boycott united forever

[gatt]

My dad worked for 24 years at UAL-PDX. Laid him off in his 24th year, a
year before he was eligible for full retirement. He was UAL-PDX employee
of the year a couple of times, received all kinds of awards and bonuses...he
received one award for not missing a day of work for something like five
years.

Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks off
with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE UNITED
WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.

The best way to solve this problem would be to take the CEO, shoot him
through the head and hang his corpse from a Wall Street lamp post so that
every other executive out there remembers, for example, why the french still
celebrate Bastille Day. But we can't do that.

So boycott United forever and make sure that the rest of the executives in
the aviation industry don't try to pull the same stunt on America's pilots
and airline industry workers.

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks
> off
> with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
> Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE
> UNITED
> WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.

Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR that
United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually.

Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
danged good.

Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead of
They, the Stockholders...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> So boycott United forever and make sure that the rest of the executives in
> the aviation industry don't try to pull the same stunt on America's pilots
> and airline industry workers.

So they can really go bankrupt and take away the other half of his pension?
Seems to me that there are better ways to handle this.





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cNNge.76189$WI3.28227@attbi_s71...
>> Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks
>> off
>> with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
>> Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE
>> UNITED
>> WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.
>
> Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR
> that United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually.
>
> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> danged good.
>
> Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead of
> They, the Stockholders...

Really the Pension version of the FDIC (sorry can't remember the name of it)
but since it is running several billion dollars a year in the red you are
right.

But the company ought to be liquadated to pay the pensions. Think of it this
way. You go to work at the airline. They promise to pay you $X now and if
you hang around they will pay you $X after you retire.

Labor is supposed to be the first thing paid.

[Paul kgyy]

What was it the head of the pilots' union said several years ago about
making sure they got every last egg from the golden goose? Sounds like
they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. When a later CEO opined
that United was in trouble and might not survive, he was crucified by
the union reps on the Board of Directors for negative thinking.

Decisions always have consequences, often un-intended.

[Steve Foley]

Lets see. I'm already boycotting US Airways forever (They gave away our
seats on a connecting flight for a weekend trip). Now I have to boycott
United.

Damn good thing I've got my own plane.




"gatt" > wrote in message
...

> So boycott United forever and make sure that the rest of the executives in
> the aviation industry don't try to pull the same stunt on America's pilots
> and airline industry workers.

[RomeoMike]

I feel a lot of sympathy for your dad, but he will still get a pension
(I heard up to 3/4th of what it was supposed to be) at taxpayers'
expense. If United is boycotted, where will all the layed off employees
go? No pension, but no job!

gatt wrote:

>
> So boycott United forever and make sure that the rest of the executives in
> the aviation industry don't try to pull the same stunt on America's pilots
> and airline industry workers.
>
> -c
>
>

[Garner Miller]

In article <cNNge.76189$WI3.28227@attbi_s71>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> danged good.

Unless you're a pilot, forced to retire at 60 by the FARs. Then you
get $28k to live on because you "retired early." Worked hard to build
a nice house? You're going to have to sell it -- you won't be able to
afford the taxes on it.

Sad.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Andrew Gideon]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:


> So they can really go bankrupt and take away the other half of his
> pension? Seems to me that there are better ways to handle this.

They are bankrupt, and the pensions will now be paid by all of us.

It's quite dishonest in a very real way. The company contracted to make
payments that it is now refusing to make. Rather than selling off all
assets to help fund those promises, they've been passed on so you and I
will be paying them.

It's especially unfair to those of us that receive no benefit from
guaranteed pensions (because we don't get pensions).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

RomeoMike wrote:

> where will all the layed off employees
> go? No pension, but no job!

If they're smart, they'll leave. The company has already shown what its
word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay you?

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> Unless you're a pilot, forced to retire at 60 by the FARs. Then you
> get $28k to live on because you "retired early." Worked hard to build
> a nice house? You're going to have to sell it -- you won't be able to
> afford the taxes on it.

That's not what NPR said -- although it IS the pilots who will be hurt the
most.

The way they put it, after clearing a 6-figure income as a United pilot, a
retired United pilot would be capped at "only" $45K annually under the new
plan, despite the fact that his higher past salary entitled him to a MUCH
higher pension payment under the old retirement plan.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:cNNge.76189

> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> danged good.
>
> Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead of
> They, the Stockholders...

Yep. Corporate welfare, and never a demand for accountability.

You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or division,
they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?

-c

[kontiki]

gatt wrote:
> My dad worked for 24 years at UAL-PDX. Laid him off in his 24th year, a
> year before he was eligible for full retirement. He was UAL-PDX employee
> of the year a couple of times, received all kinds of awards and bonuses...he
> received one award for not missing a day of work for something like five
> years.
>
> Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks off
> with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
> Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE UNITED
> WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.
<snip>

Welcome to the club. Those of us who have been FORCED to participate in the
ponzi scheme known as Social Security for the past 30 years are looking at
getting pennies on the dollar compare to what we paid in.

People should be responsible for their OWN retirement plans. I have always paid
the maximum amount into social [in]security over the years. Had I been able
to manage that money myself I could be retired by now. As it is, that money has
been spent (squandered would be a better term) and one day they will tell me
"sorry but we can't 'afford' to pay you your money. Fortunately I have maintained
a ROTH IRA where I have been able to manage my OWN money.

When you abrogate your responsibilities to others you become dependent on them.

[gatt]

> Lets see. I'm already boycotting US Airways forever (They gave away our
> seats on a connecting flight for a weekend trip). Now I have to boycott
> United.
>
> Damn good thing I've got my own plane.

Sir, you are a role model. :>

-c

[Andrew Gideon]

gatt wrote:

> You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or
> division, they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?

No, but he might receive an award from the President.

- Andrew

[gatt]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message

> I feel a lot of sympathy for your dad, but he will still get a pension
> (I heard up to 3/4th of what it was supposed to be) at taxpayers'
> expense. If United is boycotted, where will all the layed off employees
> go? No pension, but no job!

They're probably better off finding work at a company that won't screw them
and the taxpayers based on poor executive decisions.

Something has to happen, cause this sort of nonsense just keeps continuing.
Hewlett-Packard is another classic example. Carli the Destroyer got tens of
million dollars in severance plus $50,000 for--get this--"career
counseling"--meanwhile, a friend of mine who has been an engineer and
designer in their most successful business unit is one of seven remaining
from a team of over 50, and he's expecting to be laid off within the year.

Like United, the people who made the company what it is suffer. The ones
who wreck it walk away with millions. At some point, it becomes a matter
of America's best interest to make an extreme example of someone.

-c

[gatt]

> If they're smart, they'll leave. The company has already shown what its
> word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay you?

My dad worked there for 24 years. They laid him off before he could retire,
but he was promised his pension when he reached retirement age. Too late
for to "leave."

Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company loyalty
and hard work isn't smart?

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
> loyalty
> and hard work isn't smart?

No, your father was crapped on.

"Company loyalty" is a myth. In my years in the corporate world, I saw no
loyalty, either from the company, or from the workers.

Which is just one reason I choose to be in business for myself, despite the
risks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Christopher Campbell]

On 5/12/05 11:58 AM, in article , "gatt"
> wrote:

>
> My dad worked for 24 years at UAL-PDX. Laid him off in his 24th year, a
> year before he was eligible for full retirement. He was UAL-PDX employee
> of the year a couple of times, received all kinds of awards and bonuses...he
> received one award for not missing a day of work for something like five
> years.
>
> Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks off
> with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
> Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE UNITED
> WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.

Yes, they made United what it was, and is: broke. The new guy just got the
blame, but he did not wreck the company all by himself, nor could he have
possibly saved it. The unions and everybody else lied to your dad. Everyone
who knew anything at all about business and financial planning knew that
there was no way in the world that United (or anybody else, for that matter)
could possibly honor such a lavish pension system. It was a Ponzi scheme
that eventually collapsed, just as all such chain letters and pyramid
schemes must.

Every other industry that had this kind of pension system has collapsed. The
amazing thing is that the airlines held on as long as they did.

[Christopher Campbell]

On 5/12/05 1:21 PM, in article , "gatt"
> wrote:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:cNNge.76189
>
>> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
>> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
>> danged good.
>>
>> Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead of
>> They, the Stockholders...
>
> Yep. Corporate welfare, and never a demand for accountability.
>
> You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or division,
> they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?

Let's not forget that it is these employees who are largely responsible for
running the company into the ground. CEOs come and go, but the employees ran
it from day to day. They made unreasonable demands in bad faith, sometimes
threatening to strike if the pot was not sweetened even more. In the end,
the company was entirely owned by the employees. They hired the CEO. They
fired him. They decided how much he should be paid. Now whose fault was
that?

[Montblack]

("Garner Miller" wrote)
> Unless you're a pilot, forced to retire at 60 by the FARs. Then you
> get $28k to live on because you "retired early." Worked hard to build
> a nice house? You're going to have to sell it -- you won't be able to
> afford the taxes on it.
>
> Sad.


1. ROTH
2. IRA
3. Sell house (downsize) ...pocket up to $500K tax free
4. Avoid debt
5. Avoid divorce
6. Morning shift at McDonald's is usually the older English speaking gals.
Start here, unless your Spanish is passable enough for the afternoon and
evening crews.


Montblack

[RomeoMike]

No, but, in the scenario that United were to fold, do you think the
present job market could absorb all of those workers? And the ones lucky
enough to find a job...who says the next company wouldn't default on
promises. Seems to be the rage these days. At least they have a salary
that feeds the family as long as United exists or they might be
fortunate enough to find another job.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>
>
> If they're smart, they'll leave. The company has already shown what its
> word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay you?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Ron Natalie]

gatt wrote:
> My dad worked for 24 years at UAL-PDX. Laid him off in his 24th year, a
> year before he was eligible for full retirement.

