Requiem of the Dead Parrot - Essay Example

John Doe Prof. Richard Roe Anthropology 101 24 April 2006 Requiem of the Dead Parrot: Monty Python, the Defined Benefit Company Pension System and the Government The purpose of this essay is to critically assess the statement, "The defined benefit company pension is deader than Monty Python's parrot and government should let it rest in peace." For such objective, it would be necessary to first explain the underlying concepts within that statement. Firstly, the reference made to Monty Python's parrot is one that places emphasis on the classic comedic stint made by the famed Monty Python group that was dominant in British humour in the 1960's. The Dead Parrot sketch was one of landmark comedic performances of the group as aired in the hit show, "Monty Pythons' Flying Circus." In that sketch, the focus is made on a peeved customer of a pet store who confronts the owner of the shop due to the fact that the parrot he had just purchased is dead. The storeowner refutes such an allegation, and insists that the parrot is only asleep. He then brings focus to the beauty of the bird and the fact that it is a special breed, a rare Norwegian Blue parrot. Yet, despite attempts to entice a reaction from the parrot through calls and food, the bird remains still and lifeless. As expected, the customer begins to lose patience, and is convinced in the fact that the parrot sold to him was indeed a worthless dead bird. A noteworthy part of the sketch is when the customer, in his attempts to disprove the contentions of the storeowner, takes the dead parrot, wallops its head on the table and then proceeds to throw the parrot into the air. The bird falls like a rock without any reaction or sign of life whatsoever, and the storeowner can only remark that the actions of the customer stunned the bird, thus the reason for the lifelessness. To make the long discourse short, the arguments continued between the customer and storeowner, until the customer shows that the only reason the parrot was seated on the perch in the cage was because its feet were nailed onto the perch. Typically, the storeowner had an answer to every allegation, and stated that the feet were nailed to prevent the parrot from escaping. The customer, agitated and without any patience left, responds with what has now become a trademark lengthy speech, using a number of synonyms and phrases to cast into the head of the storeowner the fact that indeed the bird is dead. To this, the storeowner finally concedes, and offers to replace the dead parrot. Upon finding that he is fresh out of parrots, he offers to replace the dead parrot with of all creatures, a slug. To this proposition the customer has no choice but to inquire as to whether the slug can talk. Of course, the storeowner responds in the negative, to which the customer says, "Well, it's scarcely a replacement then, is it" In relation to the statement we are tasked to assess, we must also explain the concept of the defined benefit company pension system. This system is one wherein a person's pension benefits are based on their final or average salary earned while employed for their company. Most commonly this type of pension provides a lump sum to be given upon attaining the retirement age, and income on instalments for the pensioner's remaining natural life. On the basis of computation, the pension system is commonly calculated as a portion of the pensioner's final salary for every year of service with that company. This provides better security for the employee especially within the company he works for. However, the defined benefit company pension system has increasingly declined over the past few years, not only in the UK but also in Canada, the US and in many parts of the world. This is primarily due on that feature of the system that places upon the companies the risk of the investments if the pensions fund fails to grow at the rate it is needed, thus putting strain on the company's assets to shoulder the balance. Much pressure is placed on the company to properly invest the pension fund and properly monitor its growth, as it would any of its other investments. As can be imagined from such a scheme, a myriad of companies and businesses have been forced to closure due to failure to raise the proper pension funds. Other companies, in an effort to save themselves from financial ruin, have decided to scrap such a pension scheme and replace it with another. The resultant effect of all those companies going belly up brings us to the precise topic at hand. Despite the regional and global trends away from the implementation of defined benefit company pension, the government of the United Kingdom continues to try to salvage the concept, and is taking steps to do so. These steps include the establishment of the Pension Protection Fund in 2005, whose primary task is "to provide compensation to members of eligible defined benefit company pension schemes, when there is a qualifying insolvency event in relation to the employer, and where there are insufficient assets in the pension scheme to cover the Pension Protection Fund level of compensation." (Pension Protection Fund) This action by the British government has indeed brought additional concern, as "one key issue is the future solvency of the PPF, and possible claims on the public purse." (McCarthy and Neuberger 2005) After all, if the same system the government is trying to salvage and preserve has caused the downfall of many a business enterprise, then the risk is the same, and even more alarming, when the British government takes on that same fiscal challenge. It is already a foreseeable effect that should the Pension Protection Fund also fail in achieving the needed financial needs of the pensioners it is trying to protect, then who else but the State itself would shell out the funds needed to cover the deficit. Furthermore, the social stigma of the employed populous is all the more reason to simply let the defined benefit company pension scheme to die a natural death. The system is banking on the concept that an employee would be willing to remain at one company practically his entire employed life. Such blind loyalty no longer exists in the current globalised business society, as both employer and employee are