when their employees are ill and need the insurance there is none and they have to pay out of pocket for something that should be covered. Bottom line is if you can't afford the cost of doing business then you shouldn't be in business in the first place. And if you are stealing from your employees then you should be able to have them arrested like any other criminal. Stealing is stealing.

      • Anonymous says:

        Deal with that on its own merit. you might find 3,4 the most companies done that. dont stir the water with these guys. 99% never took any money from their employees.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Rolston, this won't be enough to give the government a surplus in 300 days..

    You need to come up with a better plan. 

    • Anonymous says:

      How about giving tickets to drivers who go through red lights?  That would make up the deficit.

  42. Dred says:

    More money to waste???

    Don't get me wrong I despise employers who take from their staff and do not pay on to the pension plans. Problem is the pension plan people aren't like steller at their jobs either.

    I would also like to state that their are employers who more or less forced their staff into the pension holiday because they were not paying to begin with. Or let's say they STRONGLY coerced them.

  43. Anonymous says:

    There is no reason why the public coffers should be empty.

    There are already enough laws on our books that should be enforced.If they were enforced penalties would be paid by the violators. This will help fill the public coffers. Traffic laws need to be overhauled as well. The environtal law that prohibits  littering is not enforced. It used to be, but not anymore, and as a result Cayman looks like one big ghetto.  On the spot police should pull over people throwing garbage from their car windows, or if pedestrians are caught littering.

    Fines imposed upon these violators will help put monies into the public coffers.

    This lax way of running the country must cease. Government should be run like any business, efficiently and professionally. Government should put price tags on  violaters and stop crying poverty.

    Start with Mikol Ryan,  he owes $6.5 million that's a hefty amount for the public coffers.

    XXXX

    Yet Caymanians are chased down for small and measly amounts and hurled into court for small and insignificant amounts owed in the face of THEINDIVIDUALS UNEMPLOYED STATUS!

    WE NEED OUR COUNTRY BACK

    • Libertarian says:

      Note that the legitimate function of government is to enforce laws against all acts of aggression and harm to others, fraud, damage to property, and breach to contracts made between parties. Government should not be meddling into the affairs of businesses. It is not for government to act like a business and compete with the private sector. It is not for government to tell how a person should run their business and what they should do with the money they have made from it. There is a huge a difference. It should be left to the private sector to drive this economy – not government. Government is to enforce the criminal laws, protect the borders, and protect consumers as well as employees from abuse, theft, and all sorts of aggression. Further note that the Pension Law came in to place in 1998 and before that time, Cayman's economy was booming. There was less interference from government.

      • Anonymous says:

        If you leave everything to the privat sector, everybody would make 50 cents an hour, no pension, no healthcare and working days of 25 hours.

        • Libertarian says:

          That's a private sector bogged down with government regulations, anti-business laws, high custom duties, high work permit fees, grevious fines, and favoritism to some and corrupt deals between lawmakers and certain few. But the private sector I am speaking about is different. It is bound to prosper, because there is no government interference at all. The competition of a free market for all will control all price, cost, and salaries.

        • Anonymous says:

          Anon 13;16

          You are talking rubbish, before this mandatory pension came into effect, all small businesses and their employees were making good money.

          look around and see what we all accomplished before 1998. we had no outstanding bills, we all had money to spend, paid our utilities, and  we bought property.

      • Anonymous says:

        Gosh Lib! you got it so right!

  44. Anon says:

    That's great news!! Love a good windfall….it's like free money. I'm sure it will clear the pesky deficit right up….YAWN

  45. Anonymous says:

    CNS, Will you ask government if the proposed ticket system will apply to employers that were reported by pension plans as being deinquent in paying their pension contributions before the new pension law is passed in the LA?

    OR

    Will the ticket system only apply to those employers in the future who do not pay the pension contributions.

     

     

  46. Anonymous says:

    CNS, can we do an FOI to get a list of all of the employers reported by pension plans to have not submitted their pension contribtions?

    Will you ask the Minister and the Chief Officer if they will release the names of these employers?

    • Anonymous says:

      Now let us see if that will take 2 years to get an answer!

    • Anonymous says:

      07;48

      Why do you need a FoI,  just look around you! your cousin, your brother your father, all have come short of contributing towards this ponzi scheme.

      And dont  forget the Brac businesses .

      I will bet those poor ones over there with a trade & business license never contributed either. lots of businesses to drag into the courts. they better start hireing more judges.

      You cant be prejudice and  bias..the courts will not tolerate that!

  47. Anonymous says:

    Visions of more first class travel, and more vote buying, and more, and more, all danced in their heads…….

    • Plumbago says:

      I do believe that  some businesses just don't have the money to keep abreast of pension, medical insurance etc. however that does not make it right. In this bad economy perhaps Government could come up with something to assist the businesses who actually paid in the amounts they kept back from their employees even if they could not afford to put their share in.  But who is going to ticket the Government for failing to fund the Civil Servants pensions- that is under-funded even as they try to collect from private sector. I fear that when my civil servant children reach retirement age Government will not have their pension put aside for them-  my children are efficient and conscientious workers!!