Doesn't matter, United bankrupted the pension plan as well.

[OtisWinslow]

You got it right, Chris. I quit flying United several years ago. I could no
longer
tolerate their rude, arrogant employees .. constant late and canceled
flights
because of broke airplanes .. etc. Recently my daughter went on a trip
with
a group. Her travel group was on United. I told her I was sorry and to be
prepared for a delay along the way. I was right. She was stuck in Chicago
because of a broke plane. She was amazed I could tell the future.

They made their own bed .. let them lay in it.



"Christopher Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Let's not forget that it is these employees who are largely responsible
> for
> running the company into the ground. CEOs come and go, but the employees
> ran
> it from day to day. They made unreasonable demands in bad faith, sometimes
> threatening to strike if the pot was not sweetened even more. In the end,
> the company was entirely owned by the employees. They hired the CEO. They
> fired him. They decided how much he should be paid. Now whose fault was
> that?
>

[Newps]

gatt wrote:
> My dad worked for 24 years at UAL-PDX. Laid him off in his 24th year, a
> year before he was eligible for full retirement. He was UAL-PDX employee
> of the year a couple of times, received all kinds of awards and bonuses...he
> received one award for not missing a day of work for something like five
> years.
>
> Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks off
> with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
> Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE UNITED
> WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.

United became employee owned about 7 or 8 years ago. They screwed
themselves.

[John Galban]

gatt wrote:
>
> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
loyalty
> and hard work isn't smart?
>

I'm really sorry to hear about your father's financial predicament,
but to answer your question, hard work is very smart, company loyalty
is an anachronism from a bygone era. It hasn't been a relevant concept
for decades.

Pledging your future to a faceless corporation is great for the
corporation, but as your father found out, it's a one-way street.
Tactics like getting rid of an employee on the eve of retirement (to
save a few bucks) are fairly commonplace. On top of that, banking
your retirement on the fact that a corporation will not only be in
business, but be profitable enough to support all of the former
employees is quite a gamble. Even large corporations fold on a fairly
regular basis.

I've only been in the workforce for about 26 yrs and have never
understood pensions. It requires a huge leap of faith in a
corporation. I equate it to keeping all of your retirement savings in
one stock. Not a financially sound move by any measure.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Andrew Gideon]

RomeoMike wrote:

> No, but, in the scenario that United were to fold,Â*Â*doÂ*youÂ*thinkÂ*the
> present job market could absorb all of those workers?

Well, it wouldn't quite be "the present job market". United folding would
leave an opportunity. I'd hope that at least some of the routes/flights
would be picked up by someone else (hopefully an upstart like JetBlue that
might actually make them work).

If not...well, then there was apparently no market for it (at least at
current pricing). That's unfortunate, but reality.

> And the ones lucky
> enough to find a job...who says the next company wouldn't default on
> promises. Seems to be the rage these days.

Perhaps so. But I'd rather put my faith in someone that's not [yet] proven
untrustworthy as opposed to someone that already has.

- Andrew

[Dave Stadt]

"Christopher Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> On 5/12/05 1:21 PM, in article , "gatt"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cNNge.76189
> >
> >> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan --
and
> >> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> >> danged good.
> >>
> >> Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead
of
> >> They, the Stockholders...
> >
> > Yep. Corporate welfare, and never a demand for accountability.
> >
> > You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or
division,
> > they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?
>
> Let's not forget that it is these employees who are largely responsible
for
> running the company into the ground. CEOs come and go, but the employees
ran
> it from day to day. They made unreasonable demands in bad faith, sometimes
> threatening to strike if the pot was not sweetened even more. In the end,
> the company was entirely owned by the employees. They hired the CEO. They
> fired him. They decided how much he should be paid. Now whose fault was
> that?
>
You got that right. I don't know of too many people that feel sorry for
United employees other than United employees. They went to the till too
many times and now they get to suffer the consequences.

[BTIZ]

you work and build a retirement plan based on what you have done and what
the company promised..
and then after you retire.. the company cuts your planned pension from
$60-70K to $45K
how are you going to live now... sell everything you have.. and buy
something cheaper..
unless you already did that to retire..

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:BGOge.76229$c24.4371@attbi_s72...
>> Unless you're a pilot, forced to retire at 60 by the FARs. Then you
>> get $28k to live on because you "retired early." Worked hard to build
>> a nice house? You're going to have to sell it -- you won't be able to
>> afford the taxes on it.
>
> That's not what NPR said -- although it IS the pilots who will be hurt the
> most.
>
> The way they put it, after clearing a 6-figure income as a United pilot, a
> retired United pilot would be capped at "only" $45K annually under the new
> plan, despite the fact that his higher past salary entitled him to a MUCH
> higher pension payment under the old retirement plan.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Christopher Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> On 5/12/05 1:21 PM, in article , "gatt"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:cNNge.76189
>>
>>> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
>>> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
>>> danged good.
>>>
>>> Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead
>>> of
>>> They, the Stockholders...
>>
>> Yep. Corporate welfare, and never a demand for accountability.
>>
>> You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or
>> division,
>> they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?
>
> Let's not forget that it is these employees who are largely responsible
> for
> running the company into the ground. CEOs come and go, but the employees
> ran
> it from day to day. They made unreasonable demands in bad faith, sometimes
> threatening to strike if the pot was not sweetened even more. In the end,
> the company was entirely owned by the employees. They hired the CEO. They
> fired him. They decided how much he should be paid. Now whose fault was
> that?


Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees could
see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding its pension
obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is surprised that
they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The handwriting has been
on the wall for years, perhaps decades.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>> If they're smart, they'll leave. The company has already shown what its
>> word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay
>> you?
>
> My dad worked there for 24 years. They laid him off before he could
> retire,
> but he was promised his pension when he reached retirement age. Too late
> for to "leave."
>
> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
> loyalty
> and hard work isn't smart?
>
> -c


Well the infomation that UAL was not funding the pension obligation was/is
readily availible in Uniteds SEC filings. Personally if I was depending on
someone/something to send me money for decades, I would verify that the
money was there. The reality is that this might be too much to expect from
individual employees, but there is no excuse for the unions not demanding
that the pension plans be funded.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> gatt wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
> loyalty
>> and hard work isn't smart?
>>
>
> I'm really sorry to hear about your father's financial predicament,
> but to answer your question, hard work is very smart, company loyalty
> is an anachronism from a bygone era. It hasn't been a relevant concept
> for decades.
>
> Pledging your future to a faceless corporation is great for the
> corporation, but as your father found out, it's a one-way street.
> Tactics like getting rid of an employee on the eve of retirement (to
> save a few bucks) are fairly commonplace. On top of that, banking
> your retirement on the fact that a corporation will not only be in
> business, but be profitable enough to support all of the former
> employees is quite a gamble. Even large corporations fold on a fairly
> regular basis.
>
> I've only been in the workforce for about 26 yrs and have never
> understood pensions. It requires a huge leap of faith in a
> corporation. I equate it to keeping all of your retirement savings in
> one stock. Not a financially sound move by any measure.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits.

Mike
MU-2

[Bob Fry]

Robert Reich's big question: Do facts still matter?
By Peter Schrag -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now
teaching public policy at Berkeley, has been going around asking a
portentous question: As the wage and wealth gaps between the rich and
poor grow to unprecedented proportions in America, will we snap back
or snap apart?

Snapping back is what the nation has always done in the past. After
the depredations of the Gilded Age, the sweatshops, the 14-hour days
even for children, the Populists and then the Progressives succeeded
in enacting antitrust and wage and hour laws, interstate commerce
regulation, the progressive income tax, pure food and drug laws and a
long list of others.

Together, Reich said, those reforms brought things back to tolerable
levels.

Ditto during the Depression, with laws recognizing the right of labor
to organize and strike; enactment of Social Security, banking and
securities regulations; and establishment of hundreds of public works
projects to put people back to work - roads, bridges, schools, water
and power systems.

But Reich, a former Rhodes Scholar, also warns about another
scenario. "If we don't snap back," he said, "we snap apart into
different societies" that have little contact with one another, and
where the poor lose the classic American expectation that with enough
effort they can make it into the middle class.

That snapping apart fuels the politics of resentment and makes the
nation susceptible to all sorts of demagoguery - about race and
religion, about immigrants, about gays, about elites. As he talked
about it recently at the Public Policy Institute of California, it was
hard not to believe it was already happening. "Are we living in a
madhouse?" Reich asked.

And then another question: Do facts still matter? Every day brings
more material to underline the question: yet another round of
attempts, at a time when the nation is already falling behind China,
India and Korea in science education, to eviscerate Darwinian
evolution. Teachers all over the country are afraid to fully discuss
it.

And as we all know, there's the ongoing falsification by one
government agency after another of data on everything from the WMDs
Iraq didn't have to the cost of the Medicare drug bill to the effects
of global warming. Instead, we have the facile morphing of "values"
with sectarian beliefs.

The country is beset with urgent issues from the multitrillion-dollar
federal debt to a health care system that's as unfair and expensive as
it's wasteful and often corrupt, to an education system that now runs
a poor second or third to those of the nation's economic
competitors. We are stuck in a "war" from which there seems to be no
exit in a region where our misbegotten policies grow terrorists faster
than we can kill them.

