Talk:Pension spiking

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tone[edit]

The classic argument by the worker is that all wages and benefits are subject to negotiation. So in this sense, the worker doesn't "grant" themselves anything. Rather, they maximize their pension according to the allowable rules. I am very familiar with this area. The most common "spike" is through the sell back of leave. This can easily make a nominal formula like 2@55 more like 2.6@55.
--Billymac00 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to explain how it is possible that "employees inflate their compensation". Employees don't just get to choose whatever they want to be paid. Does this mean exchanging one form of compensation (e.g. unused leave) for another? That is compensation the employee earned and is entitled to receive. It is not cheating to accept what you have earned in keeping with the terms under which you earned it. I think this whole article consists of a deliberately warped expression ("spiking" as in sharp, dangerous...) to support someone's political agenda. Article needs equal time for opposite point of view, or to be deleted for non-notability. 72.208.62.126 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]