continually faced with opportunities and challenges that undermine the ideal of remaining at one place of employment. The company is faced with opportunities of mergers and acquisitions, as well as financial difficulties that force large-scale job cuts and layoffs. The employee is also faced with a number of opportunities to try to find a better paying job elsewhere. However, the PPF is the least of the government's action plans on the matter. The Department for Work and Pensions in 2003 presented a detailed action plan outlining various steps it proposes, among others, to revitalise occupational pension schemes, including the defined benefit company pension scheme. Among those proposals, the Government is urged to improve the protection offered to the pension scheme members in order to promote better confidence and faith in the system. One such proposal was to take legal steps to require employers who are solvent but choose to revamp pension schemes to meet in full the pension contracted in the previous scheme. This step alone would force employers and companies to give out all they can despite the ill effects this may have on their business. After all, the main reason why the defined benefit company pension scheme has failed in so many parts of the world is because companies are forced to pay off all pension liabilities despite the effects it will have on the financial status of the business, and in many cases, led to dissolution of the company. Another noteworthy plan of action lies in the proposal to extend the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations, which increases the pension protection of employees when the company or business is merged or acquired by another. This would also again undermine the possibility of mergers and acquisitions, as other companies who are willing to buy into another would not want to have to handle the added burden imposed on the pension liabilities of the existing company. Yet another proposal is to change the system of defined benefit company pensions by creating protection for employees who transfer from job to job. This proposal provides pension protection to employees who stay in the job for a minimum of only three months. This in itself makes the pension system slightly more complicated, and could be subject to abuse by scrupulous employees. Finally, the piece de resistance, so to speak, is the costly creation of a new agency tasked to regulate pensions. This new Pensions Regulator would only work towards eliminating fraud and bad practices in order to better promote the public's faith in the system. To return to the statement at hand, which states that "The defined benefit company pension is deader than Monty Python's parrot and government should let it rest in peace." I simply must concur with this statement. The empirical and statistical data all over the world show that companies and businesses have difficulty in maintaining such a pension scheme as the defined benefit company pension. It has led to the downfall of too many businesses and has curtailed economic and financial growth of countries and business entities. The concept of company sponsored pension schemes are patterned partly in the attempt to make the employer appear more benevolent and generous to its employees, and was also aimed as a means of retaining certain key employees within the corporate structure. However, the company is not an entity that exists for the provision and support of the future of its employees. The main function of a business is always the generation of profit. With this in mind, companies can not be seen as benevolent entities that are kind-hearted and compassionate enough to manage the pension finances of their employees in trust for their elderly days. Indeed, the system is as dead as that Norwegian Blue parrot in the Monty Python sketch. No matter how many excuses the storeowner (or in this case, the government) gives, it cannot breathe life in something that is clearly dead as a doornail. Neither does it have beautiful plumes and feathers nor special features, if it is a dead issue. Nailing its feet to the perch does in no way bring the bird back to life. Neither can the various action plans and steps government plans to undertake will revive the defined benefit company pension scheme nor bring it back to a state of efficiency and effectivity. Neither will the creation of incentives and protection schemes for the employee and employer bring back the vitality and successes that the defined benefit company pension scheme had decades ago. This is just as effective as calling to and offering food to a dead bird. The government should face reality, no matter what actions the try to implement, they cannot revive a system that society and business has dismally performed in its attempt to ensure its success. It is just as effective as trying to toss up a dead bird and hoping it will fly, when it will crash to the ground with a sickening thud. The risks involved this time around are much greater, with government taking a hand in investing large sums in its action plans, and the creation of the Pension Protection Fund is also a disaster waiting to happen. If financial experts within companies failed so horribly in the management of pension funds that the company was forced to shoulder the balance, imagine how a government agency would do in that same position, and how government would bail out that agency when it does fail. What the government should do, similar to the case of the dead parrot, is to provide a replacement. Society and the general public will always need a pension system, and the government should take steps to study what scheme or system would work best in a globalised increasingly changing and developing global economic community that exists today. But please, no slugs. Works Cited McCarthy, David and Neuberger, Anthony. The UK Approach to Insuring Defined Benefit Pension Plans. Philadelphia: Pension Research Council of Wharton School. 2005. Pension Protection Fund. Main Functions. 2004. The Pension Protection Fund. 24 April 2006. . Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, The. 2003. "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement--Action on Occupational Pensions". Department for Work and Pensions. 24 April 2006. . Read More