But instead of facing and debating those issues, we're preoccupied
with our religious wars - diversionary issues about who's the godliest
among us. We are fixated on steroids in baseball, and on Terri Schiavo
and Michael Jackson; and about a federal REAL ID Act bill without any
study or test to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which will
make things tougher and more expensive for every American at every DMV
office, but which probably won't buy us a nickel's worth of additional
security.

In the past, tough times brought waves of reformist legislative trials
in the states - a lot of federal reform legislation was further tested
and implemented in the states. But in this state, a generation of
efforts to dig ourselves out of our self-inflicted budgetary and
governmental mess seems just to have dug the hole deeper and made the
system even less comprehensible.

It may not be all our fault. Given the global economy and the
technological revolutions that enlarge the gaps in income and wealth
between those with an advanced education and those without, along with
the federal tax, health and foreign policies that, rather than
ameliorating the gaps, exacerbate their effects, there may be only so
much that even a state such as California can do.

That's not to say we couldn't do a lot better - in education, in
health care, in housing. And we could certainly stop trying to do
worse, as the state has been doing. By themselves, the piecemeal and
inconsistent ad hoc lunges of the governor and Legislature don't
address any fundamental problems. As the Legislative Analyst's Office
has pointed out, the governor's budget reform initiative, the only big
thing proposed, can only make the system more rigid and opaque.

Even if everything passes that the governor has said he wanted,
including his long string of abandoned "oh, nevermind" proposals, it
will not change California government and budgeting very much.

In another era, we might have helped lead the nation to brighter
prospects. We did that with our pioneering environmental and civil
rights laws; in creating the greatest public higher education system
on Earth; and with our parks and freeways. But does anyone expect
anything like that now?

Snap back or snap apart.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "Gig" == Gig <601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>> writes:

Gig> Labor is supposed to be the first thing paid.

It will be. Oh wait, that's the CEO class salaries and perks that are
going to be paid. Well hell, with the Cheney administration what did
you expect?

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees
> could see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding its
> pension obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is
> surprised that they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The
> handwriting has been on the wall for years, perhaps decades.

Is it every employee's responsibility to monitor pension funding? If not,
who's responsibility is it?

Just because the information is publicly available, that doesn't mean it's
the fault of someone other than the entity responsible for actually funding
the pension that it didn't get funded.

I can see good reasons for why the "victims" here aren't entirely blameless.
But put blame on them just because they weren't performing watch-dog duties
seems unreasonable.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:41:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
>> loyalty
>> and hard work isn't smart?
>
>No, your father was crapped on.
>
>"Company loyalty" is a myth. In my years in the corporate world, I saw no
>loyalty, either from the company, or from the workers.
>
>Which is just one reason I choose to be in business for myself, despite the
>risks.

I've been working for a Fortune 500 company for a little over five
years. 2 years ago, the pension benefits in place when I was hired
were reduced by 80%. Employees with 15 years service were
"grandfathered" and kept the old plan, the rest of us took it in the
shorts. At the same time, the company 401k "matching" contribution was
cut in half.

Good friend of mine was employed by another local Fortune 500 company
for 20 1/2 years. He was "downsized", still does the exact same job,
works in the same office, but is now employed by the "contract"
company hired to replace his department. Of course his salary was
reduced drastically, and the benefits are poor.

I guess I'm not sure what point Mr. gatt is trying to make. **** like
this happens every day.

TC

[Grumman-581]

"gatt" wrote in message ...
> The best way to solve this problem would be to take the CEO, shoot him
> through the head and hang his corpse from a Wall Street lamp post so that
> every other executive out there remembers, for example, why the french
still
> celebrate Bastille Day. But we can't do that.

Who says you can't? Feel free... I won't tell...

[StellaStarr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> danged good.

You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
for retirement.

You know...a "personal account."

And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they
worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that?

One of us seems to be failing to understand something...

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:
>
> 6. Morning shift at McDonald's is usually the older English speaking
> gals.

Home Depot pays more and has more interesting work.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[George Patterson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> If they're smart, they'll leave.

He asked where they would go. Got an answer?

> The company has already shown what its
> word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay you?

I would as long as I couldn't find a job elsewhere.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[George Patterson]

gatt wrote:
>
> They're probably better off finding work at a company that won't screw them
> and the taxpayers based on poor executive decisions.

*You* try finding a decent job when you're in your 50s. No, they won't
discriminate on age, they'll just tell you they're looking for someone with less
experience.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > gatt wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
> > loyalty
> >> and hard work isn't smart?
> >>
> >
> > I'm really sorry to hear about your father's financial predicament,
> > but to answer your question, hard work is very smart, company loyalty
> > is an anachronism from a bygone era. It hasn't been a relevant concept
> > for decades.
> >
> > Pledging your future to a faceless corporation is great for the
> > corporation, but as your father found out, it's a one-way street.
> > Tactics like getting rid of an employee on the eve of retirement (to
> > save a few bucks) are fairly commonplace. On top of that, banking
> > your retirement on the fact that a corporation will not only be in
> > business, but be profitable enough to support all of the former
> > employees is quite a gamble. Even large corporations fold on a fairly
> > regular basis.
> >
> > I've only been in the workforce for about 26 yrs and have never
> > understood pensions. It requires a huge leap of faith in a
> > corporation. I equate it to keeping all of your retirement savings in
> > one stock. Not a financially sound move by any measure.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
>
> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
> in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
> plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
> professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
> pay the promised benefits.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

That is only true in some cases and only recently have laws been passed to
make sure the money is actually there. The golden rule is fund your own
retirement. What has happened to Uniteds pension is by no means unique or
unusual. Up until recently all pension monies could be invested in the
corporations own stock.

[George Patterson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
> in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
> plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
> professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
> pay the promised benefits.

The problem is that the funds are typically invested in stocks and/or bonds. If
the market is doing well, the employer only has to contribute money for
relatively new employees -- employees who have been there a while already have
substantial funds, and the returns on that provide the necessary increase. If,
however, the market isn't doing well, the company has to make continuing
deposits, usually at a time in which they aren't making very much themselves.

My former employer is typical in this regard. In early 2001, the market was
still cooking, and my former employer had the pension funds in stocks. As the
market collapsed later in the year, there was a rush to shift everything to
bonds. Then came the ENRON scandal. Congress reacted to that by increasing the
amount of equity employers had to keep in their pension plans. That meant that
companies that had pension plans suddenly had to scrape up substantial amounts
of cash to add to them at a time that the market was forcing them to divert more
and more of their income to the plans anyway.

My company reacted in two ways. First, they laid off anyone who was close to
either a 2 year or a 5 year service anniversary (those are the dates that
pensions become partially and fully vested). That freed up a lot of funds that
could be allocated to pensions for other employees. Second, they changed the
pension plan to a "cash balance payout" plan. This works sort of like Bush's
"private account" option for Social Security. The company pays in a certain
amount into your pension. If the market does well during your career, you'll get
a big lump sum when you retire; if not, you'll get a tiny lump sum when you retire.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Dave Stadt]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:6TSge.30596$fI.11949@fed1read05...
> you work and build a retirement plan based on what you have done and what
> the company promised..
> and then after you retire.. the company cuts your planned pension from
> $60-70K to $45K
> how are you going to live now... sell everything you have.. and buy
> something cheaper..
> unless you already did that to retire..

In that case you screwed up. Planning on retirement income outside what you
have stashed away is foolhardy.

[George Patterson]

StellaStarr wrote:
>
> You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
> It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
> for retirement.

You're thinking of a 401K. A pension used to be a guaranteed retirement income
in exchange for spending your life working for the company. One could argue that
you exchanged a higher salary for a lower salary and a pension, but no money
was taken out of your paycheck.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[aluckyguess]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> If they're smart, they'll leave. The company has already shown what its
>>> word is worth. Would you work for someone that broke promises to pay
>>> you?
>>
>> My dad worked there for 24 years. They laid him off before he could
>> retire,
>> but he was promised his pension when he reached retirement age. Too late
>> for to "leave."
>>
>> Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
>> loyalty
>> and hard work isn't smart?
>>
>> -c
>
>
> Well the infomation that UAL was not funding the pension obligation was/is
> readily availible in Uniteds SEC filings. Personally if I was depending
> on someone/something to send me money for decades, I would verify that the
> money was there. The reality is that this might be too much to expect
> from individual employees, but there is no excuse for the unions not
> demanding that the pension plans be funded.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
The unions only care you pay them. Only a fool believes a union is their to
take care of them.

[Dave Stadt]

"StellaStarr" > wrote in message
news:vmVge.74711$r53.43567@attbi_s21...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >
> > Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
> > never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> > danged good.
>
> You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
> It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
> for retirement.

No it isn't. Pension money is fully funded by thr corporation. Nobody at
United has lost a penny of their own money. 401K and similar programs are
not pensions.

> You know...a "personal account."
>
> And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they
> worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that?

Planning your retirement on pension money being available is foolhardy.

> One of us seems to be failing to understand something..

I believe it is you.

[aluckyguess]

Their is only one person who will take care of you and that is yourself.
The corporate world has to answer to the stock holder not the employee.

[Roger]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:42:19 GMT, StellaStarr >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
>> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
>> danged good.

Seems like you'd be setting up your own pension plan. I did in
addition to the one from my employer.

>
>You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
>It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
>for retirement.
>
>You know...a "personal account."
>
>And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they
>worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that?

Just because they agreed to have that set aside for them instead of
pay to take home? Part of mine came out of my pay check.

Also for ordinary folks who pay into a pension plan, now days the
money is supposed to go with them when they change jobs. One company
I worked for way back in the 60s had the money I had paid in
transferred to the retirement account of my new employer.

The retirement package is part of the benefits they and their employer
agreed to "in writing" when they started the job. They could have
settled for more money and no pension, but that would have been a poor
trade.

Both I and the company I worked for, paid into an account kept in
escrow for something like 33 years.

I also invested every cent I could get hold of, so now that I'm
retired I don't have to set around the house. I can go play.

>
>One of us seems to be failing to understand something...

Probably over half the population have that problem. <:-))

They should start teach investing practices some where around the 8th
grade. If young people would start out saving instead of buying new,
big cars and trucks (one of the worst investments you can make) and
purchased stock on a diversified plan with a good investment counselor
most could probably retire in their 40s.

I was lucky I had smart parents even if my mother only had a high
school education and my dad never made it out of the 8th grade. He had
to work. Still, most thought he at least had some college. They
taught me the meaning of a dollar, but had I listened better I could
have retired a lot younger. As it was, I was 50 when I received my
Bachelors degree. Worked seven more years and retired.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in news:HmVge.4961$1f5.2283
@trndny01:

> Montblack wrote:
>>
>> 6. Morning shift at McDonald's is usually the older English speaking
>> gals.
>
> Home Depot pays more and has more interesting work.

Yeah, like building nice shaded waiting areas for the illegal
aliens to wait while they solicit for pay-under-the-table work.


>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:04:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR that
>United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually.

The guarantee of course is by the American taxpayer. (Speaking of the
nation, not the airline.)

I have little sympathy for airline employees, who in the good days set
the airlines up for future bankruptcy much as the United Auto Workers
did. (To be sure, the airlines and the auto mfgrs were enablers.)

Who in his right mind believed that generations of workers could
retire at 60 with $50/$60/$70K annual pensions and medical benefits
for the next twenty or thirty years?

The pension overhang guaranteed by the PBGB (whatever the order of the
letters: PGBB?) is half again as large as the savings & loan bailout
that wrecked the economy in the 1980s.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "gatt" wrote in message ...
>> The best way to solve this problem would be to take the CEO, shoot him
>> through the head and hang his corpse from a Wall Street lamp post so that
>> every other executive out there remembers, for example, why the french still
>> celebrate Bastille Day. But we can't do that.
>
> Who says you can't? Feel free... I won't tell...


I believe the CEO is at the crux of the problem and therefore leads to a
possible solution. You don't need to shoot him. What you need to do is require
any company that contemplates a federal buyout of its pension problems to limit
management renumeration to 10 times that of their average worker... in keeping
with what typical Japanese CEOs earn, even of the largest corporations. The
days of screwing the workers and taxpayers while management continues to rake in
millions has to end.

If they want to have the workers and taxpayers take a hit, EVERYONE should feel
the pain. When management's wallets are being affected, you can be sure they'll
look for better ways to manage their pension funds.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company remaining
> in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the pension
> plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
> professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
> pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at your own risk.

[kontiki]

George Patterson wrote:
> *You* try finding a decent job when you're in your 50s. No, they won't
> discriminate on age, they'll just tell you they're looking for someone
> with less experience.
>

Exactly. Many of these people who 'thought' they were going to enjoy a decent
retirement with their pension plans will need to go back to work (or work for
another 15 years). They will find they are competing with a new class of laborer,
resently arrived from another country willing to work for a wage suprisingly
lower than they expected to make (if they can get hired at all).

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:42:19 GMT, StellaStarr >
wrote:

>You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
>It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
>for retirement.

Not the United pensions, which are "defined benefit".

You are speaking of "defined contribution" plans, which are owned by
the worker and can be taken from job to job.

Sort of like what the prezdint is proposing for Social Security, and
that puts the Good People into conniption fits because it breaks the
bond between welfare-receiving taxpayer and welfare-giving politician.

If you don't have a vested, defined-contribution plan, then you don't
have a pension plan. All you have is a promise. And we are beginning
to see what promises are worth, whether from an airline or from a
guvmint.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[[email protected]]

It's the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and it is still
technically not taxpayer-funded. All employers with defined benefit
plans pay insurance premiums that in theory will cover the cost of
bailouts, assuming that not too many are needed. UAL does not yet break
the bank but it comes close. Then, as with the S&L crisis, Congress
will end up authorizing a payout from the General Fund.

This is a class-A debacle because every option si in a sense bad. The
judge in the case basically said, better to have the company stay in
business and pay *some* obligations than go bust and pay none. If UAL
were to be liquidated it would be quite a foodfight. Would today's
retirees do better that way? Highly unlikely. It's crazy to think so.
So keeping UAL going is in one sense better for all UAL people.

However, by allowing UAL to do this, the court has created a major
moral hazard with regards to Delta and American, whose pensions are
just as expensive. Basically the gov't says to your competitor, "Oh,
that huge expense you were required by law to take? We'll let you take
a mulligan on it." Delta et. al. now have a very legitimate claim that
UAL is being given a very unfair advantage against them, and will over
the next few years likely end up weaseling out of their pensions too.

This is why I ultimately come down against it. Liquidating UAL would
really be in the best interests of the broader market (partly by
getting rid of UAL's inventory, thereby allowing prices to rise a
little) but in the short term this is like chemotherapy. Sure, maybe it
kills the cancer, but in the meantime you wonder whether you weren't
better off dead.

I've read btw that GM's cost of providing benefits to retirees comes
out to something like $15k per current employee annually. If that isn't
a drag on wages I don't know what is. If any of you are WSJ subscribers
there's a good article on it here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111335199317205372,00.html?mod=Business+World .
The whole concept of society paying for individuals' retirement turns
out to be a bust. It worked as long as it did in the US and Europe
becuase of strong post-WWII economic growth. The US baby boom gave us a
demographic bubble that could sustain the concept for one generation
more than in Europe but it is just as doomed here. It's a nice idea in
principle but in practice it wrecks both companies and economies
leaving everyone but a lucky older generation that got there first
worse off.

-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:T0Wge.4970$1f5.1194@trndny01...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
>> remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
>> the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
>> are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
>> enough to pay the promised benefits.
>
> The problem is that the funds are typically invested in stocks and/or
> bonds. If the market is doing well, the employer only has to contribute
> money for relatively new employees -- employees who have been there a
> while already have substantial funds, and the returns on that provide the
> necessary increase. If, however, the market isn't doing well, the company
> has to make continuing deposits, usually at a time in which they aren't
> making very much themselves.
>
> My former employer is typical in this regard. In early 2001, the market
> was still cooking, and my former employer had the pension funds in stocks.
> As the market collapsed later in the year, there was a rush to shift
> everything to bonds. Then came the ENRON scandal. Congress reacted to that
> by increasing the amount of equity employers had to keep in their pension
> plans. That meant that companies that had pension plans suddenly had to
> scrape up substantial amounts of cash to add to them at a time that the
> market was forcing them to divert more and more of their income to the
> plans anyway.
>
> My company reacted in two ways. First, they laid off anyone who was close
> to either a 2 year or a 5 year service anniversary (those are the dates
> that pensions become partially and fully vested). That freed up a lot of
> funds that could be allocated to pensions for other employees. Second,
> they changed the pension plan to a "cash balance payout" plan. This works
> sort of like Bush's "private account" option for Social Security. The
> company pays in a certain amount into your pension. If the market does
> well during your career, you'll get a big lump sum when you retire; if
> not, you'll get a tiny lump sum when you retire.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Companies aren't required to fund plans on a daily or even annual basis and
react to every decline in their investments. There is an assumed rate of
return and the company is required to fund the plans so that there will be
enough to pay benefits if the assumed rate of return is earned.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
>> remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
>> the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
>> are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
>> enough to pay the promised benefits.
>
> One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
> just that:
> "professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
> to
> pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.
>
> The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
> their
> own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
> manage.
> When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
> your own risk.
>

I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935. The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63. Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would be
uncompetitive in the workforce. It was a reasonable approach that got
derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees
>> could see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding
>> its pension obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is
>> surprised that they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The
>> handwriting has been on the wall for years, perhaps decades.
>
> Is it every employee's responsibility to monitor pension funding? If not,
> who's responsibility is it?
>
> Just because the information is publicly available, that doesn't mean it's
> the fault of someone other than the entity responsible for actually
> funding the pension that it didn't get funded.
>
> I can see good reasons for why the "victims" here aren't entirely
> blameless. But put blame on them just because they weren't performing
> watch-dog duties seems unreasonable.
>
> Pete

You are right in a perfect world. In the current world you need to depend
on yourself or others that have the same interests as you do. Funding
pension liability is a cost for the employer and it is income for the
employee. It is easy to see why the company wants to minimize the
contributins and why the employee should want third-party confirmation that
the contributions are made.

In the United case, if the pensions had been fully funded, the company would
have gone bankrupt years ago.

Mike
MU-2

[Jay Honeck]

Man, there are days where I would pay *them* to let me work in their
tool department...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

kontiki wrote:
>
> They will find they are competing with a new class of
> laborer, resently arrived from another country willing to work for a
> wage suprisingly
> lower than they expected to make (if they can get hired at all).

No, they won't. Recently arrived immigrants aren't thick on the ground in
professional positions. They will be competing with other professionals who are
in their late 20s or early 30s (that's typically the age bracket employers
target with their ads for "3 to 7 years experience"). If they return to school
and try to enter another profession, they may get as far as the interview.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:xtVge.4964$1f5.4519@trndny01...
> gatt wrote:
> >
> > They're probably better off finding work at a company that won't screw
them
> > and the taxpayers based on poor executive decisions.
>
> *You* try finding a decent job when you're in your 50s. No, they won't
> discriminate on age, they'll just tell you they're looking for someone
with less
> experience.


Kinda what happens when you expect your (current) employer to act as your
parent as well...even into your 50's.

[Matt Barrow]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Their is only one person who will take care of you and that is yourself.
> The corporate world has to answer to the stock holder not the employee.
>

And customers.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:04:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR
that
> >United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually.
>
> The guarantee of course is by the American taxpayer. (Speaking of the
> nation, not the airline.)
>
> I have little sympathy for airline employees, who in the good days set
> the airlines up for future bankruptcy much as the United Auto Workers
> did. (To be sure, the airlines and the auto mfgrs were enablers.)
>

I remember the media crowing about how good it was going to be for United
when the union became the primary stockholder (IOW, the OWNER of the
COMPANY).

UAL was going to become the Workers Paradise®.

[Matt Barrow]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
> > in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the
pension
> > plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
> > professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
> > pay the promised benefits.
>
> One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
> "professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
> pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.
>
> The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
> own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
> When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


The term is "beholden".

When you demand the taxpayers bail you out of your stupid and adolescent
decisions, the term is "parasite".

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
> >> remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
> >> the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
> >> are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
> >> enough to pay the promised benefits.
> >
> > One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
> > just that:
> > "professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
> > to
> > pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.
> >
> > The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
> > their
> > own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
> > manage.
> > When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
> > your own risk.
> >
>
> I agree with most of what you say.
>
> Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
> was inplemented in 1935.

Well thought out? You're kidding!!!

>The problem came when people started looking at it
> as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought
out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a
boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture.

The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power.

> Social Security
> was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
> also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would
be
> uncompetitive in the workforce.

It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL.

It was also VOLUNTARY.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-17-Sun-2005/opinion/1005355.html



> It was a reasonable approach that got

Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that?


> derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life
expectancy)
> and the program didn't change with it.

Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind.

[John Galban]

StellaStarr wrote:
>
> You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
> It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save
up
> for retirement.
>
> You know...a "personal account."
>
> And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they
> worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that?
>
> One of us seems to be failing to understand something...

I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're
describing, but it is not a pension.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message > Speaking as one of the millions who have
>never had a pension plan -- and
> never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
> danged good.

$45k is the maximum. Very few will get that amount. I work with a flight
attendent who had 19 years, 11 months in at Eastern when they went tango
uniform. Being 1 month shy of 20 years, and being well shy of 60 years of
age, means she will get less than $300/ month at retirement (if the PBGC
isn't dissolved). This is much more prevalent than the $45k/yr figure touted
in the press.

Employees with a pension plan give up other benefits, usually more pay, for
the promise of a retirement pension. When those promises are broken, the
employee ends up with nothing in exchange for many years of concessions.
Most of these people put their trust in Big Corporate Brother and will pay
dearly in their less productive years.

You don't have a pension, but I bet your retirement will be a lot nicer for
not counting on Big Corporate Brother.

D.

[Bob Moore]

"John Galban" wrote

>> StellaStarr wrote:
>> You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
>> It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save
>> up for retirement.

> I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're
> describing, but it is not a pension.

From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:

A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an employer
(for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides
income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of
"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during the
1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to
increase.

John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what
Stella wrote.

Bob Moore

[John Galban]

Bob Moore wrote:
> From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:
>
> A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an
employer
> (for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides

> income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of

> "deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States
during the
> 1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of
salary) to
> increase.
>
> John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what

> Stella wrote.
>

The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising
to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now).
Stella's description sounded like some sort of individual account, like
a 401K, where actual earned dollars (not deferred) are used.

A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not
under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by
them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is
just that. Words.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Moore]

"John Galban" > wrote

> The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising
> to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now).

Nope... at PanAm, at contract time, there were just so many dollars on
the table, take them now or take them later. We, the pilots had our
choice, more pay...more vacation...more health care...or more pension,
take your choice. At PanAm, we usually sacraficed pay for better working
conditions....and our working conditions were great!

> A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not
> under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by
> them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is
> just that. Words.

Not at PanAm, the pilot group (unlike the other employee groups) insisted
that our pension plan be held by an outside source, in this case,
Prudential Insurance, and PanAm paid monthly on behalf of each of us. We
felt fairly safe when the axe fell on PanAm.....WRONG! Prudential went
to the NY Federal Court and obtained permission to dump the obligation
off to the PBGC. You can't trust anyone.

Bob Moore

[Jim]

The PBGC funds pensions based on premiums paid by companies with
pensions--not taxes. From their website:

"Our financing comes from insurance premiums paid by companies whose
plans we protect, from our investments, and from the assets of pension
plans that we take over, but not from taxes."

[Jim]

The guarantee comes from the PBGC which is funded by payments from
companies, not taxes.

-Jim

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The guarantee comes from the PBGC which is funded by payments from
> companies, not taxes.
>
> -Jim

What happens if it runs out of money? Government bail out or tough luck?

[Robert M. Gary]

Boycott United and drive them out of business. That will show all those
shareholders, many of whom are retirees what we mean! That will teach
CEOs not to take risks and let their companies die a normal and slow
death rather than try to reform the compay and have a chance to
succeed.

BTW: Don't forget that the pension as paid for by the U.S. taxpayers
now was funded by the pension guarantee fund, a fund provided for by
the pensions themselves. Its like we're a big insurance company. The
U.S. gov't accepted the premiums, we need to pay out.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

So you believe the purpose of a corporation in the U.S. is to provide
employment. Mr. Marx, I think you're dated.
It's the stockholders who have a duty to police the compenstion
packages of CEOs, not mommy government. Its the stockholder's money.

-Robert

[Jim]

The funding for the PBGC does not come from taxes. You will not be
paying them.

-Jim

[gatt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Boycott United and drive them out of business. That will show all those
> shareholders, many of whom are retirees what we mean! That will teach
> CEOs not to take risks and let their companies die a normal and slow
> death rather than try to reform the compay and have a chance to
> succeed.

Riiiiiiiiight. "Teach CEOs not to take risks" like ensuring their own $1.5
million pensions while screwing everyone who worked for the company."

It'd teach the shareholders and future businesses to pay more attention to
their employees, though, huh?

-c

[gatt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message

> So you believe the purpose of a corporation in the U.S. is to provide
> employment. Mr. Marx, I think you're dated.
> It's the stockholders who have a duty to police the compenstion
> packages of CEOs, not mommy government. Its the stockholder's money.

To whom is this addressed?!

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "GP" == George Patterson > writes:
GP> You're thinking of a 401K. A pension used to be a guaranteed
GP> retirement income in exchange for spending your life working
GP> for the company. One could argue that you exchanged a higher
GP> salary for a lower salary and a pension, but no money was
GP> taken out of your paycheck.

I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> It's the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and it is still
> technically not taxpayer-funded. All employers with defined benefit
> plans pay insurance premiums that in theory will cover the cost of
> bailouts, assuming that not too many are needed. UAL does not yet break
> the bank but it comes close. Then, as with the S&L crisis, Congress
> will end up authorizing a payout from the General Fund.
>

A real problem with insurance like PBGC (and FDIC) is that the prudent
companies (or banks) end up paying the cost of those who don't contribute to
their employees pensions The real solution is enforcement of contributions
by not allowing deferments.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

So was the FSLIC until it became bankrupt.

Mike
MU-2

"Jim" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The guarantee comes from the PBGC which is funded by payments from
> companies, not taxes.
>
> -Jim
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "GP" == George Patterson > writes:
> GP> You're thinking of a 401K. A pension used to be a guaranteed
> GP> retirement income in exchange for spending your life working
> GP> for the company. One could argue that you exchanged a higher
> GP> salary for a lower salary and a pension, but no money was
> GP> taken out of your paycheck.
>
> I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
> and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.

That must be a reassuring position to be in, giving your retirement money to
the State of California. Hope you are building a nest egg separate from
what you are giving to California.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 03:42:16 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>> I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
>> and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.
>
>That must be a reassuring position to be in, giving your retirement money to
>the State of California. Hope you are building a nest egg separate from
>what you are giving to California.

And then they use it for political purposes!

Most people contribute to their pensions. Social Security is also
defined-benefit, though it's Congress that gets to define it :) The
difference is that with defined-benefit, it's all based on a promise,
whether or not the promise can be fulfilled.

A defined-contribution plan has no promise, and usually the worker
owns it a lot sooner. The really important part is that he can take it
from job to job, or into self-employement, which is not true of most
private-sector defined-benefit plans. Since it's based on real assets
that belong to the worker, the payout depends on the performance of
those assets.

In short, it's what some politiciians like to call "a risky scheme,"
but not half so risky as depending on the promises of companies who
may be out of business by the time you retire, and of congressmen who
will be retired (on your taxpayer dollar) much more comfortably than
you will be.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

>Pension plans are a form of
>"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during the
>1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to
>increase.

That's the problem with Wikipedia. Some damn fool typing faster than
his mind could follow!

I assure you, there were no wage freezes in the 1930, nor were they
showing any tendency to increase.. Wages were going *down* in the
1930s!

What the Wiki guy meant to say was "during World War II," but he
probably couldn't remember what number it was (I, II, III?).



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:24:24 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Not at PanAm, the pilot group (unlike the other employee groups) insisted
>that our pension plan be held by an outside source, in this case,

You must thank the wisdom of your negotiators every time you see the
Pan Am logo on a rinky-dink start-up airline or training program.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 13 May 2005 05:48:16 -0700, wrote:

>It's the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and it is still
>technically not taxpayer-funded.

Neither were the savings & loan associations until the bailout came
due.

The PBGC overhang is nearly double what it cost us to straighten out
the S&Ls.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 13 May 2005 14:33:02 -0700, "Jim" > wrote:

>The guarantee comes from the PBGC which is funded by payments from
>companies, not taxes.

Just you wait, Henry Higgins!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 13 May 2005 16:26:53 -0700, "Jim" > wrote:

>The funding for the PBGC does not come from taxes. You will not be
>paying them.

Heh-heh. Where did we hear that before?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
>was inplemented in 1935.

It was a Ponzi scheme, whereby the people bailing out first were
repaid by the entry fees of those who joined later. It worked as long
as the labor force grew faster than the retirement community.

Then somebody discovered the link between cigarettes and lung cancer,
and bingo! One of my pals is celebrating his 90th birthday in the
Bahamas next February. He got remarried last year. He no longer sails
to the Bahamas every fall, but he sails a small boat every day when
he's down there.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

Probably it was a bit higher than that, but your premise is sound.
Ever wonder why the magic figure of 65 as the retirement age?

Because when Germany instituted the first old-age pension in the 19th
century, Otto von Bismark (whose idea it was) asked an economist to
tell him at what age most workers were already dead. The answer: 65.
So you got the old-age pension only if you beat the odds.

Today that would kick in at, what, 77?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Flyingmonk]

I can respect a man with a possitive attitude.

Although I'll get some sort of Social Security, (according to the
mailings I get from SS), I wont plan around it. My plan is to just
accumulate a few rental properties and live off of that 'til I die.
One more thing, Laotian and Thai ctradition is that the kids will
support me and the mrs. in our old age. I'm raising my kids for this,
BUT, I wont plan around that either. LOL

Flyingmonk

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> I remember the media crowing about how good it was going to be for
United
> when the union became the primary stockholder (IOW, the OWNER of the
> COMPANY).
>
> UAL was going to become the Workers Paradise=AE.

It did, and that's just the problem. Build a company for the benefit of
its employees, and the customers and owners get screwed.

I love how the union is now talking about this "CHAOS" strike where
they just randomly slack off to disrupt operations. Apparently they
forgot about these annoying people called "customers."

United may not die, but at this point it certainly deserves to.

-cwk.

[Matt Barrow]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bob Moore wrote:
> > From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:
> >
> > A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an
> employer
> > (for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides
>
> > income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of
>
> > "deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States
> during the
> > 1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of
> salary) to
> > increase.
> >
> > John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what
>
> > Stella wrote.
> >
>
> The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising
> to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now).
> Stella's description sounded like some sort of individual account, like
> a 401K, where actual earned dollars (not deferred) are used.

Quite!! Mostly, deferred compensation is delayed just a few years to smooth
out cash flow for tax purposes.


>
> A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not
> under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by
> them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is
> just that. Words.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Not at PanAm, the pilot group (unlike the other employee groups) insisted
> that our pension plan be held by an outside source, in this case,
> Prudential Insurance, and PanAm paid monthly on behalf of each of us. We
> felt fairly safe when the axe fell on PanAm.....WRONG! Prudential went
> to the NY Federal Court and obtained permission to dump the obligation
> off to the PBGC. You can't trust anyone.
>

What was their "justification" for dumping it off, do you recall?

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Pension plans are a form of
> >"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during
the
> >1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to
> >increase.
>
> That's the problem with Wikipedia. Some damn fool typing faster than
> his mind could follow!
>
> I assure you, there were no wage freezes in the 1930, nor were they
> showing any tendency to increase.. Wages were going *down* in the
> 1930s!
>
> What the Wiki guy meant to say was "during World War II," but he
> probably couldn't remember what number it was (I, II, III?).

Yup.

And one solution was medical insurance benefits.

And the rest is history.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 03:42:16 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
> >> I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
> >> and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.
> >
> >That must be a reassuring position to be in, giving your retirement money
to
> >the State of California. Hope you are building a nest egg separate from
> >what you are giving to California.
>
> And then they use it for political purposes!
>
> Most people contribute to their pensions. Social Security is also
> defined-benefit, though it's Congress that gets to define it :) The
> difference is that with defined-benefit, it's all based on a promise,
> whether or not the promise can be fulfilled.
>
> A defined-contribution plan has no promise, and usually the worker
> owns it a lot sooner. The really important part is that he can take it
> from job to job, or into self-employement, which is not true of most
> private-sector defined-benefit plans. Since it's based on real assets
> that belong to the worker, the payout depends on the performance of
> those assets.
>
> In short, it's what some politiciians like to call "a risky scheme,"
> but not half so risky as depending on the promises of companies who
> may be out of business by the time you retire, and of congressmen who
> will be retired (on your taxpayer dollar) much more comfortably than
> you will be.
>

And less risky is resorting to government to uphold the payouts...at least
until they (govt guaranteed programs) all collapse, as they must, and then
they run the printing presses, as just happened about every time in history.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 May 2005 05:48:16 -0700, wrote:
>
> >It's the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and it is still
> >technically not taxpayer-funded.
>
> Neither were the savings & loan associations until the bailout came
> due.
>
> The PBGC overhang is nearly double what it cost us to straighten out
> the S&Ls.

And about 1/4th what it's going to cost to fund the Federal Employee
retirements.

If you think UAL has a flaky employment/retirement arrangement, just wait
for the Civil Service fiasco to hit the wall.

[Robert M. Gary]

The share holders own the company. If they think the CEO is making too
much the board doesn't have to pay them. If you think your pool boy is
making too much you don't have to pay him as much either.
Is the purpose of the company to provide employement, Mr. Marx?

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

What industry are you referring to? I work in an industry that contains
a lot of H-1 employees (software, telecommunications). There is no
difference in saleries.

-Robert

[Jon Kraus]

I have a defined benefit pension program and I don't have money taken
from my paycheck to fund it. You said your're in California right? Are
you sure that the money they take out of your check isn't for supporting
you local illegal aliens? :-)

Jon Kraus

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>"GP" == George Patterson > writes:
>
> GP> You're thinking of a 401K. A pension used to be a guaranteed
> GP> retirement income in exchange for spending your life working
> GP> for the company. One could argue that you exchanged a higher
> GP> salary for a lower salary and a pension, but no money was
> GP> taken out of your paycheck.
>
> I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
> and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.

[James Robinson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> But the company ought to be liquadated to pay the pensions. Think
> of it this way. You go to work at the airline. They promise to pay
> you $X now and if you hang around they will pay you $X after you
> retire.
>
> Labor is supposed to be the first thing paid.

Nope. The first groups paid are the IRS, the bankruptcy trustee, and
the bankruptcy lawyers and accountants.

Then come the secured creditors, who mainly have claim to physical
assets like real estate, aircraft or other vehicles.

Next are the priority creditors. Any payroll earned in the previous 90
days and not yet paid, and employee benefit payments due the previous
180 days will allow employees to claim those amounts along with other
priority creditors.

The shortfalls in payments to the pension plan, other than the payments
due in the six months prior to bankruptcy filing, will be part of the
unsecured debts. These generally are paid in cents on the dollar, if
there is even enough money for that.

Therefore, liquidating the airline would only serve to cause many
existing employees and suppliers to lose their means of income, and
disrupt many cities across the country. If the company can truly
restructure into a going concern, then it should be allowed to do so.
Otherwise, it would be punishing those that contributed the least to the
company's problems.

[James Robinson]

gatt wrote:
>
> The best way to solve this problem would be to take the CEO, shoot
> him through the head and hang his corpse from a Wall Street lamp
> post so that every other executive out there remembers, for
> example, why the french still celebrate Bastille Day. But we
> can't do that.

Which CEO would you do that to? The one who oversaw things at the
airline many years ago and set the stage for the current problems, the
later one who saw the problems coming, and tried to change the way the
company was run, but was forced out by the union representation on the
board, who said he was too pessimistic, or the current one who inherited
the whole mess and has been trying to turn things around, but had no
alternative but to declare bankruptcy?

> So boycott United forever and make sure that the rest of the executives in
> the aviation industry don't try to pull the same stunt on America's pilots
> and airline industry workers.

And just who do you think that would penalize? The original owners, the
shareholders, have already lost everything with the bankruptcy
declaration. People owed money, like the fuel vendors, the caterers,
and other contractors might only get a few cents on the dollar, if that,
if the company is liquidated. Finally, the employees would be forced out
of work, and any existing suppliers would lose a large part of their
businesses. It seems that boycotting the airline would only hurt the
people who were least involved with the whole situation. Is that really
what you want to do?

[James Robinson]

Jim wrote:
>
> The PBGC funds pensions based on premiums paid by companies with
> pensions--not taxes. From their website:
>
> "Our financing comes from insurance premiums paid by companies whose
> plans we protect, from our investments, and from the assets of pension
> plans that we take over, but not from taxes."

The problem is that the PBGC doesn't have enough money to pay for all
the pensions it has to support. Also from their web site:

"As of September 30, 2004, the PBGC’s own balance sheet showed a $23.3
billion deficit, with $39 billion in assets to pay $62.3 billion in
guaranteed pension benefits to more than 1 million workers and retirees.
By law, the PBGC is required to keep premiums as low as possible and has
no call on the U.S. Treasury beyond a $100 million line of credit."

This was before almost $7 billion in additional unfunded obligations was
added by the shift of the United Airlines programs over to the board,
not to mention the possibility of Delta and other airlines also coming
under its umbrella in the future. The board estimates that single
employer plans in the country as a whole are underfunded by about %450
billion. Perhaps %100 billion of that problem could be passed on to the
PBGC in future years.

The reality is that the PBGC will have to significantly increase
premiums paid by other healthy companies to make up the difference.
This leads to a couple of problems: One is that the other companies will
find themselves competing with restructured companies that have reduced
their pension obligations, and in essence passed them, through premiums
paid to the PBGC, to their competitors. How long do you expect Delta or
Northwest to last when they not only have to pay their own premiums, but
those of a restructured UAL and US as well? There was a cascading effect
in the steel industry as each company in turn passed obligations on to
the PBGC, and the airline industry is now doing the same.

The second problem is that there is a point where all the companies
under the plan will balk at significantly increased premiums, and will
appeal to Congress for relief. Consider that many companies in the auto
industry is approaching the same state as the airlines and the steel
companies before them. It's only a matter of time before GM dumps its
plan on the PBGC.

My bet is that Congress will have to take action and inject cash into
the plan to keep it solvent.

Here is some testimony given by the director of the PBGC that goes into
further detail:

http://www.pbgc.gov/news/speeches/testimony_100704.htm
http://www.pbgc.gov/news/speeches/testimony_042605.htm

[James Robinson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> They are bankrupt, and the pensions will now be paid by all of us.
>
> It's quite dishonest in a very real way. The company contracted to make
> payments that it is now refusing to make. Rather than selling off all
> assets to help fund those promises, they've been passed on so you and I
> will be paying them.
>
> It's especially unfair to those of us that receive no benefit from
> guaranteed pensions (because we don't get pensions).

As the Pension Guarantee Board is currently set up, only companies that
have guaranteed pensions will pay to make up the difference. Those who
don't get pensions don't have to pay.

However, as I noted in another post, the Board's obligations are getting
so big that Congress might have to step in to financially support the
plans.

The roots of the problem are similar to those affecting Social Security
and Medicare: The number of people paying into the plans has diminished
compared to the people collecting money. Further, many of the private
plans invested in the stock market, and the value of the money invested
tanked along with the market, meaning there now isn't enough money to
fully support all those who are expected to retire and collect
benefits. Many of the companies are close to bankruptcy, so they can't
afford to increase contributions. It's a catch-22. They make partial
payments and go bankrupt, or they don't and perhaps stay solvent. Either
way, the employees lose.

[Jim]

[Warning for people who are deficient in detecting sarcasm: Look out
below!]

Sure the PBGC is underfunded by $450 billion and many companies with
pensions are on the verge of bankruptcy. But don't worry that they
will all fail, because the economy is doing SO much better according to
the administration. Look at all the new high paying jobs that have
been created here and Bangalore! CEO salaries are at record highs so
things are SURELY ok with the economy, US companies and their employees
who will soon be able to trust their future retirement to the ALWAYS
growing stock market rather than a mere promise from the government.

Also, don't forget we now have much better corporate governance and
oversight Just look at the justice brought to criminal mastermind
Martha Stewart. We'll just ignore Ken Lay who could not possibly know
the petty details of Enron operations. I'm sure his compensation was
well earned. And besides, he was such a good friend of the party!

Oil prices going up? No problem. The prez and the Saudi's are
friends. (I saw them holding hands!)

Oh, and please don't argue that a single terrorist attack of one tenth
the scale of 9/11 would be a major setback because it won't happen.
That's right, we are now SO much better protected with the TSA, Patriot
Act, and TFRs not to mention the COMPLETE elimination of the great WMD
threat to the US from Iraq. In addition, the US has clearly taken a
lead in reducing the threat from Korea and Iran. I hardly think about
them at all. Oh yes, Freedom is on the march!

So don't worry about Congress stepping in to bail out the PBGC. The
economy is sound thanks to this administration's oversight. Be
comforted that we are led by the party that believes in less taxation
and less regulation so you know they are going to act in YOUR best
interest. Right?

-Jim

[James Robinson]

Jim wrote:
>
> [Warning for people who are deficient in detecting sarcasm: Look out
> below!]
>
> Sure the PBGC is underfunded by $450 billion and many companies with
> pensions are on the verge of bankruptcy. But don't worry that they
> will all fail, because the economy is doing SO much better according to
> the administration.

.... I feel so relieved, now that you have explained it so clearly.

[Don Hammer]

>Years later, some new jackass comes along, wrecks the company and walks off
>with a $1.5 million guaranteed pension after a trivial amount of time.
>Meanwhile, the pilots, flight attendants and everybody else who MADE UNITED
>WHAT IT WAS are screwed out of their contracted pension.

This is typical union a**hole envy mentality. $1.5M is a bunch of
money, but I'll bet United's run rate is about that much every 5 min.

Try looking at the real killers of the company; those egotistical
union pilots that get $250K + a year for 20 hours of work a month,
Flight Attendants that "play the game" with their sick time and
schedule and ground employees that take an hour and a half to turn
around a plane.

You want to see how a airline can be killed by the employees, take a
close look at Pan Am. United's going down the same path. Blame all
the executives you want, but you need to point fingers at the unions
to assign the real blame. They are the ones running the show.

[Margy]

George Patterson wrote:
> StellaStarr wrote:
>
>>
>> You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
>> It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save up
>> for retirement.
>
>
> You're thinking of a 401K. A pension used to be a guaranteed retirement
> income in exchange for spending your life working for the company. One
> could argue that you exchanged a higher salary for a lower salary and a
> pension, but no money was taken out of your paycheck.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.
They take $$ out of my paycheck for my pension. The rate varies
periodically, but it's been as high as 7.5% and no I don't have the
option to take my money and not have a pension. One part of it is State
pension the other county.

Margy

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Don Hammer
> wrote:

> Try looking at the real killers of the company; those egotistical
> union pilots that get $250K + a year for 20 hours of work a month....

Surely a group of pilots should know better than to believe that. VERY
few pilots approach anything close to what you describe, and if they
do, it's for about a year before they turn 60.

The rest of us are away from home 400 hours a month (compared to your
typical nine-to-five gone less than half of that), and dreaming of the
day we hit the six-figure mark.

Ah, yes, the "greedy union pilots."

Try being a seventh-year employee at a regional airline, flying as a
Part 121 captain, for less than 40K a year. Try and balance that
against your mythical 20-hour, $250K captain.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[James Robinson]

Garner Miller wrote:
>
> Don Hammer wrote:
>
> > Try looking at the real killers of the company; those egotistical
> > union pilots that get $250K + a year for 20 hours of work a month....
>
> Surely a group of pilots should know better than to believe that. VERY
> few pilots approach anything close to what you describe, and if they
> do, it's for about a year before they turn 60.
>
> The rest of us are away from home 400 hours a month (compared to your
> typical nine-to-five gone less than half of that), and dreaming of the
> day we hit the six-figure mark.
>
> Ah, yes, the "greedy union pilots."
>
> Try being a seventh-year employee at a regional airline, flying as a
> Part 121 captain, for less than 40K a year. Try and balance that
> against your mythical 20-hour, $250K captain.

Lower regional airline pay and longer hours are two of the reasons the
majors have problems. Here are some quotes from an article written in
2001 about pilot pay at the major airlines:

"A 10-year captain of Boeing 737-200s makes $157,152 at Delta, and
$178,152
at United. The most senior captain, with 30 years of experience, flying
a
Boeing 777 wide-body, makes $248,040 at Delta, and $254,748 at United."

"Delta pilots are expected to top United pilots, who now stand with the
highest pay among passenger carriers."

"In September, McCain compared the 1998 per capital U.S. income of
$20,120
with the $342,000 a year that the most senior United pilots will make by
2004."

Full article here:

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/pilot/msg00010.html

[Matt Barrow]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Don Hammer
> > wrote:
>
> > Try looking at the real killers of the company; those egotistical
> > union pilots that get $250K + a year for 20 hours of work a month....
>
> Surely a group of pilots should know better than to believe that. VERY
> few pilots approach anything close to what you describe, and if they
> do, it's for about a year before they turn 60.
>
> The rest of us are away from home 400 hours a month (compared to your
> typical nine-to-five gone less than half of that), and dreaming of the
> day we hit the six-figure mark.
>
> Ah, yes, the "greedy union pilots."
>
> Try being a seventh-year employee at a regional airline, flying as a
> Part 121 captain, for less than 40K a year. Try and balance that
> against your mythical 20-hour, $250K captain.

Non-sequitur.

That's why UAL is failing and the regionals are sorta prospering.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, James Robinson
> wrote:

> "A 10-year captain of Boeing 737-200s makes $157,152 at Delta, and
> $178,152
> at United. The most senior captain, with 30 years of experience, flying
> a
> Boeing 777 wide-body, makes $248,040 at Delta, and $254,748 at United."

You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[leslie]

gatt ) wrote:
:
: Are you saying my father isn't "smart"? Are you saying that company
: loyalty and hard work isn't smart?
:

Company loyalty died years ago, with a few rare exceptions, like Malden
Mills. The following article contrasts Malden Mills' Aaron Feuerstein
with Enron's Ken Lay:

http://sitesearch.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3963-2001Dec19.html
A CEO Who Lives by What's Right (washingtonpost.com)

"By Mary McGrory
Thursday, December 20, 2001; Page A03

In this anxious hour of pink-slip dread, it is restoring to think of
Aaron Feuerstein, a Massachusetts manufacturer who prizes his
employees and risks profits on their behalf.

The CEO of Malden Mills, located in Lawrence, the 23rd poorest
community in the country, stepped clear of the greedy stereotype of
his kind in 1995 when, just before Christmas, his factory burned down.
Rather than taking the insurance money and retiring or moving the
plant to some Third World country, he promptly announced that he would
rebuild. He gave bonuses to the help and paid them while they waited
for the factory reopening..."


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[leslie]

Robert M. Gary ) wrote:
: What industry are you referring to? I work in an industry that contains
: a lot of H-1 employees (software, telecommunications). There is no
: difference in saleries.
:
: -Robert
:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1014/p17s01-coop.html
Endangered species: US programmers | csmonitor.com

"Endangered species: US programmers
By David R. Francis

[snip]

Further, the H-1B program, set up in 1990, is flawed, critics charge.
For example, employers are not required to recruit Americans before
resorting to hiring H-1Bs, says Norman Matloff, a computer science
professor at the University of California, Davis.

And the requirement that employers pay H-1Bs a "prevailing wage" is
useless, he adds, because the law is riddled with loopholes. Nor are
even any remaining regulations enforced.

The average wage for an American programmer runs about $60,000, says
John Bauman, who set up the Organization for the Rights of American
Workers. Employers pay H-1Bs an average $53,000..."



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8566322.htm?1c
Jobs that stay here -- but not for Americans

"Jobs that stay here -- but not for Americans
By Karl Schoenberger

Mercury News

Not all the local jobs disappear when an Indian firm takes a software
project to Bangalore. As many as 30 percent in a typical offshoring
contract stay onshore, located right on the premises of U.S.
technology companies, offshoring experts say.

Yet these jobs aren't available to the local workforce. They are
reserved, almost exclusively, for guest workers brought from India on
H-1B visas by the outsourcing contractors, according to analysts and
industry sources.

Concerns about the impact of the H-1B program, which raised hackles
when it let in legions of foreign tech workers at the peak of the
Internet boom, are back again. Hurting from high unemployment after
the tech bubble burst and spooked by all the election-year buzz about
offshoring, displaced U.S. workers are claiming double jeopardy.

``These jobs never make it to the help-wanted ads or get posted
online,'' said Kim Berry, president of the Programmers Guild, a
Web-based advocacy group that criticizes offshoring and the H-1B
program.

The two issues are inseparable, said Ronil Hira, assistant professor
of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology..."


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[James Robinson]

Garner Miller wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > "A 10-year captain of Boeing 737-200s makes $157,152 at Delta, and
> > $178,152 at United. The most senior captain, with 30 years of
> > experience, flying a Boeing 777 wide-body, makes $248,040 at
> > Delta, and $254,748 at United."
>
> You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
> many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
> fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.

Certainly true, but you also suggested that a six-figure salary was
something to be dreaming of, yet a 10-year captain at the majors flying
a narrow-body at $150,000 to $175,000 is well into six figures. There
would be lots of them around. Considering that only something like the
top 13% of all households, (which can include two wage earners) have
incomes over $100k a year, that's not too shabby. Only 4% have incomes
over $150k.

There is also the amount of time actually spent flying. While Southwest
pays their pilots something north of $150k a year, plus stock options,
they also get about 50% more flight time out of them than the majors:

"Southwest gets about 75 hours' stick time a month from its pilots,
whereas most major carriers get only 48 to 52 hours," says Neidl. "It
makes a huge difference."

http://www.boardmember.com/issues/archive.pl?article_id=11261

The high wages, restrictive work rules, and generous benefit plans
offered by the major airlines just can't compete with the streamlined
operations of the lower cost carriers.

Further, the suggestion that the wages compensate for being away from
home more than 400 hours a month doesn't explain the wages of truckers
or railroad employees, who are often away far more than that, yet only
make perhaps a third of what a pilot makes.

I'm not begrudging the fact that airline pilots make good money, as I'd
certainly like to be in their shoes. I'm simply stating that things are
really pretty good overall, but that economic reality has come home to
roost for the pilots on the major carriers.

[James Robinson]

An interesting discussion of pilot wages and productivity at the major
air carriers:

http://www.unisys.com/transportation/insights/insights__compendium/scorecard__2.htm

[Garner Miller]

In article >, James Robinson >
wrote:

> > You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
> > many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
> > fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.
>
> Certainly true, but you also suggested that a six-figure salary was
> something to be dreaming of, yet a 10-year captain at the majors flying
> a narrow-body at $150,000 to $175,000 is well into six figures.

Of course. But average all the airline pilots, and we don't all makes
a quarter-million a year, and that's been my point from the beginning.
The media distorts that fact on a regular basis, making us all look
like millionaires. I wish!

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Matt Barrow]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, James Robinson
> > wrote:
>
> > "A 10-year captain of Boeing 737-200s makes $157,152 at Delta, and
> > $178,152
> > at United. The most senior captain, with 30 years of experience, flying
> > a
> > Boeing 777 wide-body, makes $248,040 at Delta, and $254,748 at United."
>
> You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
> many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
> fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.
>

His numbers are a hell of a lot closer than yours were, and he qualified his
statements.

You just spewed.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Matt Barrow
> wrote:

> > You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
> > many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
> > fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.
> >
>
> His numbers are a hell of a lot closer than yours were, and he qualified his
> statements.


Fine.

A first-year pilot at Continental makes $25,900. UPS, $26,200.
United, $23,400. At Delta, $43,600. And surprise, Southwest comes
out ON TOP in first-year pay, at $44,900. And the 10-year captain at
Southwest? $166,000 -- *more* than the 10-year 737 captain at Delta
makes.

The thousands upon thousands of them on furlough are making exactly $0,
so make sure you factor that into your average. That's a very real
risk in this industry. Combine that with the mandatory age-60
retirement, and there really aren't that many years where you're making
the kind of money you guys keep -- to use your word -- "spewing."


> You just spewed.

As did you.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Robert M. Gary]

I"m not sure what employees have to do with it. The purpose of the
company is to return value to the shareholders. The shareholders are
singularly responsible for ensuring that they get the most bang for
buck with their CEO (just like you do with your pool boy). The
shareholders write the CEOs pay check, not the employees. I have never
read a company's mission statement that said, "The purpose of this
company is to provide employement". How would invest their hard earned
money in that?
Anytime you have a pension you must always understand that it is only
good until the company declares bankruptcy. That is why God invented
401ks.

-Robert

[Jim]

Pretty hard for individual investors to have any say in these matters
these days. In theory yes, but the real power is with the intitutional
investors who have their own agenda.

-Jim

[Matt Whiting]

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article >, Matt Barrow
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
>>>many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far, far
>>>fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.
>>>
>>
>>His numbers are a hell of a lot closer than yours were, and he qualified his
>>statements.
>
>
>
> Fine.
>
> A first-year pilot at Continental makes $25,900. UPS, $26,200.
> United, $23,400. At Delta, $43,600. And surprise, Southwest comes
> out ON TOP in first-year pay, at $44,900. And the 10-year captain at
> Southwest? $166,000 -- *more* than the 10-year 737 captain at Delta
> makes.

However, it really is the cost per passenger flown that makes the
biggest difference and the data that another poster provided shows that
Southwest is in much better shape in this regard, apparently largely due
to their pilots flying much more hours per month for their salary.


> The thousands upon thousands of them on furlough are making exactly $0,
> so make sure you factor that into your average. That's a very real
> risk in this industry. Combine that with the mandatory age-60
> retirement, and there really aren't that many years where you're making
> the kind of money you guys keep -- to use your word -- "spewing."

Yes, those are risks, but they are hardly unique to pilots. Layoffs are
common in many other industries. Few have legally mandated retirements,
however, most large companies now strongly encourage retirements by
employees starting at 55. Sure, the employees don't HAVE to retire, but
it often is pretty much made clear that you don't want to say no.


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow
> > wrote:
>
> > > You proved my point. Of all the captains at Delta, for example, how
> > > many have been there 30 years? And how many are on the 777? Far,
far
> > > fewer than the entire pilot pool, I assure you.
> > >
> >
> > His numbers are a hell of a lot closer than yours were, and he qualified
his
> > statements.
>
>
> Fine.
>
> A first-year pilot at Continental makes $25,900. UPS, $26,200.
> United, $23,400. At Delta, $43,600. And surprise, Southwest comes
> out ON TOP in first-year pay, at $44,900. And the 10-year captain at
> Southwest? $166,000 -- *more* than the 10-year 737 captain at Delta
> makes.

And that Southwest pilot probably flies twice as many hours per month. You
are going to have to look long and hard for sympathy for pilots working for
the majors.

> The thousands upon thousands of them on furlough are making exactly $0,
> so make sure you factor that into your average. That's a very real
> risk in this industry.

As it is in any industry. Nice try but no bannana.

[Don Hammer]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:37:58 GMT, Garner Miller >
wrote:


>The rest of us are away from home 400 hours a month (compared to your
>typical nine-to-five gone less than half of that), and dreaming of the
>day we hit the six-figure mark.
>

Break that 400 hours down for me --

Commuting because you don't want to live at your base = ???hrs
Sleeping in a crash pad for the same reason = ???hrs
Actual duty time = ???hrs
Actual flight time = ???hrs
Number of days off per month = ???

Six pilots earning $250K = that same retirement you are bitching about
for the executive. How many at United are earning that?

I don't want to hear about the age 60 retirement either. United and
American unions have kept that in place for the young guys coming up.
The Union's are focused on protecting the lowest common denominator
instead of the welfare of the best and brightest. Only Southwest and
their union have come out in favor of flying past 60.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert M. Gary]

The intitutional investors are the best cops. They are rated on one and
only one thing, value returned. No one reads a fund portfolio and looks
at what a nice guy the fund manager is.The fund manager is graded on
one and only one thing, how well he returns money to his investors. The
fund managers will not allow the board to pay any more for a CEO than
they need to because it directly impacts the fund manager's own bottom
line. CEOs are like point guards. There are few of them out there that
can do a good job and when you find a good one you have to compete
against other companies to recruit them.

-Robert